Discussion 'Other Side' references are not helpful: Discuss

[liverpoolfan]

Whilst I 'd accept that everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, I feel the culture of telling people you'll see them 'on the other side' goes beyond personal belief and strays into enabling and/or encouraging people to take their lives who may not do so if the lure of an afterlife was not dangled in front of them.

Full disclosure: I am not a believer in an afterlife and have encountered zero evidence to support any conclusion other then when a living organism dies, its biological form decays, with the cells that decay fastest being brain cells - which of course are precisely the ones which generate or house consciousness. The argument that consciousness can exist separately from the organic matter which produces it is akin to thinking information stored on a hard drive would persist independently if the drive on which it was stored was vapourised.

Now, whilst again I'd stress that you are of course entitled to believe that your consciousness can exist independently from matter and that said consciousness somehow travels to an astral plane after death, I'd argue its not ethical to encourage other people to believe this, specifically on a board which by its very nature attracts people who are either desperate, afraid, in pain and/or looking for an end to their personal anguish.

I understand that the belief in the existence of an afterlife where one can exist in a world without pain and fear is a comfort. I also understand that telling people who are suffering that everything will be better in Heaven almost always comes from a place of kindness and empathy.

My concern is that by glossing over what we can reasonably surmise about death and dying [most of which, if we're honest, is not very pleasant] and replacing it with a sugar-coated version based on imaginary outcomes, vulnerable and or desperate people can be influenced by the reassurance that they will 'wake up' in a better place.

I'd argue that the more ethical approach would be something along the lines of "I hope your passing is as peaceful as possible and know that your pain and suffering will come to an end" - which is the same sentiment, but does not require magical thinking and, more importantly, doesn't reinforce or introduce the belief that all they need to do to wake up and experience a happier life than they one they have is to kill themselves.

Please read the above thoughts carefully before responding. It is not an attack or religion or spirituality per se, nor an argument against suicide. It's merely an entreaty that we maintain as much intellectual honesty on the subject as possible whilst being empathetic to one another's suffering.

 

[Ghost2211]

I can see how such statements can be seen as a potential that would tip the balance for someone contemplating suicide. I think it is most often used to offer comfort when people have already come to their decisions.

I think wether we believe in afterlife, reincarnation, or nothingness we already visualize death leading to a better outcome after suicide.

 

[Soul]

There are lots of reasons to avoid seeming to encourage anyone to kill themselves, and it's good to think carefully about how I express myself.

I only notice people saying "see you on the other side" on goodbye threads, so I feel it isn't encouraging anyone; the addressees have already made up their minds. (It may be that I don't notice much.)

To me (a staunch agnostic) the proposed alternate "I know your suffering will be over" is equally "magical" as the "see you" version. I personally wouldn't ever say that - but I don't object to anyone else saying it.

It's good to think about how I express myself. I encourage it.

 

[TAW122]

Yes, your post makes sense and as someone who doesn't believe in an afterlife, I would say that I have no strong opinion towards whether someone decides to use that statement or not. It doesn't really affect my outcome since when I plan to go out, I go out (exit this life) regardless of what others say or interpret the afterlife/lack of. Whatever happens then happens (I'd believe it would be like nothingness, just void, no conscious, no feeling, etc. but that's just me).

Considering my beliefs and attitudes towards death and post-death, this is why I always say "I wish you peace" instead of the afterlife since I never know (unless the person states it) whether they believe in an afterlife or not.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

The challenge here is that such threads often turn into argument and get closed, sometimes preemptively deleted. It's great to make observations, but suggesting someone change ways they hold dear awakens defensiveness. There is provocation here to join your side or fight against it.

I have something I want so much to say in response to the OP, because its rational agreement emboldens me. But to do so would be an attempt to kill a sacred cow that is not sacred to me, and a shit storm would follow.

 

[Apathy79]

Soul: "the proposed alternate "I know your suffering will be over" is equally "magical" as the "see you" version."

That's a correct statement. Essentially you prefer your belief system. Each to their own is the way to go. The person will already have their own beliefs and interpret whatever is said in line with those. Most people mean well. That's all that matters.

