I myself believe that everthing happens for a reason, and dont pretend to believe in any god.

Yet I still like to believe that a good deed or a wrong one will not go unseen. That how we live our lives will one day be judged.

Personally I'm not sure about the heaven and hell thing, but thnk there will be consequences for what we do during our human life time.

What are everyone elses feelings on this subject?

WM

I remember once reading the idea that for a Christian, Hell is the total absence of God, that you've done something to put you out of the reach of God's grace for all eternity.

Then there was John Paul Satre's view (I think it was him) that 'Hell is other people'.

I believe in God, and because of that I also believe in the existence of evil in the world as a philosophical counterpoint. Not equivalent in power to God, but to provide a challenge and reminder. As for a physical Heaven and Hell, I don't think so. But as a state of being, I think I do - Hell is separation from God, Heaven would be a state of enlightenment that rings you closer to Him.

Joe

I believe that Heaven and Hell are man-made conditions that we create within ourselves.

I also believe that Hell-ish conditons are thrust upon us for a purpose, to teach us something, so that we can learn, evolve and grow.

I've been in Hell, and it was terrible because the staff there are retarded (Hillsborough Barracks job centre while I was on the Dole).. :rant:

You are born, you live and you die. Thats it. No heaven, no hell, no resurrection, nothing. I am inclined to use the phrase 'the state of non existence after death', but that is incorrect, because there is no state of anything.

After death, it might be argued, we enter an eternal nothingness, for ever and ever nothingness (which is again not quite right, because we don't enter anything). Not only do we cease to be sentient beings, we cease to be beings at all - we just cease to be. That's it (apart from still existing in the minds of those who remember us).

This belief of course has important moral implications, as various philosophers have recognised. For example, Nietzsche argued that if God is dead, then we must become gods ourselves. Consideration of the implications also formed a central element of Dostoevsky's great novel Crime and Punishment, through the thought and actions of the central character Raskolnikov. If there are no punishments or rewards in the afterlife for our behaviour in this world (and how can there be if there is no afterlife?) then our behaviour must be shaped by our perception of punishments and rewards in this life.

I like Jamie believe we make our own heaven and hell.

I would like to believe, like the Budists, that we come back again for several lives striving to reach the next level this being determined by the sort of previous life we have led.

But really my common sense tells me that we are all incidents of birth and are, like the ants, scrambling to survive. If my Mother and Father had copulated at a different time I wouldn't be me.

I think we are born with a sense of right and wrong and this influences our lives. We use it as a sort of yardstiick to lead our lives as best we can.

hazel

I think heaven and hell is a concept developed to enforce the rules of society, if you conform and do good you go to heaven.
go against the rules and burn in hell.
It worked better in the past as foreign culture was only known to a few, once people travelled more widely they began to challenge those concepts.

Originally posted by Rich
I've been in Hell, and it was terrible because the staff there are retarded (Hillsborough Barracks job centre while I was on the Dole).. :rant:

Do you ever stop moaning?

It could be worse y'know :rolleyes:

Originally posted by 40summat
I think heaven and hell is a concept developed to enforce the rules of society, if you conform and do good you go to heaven.
go against the rules and burn in hell.
It worked better in the past as foreign culture was only known to a few, once people travelled more widely they began to challenge those concepts.

Exactly, the concept of heaven and hell were (I believe) created by organised religion to keep the masses in order - follow the rules laid down by your God and you will have a place in heaven, stray from the one true patch and burn in hell for eternity. Just as the bible is used as a rule book (as opposed to a guide to how you can live your life) - the idea of heaven and hell are designed to keep the lower classes where they 'belong' under the power of the upper classes.

Even if you take the point made earlier (sorry I can't work out how to quote more than once) that hell is an absence of God, then this again is a man-made concept, one which is reinforced by those who believe in the religious doctrine/dogma.

I don't (I can't) believe that at the time of our death we are all judged and we are either allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven or condemned to serve in Hell.

That said, Heaven and Hell are whatever we make them during our lives - the set of circumstances in which you are most and least happy define for each individual what heaven and hell is.

Do you believe in Heaven & Hell?
No, i dont belive in a god either, but i do belive in a maker... if thats what i can call him/her/it? to me its like the question which came first the chicken or the egg? you dont get something from nothing. Suppose i will find out when im dead.:suspect:

Originally posted by madowl
Do you believe in Heaven & Hell?
No, i dont belive in a god either, but i do belive in a maker... if thats what i can call him/her/it? to me its like the question which came first the chicken or the egg? you dont get something from nothing. Suppose i will find out when im dead.:suspect:

No you won't.

There is no 'I' after death, so there is nothing to find out with.

Hell is life. Death is heaven - who knows what comes after those two.

Do you believe in fairies?

Dragon

"i believe" or "I think"

That's the whole point. Nobody knows and everybody thinks.

I find it hard to beieve in a certain religion, or a heaven or a hell....but who knows?

I think it's more likely we are just simple little organisms, much like we swat a fly or scoup up a spider in a cup. To think we are more is just self importance and a case of too much time on our hands.

Were just biology. Maybe more, who knows? You don't.

Hah boyface - maybe I do know the answers but I am so mean I am not telling you. Get over that one.

And just because you do not believe does not mean you should think any less or condemn those who do. Tis upto them.

Flies in a soup? You know some pretty intelligent flies then?

Dragon

Dragon,

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I don't mean to undermine anybody, far from it. I just often find that people who have a belief are so certain it is correct. How do they know?

My point is belief is belief. Nobody knows. They can't. They can believe, but that's it.

I don't really believe anything. Some people do. Neither of us know.

Originally posted by Dragon
Hah boyface - maybe I do know the answers but I am so mean I am not telling you. Get over that one.



Dragon

Oh yeah...."get over that one :)"

I'm sure I can...as if you really had "the answer" you would display it by responding to my comment on the Sheffield Forum..... ;) sure.

Sorry boyface but you misread my post, or I did not make myself clear. I was taking the michael.

It was tongue-in-cheek.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as far as I am concerned. You have voiced yours and that is great. I just thought your comments were an open door for a bit of light hearted banter.

Dragon

Ack, sorry. I must have misread them.

Apologies. Eeek :s

I don't belive in Heaven or Hell in death, only in life.

I don't belive there is a 'higher being' making decisions about everything. I believe in individual and collective responsibility.

As an individual, if i'm in a dangerous situation, it's up to me to get out of it, or in a collective term, for someone to help me (and me to help them).

