A thread about Death

[SensEye]

I think trying to off yourself through violent means might be more of a struggle than one might think. Especially if you are infirm and in poor health. Which one would expect to be if considering this option in their old age. And nobody wants to go out in a blaze of agony.

I think perhaps an overdose of meds might be the answer although that can go wrong too and presumes access to the right kind of pills. I have access to medically assisted dying though, so it should be there if I ever need it.

 

[Vendrah]

They don't allow you to own rope and have access to trees? You can't get access to high places? You can't step out into traffic on a busy highway?

What country are you in? Are you forced to live your entire life handcuffed to a radiator in an empty room? That's one tough country you live in.

[Edited to add:] I'm not trying to convince anyone to contemplate self-deletion. It's more just a question of attitude: You can't spend your life living in fear of death. As an ex-Marine and Vietnam vet, I have learned that you have to make death your bitch. Only then are you free to live your best life.

Any incentives or talk about suicide is forbidden in my country, Brazil, by law. If you were on my ground/country and I commited suicide right after your message and your message got caught, you would be subject to arrest, and not a short one but almost similar to as if you murdered me.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I think trying to off yourself through violent means might be more of a struggle than one might think. Especially if you are infirm and in poor health. Which one would expect to be if considering this option in their old age. And nobody wants to go out in a blaze of agony. [...]

Depends on how determined you are. There's an old gender stereotype here: Women attempt self-deletion more often than men, but men accomplish self-deletion more often than women (men supposedly accomplish self-deletion at rates that are four times higher than women).

The difference is--supposedly--that self-deletion in women is a cry for attention, so women use less lethal means and hope to be caught in time and rescued. Whereas men are more determined to actually get the job done, so they use genuinely lethal, quick-acting means.

You just have to you get it done before you're so sick that you become permanently bedridden or institutionalized. Unless you're permanently bedridden or institutionalized, it's really not that difficult. Of course once you become bedridden or institutionalized, you're fucked. Then you're at the mercy of others as to how long you live. They can potentially keep you alive as a zombie forever.

However, perhaps the biggest self-inflicted killer of both sexes these days is so-called "deaths of despair": Going out slow via alcohol and drug addiction of the more lethal variety. Tough way to go, but I guess it's for those who have permanently given up on life but don't want to pull the trigger themselves. Not my cup of tea, personally. I have more personal agency than that. But it demonstrates that when people no longer want to live, they'll find one way or another to kill themselves off. People are resourceful when it comes to such things.

[...]I think perhaps an overdose of meds might be the answer although that can go wrong too and presumes access to the right kind of pills. I have access to medically assisted dying though, so it should be there if I ever need it.

Medically-assisted dying is the ideal. And it would help to catch and filter out for treatment those who are just using self-deletion as a cry for attention. But whatever. I don't have medically-assisted dying available in my state; and I would have to jump through a bunch of hoops to try to get somewhere where it would be available. So I have a nice easy, quick lethal exit lined up for myself. It'll be messy to clean up, but that won't be my problem. In any case, I don't need the permission of bureaucrats to make it happen.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Any incentives or talk about suicide is forbidden in my country, Brazil, by law. If you were on my ground/country and I commited suicide right after your message and your message got caught, you would be subject to arrest, and not a short one but almost similar to as if you murdered me.

So don't ask permission. You give the bureaucrats way too much power.

For all I know, self-deletion is illegal where I live. Leaving a dead body where people will find it is probably illegal. But I don't care. I have personal agency. I don't leave that sort of decision at the discretion of others. It isn't under other people's control, at least not until I've lost the capacity to care for myself.

Why is it legitimate for me to choose to die under the supervision of medical personnel in states or countries providing medically-assisted dying, but it isn't legitimate for me to choose to die by my own hand when I don't have access to medically-assisted dying? It's my choice either way. The only difference between the two situations is whether I live under bureaucrats who will facilitate my choice or under bureaucrats who will fight me over it. And the latter are welcome to come get me after I've broken their rules.

 

[Quick]

 

[Polaris]

People who have had near death experiences frequently report that during them a being told them that they either had a choice as to whether they would go back to life on earth or that they were obligated to do so. That makes little sense if near death experiences are mere hallucinations. For that as well as spiritual and philosophical reasons, I believe that we do carry on in some form after death. What form that is, only the dead know for certain. One thing I can say is that I doubt the afterlife reflects most religious teachings. For example, I am familiar with a number of near death experiences undergone by people who were atheists at the time and who report having had a pleasant experience and in some cases even meeting God. That contradicts the idea taught in many churches that nonbelievers are bound for hell.

 

[Quick]

That contradicts the idea taught in many churches that nonbelievers are bound for hell.

Not really because it is not the final judgment.

(This is just one scholar's opinion so don't take it as dogmatic.)

How Near-Death Experiences Support Christianity (and challenge other worldviews)

Do NDEs vary from culture to culture? How often do people see Jesus? Do Buddhists see Buddha and Hindus see Krishna as often as Christians see Jesus? Do they...

www.youtube.com

 

[Polaris]

Not really because it is not the final judgment.

(This is just one scholar's opinion so don't take it as dogmatic.)

Yes it does when God in so many cases has told atheists that He loves them as they are and isn't going to pass judgment on them.

The idea that near death experiences as a whole support Christianity is deeply misinformed. I have studied dozens and dozens of near death experiences, and the majority of them have little to do with what the Bible claims will happen after death. Many of them even directly contradict Christianity. For example, it is extremely common for people having near death experiences to report being told that they have had past lives and that they may or will reincarnate in the future.