 

[Skyview]

Within this forum or on this planet not one knows the outcome after death and yet here we have the OP extolling their ideology on others , can anyone else see the irony !

 

[liverpoolfan]

To me (a staunch agnostic) the proposed alternate "I know your suffering will be over" is equally "magical" as the "see you" version.

Well unless you believe consciousness exists separately from matter [in which case you can't be agnostic because you've espoused a belief without evidence], your suffering is over isn't it? No magical thinking or supposition required, just simple logic. If we take the dictionary definition of suffering: "the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship", how does one undergo pain, distress, or hardship without consciousness? One cannot.

[As an aside, here's an interesting article on the science of pain and how, like everything else we experience, it is constructed via consciousness]

Within this forum or on this planet not one knows the outcome after death and yet here we have the OP extolling their ideology on others , can anyone else see the irony !

1. I don't think you understand what I wrote. Re-read the last paragraph and try again.
2. One doesn't 'extoll an ideology on someone'.
3. It's a bit of a stretch to call logic an ideology

 

[Apathy79]

Anyone who's had an out of body experience (often but not always triggered by a near death experience) is well aware consciousness goes with the ethereal body. Incidentally so does sight and hearing - turns out you see through the eye not with it. It seems almost certain to me given my experiences that the ethereal body will continue beyond death, and likely carry this life's karma on with it wherever it goes next.

The agnostic position is exactly as described by Soul. I can't of myself know one way or the other.

But that's all by the by. I'm happy for no one else to believe that. Your belief is yours and mine is mine. And the person in question will interpret any such statements in the spirit they were intended and in accordance with their own beliefs.

 

[Soul]

Well unless you believe consciousness exists separately from matter [in which case you can't be agnostic because you've espoused a belief without evidence], your suffering is over isn't it? No magical thinking or supposition required, just simple logic. If we take the dictionary definition of suffering: "the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship", how does one undergo pain, distress, or hardship without consciousness? One cannot.

[As an aside, here's an interesting article on the science of pain and how, like everything else we experience, it is constructed via consciousness]

Thanks, @liverpoolfan. We seem to have different ideas about the meaning of the term "agnostic". What I mean is that I don't know what happens after death, and if someone does know, I don't know who that is. I hope dying entails respite, but I don't know that it does.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I'll keep being careful about how I express myself, and shall let others do the same.

 

[Amossoma543]

Whilst I 'd accept that everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, I feel the culture of telling people you'll see them 'on the other side' goes beyond personal belief and strays into enabling and/or encouraging people to take their lives who may not do so if the lure of an afterlife was not dangled in front of them.

Full disclosure: I am not a believer in an afterlife and have encountered zero evidence to support any conclusion other then when a living organism dies, its biological form decays, with the cells that decay fastest being brain cells - which of course are precisely the ones which generate or house consciousness. The argument that consciousness can exist separately from the organic matter which produces it is akin to thinking information stored on a hard drive would persist independently if the drive on which it was stored was vapourised.

Now, whilst again I'd stress that you are of course entitled to believe that your consciousness can exist independently from matter and that said consciousness somehow travels to an astral plane after death, I'd argue its not ethical to encourage other people to believe this, specifically on a board which by its very nature attracts people who are either desperate, afraid, in pain and/or looking for an end to their personal anguish.

I understand that the belief in the existence of an afterlife where one can exist in a world without pain and fear is a comfort. I also understand that telling people who are suffering that everything will be better in Heaven almost always comes from a place of kindness and empathy.

My concern is that by glossing over what we can reasonably surmise about death and dying [most of which, if we're honest, is not very pleasant] and replacing it with a sugar-coated version based on imaginary outcomes, vulnerable and or desperate people can be influenced by the reassurance that they will 'wake up' in a better place.

I'd argue that the more ethical approach would be something along the lines of "I hope your passing is as peaceful as possible and know that your pain and suffering will come to an end" - which is the same sentiment, but does not require magical thinking and, more importantly, doesn't reinforce or introduce the belief that all they need to do to wake up and experience a happier life than they one they have is to kill themselves.

