Do We Need a Control Group?

[Samsonite801]

"Faith" is a lot to ask of me. My parents attempted to indoctrinate me into the roman catholic church and I hated and resisted every second of it. I am not a "religious" person at all. I do see the utility of Religion however, especially for some personalities.

Religion become a catch all for anything currently unexplained. As a result of advancements in the last century, religions domain has shrunk considerably and atheist's have used the fact that we have answered a significant number of "acts of god" as evidence of the lack of god(s). As a result many people who aspire to be like Sam Harris feel that contemplating anything that is not tangible, measurable and repeatable makes you dumb. Maybe it does, but I will not close the door on anything until I understand it and that includes anything that has a tangible or perceived benefit. Personally I do not believe in a "god(s)" but I do very much so believe we are "connected" some how and there is something we have very little understanding/awareness of that is involved in that.

People who aren't into spiritual type stuff, please just scroll on by (don't click to see text), but to answer noenegdod's post above...


So according to the many accounts of NDEs I've studied, most of these people come back and say that they discovered that religion and doctrine had nothing to do with the bigger picture, most of them drop their religions afterwords, but do come back for sure believing in a creator and a divine plan for for why we experience so much suffering on Earth, that it wasn't meant to be to stay on a planet of hardship forever, that's it's supposed to be hard here, as we learn opposition, and that's what strengthens us into mighty beings, as if this is some kind of school, only here to learn and grow into something better... They say that love is all that matters.

Some of them they say (if they did happen to stay in their religion), they only kept going to a church for the fellowship and the people, but the doctrine didn't mean anything to them anymore, that the real concept is more about learning to love everyone and overcome fear is why we came here. Atheists come back and believe in a creator too, and they typically never join a church either.

They say the 'God' figure (light, the love, creator, or whatever you want to call it, they are even hesitant to use the word God as they say it is very limiting to human understanding as it has a lot of dogma associated to the word), that this entity loves us all unconditionally and doesn't judge us (saying we are actually part of itself), it is us that might judge ourselves (if we happened to), as they say we chose to come here on free-agency and was for our own benefit to come here, or to that effect, and afterwords, we may check on how we did to see if we did what we came here to do, as if it's some kind of game to see if we can come here and figure out what our divine purpose was maybe to learn a specific valuable thing from living it out in the physical form.

Like that humans got it all wrong, this God entity is not like an angry man figure with a long beard, sitting up there waiting to punish you, nothing of the sort, that it is more like an all-encompassing energy source of divine intelligence (not male nor female). The best way they describe the light energy is that its essence is pure love, like there is no way to fully describe it in human words. They say like take the most love you ever felt on Earth and times it by a million billion trillion (like think of just the energy contained in one galaxy, and think of how many galaxies are out there, and think of the sum of all energy existing everywhere all at once).

They would also say, that we are all connected on a higher frequency of light (think like other dimension, or maybe the quantum universe) and when one fights against another or hurts another, it is actually same like hurting self. They would say that they would have a 'life review' process (not everyone claimed to have one of these but are very common), where they would see their whole life flash before them super fast (from birth to the point they died), and they could see every thought, action, and deed they did, good and bad, replayed in front of them (no judgement, only what happened, as it happened), where they would experience several perspectives, one from self, one from each of everyone else (like behind their eyes, experiencing it from all others' POVs), and one from a 3rd person 'observer' POV (like a wiser sense of self POV) looking down on the scene, where they could see how their decisions and actions affected self and everyone else (both good and bad), and how they rippled out to the entire world population. They coined it the term, 'ripple effect'.

Like even a word they made up that the world had never heard before, and how it would trickle out to the world and become a common word that everyone would use as a new slang. Or giving someone a compliment and making their day brighter, and they would go off and compliment 10 other people that day, because they were in a better mood from that compliment, and so forth. Or the guy who said he would bully kids in school, and get in fights, and the life review replayed a fight where he threw a bunch of punches in the face of a kid, and he said in that life review he got to sit behind the kid's eyeballs and feel every punch he threw, and feel what everyone around watching the fight were feeling and thinking in that moment, all at the same time.

Again, there are people who will read this stuff and not like it, but there will be others who will read this and be curious to learn more. I say, don't believe me, go learn about this stuff yourself and make your own thoughts about it. And others will choose it's hogwash to them, I don't really care, I am just fascinated by the subject, because I've learned too much about this kind of stuff for many years since 1994, had many synchronicities, dreams I never could've created, and so forth, and the pieces fit too perfect, the more I learn.