For example: If my house was on fire it would be up to me to get out safely (that's the individual) and, if I couldn't get out I hope someone (neighbours, fire brigade etc) would help me to get out (that's the collective).

I believe when we help people, do a good deed, we feel good. That's our living heaven. When we do something wrong, or hurt anyone, we feel bad - and that's our living hell.

It's hard when we lose someone we love, because we want to believe that they are somehow still 'with us' but the only way they are still with us is in our hearts and minds.

I`d like to try both before I make up my mind.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
You are born, you live and you die. Thats it. No heaven, no hell, no resurrection, nothing. I am inclined to use the phrase 'the state of non existence after death', but that is incorrect, because there is no state of anything.

After death, it might be argued, we enter an eternal nothingness, for ever and ever nothingness (which is again not quite right, because we don't enter anything). Not only do we cease to be sentient beings, we cease to be beings at all - we just cease to be. That's it (apart from still existing in the minds of those who remember us).

This belief of course has important moral implications, as various philosophers have recognised. For example, Nietzsche argued that if God is dead, then we must become gods ourselves. Consideration of the implications also formed a central element of Dostoevsky's great novel Crime and Punishment, through the thought and actions of the central character Raskolnikov. If there are no punishments or rewards in the afterlife for our behaviour in this world (and how can there be if there is no afterlife?) then our behaviour must be shaped by our perception of punishments and rewards in this life.

How sad that you believe that. I'm sorry, but that is my opinion. Let me ask you a question - How did 'we' come to be? There is no sustaining proof for this answer. So if we dont know what came before us, how do we really know what comes next?

WM

Originally posted by WintersMist
I myself believe that everthing happens for a reason, and dont pretend to believe in any god.

Yet I still like to believe that a good deed or a wrong one will not go unseen. That how we live our lives will one day be judged.

Personally I'm not sure about the heaven and hell thing, but thnk there will be consequences for what we do during our human life time.

What are everyone elses feelings on this subject?

WM my mother god bless her,(and we are not religious) used to say until the day of judgment when all will be revealed, she also said there are no pockets in shrouds,she also said two wrongs dont make a right:)

It exists, It's real. It's a nightclub on Regent Street in Barnsley next to the A1 Detective Agency that I once had to use to serve a summons on my wife.

Heaven and Hell - Get real. Eternal life, just think about it.

It's been postulated that this is heaven. Or hell. Or both. All depends on where you look at it from. If you are "comfortable"; are not bothered by others, aren't starving, in pain, depressed or frustrated generally, that's others idea of heaven. If any of these are not true i.e., you are plagued by vandals, can't afford to eat, in constant pain or stuck in a job you hate, that's generally considered hell.

What puts me off the idea there is a God or Gods are:
1. The god(s) people adhere to were until recently a matter of geography.
2. More violence has been done in the name of religion over the centuries than anything else - my God is better than your God.
3. If God wanted to be sung at, prayed at and bothered generally, it would have got all living things at it. Horses, slugs, oak trees, the lot. There is no indication that religion is anything but a human invention.
4. Gods come and go. Ra, Baccus, Jupiter, Thor, all have had their day. Why are the ones currently in vogue the right one(s)?
5. If God is everywhere and knows everything, why do you need to assemble in groups at set times in a purpose-built building in order to get in contact with it/them?

Just look up at the sky on a clear night. Then realise how insignificant you are. You're only here for a fleeting moment so don't make everyone else's fleeting moment hell. The thought that this planet is habitable by living creatures and has been for millions of years and most likely will be for many more millions of years does my head in. Why? The likelihood that there is another planet going round another star at around in the same timespan as us with almost every physical condition the same as on our own is so remote as to be approaching infinity. So why us? Why here, stuck 2/3rds the way out of a galaxy similar to billions of other galaxies? Why is there billions of bundles of molecules able to grow, reproduce and in some cases, move about, on this lump of rock?

What still bothers me is that we are aware of things around us as are many other forms of life. i can't subscribe to the view we were created - that indicates that there is something in charge of everything, which means there is no free will. But there is free will, or I percieve that there is. If we and everything else were created, then that indicates that it is all for a purpose. Philosophers have been debating this question for ages but I haven't heard a satisfactory answer.

So why are there living things? And why are there living things that kill their own species and other species but not for food?

Then again, why is there a species of living thing on this planet with far more brain power than is needed to survive?

I think that we are in a state of change, less and less people are religious as time goes on. But we have chucked out the baby with the bathwater in that we no longer have a set of rules to guide us. Thou shalt not has been replaced by "That doesn't apply to me," "I'll do what I want and no-ones going to stop me" or "It's alright, he didn't mean any harm." So Government has come in to plug the gap with passing laws about more and more things, because there are more and more people without the self control to not be a pain in the arse to those around them. Trouble is, we've got into a state of mind where more and more laws are being passed restricting the freedom of those who aren't pains in the arse.

The Japanese might live in a society totally alien to us but they have a maxim of trying to live in harmony with each other and being a 'pain in the arse' there is frowned upon. Maybe we could do with a bit more of that here.

The problem is, humans are territorial by nature but they are also curious. This causes conflict when those being curious meet those being territorial.

Which brings to mind the phrase "God must have been a Yorkshireman." Religion and territoriality in the one phrase. With the implied assertion that Yorkshire is heaven.

Heaven is not a place, it's a concept which religions have pinched for their own ends over the years.

Enjoyed your post Cayenne (not going to copy it to save space!)

But....no comment so far from the Spiritual point of view so I'm going to add my two penn'orth:

Spiritualists "know" (I put it in inverted commas for the sceptics amongst you) that there is some form of life after death.

Not necessarily 'life as we know it', in fact, most clearly not life as we know it.

But, once one subscribes to the concept that death is not the end, then it opens up a whole new realm of thinking.

There are those who believe that a soul (are you all ok with that concept?) chooses the body (and thus the life) that they return as. And there are those who believe that a soul has to go thru x many stages (incarnations) before they reach the ultimate state, call that what you will. "Heaven" is arguably one word for this state.

And there are those who believe in Karma, or 'what goes around comes around'.

It all leads to a belief that it's 'worth' doing the best one can with this life as one is on some kind of spiritual path as one progresses, and the better the current life the better the progression. Using the word 'better' loosely....

So much of this is unprovable until one has an experience that changes one life and renders all previous disbelief obsolete.

Until that point, all anyone can do is argue from personal experience.