Please read the above thoughts carefully before responding. It is not an attack or religion or spirituality per se, nor an argument against suicide. It's merely an entreaty that we maintain as much intellectual honesty on the subject as possible whilst being empathetic to one another's suffering.

I agree with the spirit of what you wrote...but since we ultimately cannot know either way (not saying both opinions are equal...I think the burden of proof is on believers), I think if a person is considering suicide, all responsibility is on the person's shoulders. Buyer beware. I can't expect you to pave a risk-free path for me into this precarious route of CTB. Going down the route of policing our language should be taken very, very seriously. I haven't read thoughts from others yet, so maybe I'll change my stance...but this is in my knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Skyview]

Well unless you believe consciousness exists separately from matter [in which case you can't be agnostic because you've espoused a belief without evidence], your suffering is over isn't it? No magical thinking or supposition required, just simple logic. If we take the dictionary definition of suffering: "the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship", how does one undergo pain, distress, or hardship without consciousness? One cannot.

[As an aside, here's an interesting article on the science of pain and how, like everything else we experience, it is constructed via consciousness]

1. I don't think you understand what I wrote. Re-read the last paragraph and try again.
2. One doesn't 'extoll an ideology on someone'.
3. It's a bit of a stretch to call logic an ideology

Your argument or should I say your "logic," has been defeated , accept the fact and move on with your life .

 

[liverpoolfan]

Anyone who's had an out of body experience (often but not always triggered by a near death experience) is well aware consciousness goes with the ethereal body. Incidentally so does sight and hearing - turns out you see through the eye not with it. It seems almost certain to me given my experiences that the ethereal body will continue beyond death, and likely carry this life's karma on with it wherever it goes next.

The agnostic position is exactly as described by Soul. I can't of myself know one way or the other.

But that's all by the by. I'm happy for no one else to believe that. Your belief is yours and mine is mine. And the person in question will interpret any such statements in the spirit they were intended and in accordance with their own beliefs.

An out of body experience is still a product of consciousness. Consciousness is created in the brain. The brain is composed of cells. These cells decay rapidly [and completely] after death. That's not a belief. That's observable phenomena. The existence of an 'ethereal body' is a belief.

Like I said in the OP, it's your right to believe whatever you wish about the nature of physics and whether the scientific method is comparable to experiential or taught belief systems, this is not the point of the thread.

The point of the thread is that encouraging people to believe that they will live happily ever after 'on the other side' is deeply problematic. If you don't do this then this argument is not directed at you.

Again, and to be crystal clear, this thread is not an attack on people's rights to believe whatever they like about the nature of reality. It's about the problem inherent telling vulnerable, suffering, lonely people they would be 'seen' and 'loved' 'on the other side'. And whilst I agree that the sentiment behind these messages is generally benign, I think it could tip the scales for those who are easily convinced such paradises await or are desperate for hope of such.

I also don't find the argument that everyone here is completely secure in their belief system remotely convincing. It's indisputable that a proportion of suicides are the result of a lack of clear thinking - due to grief, mental health issues, substance abuse, acute trauma etc etc - and thus those people are more suggestible than when not in crisis. With that fact in mind, it behooves us to act responsibly towards one another and not misrepresent what suicide is and what it leads to. I saw a number of such posts today alone - confidently predicting happiness in the afterlife, replete with pictures of golden staircases and rabbits gamboling across lush, sunlit uplands etc - and it was that, rather than any specific or general antagonism towards religion, which prompted me to write this thread.

 

[Apathy79]

In my experience, I looked back on the body and everything around it from above it. The body and the brain it contains wasn't even important to "me" at that time. Then it was brought back to life and "I" rejoined it automatically. I expect death will be the same, except without rejoining the body again. I may be wrong, but that makes the most sense to me. If that was a product of the brain, it was some trick! The belief that it is limited to the brain is the same as the belief in an etheric body in the sense that they are just 2 different belief systems.