I could go on and on, but of course this is a bit off-topic.

Just to pull it back on-topic, Yes, maybe we do need a control group for unvaccinated people, and I would be happy to volunteer and join a control group, so I could get in on a government vaccination exception list hehe.

 

[Bob B]

If comparing it to dying in a vehicle crash .... seems like the comparison would be what are your chances of dying if you have a crash ..... not your chances of dying if you are going for a drive.

Overall chances of dying from Covid would be much different that your chances if you already have it.

 

[Denver]

Its sad that people don't understand basic mathematical concepts anymore....

If you had a 0.5% chance of dying every time you got into your car, would you still drive?

If only 99.5% of airplanes made it to their destination without crashing, would you still fly?

By the way, a far higher percentage of people who suffer through covid19 end up with long term medical issues.. So while they aren't part of the death statistics, they can end up with a variety of undesirable health effects..

https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein
your maths are wrong. the 1/2 of 1% you cite is for each single instance of driving. the 1/2 of 1% I cite is for each instance of contracting an infection.

I'll be fine and you'll be full of god knows what misshapen proteins from an anti-viral with an abysmal record..

 

[MurphyGuy]

https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein
your maths are wrong. the 1/2 of 1% you cite is for each single instance of driving. the 1/2 of 1% I cite is for each instance of contracting an infection.

I'll be fine and you'll be full of god knows what misshapen proteins from an anti-viral with an abysmal record..

1) I didn't cite anything..
2) No, it specifically says lifetime chance of dying in a vehicle accident.

No comment on what you cite.. I haven't looked up any of these statistics, I was just trying to show that covid is a far higher risk than driving.

 

[Shale MacGregor]

Inflammatory? I posted it because it was true.

Not that vaccination made you more susceptible, but that it appeared to provide less protection than previous infection. (At least that data, from that environment in U.K. Somehow, the U.S. managed to show that vaccination was 5x more effective than previous infection. Which makes me doubt them.)

I'll take the vaccine, thank you.

The vaccinated are more likely to catch covid, that was the title.

If you don't see how a title only including some of the details can appear inflammatory, then let me provide you a few examples.

Thread title: Killing kittens is the best
Rest of thread: Killing kittens is the best way to begin your journey down a horrific road to murder and true psychopathy.

Thread title: Children are more likely to die than adults
Rest of thread: Children more likely to die than adults from playground accidents

 

[Shale MacGregor]

the worst covid is survived by 99.5% of those infected. I'll happily take my chances.

RIP. Check your stats mate.

 

[Shale MacGregor]

but do come back for sure believing in a creator and a divine plan for for why we experience so much suffering on Earth

and this divine plan that explains suffering is what? That to ascend to the next level of existence we have to understand true suffering since we will be the one causing it to others as we gain power in the multiverse?

The best way they describe the light energy is that its essence is pure love, like there is no way to fully describe it in human words. They say like take the most love you ever felt on Earth and times it by a million billion trillion (like think of just the energy contained in one galaxy, and think of how many galaxies are out there, and think of the sum of all energy existing everywhere all at once).

I love my dog so much that I strapped a shock collar to him and make sure he spends just the right percentage of his life in pain. Sometimes intense, sometimes chronic, and sometimes in the middle of the night when he is sleeping. I obviously don't love him as much as the creator loves us or I would find a way to give him intelligence enough to be psychologically damaged by the pain.

Again, there are people who will read this stuff and not like it

This is where you and many others go off the rails... It isn't about liking something, it is about something being true. We have a method for finding answers to questions and if we reach a point where we don't know (yet), we don't make up fanciful stories and perpetuate them. Maybe that is important for societies at some point in their development, but eventually, I hope we grow out of believing in imaginary friends. Especially when those friends tell us to kill people who don't have the same imaginary friend.

 

[noenegdod]

Its sad that people don't understand basic mathematical concepts anymore....

If you had a 0.5% chance of dying every time you got into your car, would you still drive?

If only 99.5% of airplanes made it to their destination without crashing, would you still fly?

By the way, a far higher percentage of people who suffer through covid19 end up with long term medical issues.. So while they aren't part of the death statistics, they can end up with a variety of undesirable health effects..

It is just as sad that people do not understand basic statistical concepts.....

A healthy 5-15 year old has essentially 0.000 chance of an undesirable outcome from covid 19. You on the other hand have a 10-30% chance of a severe outcome. The numbers you like to use are averages over the whole population and ignore the "nuances" because you believe it empowers you to say dumb things like you have said above.