I was told by an Arab Scholar that the arab Christians call God by the name of Allah, and the muslims use the original Christian word for God. I didn't know that. Over centuries people have been giving themselves authority to give the almighty whatever name they decide upon.
One of the chants (I was told) in praise of God was to repeat continuesly Ya Allah Hu - Ya Allah Hu..... hence the absurd corruption appears in the west as Halleluya! - not the muslims but the Christian chant which is still used in muslim prayers today etc.
There is a great deal of similarity in the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All with basic incentive to be good in this life and stick to the rules and get rewarded in the here-after. It seems with hindsight that made up or not, religion has served to give systems and order for society to function, and whilst those systems were adhered to societies had success. We see today with people choosing freedom to do as they please, breaking all those rules and we have lack of order or rules in our daily lives and hence chaos in our private lives. I am not religious but appreciate it has a lot to offer if you want a simple life.
I would rather have it this way the way it is today, but we could all do with a little diciplin in our daily lives.

Originally posted by tab1
I was told by an Arab Scholar that the arab Christians call God by the name of Allah, and the muslims use the original Christian word for God. I didn't know that. Over centuries people have been giving themselves authority to give the almighty whatever name they decide upon.
One of the chants (I was told) in praise of God was to repeat continuesly Ya Allah Hu - Ya Allah Hu..... hence the absurd corruption appears in the west as Halleluya! - not the muslims but the Christian chant which is still used in muslim prayers today etc.
There is a great deal of similarity in the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All with basic incentive to be good in this life and stick to the rules and get rewarded in the here-after. It seems with hindsight that made up or not, religion has served to give systems and order for society to function, and whilst those systems were adhered to societies had success. We see today with people choosing freedom to do as they please, breaking all those rules and we have lack of order or rules in our daily lives and hence chaos in our private lives. I am not religious but appreciate it has a lot to offer if you want a simple life.
I would rather have it this way the way it is today, but we could all do with a little diciplin in our daily lives.

If you read academic works on the origins of Islam, you are likely to discover that much of Islam is actually based on Judaic and Christian teachnigs and ideas. There are some differences (for example the rejection of the Christian concept of the trinity) but there are probably more similarities than there are differences. Indeed, some scholars deny that Mohamed intended to create a totally separate belief system, but saw Islam as a faith existing alongside and connected to Judaism and Christianity, with their adherents being 'peoples of the book'. According to these ideas, it was the Islamists after Mohamed who turned this religion into something separate and distinct from (and hostile to) the other two religions.

You carry them both around inside you. They are not external places. When things are going great you feel like you are in heaven, but when the stuff hits the fan - life is hell.

We do this sort of thing alot - personifying ideas and then we forget they are nothing more than personifications or whatever the equivelent is suposed to be.

If you think you are going to go to heaven or hell when your body dies - well - good luck to you. Me - I am going to find a quiet corner and sit back and watch the rest of you monkeys continue to play the game.

Dragon

I believe that the idea of Heaven and Hell are rather destructive, and I hate the way the concept of Hell is used to terrify people and force them into religion. This fear of dying and if you believe in god you will have eternal life, I think is damaging. I don't find it a healthy way of looking at life.

I believe in a Christian god, although I wouldn't necessarily call myself a Christian. I like to think there is an afterlife of some description. But I don't think this takes the form of heaven and hell. A truely loving god would not send people to hell for simply not having faith. I believe that in the afterlife either our soul is reborn into the world, or we reach some kind of enlightenment and unison with god. It is this unison with god that gives us the consciousness, knowledge and understanding of the world. I suppose this is kind of like the judgement, where our spirit is forced to face up to the wrong doings in our life. This is just what I believe.

Although tomorrow I might think something different. Although I don't believe in heaven and hell it is a concept based on our experiences of our present lives, I believe that the afterlife will bare no comparison as we will no longer exist in the physical sense. I suppose if there is no afterlife we will only exist in the memories of those who knew us.

heavens when i buy flowers, hells when i forget.

I dont believe in any of it.

You die, you go in a box and youre either put in the ground to decompose into the earth or your are crispified and your ashes dumped somewhere to rest.

Thats it boys and girls.. nothing more, nothing less.

But I suppose, we all have to find out whether we are right and wrong when the time comes.

Just something to think about though- say I dont believe now in heaven and hell, and when I pop my clogs, say for example that I am being judged, I could repent my sins then and technically I could go upstairs to heaven??

Jesus and God are all about forgiveness apparently, so this in theory should be ok :)

I believe heaven and hell are states of mind. Some caused by external forces, some self-perpetuating.

i believe in hell.....but after quitting my job i have escaped!! wooo

heaven is being trapped in a lift with girls aloud, chocolate sauce and sky sports :thumbsup:

Well.. I've just thought of something great as well.

If I end up in hell.. which probably I am gonna do :)
I can give a severe ass kicking to some of the scum of the earth who will be joining me down below.

ie: Myra Hindley- and I'd be waiting for Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr and Roy Whiting as well...

I dont believe in any form of religion and don't mean to insult anyone who does this is just my opinion, I respect your views and hope you do the same :thumbsup:

I watched the program on E=mc2 and that equation to me proves that there is no 'Superior Power' or beings, and that it all started with the big bang. The equation simply means that all energy and matter in the world came from the big bang. Matter is just extremely highly compressed energy( as seen in the atom bomb) and that matter and all planets, stars and galaxies are remenants of the energy in the big bang that tried to go beyond the speed of light and was therefor compressed into matter. Phew time to breathe...

Religion, I believe, is a creation by man for man. Mankind has the desire to know, to know anything and everything and when thousands of years ago people couldnt explain what created the universe they made something up to make themselves feel that they understood.

Basically thats it from me :clap:

Originally posted by Viper_GTSR
I dont believe in any form of religion and don't mean to insult anyone who does this is just my opinion, I respect your views and hope you do the same :thumbsup:

I watched the program on E=mc2 and that equation to me proves that there is no 'Superior Power' or beings, and that it all started with the big bang. The equation simply means that all energy and matter in the world came from the big bang. Matter is just extremely highly compressed energy( as seen in the atom bomb) and that matter and all planets, stars and galaxies are remenants of the energy in the big bang that tried to go beyond the speed of light and was therefor compressed into matter. Phew time to breathe...

Religion, I believe, is a creation by man for man. Mankind has the desire to know, to know anything and everything and when thousands of years ago people couldnt explain what created the universe they made something up to make themselves feel that they understood.

Basically thats it from me :clap:

... And may the lord strike you down - you heathen :)
Lol!!