I think once that is understood, the each to their own philosophy everyone commenting has talked about will make more sense. It's good to be careful about how to express yourself with vulnerable people, but the sentiments are only going to be accepted to the extent they are already believed. Telling someone their suffering will end, or we'll see them on the other side, may or may not be true, but they'll usually be accepted in the spirit they were intended.

 

[Amossoma543]

With that fact in mind, it behooves us to act responsibly towards one another and not misrepresent what suicide is and what it leads to. I saw a number of such posts today alone - confidently predicting happiness in the afterlife, replete with pictures of golden staircases and rabbits gamboling across lush, sunlit uplands etc - and it was that, rather than any specific or general antagonism towards religion, which prompted me to write this thread.

It might be a good idea...I really don't know. When I logged onto this website and came here and chose to participate, I entered at my own risk. I just don't think each of us bears any responsibility to represent suicide in any specific way aside from our own personal beliefs. If I believe that once I die, I'll go flying along a gigantic purple sky with my gossamer fairy wings and flowing rose-colored drapery robes...I will say that to others. If they choose to believe it, I have no responsibility for that at all.

I haven't yet heard an argument that has convinced me otherwise. That some people are prone to magical thinking and might be overly encouraged to commit suicide is not my (nor anyone's) problem. That's my honest view as of this writing.

I'm still reading and thinking about it, though. I haven't entirely dismissed your argument.

 

[SettOne1994]

After death i believe one thing stays the same and that is our imagination....

 

[Sensei]

This is a delicate topic. Whenever someone decides to create a goodbye thread instead of just leaving in silence, they invite everyone to comment, be it by offering help, asking method questions, saying goodbye, or something else. The comments may lack respect, tact, and decency, but as long as they don't break any forum rules, they will remain. If you want to make a statement, because that's basically what a goodbye thread is, it's the price you have to pay.

 

[k75]

I think statements like that encourage or comfort the person saying them a lot more than the person they're directed to. I don't believe the sentiment, but I don't object to it being put out there.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

The point of the thread [highlighted for reply] is that encouraging people to believe that they will live happily ever after 'on the other side' is deeply problematic.
...

I saw a number of such posts today alone - confidently predicting happiness in the afterlife, replete with pictures of golden staircases and rabbits gamboling across lush, sunlit uplands etc - and it was that, rather than any specific or general antagonism towards religion, which prompted me to write this thread.

Ima have to pick this apart a little bit.

The point of the thread was ostensibly an invitation to discuss a provocative claim, as presented in the title: 'Other Side' references are not helpful: Discuss

Mission accomplished.

You kicked off the discussion in the OP with your perspective. The title implied other perspectives were invited, yours was one. But in the last paragraph of the OP, you said: "Please read the above thoughts carefully before responding." This indicates to me you sought to influence, because you attempted to dictate a rule for discussing the proposed topic, a rule that says everyone has to look at your point of view, which is implicitly right.

In the final paragraph of the embedded quote above, you revealed your motivation: You are offended -- that is in your yard. You felt like what you observed came in your yard and the world's yard and you want it out. In self- and world-protection, you seem to not ask but demand others keep their shit out of your yard and the rest of the world as well, and to recognize that it is in fact shit.

I'm all for defending one's yard and the world, it's your right and mine and everyone else's.

I'm all for calling things out.

But there was some manipulation here to get others to agree they're putting shit in yards and that it is in fact shit. You put out the bait of discussion; those who bite either get your approval or a lecture and your condemnation. The discussion, and you, will become nice when they get your point. You left a trail of crumbs to lead to the reward of your point: your opinion, and direction for what to look at in your opinion and, if they're good at catching hints, to discover the wrongness in themselves or the world that in your benevolence you point out to those who have ears to hear and eyes to hear.

MAIN POINTS

@liverpoolfan, what I see here is manipulation, subversion, provocation, luring, conditioning and control. It's backfiring in the space of this thread -- or should I say, backdrop, stage, and scene (see below).

If what you observe truly troubles you and you want to explore it and or try to find relief in the company of others, a better course of action is to state the problem with directness, honesty, and brave vulnerability: "Folks, I see this, and it bothers the shit out of me. I'ma lay it out here. Would you discuss it with me?"