 

[MurphyGuy]

It is just as sad that people do not understand basic statistical concepts.....

A healthy 5-15 year old has essentially 0.000 chance of an undesirable outcome from covid 19. You on the other hand have a 10-30% chance of a severe outcome. The numbers you like to use are averages over the whole population and ignore the "nuances" because you believe it empowers you to say dumb things like you have said above.

Ok.. Can you show me which numbers you are referring to? How about just quoting where I cited some numbers?

 

[noenegdod]

Ok.. Can you show me which numbers you are referring to? How about just quoting where I cited some numbers?

Already did. It was right in the post you quoted but sure:

Its sad that people don't understand basic mathematical concepts anymore....

If you had a 0.5% chance of dying every time you got into your car, would you still drive?

If only 99.5% of airplanes made it to their destination without crashing, would you still fly?

By the way, a far higher percentage of people who suffer through covid19 end up with long term medical issues.. So while they aren't part of the death statistics, they can end up with a variety of undesirable health effects..

 

[MurphyGuy]

Already did. It was right in the post you quoted but sure:

Those aren't my numbers.. I was quoting the 0.5% cited by the member I was replying to and made no claim as to their validity. I was only showing that a 1/2 of a percent is actually pretty significant when the consequences are severe.

 

[noenegdod]

Those aren't my numbers.. I was quoting the 0.5% cited by the member I was replying to and made no claim as to their validity. I was only showing that a 1/2 of a percent is actually pretty significant when the consequences are severe.

Of course .5% is a very significant risk if the consequences are severe. The person you were responding to already stated they were willing to accept that level of risk in regards to covid 19, which the discussion is about. We are not talking about air or car travel. You associated those rates with air and ground travel so they are your numbers. It is this kind of BS and talking in circles that make discussing anything like this so tedious.

 

[Hedges]

The vaccinated are more likely to catch covid, that was the title.

If you don't see how a title only including some of the details can appear inflammatory, then let me provide you a few examples.

True ...
I was looking into such an anti-vaxxer claim, which appeared to be that being vaccinated makes you more vulnerable than unvaccinated.
The statistics for a particular location looked that way, except the article indicated virtually all had antibodies, even the unvaccinated. So what it really showed was that immunity from natural infection was more effective than from vaccination, at least before correcting for other variable.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Of course .5% is a very significant risk if the consequences are severe. The person you were responding to already stated they were willing to accept that level of risk in regards to covid 19, which the discussion is about. We are not talking about air or car travel. You associated those rates with air and ground travel so they are your numbers. It is this kind of BS and talking in circles that make discussing anything like this so tedious.

We can solidly agree on that point... but to be fair and realistic about it, it is a natural effect of multiple people talking about multiple points using a keyboard.

I make no comment on the validity of the numbers being discussed because, as someone who's been an engineer for 30 years, I don't trust these specific types of statistics because they can be inadvertently skewed or intentionally manipulated.

I remember a gun control debate statistic that included the cops in the homicide numbers.. My only intention was to indicate that 0.5% is not a small number..

 

[Shale MacGregor]

True ...
I was looking into such an anti-vaxxer claim, which appeared to be that being vaccinated makes you more vulnerable than unvaccinated.
The statistics for a particular location looked that way, except the article indicated virtually all had antibodies, even the unvaccinated. So what it really showed was that immunity from natural infection was more effective than from vaccination, at least before correcting for other variable.

I didn't take it amiss, I just said the title roped me in. Good marketing

 

[Samsonite801]

and this divine plan that explains suffering is what?

I love my dog so much that I strapped a shock collar to him and make sure he spends just the right percentage of his life in pain.

This is where you and many others go off the rails... It isn't about liking something, it is about something being true.

Just responding to Shale here, is off-topic so don't click to see text unless you agree this is fine to see something off topic.


Well first off, I figured you might be just curious enough to click and read my text above anyway, even though maybe I had thought you'd perhaps want to just scroll on by ?

On your first point, in my opinion, and based on some of these NDE views and other observations I've made throughout my life, I think a lot of the reason we would have wanted subject ourselves to this place called Earth is to taste the knowledge of opposition. Some people experience more of it than others here. A person who experiences a greater deal of pain or suffering can come to a place of appreciation where they can understand and cherish a greater deal of pleasure. Without opposition we generally wouldn't know what each of them really is in the most genuine sense.

