Suki,
I sure hope you haven't read every piece of literature on this, because there's an awful lot out there and that would take a million years.
Anyway, the reason that we think that in any case is because, like Billy said, they have been "thoroughly debunked." Every last claim that a theorist has come with to propose that it was an inside job has been shown to be false or irrelevant. Meanwhile, there is a huge abundance of evidence
against the theories.
So if someone opts in favor of believing the path with no evidence or substance [...] In your case, I believe you simply have been looking at the wrong sources. Edit: It occurred to me after I wrote this that the simple answer would have been to say that your original reason for thinking it was an inside job in this thread was debunked with the quickest and laziest of google searches, so that also contributes to my feeling that you haven't really read up on it too much from credible sources.
Your personal experience that you've described is a shame, but I don't see how it gives you any more insight into the matter. I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but I just don't see any relevance.
Finally, I am thinking you're right, I can only recall one time where I/we criticized "science news" from you specifically; the other times have been in other subjects, and it was that memory in the heart/gut/whatever thing. The way you're still talking about it as "newish" science news kind of concerns me. We showed you the article that the direct quotes were from, and it was a perfect textbook example of a sham and garbage article. It had no credibility and no truth to it whatsoever.
And, it was laughably false: in addition to citing a doctor and author who didn't exist as the source of the findings, the fictional scientist's name was the same as an old author who wrote thriller novels
about other parts of the body retaining memory. If you're still wondering why I think you need to be more discerning with your sources, please go back and read that thread. We showed you precisely why it could not be trusted. Your "news" could not have been any more transparently false. It's not new science. It's a hoax.
Anyway, it's up to you, Suki. It's up to you whether or not you want to believe in things that have no evidence or that have been debunked. It's up to you if you want to get offended by me saying that your sources so far have led you totally and completely astray. I meant what I said, though; I do reckon you're a smart person with at least some ability to distinguish between fact and nonsense, because you got out of Islam, and that's no small intellectual feat. I'll think it a pretty big shame if you insist on continuing to consult and believe these nonsense sources to form your opinions. But it's up to you.
Topic: split from cat stevens thread