Otherwise, I think you may be clinging to a point of view, perhaps quite stubbornly, and you just want to be right, rather than explore what caused you to feel offense in the first place. Provoking others to prove to yourself you are right, and fighting them to feel even "righter," just makes them action figures in the Broadway production of The Dramatic Life of You. They are not people here. They are actors and you are the director. They have lines, not perspectives. They have roles, not autonomous lives independent of you. Their beliefs provide antagonistic support for the protagonistic hero of You. The problematic issue propels the arc of The Great Plot of You. You are producer, director, playwright, actor, hero/secret villain, location scout, and audience. Whew! You're a busy guy today!

If you started all this with good intentions... I'm not pointing things out to beat the shit out of you. I'm assuming you don't see it. There are better ways to get your needs met.

 

[jgm63]

Whilst I 'd accept that everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, I feel the culture of telling people you'll see them 'on the other side' goes beyond personal belief and strays into enabling and/or encouraging people to take their lives who may not do so if the lure of an afterlife was not dangled in front of them.

Full disclosure: I am not a believer in an afterlife and have encountered zero evidence to support any conclusion other then when a living organism dies, its biological form decays, with the cells that decay fastest being brain cells - which of course are precisely the ones which generate or house consciousness. The argument that consciousness can exist separately from the organic matter which produces it is akin to thinking information stored on a hard drive would persist independently if the drive on which it was stored was vapourised.

Now, whilst again I'd stress that you are of course entitled to believe that your consciousness can exist independently from matter and that said consciousness somehow travels to an astral plane after death, I'd argue its not ethical to encourage other people to believe this, specifically on a board which by its very nature attracts people who are either desperate, afraid, in pain and/or looking for an end to their personal anguish.

I understand that the belief in the existence of an afterlife where one can exist in a world without pain and fear is a comfort. I also understand that telling people who are suffering that everything will be better in Heaven almost always comes from a place of kindness and empathy.

My concern is that by glossing over what we can reasonably surmise about death and dying [most of which, if we're honest, is not very pleasant] and replacing it with a sugar-coated version based on imaginary outcomes, vulnerable and or desperate people can be influenced by the reassurance that they will 'wake up' in a better place.

I'd argue that the more ethical approach would be something along the lines of "I hope your passing is as peaceful as possible and know that your pain and suffering will come to an end" - which is the same sentiment, but does not require magical thinking and, more importantly, doesn't reinforce or introduce the belief that all they need to do to wake up and experience a happier life than they one they have is to kill themselves.

Please read the above thoughts carefully before responding. It is not an attack or religion or spirituality per se, nor an argument against suicide. It's merely an entreaty that we maintain as much intellectual honesty on the subject as possible whilst being empathetic to one another's suffering.

Perhaps the pain you feel when you observe such comments is a growth opportunity for you in learning to accept views that differ from your own. Otherwise it might be that you wish to bend the speech of others to your own will.

 

[liverpoolfan]

Ima have to pick this apart a little bit.

The point of the thread was ostensibly an invitation to discuss a provocative claim, as presented in the title: 'Other Side' references are not helpful: Discuss

Mission accomplished.

You kicked off the discussion in the OP with your perspective. The title implied other perspectives were invited, yours was one. But in the last paragraph of the OP, you said: "Please read the above thoughts carefully before responding." This indicates to me you sought to influence, because you attempted to dictate a rule for discussing the proposed topic, a rule that says everyone has to look at your point of view, which is implicitly right.

In the final paragraph of the embedded quote above, you revealed your motivation: You are offended -- that is in your yard. You felt like what you observed came in your yard and the world's yard and you want it out. In self- and world-protection, you seem to not ask but demand others keep their shit out of your yard and the rest of the world as well, and to recognize that it is in fact shit.

I'm all for defending one's yard and the world, it's your right and mine and everyone else's.

I'm all for calling things out.