In my observation, I find that the more pain someone had experienced, the more pleasure they can appreciate. Or the more sadness one had endured, the more happiness they can appreciate. These extremes are all relative to the opposite. Pick any antonym and these opposites are all relative to one another. Sad/happy, joy/sorrow, pain/pleasure, hate/love, etc...

Like a kid who grew up in a rich family, had all the money he ever wanted, fed with a silver spoon, never had to work a hard day in his life, he may not really have an appreciation for what it means how 'lucky' (if you want to use that word) he was, as he has never not had anything he ever could want. He may eventually come to a place where he can't find anything that makes him happy anymore, because he may lack the perspective of the opposite side of the spectrum.

Where a person who grew up dirt poor, who worked hard and never made traction in his financial life for most of his life, and then one day he finally came around, found the edge he needed and started making it big, he is more likely to really appreciate the real power he has gained, and cherish it to a higher degree.

Or in my case for example, I had an accident when I was young at 19, where I broke my back, busted both ankles, and burned my hands real bad. I have permanent effects from this and still live a life of often chronic pain (I have 5 fused lumbar vertebrae, both ankles fused solid, missing several fingers, etc). I still can't really run more than what looks to be a funny-looking hobble today. I had to fight for years to get a beautiful life back. Before the accident I was very mentally weak and had no real confidence or self-esteem. Then the accident initially crushed that sense of low even further.

After all the struggle, I became a survivor, and I do not consider myself disabled today, I am not a victim in life, I can do anything I need and succeed to get the job done whatever it is. If I can sit down for one moment in a day for even 5 minutes and say I am not in pain, I look at this as a gift, and can really sit with it and enjoy this moment of pleasure a lot more than your average person can.

I have learned so many things about myself from going through a life of pain, many people cannot even scratch the surface and comprehend what use suffering can provide as potential benefit, lots of people just sit around complaining their lives away (when their lives are perfectly fine) and don't know how to give gratitude for anything, because life could certainly get a lot worse, many people don't really appreciate the simplest of things we take for granted every day.

I've lived down in Mexico for extended times in certain places where people don't have anything but the clothes they're wearing and the hammock they sleep in, missing half the teeth in their mouth, and they are generally more happy than your average American with their McMansion. There are lots of examples to show that perspective makes all the difference, and you learn perspective as you taste opposition.


On your second point, I'm not really sure what you are getting at with your dog. I wish we could talk to animals too, this is probably one of the main reasons I don't own a pet. I love to play with other people's pets though.


On your last point. '...It's about something being true'.. Well, lots of science believers tend to believe in science as if it is all 100% true, even though science firms receive financial contributions from other donors who can have their own agendas. There are aspects of science we can trust, because we can see them in action everyday. Like we know airplanes fly, we know gravity works, and we know if you mix brake fluid with chlorine it will blow up. But what about something like the double-slit experiment, or what happens when they smash accelerated particles together and explain what is happening? Say a few science firms do an experiment and confirm something they say is true, there is still an element of trust and faith we have to put into their analysis, to say that they are being all truthful. Just because they say they are truthful or got the result they say they got through their 'scientific process', we still have to trust them as a common man to a certain extent.

Same goes with paranormal phenomenon, like with an NDE for example, there are multi-millions of reported stories being researched, many more than the science experiments that occur, they have many commonalities.

See, perhaps maybe you believe science to be accurate and truthful, and you may think paranormal phenomenon like NDEs to be BS. I actually view it like everything is mostly BS, including science (unless I've actually witnessed the phenomenon myself).

I take all things with an open mind, study all perspectives, and all things other humans report, compare and look for commonalities, and in time, likelihoods become more apparent. But still at the end of the day, what do I really know? There are only probabilities, and things that start to make more and more sense to me as I paint my picture of 'the true nature of things' (to me)... You may think different stuff.

In my opinion, I see maybe a couple science experiments where they were supposedly conducted in a controlled environment using 'scientific process', even though they may be funded by special interest groups, and sometimes we get a few science firms who study the same thing and supposedly come to the same conclusion. Ask the CDC how scientific some of their conclusions are and what the numbers and findings are based on (and the purpose their findings are meant to portray), follow the money is the real science in many cases...

But what if we had millions of reports world wide of a near death phenomenon where people report very similar events, for decades after decades, even centuries? Should we discount those millions of personal accounts? Even when irrefutable proof was confirmed in numbers of them? I was reading books about NDE back in 1994 when internet was small, there was no You Tube, it was books only, with the very occasional TV show on the topic, or a VHS tape you could get.