We evolved - just like you said mate- no spiritual being up in the clouds created us... no siree.. we came from chimps pure and simple.

I am in no way religious (mind controll in my opinion). but if there was a hell. whay would satan punish us for being evil, when infact he is evil himself. surely he would look upon this as "homage" to himself. and would praise this behaviour.

ptt

Even though it wasn't Ozzy singing I think "Heaven and Hell" is one of the best Black Sabbath albums. It got resurrected last night in this household, along with The Michael Schenker Group and Marillion..........

* Time-Expired *

Originally posted by yosser_huges
but if there was a hell. whay would satan punish us for being evil, when infact he is evil himself. surely he would look upon this as "homage" to himself. and would praise this behaviour.

ptt

Yosser-huges, This is the sort of argument that pushed me into being an atheist. The bible has more holes in it than microsoft internet explorer.

The trouble is, though, there are parts of the USA which believe the bible is true from page 1 to the end. Now that's frightening.

Originally posted by Pseudonym


1. That the human mind, when 'shutting down' and starved of oxygen, hallucinates.


interestingly people who have had near death experiences and have had their cerebrospinal fluid tested, have been shown to have abnormally large quantities of n,n-Dimethyltryptamine in it. n,n-DMT is created in the pineal gland ("third eye") and is the most profound and bizarre psychedelic substance known by man.

It is present in every living thing so far examined.

It would certainly give you a feeling of euphoria, a sensation of being propelled upwards or forwards at insane energies, and the 'hallucinations' are internally coherent and more real than reality.

Did you get the feeling that you were in the presence of another entity during your experience?

* Time-Expired *

Originally posted by LordChaverly
There is no 'I' after death, so there is nothing to find out with.

There is no 'I' before death either, except to the un-enlightened masses of course.

Another point, I consider it equally as ludicrus (sp?) to be certain that there is no life after death, as it is to be certain of life after death.

How can you know LordC!? (I mean, how can you know either way, life after death, or nothing at all, zip).

Further more, does it matter? What does it change?

Y'know what I've noticed from this thread? The people who have had 'experiences' tend toward the 'life after death' conclusion, those who have had none such, tend towards the 'there is no life after death' conclusion.

Tis curious, tis all.........but...

I Know what I know. I used to wonder if I were missing out. Now I KNOW that I am missing out on certain experiences/gifts
.
That doesn't stop me from believing that they exist. NB, a 'belief' is but one stop away from a 'know'.

It just has to happen to you.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
interestingly people who have had near death experiences and have had their cerebrospinal fluid tested, have been shown to have abnormally large quantities of n,n-Dimethyltryptamine in it. n,n-DMT is created in the pineal gland ("third eye") and is the most profound and bizarre psychedelic substance known by man.

It is present in every living thing so far examined.

It would certainly give you a feeling of euphoria, a sensation of being propelled upwards or forwards at insane energies, and the 'hallucinations' are internally coherent and more real than reality.

Did you get the feeling that you were in the presence of another entity during your experience?

I'm curious, Phan. Are you suggesting that there is a scientific rationale for the feeling of progression to a higher place? IE that it is 'merely' a chemical reaction on the brain that creates the illusion, or are you suggesting that there is a scientific process that suggests that people who have laid claim to this process have undergone a certain change in their brain-chemicals?

There has been a great deal of research into NDE's, and as with all theological debate noone's ever agreed on the cause, although scientific explanation can account for it pretty much. I did study it for a while last year but I can't say it interested me much - as far as I'm concerned it's a result of chemical activity in the brain cause by the unusual state it finds itself in -i.e. near-death or in turmoil, to calm the patient.

Anyway! Heaven and hell ey?

Well no I don't believe in them, for several reasons.

For one, as said before, the idea of Satan punishing the evil is questionable, except perhaps if someone evil just wants to hurt? Sadism is part of evilness?

Also, the mere idea of hell is completely contradictory to the free will argument (oh yes, I just finished some marvellous Bertrand Russell stuff and I'm on a roll) - God must have known that we would turn away from him because he created hell as part of the creation of the universe - before man.

What god would allow his most revered creation, sinful or not, to burn in hell, which is extensively described as being full of fire and brimstone, pools of burning sulphur, eternal damnation, suffering, etc...the idea of Catholic purgatory makes more sense to me? What happened to the eternally forgiving nature of God?

The broader topic of the problem of the concept of evil is more interesting though!

Originally posted by SHsheff
I'm curious, Phan. Are you suggesting that there is a scientific rationale for the feeling of progression to a higher place? IE that it is 'merely' a chemical reaction on the brain that creates the illusion, or are you suggesting that there is a scientific process that suggests that people who have laid claim to this process have undergone a certain change in their brain-chemicals?
The NDE/DMT link is there, but it is not very conclusive.

But the similarity of experiences of both DMT and NDEs is more interesting - we don't know the mechanisms, but they seem to be related.

DMT is the one experience that really does pose more questions than it answers, as opposed to the revelations of normal workaday psychedelics. But it is the principle constituent of psilocybin (shrooms) and some shroomers who have gone 'beyond' will also know what I am talking about.

Like all drugs legal, illegal endogenous or exogenous, DMT is a key of some kind. No experience comes from the drug itself. It's immediate purpose in the body is not clear. It might be that it is released to mediate the transition between life and death, but it's hard to see this as having an evolutionary advantage.

Others would have you believe that DMT is a hyperspacial communications device, that puts you in touch with bizarre entities. I cannot rule this out, having enountered these entities myself, but I have my doubts.

Others place DMT as the tool with which to see the landscape of your own mind. This view correlates closest to my own experiences, but it really is very hard to describe adequately (like trying to describe what blue tastes like).

I think the NDE is actually what happens when the brain gives up on the body and starts performing the 'shutdown' routine (don't be scared, come to the light, feel good) - which is occasionally aborted due to improving health, or even a 'conscious' decision to go back. But as I said, it's difficult to intuit a reason for this being available.

Originally posted by Jamie
There is no 'I' before death either, except to the un-enlightened masses of course.

Another point, I consider it equally as ludicrus (sp?) to be certain that there is no life after death, as it is to be certain of life after death.

How can you know LordC!? (I mean, how can you know either way, life after death, or nothing at all, zip).

Further more, does it matter? What does it change?

There is indeed an 'I' before death, although of course the nature of the 'I' is open to many different interpretations.

