Thread: Wild's and OBE's (Question)

Originally Posted by AstralBeginning

You cant say I am wrong just because YOU have a lack of experience. Find out for yourself. Attempt OBE's.

As I mentioned either earlier in this thread or another thread - read a book called My Big TOE by Thomas Campbell. He is a nuclear physicist.

Dont make the mistake of assuming just because science hasnt yet discovered something that it is not there. Additionally, you would be wise to also not assume that things do not exist beyond which current science can pin down and put in a lab.

One nuclear physicist does not encompass the scientific community.

Science, using their radical "scientific method" (who needs that?), and their research (witchcraft!), can't find what physics have "known" for centuries? It's not like those physics would have anytime to gain from the ignorant masses, right? Okay, now I'm mocking you.

Oh sure I believe that their are things that humans just can't understand. However, those things are so far removed from our every day lives that their effects are hard to quantify (like quantum physics, and even there we can make plenty of good guesses). But the brain is a machine, like any other machine, and thus is something science can in fact analyze. Neurons are connected to other sensory/motor systems or other neurons. If it didn't come from one of your five sense then it came from other neurons (ie yourself). It's not like there's a few neurons plugged into a magical box that no one's sure where they go.

Originally Posted by Siphorix

There has been thousands of tests and studies that show they are real, and at the same time show they arent. There is NO 100% deciding proof indicating whether or not.

There is? Alert the media! (I'm sure they've just had more important things to do)

To quote one of my older posts:

I really really hate this debate. It reminds me of watching media coverage on controversial topics (ie global warming). Often there exists a clear scientific consensus on the issue but there is always some group, industry sponsored or whatever, who disputes this, as an attempt to remain unbiased (or biased) the media diligently supports both sides and labels it as controversial. After seeing both sides (no matter how factually inaccurate one side is) the public assumes that both arguments must be valid, deciding for themselves, thus making it controversial. Economists call this a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm sure you can see why.

However this only barely applies as this is the only place I ever have to debate this. I'd say it's nearly universally accepted everywhere else.