Granted, in this day today, I think NDE phenomenon has been sensationalized, and probably there exist fake accountings, where people make up stories and turn them into money-making enterprises, but back when I started studying about them, there was no money to make off telling these stories, most people wouldn't buy in. These people presenting the stories were losing money to tell the story, they were going to great lengths to share their claims with the world. There was less chance of copycats or whatever as you could only find very few hard-to-find books from around the world in different languages and countries, you couldn't do a google search and easily find thousands of stories.

Today it takes a bit more discerning eye as you study these, to filter out the noise. There have been a few people who had previously worked for government agencies though, who are trained in the art of spotting liars, and they have gotten into studying NDEs and determining who they think are telling the truth and ones that could be making up a story (guys who know how to read facial expressions, gestures, sentence patterns, and such), to determine if they believe the person is telling the truth or not.

The CIA even released a document from the Dept of Defense on out-of-body travel, should we just ignore any findings by everyone in humanity since the mainstream science community, full of so much historical dogma, refuses to acknowledge that there would or could be a world of life beyond the physical eye or scientific instrument of measurement?
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf
I guess my point is that, yes, NDE or other paranormal phenomenons take some level of faith to have a desire to study further, but so does a lot of science, relating to the things they tell us where we can't see or prove for ourselves. All things we haven't personally experienced take a level of faith to ponder and consider about, since in the end, we are all just putting our belief in what another human-being told of, or a picture being painted to us, prettymuch most of the time.

Nobody can tell you anything, you have to travel the journey and find out what you think you know for yourself. But it starts with an open mind, the ability to imagine that there could be a world beyond the walls of the box one is in.

 

[Bob B]

Dhasper, Johnson, Murphyguy, Shale Macgregor .... you guys want to put down anyone who has ANY positive view of religion .... but your religion seems to be some sort of far left agenda.

You want to know who on here is Christian ... are you guys Marxists?

 

[Shale MacGregor]

Dhasper, Johnson, Murphyguy, Shale Macgregor .... you guys want to put down anyone who has ANY positive view of religion .... but your religion seems to be some sort of far left agenda.

You want to know who on here is Christian ... are you guys Marxists?

I will respond, but I know you will ignore what I type as usual and hurl some other accusation out.

I think some religions can have a positive effect on peoples lives, in fact religion in general was beneficial to some extent just like tribalism. The issue is once we began to spread further and wider, these butted up against each other and now cause a significant amount of problems.

I put down people who believe in something without good reason, and it just so happens to be that religion is often from indoctrination and teaching people to not think for themselves or to think critically.

I know you haven't read or listened to most of what I've said because calling me far left is hilarious, just because I want proof and good science vs hopes and dreams?

Do you even know what a Marxist is??? Socialism or Communism over Capitalism.... who in these threads have been against Capitalism? Not me, I think that it helped us get a vaccine so quickly.

 

[Shale MacGregor]

Spoiler: SAmsonite

Well first off, I figured you might be just curious enough to click and read my text above anyway, even though maybe I had thought you'd perhaps want to just scroll on by ?

Spoiler: SAmsonite

Nope, I really enjoy discourse but I won't meet people halfway if I don't agree with their points so it is often taken as contrarianism or objectivism.

On your first point, in my opinion, and based on some of these NDE views and other observations I've made throughout my life, I think a lot of the reason we would have wanted subject ourselves to this place called Earth is to taste the knowledge of opposition. Some people experience more of it than others here. A person who experiences a greater deal of pain or suffering can come to a place of appreciation where they can understand and cherish a greater deal of pleasure. Without opposition we generally wouldn't know what each of them really is in the most genuine sense.

In my observation, I find that the more pain someone had experienced, the more pleasure they can appreciate. Or the more sadness one had endured, the more happiness they can appreciate. These extremes are all relative to the opposite. Pick any antonym and these opposites are all relative to one another. Sad/happy, joy/sorrow, pain/pleasure, hate/love, etc...

Like a kid who grew up in a rich family, had all the money he ever wanted, fed with a silver spoon, never had to work a hard day in his life, he may not really have an appreciation for what it means how 'lucky' (if you want to use that word) he was, as he has never not had anything he ever could want. He may eventually come to a place where he can't find anything that makes him happy anymore, because he may lack the perspective of the opposite side of the spectrum.

Where a person who grew up dirt poor, who worked hard and never made traction in his financial life for most of his life, and then one day he finally came around, found the edge he needed and started making it big, he is more likely to really appreciate the real power he has gained, and cherish it to a higher degree.

