The scientific method consists of observation and talking about what you observed. The rest is accounting.

And tho I appreciate balanced books as much as anybody, let’s not let that distract us from our first step in any scientific investigation : Observation.

Which leads us to these methods that I roughed out for you there.

But if these methods are not your cup of tea then you can only blame yourself.

And if you prefer to ignore those who have gone where you have not, then, again, you can only blame yourself.

And repeating your thesis sways me not at all.

Have you tried whacking yourself in the head with a rock?

Ok.

Environments suggesting an afterlife may be encountered via certain meditation techniques.

Interviews with children who recall past lives suggests reincarnation.

Something fitting description of a “creator of the universe” may be encountered via certain meditation techniques.

Little people. Hmm. You got me there. But the literature is filled with reports. I hear that frequent fasting is good.

Spirits. I’d advise hallucinogens.

And of course, these methods unavoidably esoteric and depthy.

A rhetorical question avoids getting to the point because getting to the point is not the point of rhetoric. The point of rhetoric is emotional effect. Therefore when swift and easy arrival at the point is eschewed (a moment’s google), and an emotional effect is clearly evident, then rhetoric is clearly the point.

Tangentially, consider the phenomenon of “smugnorance”.

But ignorance is only really appreciated in retrospect.

When the ignoramus is contemporary, he knows he’s right. He’s thinking what all the smart modern people are thinking. Of course he’s right.

And any idea that contradicts him (and contradict the modern, right-thinking majority) is clearly foolishness.

So maybe it’s the modern right-thinkers that we need to be wary of.

Gee, sorry.

So many of us think of ourselves as smart and sensible while actually being as locked into the paradigm of the hour as a 13th century religious zealot. Same insanity, different century.

Did you not research the phenomenon a bit? Google it?

One hypothesis is that they didn’t touch the stuff that the doctors touched.

I mean I’m getting that your question is rhetorical. Which is to say it doesn’t get to the point quickly. And I think you’d be better off getting to the point quickly. So you can move on to more meaningful investigations.

Have you tried conducting the relevant experiments? That’s how we test such things.

All modern smart people know what the truth is. Always have. Always will.

Are you really wondering?

State your case and move on. You are probably filled with foolish ideas too. We all are. All you can do is grow.

I can’t believe that you take dreams seriously. Everybody knows they’re just hallucinations.

Afterlife? Reincarnation? It’s just fantasies.

A creator of the universe? Crazy.

Little people. Spirits. Sure people reported seeing them for thousands of years. But now we know better.

Don’t be crazy.

I know I’m beating this point into the dirt. But seriously.

That’s a very large thing (the art of treating me well) to be conveyed via such a narrow channel (chitchat). Your best gauge of other people is yourself. And that works very well.

But what if they doubt the truth that you and all other sane, intelligent people hold dear? They must be dogpiled and shat upon. Right?

After years of thought I have come to the conclusion that the only sane way to store tupperware is with each container attached to its lid, everything stacked. I know you end up having room for like half the tupperware that way but I think it’s the only way.

This makes me twitch a little. I have the exact same cabinet in my kitchen. How can it be? It’s so randomized that it’s antientropic!

People within subject x, y, z are tolerable, even beneficial, and I enjoy their company. People in general are boneheaded and infantile.