With regard to certainty, you are of course right to argue that I was making an assertion. But there is no definitive way of proving or disproving a negative. I am sure as I possibly can be however that there is not a scintilla of evidence which supports the conclusion that there is life after death. Conversely, there are quite convincing scientific theories, supported by evidence, which provide plausible accounts of how human life evolved on this planet (see for example the 'blind watchmaker' or 'selfish gene' hypotheses of Dawkins). None of these theories of course explain everything, but they are a darn sight more convincing than the religious fantasies about life after death.

As for does it matter, indeed it does, as many philosophers have recognised (see my earlier comments about Nietzsche and Dostoevsky). The realisation that there is no life after death can be depressing, frightening, liberating or any combination of these and of other feelings. Personally, I find it liberating. We don't need the threat of punishment, or the promise of rewards, in an after life to behave decently in this one. Indeed, if we come to the conclusion that this life is all there is, then it might encourage us to make the most of it. Male atheists may forgo the pleasure of anticipating the unimaginable delights of the 72 houris awaiting them in the paradise of a certain religion, but at least they have the consolation of being free to seek their pleasures on this earth, without being constrained by agonising fears of hellfire and eternal damnation.

I completely agree with you re: 'religious fantasies' LordC, and everything you said in your last paragraph there, about putting off what you can have here and now, for hope or fear, of what *may* come tommorow (well, after time of death). It's just living your life in fantasy land, no thank you.

My 'argument' (I don't think there are any right or wrong answers here) for there being no 'I' before death, as follows;

I believe in the undifferentiated oneness of all things, that there is no real seperation, and that all things and beings, are just localised arrangements of energy, within the multiverse. Or more simply, everything being connected, like a massive ball of wool, and we're just knots (visible energetic configurations) in that ball of wool.

So, in the sense that the *I* is a seperate entity to the rest of existance, no. In the sense that *I*, exists as a localised arrangement of energy, yes.

Dependent on where one places the focus of their attention, it may seem like we are individual beings, or, we may realise that we are infact, everything, that we are 'god' and that 'god' is everything (all matter, all energy, all thought, all notions of seperation).

I use the word 'god' here, as a convenient label, but it has (for me) nothing whatsoever to do with religious concepts, and everything to do with self discovery.

I personally wouldn't rely on logic, any more than religious fantasy, when it comes to uncovering the nature of reality (though I fear, I be tainted with both).

End of the day though, I put up my hand and say I just do not know, and that 'knowing' is perhaps akin to tieing knots in wool?

Heaven and Hell seem like silly ideas to me - seems clear that we are animals, bags of chemicals, and that once the brain stops working that's that.

Belief in an afterlife also seems to me to be a very dangerous or even evil belief, since it deprecates the here and now, which seem to me to be all we've got. Some people use belief in the afterlife to justify evil things, suicide bombers being one extreme example. Which is not to deny that some others put it to good use by doing good things in the hope of a reward in the hereafter. But why not do good things just because they're good?

The "Christian" concepts of Heaven (reward) and Hell (punishment) that we are familiar with nowadays were certainly not part of the doctrine of the early Christian Church and to that extent I would agree with posters who say that they are constructs designed to subjugate people.
Reward and punishment are central to a 'penal substitution' (ie God died for OUR sins) approach to theology which underpins much evangelical doctrine, hence the emphasis on heaven and hell.
There are however alternative 'belief patterns' within the Christian church, which have a differing interpretation of heaven and hell eg somewhere where all barriers are broken down, where people are free to be themselves vs where people are exploited and denied opportunities. These relate to conditions which affect peoples lives as they live them now - not to an afterlife.
In terms of an afterlife, my personal belief is that your 'essence' can be sustained after your death in the memories of your family, friends and community. I guess these could be positive or negative.
Just to give some context, I call myself a Christian and am involved in local churches.

If you do or do not believe in heaven and hell, do you or do you not believe in ghosts also?

I can safely say that I find it very amusing when I find myself watching most haunted on Living TV(There was nothing else on) and all of the 'ghostly' occurunces and therfore i do not believe in ghosts because if there is no soul to go to heaven or hell, then what is a ghost?

Really enjoyed reading this, some great informed comments and perspectives. Thanks everybody :)

One more point on Heaven and Hell, as people have expressed the noon-religious scholars tend to think that religion and then heaven and hell were populous control mechanisms.

However they start with the pretence that we all have the propensity for evil in us. They assume that people need to be told what is right and what is wrong. However the overwhelming evidence this is not true is in the fact that the human race survived without religion for far longer than we have had religion. We even survived through times where population levels were in dangerous territory. If we would all revolt and start killing and eating each other without laws or religion, we as a race would not be around today.

* Time-Expired *

Originally posted by CaptainSwing

Belief in an afterlife also seems to me to be a very dangerous or even evil belief, since it deprecates the here and now, which seem to me to be all we've got. Some people use belief in the afterlife to justify evil things, suicide bombers being one extreme example. Which is not to deny that some others put it to good use by doing good things in the hope of a reward in the hereafter. But why not do good things just because they're good?

Whilst I take (and agree with) the points you make re a belief in the afterlife being 'very dangerous or even evil' under certain circumstances or in connection with certain individuals, I would take issue with the generalisation:

Not everyone who believes in an afterlife is dangerous and evil. There are plenty of ordinary (or 'normal' as in 'confirming to the norm' ie, the 'norm' is not to be dangerous or evil) people who have had experiences that lead them to believe there is indeed an afterlife.

Appreciate that you go on to say, 'which is not to deny that some others put it to good use by doing good things in the hope of a reward in the hereafter'. However, you still seem to be attributing certain actions as an obvious consequence of having the belief. That is not necessarily the case - I don't believe that everyone who believes they have had contact with deceased friends or relatives via a psychic medium or who have seen, for example, ghosts (to use a vague, cover-all term) necessarily goes onto change their day-to-day behaviour in the hope of some reward later.

I think that in general, those who claim to have (or rather, who have, in their view) had contact with those who have passed on (died) make no statement beyond this. I don't think that they particularly make claims to any knowledge of a reward system. This hasn't been my experience, anyway. Sure, the Christian religion speaks of this. However, it is wholely unnecessary to be a Christian (or indeed, to be of any religion) to have, in one's opinion, contact with deceased people via a medium.

I appreciate that the concept of having contact with dead people (thus indicating some kind of afterlife, in whatever medium) is unbelievable to the sceptics, but hey, we can each only speak from our own personal experience and knowledge.

And that's mine! :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phanerothyme

. [/QUOTE

Phan (and noseyrosie) - I'd dearly love to comment in an informed way on your postings, and thank you Phan for responding to my question.