I get the study of contrasts, but you have to realize that for every success story there are dozens of failure stories. What benefit of suffering does the 4yr old child with cancer have? What benefit does their mother have watching them die, powerless? The point is that a benevolent, all loving all powerful creator would hopefully be smart enough to come up with a better system than this, and if they haven't then I don't buy that they are loving. The way many get around this is by defining good by the creator, and that is just a bunch of bs. God is good, so cancer in babies is good.

On your second point, I'm not really sure what you are getting at with your dog. I wish we could talk to animals too, this is probably one of the main reasons I don't own a pet. I love to play with other people's pets though.

Imagine I am the creator, and the god is the human, then reprocess that comparison please.

On your last point. '...It's about something being true'.. Well, lots of science believers tend to believe in science as if it is all 100% true,

This is a major misstatement of how science works. The whole point of science is to prove things wrong, and keep trying to. When the experiments keep proving it right then eventually we gain a strong certainty. Right now the evidence points that vaccines are beneficial.... in 20 years we might find out that isn't the case... guess what, we can't play guessing games, we have to act on what we currently know to appear to be true.

even though science firms receive financial contributions from other donors who can have their own agendas.

Conspiracy.... Theories...
You expect every doctor, every scientist who is studying this stuff to go along with it? There would have been some to come forward with proof that this was happening, not just some spotlight hungry ambulance chasers who are taking advantage of a bad situation.

But what about something like the double-slit experiment, or what happens when they smash accelerated particles together and explain what is happening? Say a few science firms do an experiment and confirm something th

One of the best results in science is to prove a previous scientific theory or experiment wrong. You can win noble prizes for upsetting a long-held standard in science. This almost the entire motivation of the scientific method. It is about impossible to prove something true, instead you prove it likely based on the criteria and limitations you did the experiment with... When enough of that stacks up, and it is repeatable, we gain certainty but not absolute certainty....

Same goes with paranormal phenomenon, like with an NDE for example, there are multi-millions of reported stories being researched, many more than the science experiments that occur, they have many commonalities.

Multi- millions?

See, perhaps maybe you believe science to be accurate and truthful, and you may think paranormal phenomenon like NDEs to be BS. I actually view it like everything is mostly BS, including science (unless I've actually witnessed the phenomenon myself).

That works for you, but if that's how scientists behaved they'd have to start over at the dawn of technology every time to make sure it is all true.

I take all things with an open mind, study all perspectives, and all things other humans report, compare and look for commonalities, and in time, likelihoods become more apparent. But still at the end of the day, what do I really know?

Have you ever had dreams? Have you ever passed out from lack of oxygen? A lot of these things happen. One time I passed out and had a 3.5 hour dream and woke up 2 seconds later according to witnesses, and remembered all the made up details of that dream.... Have you noticed how things like alien abductions all tend to share the same details, is that because they are all being abducted by the same aliens, or because it was planted in their head and so they repeat it... How many with NDE's experience what they heard about because they heard of it?

In my opinionAsk the CDC how scientific some of their conclusions are and what the numbers and findings are based on (and the purpose their findings are meant to portray), follow the money is the real science in many cases...

They ARE scientific because they are following a certain process that has been established and vetted and peer reviewed. Just because science is wrong sometimes doesn't make it science... you want to find out why they were wrong so it can be avoided in the future if at all possible.

But what if we had millions of reports world wide of a near death phenomenon where people report very similar events, for decades after decades, even centuries? Should we discount those millions of personal accounts?

As soon as people share the story it becomes tainted by previous knowledge.

Even when irrefutable proof was confirmed in numbers of them? I was reading books about NDE back in 1994 when internet was small, there was no You Tube, it was books only, with the very occasional TV show on the topic, or a VHS tape you could get.

That wouldn't be irrefutable proof.

The CIA even released a document from the Dept of Defense on out-of-body travel, should we just ignore any findings by everyone in humanity

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf

I read this a while ago... all tests have found this not to be the case. Where are all the nobel prize winners for taking this research, testing this and proving it? It would be amazing, I'd love for some things to be real but the time for me to believe them is when there is repeatable evidence. You said yourself that you don't believe in science that you haven't seen, why believe in this just because people wrote about it?

 

[Cdkipp]

Dhasper, Johnson, Murphyguy, Shale Macgregor .... you guys want to put down anyone who has ANY positive view of religion .... but your religion seems to be some sort of far left agenda.

You want to know who on here is Christian ... are you guys Marxists?

I am not involved in this discussion. Labels make things so easy don't they Bob.