But there was some manipulation here to get others to agree they're putting shit in yards and that it is in fact shit. You put out the bait of discussion; those who bite either get your approval or a lecture and your condemnation. The discussion, and you, will become nice when they get your point. You left a trail of crumbs to lead to the reward of your point: your opinion, and direction for what to look at in your opinion and, if they're good at catching hints, to discover the wrongness in themselves or the world that in your benevolence you point out to those who have ears to hear and eyes to hear.

MAIN POINTS

@liverpoolfan, what I see here is manipulation, subversion, provocation, luring, conditioning and control. It's backfiring in the space of this thread -- or should I say, backdrop, stage, and scene (see below).

If what you observe truly troubles you and you want to explore it and or try to find relief in the company of others, a better course of action is to state the problem with directness, honesty, and brave vulnerability: "Folks, I see this, and it bothers the shit out of me. I'ma lay it out here. Would you discuss it with me?"

Otherwise, I think you may be clinging to a point of view, perhaps quite stubbornly, and you just want to be right, rather than explore what caused you to feel offense in the first place. Provoking others to prove to yourself you are right, and fighting them to feel even "righter," just makes them action figures in the Broadway production of The Dramatic Life of You. They are not people here. They are actors and you are the director. They have lines, not perspectives. They have roles, not autonomous lives independent of you. Their beliefs provide antagonistic support for the protagonistic hero of You. The problematic issue propels the arc of The Great Plot of You. You are producer, director, playwright, actor, hero/secret villain, location scout, and audience. Whew! You're a busy guy today!

If you started all this with good intentions... I'm not pointing things out to beat the shit out of you. I'm assuming you don't see it. There are better ways to get your needs met.

"Please read carefully before responding" is simply a caveat that unfortunately needs to be added to almost any idea put forth on any Internet forum today because of the trend to respond spontaneously and emotionally to what the poster *thinks* was written (or wants to think was written) rather than what was *actually* written.
It's a tactic that rarely works (as your response amply demonstrates) because critical reading and reflection do not have the same currency as emotional catharsis, projection and/or virtue signalling. Nevertheless, I've found using the phrase is marginally more effective in encouraging people to read carefully before commenting than not using it at all. So that's why it's there. It's not some sinister attempt at mind control.

With regards to this particular thread, I don't know how I could have made the intention more difficult to misrepresent (I restated the argument numerous times across numerous posts as clearly as I knew how) but I'm afraid your response is perfect proof that sometimes, despite one's best attempts, an entire fictional narrative can spring from (wilfull?) misunderstanding.
It's apparent you're upset and/or angry about something so I won't pursue this subject (or others) any further with you as I don't think it would be helpful.

 

[Amossoma543]

It's unfortunate that this discussion, which has potential for being a very productive avenue of discourse, has taken a nasty turn. Maybe it will turn more productive. Very good points get completely lost when they are nestled amidst heated emotion. I really do think there are good points on both sides of this. I, for one, have thought about this issue all day, off and on. I still err on the side of freedom of expression, especially when such a fundamental right as CTB is concerned. We have far too many people outside of the community already who are eager to silence our voices. But the reasoning given for the plea does give one pause. There are things to really make us think in this issue. Here's to hoping this can still be a productive discussion.

 

[HopeDiesLast]

"Please read carefully before responding" is simply a caveat that unfortunately needs to be added to almost any idea put forth on any Internet forum today because of the trend to respond spontaneously and emotionally to what the poster *thinks* was written (or wants to think was written) rather than what was *actually* written.
It's a tactic that rarely works (as your response amply demonstrates) because critical reading and reflection do not have the same currency as emotional catharsis, projection and/or virtue signalling. Nevertheless, I've found using the phrase is marginally more effective in encouraging people to read carefully before commenting than not using it at all. So that's why it's there. It's not some sinister attempt at mind control.

With regards to this particular thread, I don't know how I could have made the intention more difficult to misrepresent (I restated the argument numerous times across numerous posts as clearly as I knew how) but I'm afraid your response is perfect proof that sometimes, despite one's best attempts, an entire fictional narrative can spring from (wilfull?) misunderstanding.
It's apparent you're upset and/or angry about something so I won't pursue this subject (or others) any further with you as I don't think it would be helpful.