Sadly the scientific aspect of your postings are way over my head! So all I can do is vaguely take on board the general aspect of what you say. If you are able to summarise in layman's terms (and don't worry about patronising, you couldn't do it too basically for me!) then I'd be happy to be in a position to understand better.....

:P

Originally posted by back2basics
Really enjoyed reading this, some great informed comments and perspectives. Thanks everybody :)



Hugely agree. And also apologise for three consecutive postings! Couldn't see a way of sticking the three so separate postings into one post without it being horribly long...

What a pleasure to have a thought-provoking and informative debate, without it deteriorating into a slanging match with insults flying madly (and the subsequent curtailing by Joep!).

I'll echo back2basics thanks to all.

I agree that there are many things in the world that we are yet to understand(Don't get me started on Quantum Physics:suspect: :loopy: ) and I think believing or not believing in ghosts is all about personal experiences, I cannot comment on yours but I can say I have never had an experience with the paranormal and doubt that I ever will.

Heaven is a place on earth oh **** i'm breaking out into a song :gag:

* Time-Expired *

I was just reading a review of the DMT research book. I read an article a few weeks ago about another researcher who was doing work on Alien Abduction and the lik between sleep paralasis (and DMT could also be a factor there as well). Anyway as you said the accounts are striking similar to NDE's. I beleiove they gave 75 people the drug and the same themes keeping coming up again and again.


http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/dmt.htm


rapid loss of bodily awareness caused some to think they had died. There was often a sense of rapid movement or "flying"; many felt they had left their bodies and had become "pure awareness." Auditory affects included "whirring", "crinkling and crunching" and comical "sproing-boing" noises. Among the visual effects were intensely coloured geometrical patterns, (sometimes described as "4-D") trees of life, fantastic birds, tunnels, stairways and machinelike forms. The most startling encounter, however, was with human-like, or completely un-human-like, non corporeal entities, some with insectile or reptilian qualities. Although the majority of the volunteers found the experience euphoric, pleasurable and revelatory, some found it terrifying.

SHsheff,

My favourite theory on near death experiences, alien abductions, religious experience and the like (the type of experience that is life changing, belief shattering etc.) is:

The pineal gland, under certain conditions or by certain types of stimulation, releases DMT straight into the cerebrospinal fluid.

This chemical gets to the brain very quickly because it does not have to go through the bloodstream at all.

Its effects on the human mind are well documented in a book by Dr Rick Strassman, who received US FDA approval to inject subjects with the substance a few years ago.

Experiences were characterised by strongly similar descriptions of contact with entities, gods, beauty beyond joy, insectoid aliens, mind probes, the feeling of leaving ones body at great speed, shooting through the universe and so on.

It is this particular characteristic, the uniformity of the experience, especially contact with entities, that interested strassman. Ultimately what the subjects were trying to described escaped language altogether, but these themes are repeated again and again in the anecdotal records.
Strassman was baffled.

as an aside -
A late sixties experiment with trainee pastors and psilocybin
indicated strongly that this chemical (contained in psilocybin) amplified the 'numinous'.

What it adds up to is this - with our brains we have the possibility that a small gland can almost instananeously release an awe inspiringly potent 'drug' directly into the brain.

Perhaps the stress of a body recognising the onset of death does what it can to ease the agony of passing, by placing the mind in a truly paradisical state.

Perhaps the repeated chanting of a mantra and the systematic emptying of the mind triggers the same mechanism.

And the kernel of it all is the mind. The biological mess of fatty tissue that supports it is only half the story. The mind is still a total mystery, and what DMT does to it is more mysterious still.

Other, more radical thinking people, will contest that religions started not as a result of observing the skies or the patterns of the planet, but from the psychedelic experience induced by near death, incredible stress, meditation, or plants.

Now Quantum Theory. That is also relevant to this whole discussion.

Originally posted by Pseudonym
A point to ponder...

I neither agree nor disagree with Phanerothyme or noseyrosie, who state, among other things:

Phanerothyme re: the substance n,n-Dimethyltryptamine - "It would certainly give you a feeling of euphoria, a sensation of being propelled upwards or forwards at insane energies, and the 'hallucinations' are internally coherent and more real than reality."

noseyrosie - ".....as far as I'm concerned it's a result of chemical activity in the brain cause by the unusual state it finds itself in -i.e. near-death or in turmoil, to calm the patient."

Both reasonable conclusions... apart from one factor that puzzles me...

Does there exist an hallucinogenic substance that gives each person affected by it, a virtually identical experience?

Before it happened to me I had no interest in, or knowledge of such events at all. Afterwards I looked into it, reading books and articles about it and was struck by just how closely the experience of others matched my own. As I understand the effects of hallucinogenics... and I have some friends who are heavily into the 'shroom scene', the hallucinations are unpredictable, mainly euphoric but occasionally horrific instead, there's no absolute gurantee of the results each time.

Many descriptions of NDE are striking in their similarity, that fact introduces a degree of doubt in my mind...

It's an interesting point. My reaction would be that:

a) It's a chemical that's part of the body itself, not an alien one like mushrooms or acid or whatever, therefore the body may be more used to it and is engineered to react to it in a certain way, deliberately to cause certain emoitons within the patient;

b) I have some studies of the NDEs people have suffered and the effects are quite varied, although all support my above idea. Raymond Moody's 'Life After Life', 1975 found that NDEs are common, 1 in 30 people have had them or know someone who has. Experiences, from most common to least common from his study are:

Most Common
Feelings of peace
Review of whole life
Being in another world
Out of body
Encountering other beings
Audible voices/music
Sensation of light
'Tunnel' experience
Least Common

Interestingly the characteristic many people refer to, the tunnel experience, is the least common here.

My other idea for explanation of reccurring experiences is that we frequently hear of 'seeing your life flash before your eyes' and 'out of body experiences' before we die, in everyday life - TV documentaries, films, cartoons, etc. It could be that we are socialised into triggering certain experiences. Conversely we are told that 'shroom trips are unpredictable and are rather more vaguely described for whatever reason - the person having the experience generally knows they will have it and therefore afterwards they will not attempt to attribute it to religous causes, unlike NDEs where socialisation, possible previous religious backgrounds etc act as a kind of training when the person comes out of the experience.

hmm we've all been composing replies and overlapping somewhat...

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
hmm we've all been composing replies and overlapping somewhat...