 

[Quick]

Yes it does when God in so many cases has told atheists that He loves them as they are and isn't going to pass judgment on them.

The idea that near death experiences as a whole support Christianity is deeply misinformed. I have studied dozens and dozens of near death experiences, and the majority of them have little to do with what the Bible claims will happen after death. Many of them even directly contradict Christianity. For example, it is extremely common for people having near death experiences to report being told that they have had past lives and that they may or will reincarnate in the future.

All they demonstrate is life after death. Those are the facts. People report all kinds of experiences in NDEs. Those experiences are not authoritative. The fact they happen is evidence of life after death. That is what they fundamentally show. As I said, it is not a final judgment. How do we know it is not a final judgment according to Christianity? We are still here and Christ has not come back. The point is, you can find an experience that validates pretty much any belief system that already believes in life after death, so obviously, it will not be settled that way. But given you already believe in life after death (which Christianity obviously affirms) perhaps this will not be settled until we lay out the case of different belief systems that already believe in life after death. I'd contend that Christianity has the most evidence for it compared to all other belief systems that already believe in life after death. And obviously, these different belief systems contradict each other on a fundamental level. So they can all be false or one can be true, but they cannot all be true. Why? The law of non-contradiction.

 

[Polaris]

All they demonstrate is life after death. Those are the facts. People report all kinds of experiences in NDEs. Those experiences are not authoritative. The fact they happen is evidence of life after death. That is what they fundamentally show. As I said, it is not a final judgment. How do we know it is not a final judgment according to Christianity? We are still here and Christ has not come back. The point is, you can find an experience that validates pretty much any belief system that already believes in life after death, so obviously, it will not be settled that way. But given you already believe in life after death (which Christianity obviously affirms) perhaps this will not be settled until we lay out the case of different belief systems that already believe in life after death. I'd contend that Christianity has the most evidence for it compared to all other belief systems that already believe in life after death. And obviously, these different belief systems contradict each other on a fundamental level. So they can all be false or one can be true, but they cannot all be true. Why? The law of non-contradiction.

On one hand, you have the choice to believe what is written in an ancient, sometimes verifiably inaccurate book written by largely unknown authors. On the other hand, you have the choice to believe the firsthand accounts of numerous people alive today. If you choose the first over the second, that shows, in my opinion, a high level of blind faith. You're squeezing your eyes shut to the best evidence we have about death.

 

[Quick]

On one hand, you have the choice to believe what is written in an ancient, sometimes verifiably inaccurate book written by largely unknown authors. On the other hand, you have the choice to believe the firsthand accounts of numerous people alive today. If you choose the first over the second, that shows, in my opinion, a high level of blind faith. You're squeezing your eyes shut to the best evidence we have about death.

You are wrong for one reason: The people who wrote the New Testament were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Christ. That is WHY the NT was written. And that is what Christianity rests upon: the resurrection of Christ. So even if there are contradictions in the Bible (not saying there are, just hypothetically) that should do nothing to impact anyone's belief in Christianity because Christianity rests upon the resurrection of Christ, not whether there are contradictions in the Bible. And I can demonstrate that Christ rose from the dead using facts that nearly all scholars in a relevant field would agree with even if they are not Christians or even if they are hostile to Christianity. These are historical facts that are unanimously agreed upon. No, it is not, "Because the Bible says so." It is that people who actually study the NT believe these facts that are multiply attested to by many sources. It does not matter if the scholar is Christian or atheist, or skeptic, or Jewish or whatever else. Almost anyone who has a PhD in a relevant field will concede all these facts. The difficulty, then, is explaining the facts other than what the prevailing conclusion of the NT is: that Christ rose from the dead.

So, You can appeal to people's experience. That's fine. I will appeal to the scholars of today and eyewitnesses who wrote the Bible.

 

[Polaris]

You are wrong for one reason: The people who wrote the New Testament were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Christ. That is WHY the NT was written. And that is what Christianity rests upon: the resurrection of Christ. So even if there are contradictions in the Bible (not saying there are, just hypothetically) that should do nothing to impact anyone's belief in Christianity because Christianity rests upon the resurrection of Christ, not whether there are contradictions in the Bible. And I can demonstrate that Christ rose from the dead using facts that nearly all scholars in a relevant field would agree with even if they are not Christians or even if they are hostile to Christianity. These are historical facts that are unanimously agreed upon. No, it is not, "Because the Bible says so." It is that people who actually study the NT believe these facts that are multiply attested to by many sources. It does not matter if the scholar is Christian or atheist, or skeptic, or Jewish or whatever else. Almost anyone who has a PhD in a relevant field will concede all these facts. The difficulty, then, is explaining the facts other than what the prevailing conclusion of the NT is: that Christ rose from the dead.

So, You can appeal to people's experience. That's fine. I will appeal to the scholars of today and eyewitnesses who wrote the Bible.

The opinion that the New Testament authors bore witness to the resurrection of Christ is not a widespread opinion among scholars. And if you think people aren't gullible enough to believe outrageously false claims with little evidence behind them, I need only point out Scientology or the many false prophets in the modern age credited with working miracles.

It's really beside my point, though. I wasn't trying to claim that Jesus never rose from the dead. Whether he did nor not is something that no one alive today knows for sure. What I was trying to point out is that numerous atheists have had near death experiences which indicate that God does not pass judgment on them for their disbelief. Most near death experiences present God as loving and forgiving even to those who don't adhere to Christianity.