FWIW, I thought your original post was worded clearly and tactfully, and it should have been conducive to a healthy discussion. Sometimes it doesn't matter how carefully you word something -- some people are still going to go out of their way to misconstrue it.

 

[Roger]

. . . . . . .To me (a staunch agnostic) . . . . . . . . .

I'm agnostic, and insomniac, and dyslexic.

I lie awake at night, wondering if there really is a dog.

 

[liverpoolfan]

It's unfortunate that this discussion, which has potential for being a very productive avenue of discourse, has taken a nasty turn. Maybe it will turn more productive. Very good points get completely lost when they are nestled amidst heated emotion. I really do think there are good points on both sides of this. I, for one, have thought about this issue all day, off and on. I still err on the side of freedom of expression, especially when such a fundamental right as CTB is concerned. We have far too many people outside of the community already who are eager to silence our voices. But the reasoning given for the plea does give one pause. There are things to really make us think in this issue. Here's to hoping this can still be a productive discussion.

Absolutely *not* trying to silence the community or change anyone's beliefs - especially when those beliefs give them comfort. Merely pointing out that in my view a clear-headed, realistic discussion of dying and death is preferable to misleading and/or overly romanticised views which could influence people in extremis.
To be clear, I think the right to die at a time and manner of one's own choosing is about as fundamental a right as it is possible to envisage - and I absolutely support the mission of this group or any other that seeks to advance and civilise society's absurd, primitive and cruel restrictions on our rights over our own bodies and minds.

 

[EndItQuickly]

Your argument or should I say your "logic," has been defeated , accept the fact and move on with your life .

The most brilliant minds the planet has ever known have no idea what true nature of "reality" is...the more we learn the less logical sense it makes. Why be so antagonistic? We will all find out soon enough.

 

[S1mpleme]

Well, if you expect worst then you won't be upset.

 

[Amossoma543]

Absolutely *not* trying to silence the community or change anyone's beliefs - especially when those beliefs give them comfort. Merely pointing out that in my view a clear-headed, realistic discussion of dying and death is preferable to misleading and/or overly romanticised views which could influence people in extremis.
To be clear, I think the right to die at a time and manner of one's own choosing is about as fundamental a right as it is possible to envisage - and I absolutely support the mission of this group or any other that seeks to advance and civilise society's absurd, primitive and cruel restrictions on our rights over our own bodies and minds.

I honestly did not think you were trying to silence anyone's opinions...but in all honesty, I do think you'd like to change some people's behavior when reacting to and responding to "goodbye" threads. And I think that's where the rub is. I don't think you'll be able to do that. People hold very strong beliefs about what happens after death...and for many, they do not think it's irresponsible to express comfort framed within the context of those beliefs. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect people to stop doing that.

I would further add, from my own perspective, that I don't believe I have any responsibilities at all when it comes to my personal expressions of what happens after death. If a person relies on what I say to gain the courage to do it...that's 100% on them. When I come here and read and extract knowledge...I do so at my own peril.

I honestly don't even know how such a thing could be regulated. What would the rule be? "If you say goodbye to someone who decides to CTB, do not suggest that they will die and then enter into any state that cannot be scientifically demonstrated as being real." ? Is that a reasonable rule? Serious inquiry.

 

[voyager]

I'm neither upset nor angry at you OP, although I do agree with GPF here, you tried several times to control this tagged "discussion" by insinuating we don't understand your post or evidence. Really though, I just don't agree with your opinion, and feel your evidence is actually assumptions based around your beliefs, not observations. Here are mine (sorry about the wall of text):

As RoseyBird and Soul have stated, these messages are usually addressed at people who are in the process of ending their lives anyway, thus the basic premise of your argument (encouragement, luring, enabling) is false and a stretch because you've presented no evidence for these assumptions. What's more, I can't remember (nor envision) any ctb'er ever complaining about this attention from the community. Which I think is interesting, because there are so many variations of beliefs targeted at the ctb'er that no one person could ever believe in all of them simultaneously, surely you realise this, thus the fact that no ctb'er has ever objected to them means they presumably take comfort in the spirit these wishes were presented to them, while maintaining their own beliefs nonetheless. You say you don't find this convincing, well, then please prove it with statements by ctb'ers and not your own assumptions.