Proud of mine though :D

So...what you're basically saying is that numinous and other religious experiences are probably caused by chemical euphoria? I'd agree really....why is this topic so much more interesting to discuss now rather than when in class I wonder :hihi: ?

Fact is, religious experience occurs mostly in people already religious, and rarely to never in people without at least some inclination towards belief in God. An atheist could have the same experience and not believe it was from God because they did not already have the socialisation to make them believe so, e.g. having heard about previous experiences in their church, or from general testimony. I think it's all in the interpretation frankly.

edit: Thread dead! Come on guys I want some theological chat!

Heaven; Selfridges.

Hell; T J Hughes.

* Time-Expired *

Originally posted by Deavon
Heaven; Selfridges.

Hell; T J Hughes.

Deavon, if you are poor the reverse may be true

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Please don't misunderstand me but I can't help but think that if those who put NDE's down to chemical reaction in the brain were to have experienced an NDE themselves, then they may perhaps feel as I do... That reasoned logic dictates that the scientists are correct but nonetheless there are doubts that aren't easily dismissed.

"Those who sleep and never wake, live forever the reality of their dreams"

It's not easy dismissal - I don't pretend to know what a numinous experience would feel like, however, I'll put it this way (trying not to patronise or anything), the brain is a fickle thing, and easily fooled. If, as i believe, your experience was chemically caused, then this has a profound effect upon the brain both during and in the memory of the experience, so of course you will feel like it was really from, maybe, an outside source? The mind is a very powerful thing, and I believe that part of the natural way of the chemicals making you feel 'safe' would be to make you feel like you were safe in the care of someone/something else, and as I said, interpret this as you will according to life experience. Am I making sense?!

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Deavon, if you are poor the reverse may be true

T J Hughes is AWFUL, I went in there the other day because my logic went 'well, it's name is a bit like TK Maxx so maybe it has similarly fabulous designer discounts' but, well.......apparently not. Never again, says I.

* Time-Expired *

One conclusing I've come to from reading this (ace) thread, is that, if people are not blinded by irrational emotionalism (religiously inclined), then they're blinded by their own rational logical ordered thought processes.

Either way, blind.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
Proud of mine though :D

So...what you're basically saying is that numinous and other religious experiences are probably caused by chemical euphoria?

It is more than chemical euphoria.

In your corporeal state you are boxed in by your senses, and the environment they find themselves in.

In a state of spiritual ecstasy, or contact with the godhead, or perhaps with NDEs also, you are not bound by your senses. For example, the visual cortex can sort, for want of a better term, patterns of contrast and colour into meaningful vision. I'm speculating that the mind can feed its own visual cortex with vastly more information than can be crammed down the optic nerve.

Imagine a mind that can use it's visual cortex as a mirror.

In this state you are able to gaze in upon your mind, with your ego (self) intact, and the other entities being the other inhabitants of your mind (the ones that silently pilot you from womb to tomb) gently guiding you around the stupendous, paradisical space you have arrived in.

And that is just the sense of vision. Hearing, too, is affected - and what is significant here is that these are the two senses that require the most discrimination when interpreting the incoming information. Smell and touch are much more visceral, and as any schizophrenic will know (and many others who are not) - the mind has the ability to make you hear things, voices in particular. Now imagine listening to the sound image of your own mind at work.

And it is this phenomenon of experiencing, quite literally, your mind as a universe, , that opens your mind to the infinite in a way that standing between almost parallel mirrors doesn't.

Originally posted by Jamie
One conclusing I've come to from reading this (ace) thread, is that, if people are not blinded by irrational emotionalism (religiously inclined), then they're blinded by their own rational logical ordered thought processes.

Either way, blind.

the thing about blindness jamie, is that very often the other senses will become much more sensitive in order to try and compensate

Anyone want to try to put a scientific explanation on that?

What a pile of miserable rubbish. Just because the brain reacts in a particular way to certain stimuli does not mean those stimuli are the answer to what the mind is experiencing at that time.

The brain feels hot and cold as the same thing, or something along those lines, and only other senses instruct the mind whether something is hot or cold - otherwise we do not know. Take away the receptors and senses that tell us something is burning hot - it will still burn.

Some things science can explain. Some things words can explain. But there are many things neither can handle. Just accept and let it be so.

Dragon

At Christmas 1990, I was rushed to hospital with a blown gall bladder, and peritonitis. During the emergency operation I had a cardiac arrest which lasted 5 minutes.
I remember to this day walking toward my late wife and my dead mother. My wife was crying and my mother beckoning me to go back. Most of the time I was there in hospital I don't remember, but that remains vivid.
I am not trying to explain or justify any theory which is being discussed here, except to say it happened to me.
I am not a religious man, and like anyone else, simply do not know what happens when you die, so I don't worry unduly about the future.
All I will say about religion is that someone wrote the bible and presented the commandments which present a standard for a reasonable life devoid of murder, theft, and all forms of evil. In other words "do no harm".
Look in any church on a sunday and you;ll find mostly old people who are hoping for a life after death. If it gives them comfort, who are we to tell them otherwise.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
T J Hughes is AWFUL, I went in there the other day because my logic went 'well, it's name is a bit like TK Maxx so maybe it has similarly fabulous designer discounts' but, well.......apparently not. Never again, says I.

Not everyone is interested in, or can afford, designer clothes. TJs sells on price and functionality and this marketing strategy appears to be very successful

Just to throw in to the pot. The debate on here seems to centre around the validity / existence / cause of "religious experiences" - ie "I had a religious experience" "no you didn't, it was just a chemical reaction"...
Two points there:
Do people make a distinction between "religuous" and "spiritual" experiences? The former would be associated with organised religion ie taking place within the context of the orthodox doctrines and understanding of a particular belief system, the latter, perhaps, being a personal, spontaneous, emotional? reaction which would occur regardless of someone's knowledge of religion.
This leads me on to my second observation. As a being which has an intrinsically spiritual element to its make-up, I believe our spiritual side is present in every aspect of our day to day lives and does not just have to be confined to the sort of euphoric experience that has been described. All people, I believe, can access this spiritual experience, whether they are religious or not or whether they have the susceptible chemical make-up.
V.

Originally posted by Voise
Just to throw in to the pot. The debate on here seems to centre around the validity / existence / cause of "religious experiences" - ie "I had a religious experience" "no you didn't, it was just a chemical reaction"...
Two points there:
Do people make a distinction between "religuous" and "spiritual" experiences? The former would be associated with organised religion ie taking place within the context of the orthodox doctrines and understanding of a particular belief system, the latter, perhaps, being a personal, spontaneous, emotional? reaction which would occur regardless of someone's knowledge of religion.
This leads me on to my second observation. As a being which has an intrinsically spiritual element to its make-up, I believe our spiritual side is present in every aspect of our day to day lives and does not just have to be confined to the sort of euphoric experience that has been described. All people, I believe, can access this spiritual experience, whether they are religious or not or whether they have the susceptible chemical make-up.
V.

Good points there Voise about the spiritual dimension of our lives. Ultimately though, if spirituality is defined so broadly, almost anything can be labelled as a 'spiritual experience'.

We are in the realm of semantics here. For example, during the German cannibal case last year (when a person was on trial for killing and eating someone) the accused was asked what were his feelings when he was eating another human being. He replied that it was a profoundly spiritual experience!

Originally posted by Voise
Do people make a distinction between "religuous" and "spiritual" experiences?

I do.

The former, is sitting in a church, etc.

The latter, is natural, and has nothing to do with religion (although an individual whom is conditioned with religious belief, will naturally attach religious meaning to the experience).

The part of the experience before meaning is attached, is pure, is you, is spiritual.

It becomes a 'religious experience' when your concious mind starts to attach meaning to the experience, based on your belief system.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
the thing about blindness jamie, is that very often the other senses will become much more sensitive in order to try and compensate

Well, when I say blind, I don't mean physically blind (I am sure you don't either).

I mean that rationalism, the process of the human mind (if this, then that, therefore, bla bla) is only one activity of a human being.

Indulging in religious belief, is another activity.

It's my observation, that each has it's limitations. Infact, all human activity I think has limitations, and it's good to consider them.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Ultimately though, if spirituality is defined so broadly, almost anything can be labelled as a 'spiritual experience'.


I take my definition of spirituality from Matthew Fox:
...
"7 Everyone is born a mystic and a lover who experiences the unity of things and all are called to keep this mystic or lover of life alive.
8 All are called to be prophets which is to interfere with injustice.
....
10 God loves all of creation and science can help us more deeply penetrate and appreciate the mysteries and wisdom of God in creation. Science is no enemy of true religion.
11 Religion is not necessary but spirituality is.
12 “Jesus does not call us to a new religion but to life.” (Bonhoeffer) Spirituality is living life at a depth of newness and gratitude, courage and creativity, trust and letting go, compassion and justice.
13 Spirituality and religion are not the same thing any more than education and learning, law and justice, or commerce and stewardship are the same thing.
...."
excerpt from "A New Reformation" published 2005

If anyone is interested in challenging their own or orthodox views of religion (particularly Roman Catholic) I would heartily recommend Matthew Fox's work.

Re the NDE argument; I think there's evidence that other species go through the same sort of thing once they have been attacked by a carnivore and are in the process of being killed. The attacked animal ceases to struggle but is not dead, as if it's brain has decided there is no way out so it makes the final moments as painless as possible.

It could be a reaction inherited from way back in evolution. A sort of swamping the senses so pain is overruled by a feeling of euphoria, bright lights, noise etc. so all senses are blocked out.

We seem to be getting comments on the heaven/hell thing from just the Christian viewpoint. What are the views of non-christians on what happens to you when you pass away?

If you are an agnostic, do you believe in an afterlife or are you not sure?

Originally posted by Voise
Just to throw in to the pot. The debate on here seems to centre around the validity / existence / cause of "religious experiences" - ie "I had a religious experience" "no you didn't, it was just a chemical reaction"...
Two points there:
Do people make a distinction between "religuous" and "spiritual" experiences? The former would be associated with organised religion ie taking place within the context of the orthodox doctrines and understanding of a particular belief system, the latter, perhaps, being a personal, spontaneous, emotional? reaction which would occur regardless of someone's knowledge of religion.
This leads me on to my second observation. As a being which has an intrinsically spiritual element to its make-up, I believe our spiritual side is present in every aspect of our day to day lives and does not just have to be confined to the sort of euphoric experience that has been described. All people, I believe, can access this spiritual experience, whether they are religious or not or whether they have the susceptible chemical make-up.
V.

A very helpful contribution to the debate Voise. Your distinction between religion and spirituality has given me a lot of food for thought. Thank you.

I think I might have had a 'Near Death Experience' in the bath tonight.

Originally posted by Deavon
I think I might have had a 'Near Death Experience' in the bath tonight.

Water run cold? Slipped on the soap bar? Swallowed the yellow duck? Come on Deavon - spill the beans - what happened?! :suspect:

Well... Against my better judgment I will.


I feel asleep.

Then suddenly I was aware of someone else being in the room. Couldn't see anyone, but there was a person stood beside me. (Gosh I'm shivering now thinking about it).

Then it sounded like the water was fizzing. I floated slightly up, felt dangerously not anchored, a wave of panic went over me, then suddenly I woke up whilst taking a massive gasp as if I'd stopped breathing for a bit.

Gosh that seems really melodramatic. It must have happened quickly enough because the water was still hot.

It sounds silly reading it back. But it was true I swear.

Weird experience Deavon. Glad you're alright though. Methinks after reading about your near death experience that I'm going to stop drinking Stella in the bath from now onwards. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by redrobbo
Weird experience Deavon. Glad you're alright though. Methinks after reading about your near death experience that I'm going to stop drinking Stella in the bath from now onwards. :rolleyes:

I was stone cold sober M'lord! (Making up for it now though;) )

I Googled 'out of body sensation' and that's where I found the NDE experience. Strangely it seems that the sensation that someone else is there is a very common thing. Lots of people mention a person or 'angel' in the room. (Now that really makes me shiver, cause that was what happened to me).

That's why I mentioned it on this thread, I feel like I got a very small glimpse into... something else.

There's definitely something else here (or out there).

sounds to me like you farted and the smell knocked you out, lesson here is don't eat brussel sprouts....!!! :gag:

Originally posted by Deavon
Well... Against my better judgment I will.


I feel asleep.

Then suddenly I was aware of someone else being in the room. Couldn't see anyone, but there was a person stood beside me. (Gosh I'm shivering now thinking about it).

Then it sounded like the water was fizzing. I floated slightly up, felt dangerously not anchored, a wave of panic went over me, then suddenly I woke up whilst taking a massive gasp as if I'd stopped breathing for a bit.

Gosh that seems really melodramatic. It must have happened quickly enough because the water was still hot.

It sounds silly reading it back. But it was true I swear.