Plato once said no one dies an atheist, and I think this applies here, because when you're facing the most crucial encounter in your life, aka dying, you'll take every comfort there is and that's what this community is about. Which is why no ctb'er here ever takes offense to these messages, because they take them for comfort, not for face value as you presume. Exchanging these genuine messages for disingenuous generic ones which suit your beliefs (!) is thus a bad idea. How would you even enforce this anyway? Because let's face it, you're insinuating that the ctb'er is unable to decide for themselves because they're preoccupied fantasising about false promises made by the community instead of their actual gruesome death in a few minutes time, which I feel is untrue as explained above and somewhat disrespectful. Maybe some of us are delusional, but it's all relative and no one's place to judge how we perceive things but our own. And while I don't believe it's your intent, but without the euphemisms, you're actually saying we're talking people into killing themselves and that's so far from the truth and purpose of this site. Keep in mind how we found this place and why we're here. So, assuming there are people on here being dragged down by the pessimism of others, well, I'm sorry, but what did you expect on a pro choice suicide board? No, everyone's responsible for themselves, imho. Has to be.

Whilst I 'd accept that everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs, I feel the culture of telling people you'll see them 'on the other side' goes beyond personal belief and strays into enabling and/or encouraging people to take their lives who may not do so if the lure of an afterlife was not dangled in front of them.
[...]
"I hope your passing is as peaceful as possible and know that your pain and suffering will come to an end"

Even if you don't accept the arguments before, this in itself is contradictory. Forget golden staircases and rabbits. The crux of the ctb'er is suffering and more than anything they want their pain to stop, and what you wrote there is in fact the same promises (encouragement, luring, enabling) you fault others for, simply catered to your own beliefs. You could be luring this person to hell for all we know.

Well unless you believe consciousness exists separately from matter [in which case you can't be agnostic because you've espoused a belief without evidence], your suffering is over isn't it? No magical thinking or supposition required, just simple logic. If we take the dictionary definition of suffering: "the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship", how does one undergo pain, distress, or hardship without consciousness? One cannot.

[As an aside, here's an interesting article on the science of pain and how, like everything else we experience, it is constructed via consciousness]

1. I don't think you understand what I wrote. Re-read the last paragraph and try again.
2. One doesn't 'extoll an ideology on someone'.
3. It's a bit of a stretch to call logic an ideology

You assume he doesn't understand, but are in fact doing exactly what Skyview suggested, you're proselytising. Nothing wrong with sharing your beliefs, but it shouldn't be under the guise of an unfounded argument and what you wrote is not necessarily logical. You are presuming there is no consciousness after death because it doesn't fit your beliefs which is basically what you see in front of you - a lifeless body. That is not evidence though, but simply your perspective from this dimension. I too believe the body is an enabler, but the problem I have with your logic is that you, like all of us, can't explain the universe and existence as such, nor time and nothingness. So if you really think about this you'll realise that you're as clueless as the rest of us. It's a question which can't be answered without experiencing all facets of existence and that in essence means dying.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I stand by my assertions.

OP made a thesis and created a platform for debate: 'Other Side' references are not helpful: Discuss.

I have asserted this was baiting.

From his opening post through each subsequent post, there has been insistence his stance is right and others' are wrong; this is not in keeping with a spirit of discussion. Because I identified the baiting, OP asserts I must have "(wilfully?)" ignored the original post. I read it. As I said in my first post, I have agreement with the stance, but that the original post was provocative and argument would likely ensue.

From the original to subsequent posts, the platform has been that he is right and all opposers are blind, even willfully ignorant, and wrong. The title was the lure to come stand before him and be judged by him as worthy of his personal heaven or of exclusion from it. What an interesting spin on what bothered him enough to inspire creating this thread.