What a load of nonsense. If Dawkins was making a program on atheism, why would he want it distracted with talk of anything else? I agree with Dawkins and with Sheldrake, that they can't agree with each other is neither here nor there, neither of them are my gurus, I think my own thoughts and make my own mind up. Don't follow leaders...
A sciences level of development is determined by the extent to which it is capable of a crisis in its basic concepts. Dawkins doesnt question these fundamental concepts, he assumes their validity.
Athiests are just left brained people. Usually academically intelligent because that's what's thaught in schools. They will always be athiests if they change beause there nto capable of 'getting' the part of a soul or a higher soul, whereas a right brained person would be more connected to that. For what it's worth i do think organised religion is outdated, but spirtuality will only get stronger in my opinion. There are now right brained scientists, rupert sheldrake for example.
@Liam2621 Good point. I would however point out that its the whole brain thinking that we are after. A synthesis is required for us to progress. Science is left brained because it primarily uses reductionism and analytic thinking to arrive at conclusions. This idea comes from the foundations of science (or natural philosophy) being grounded epistemologically and metaphysically in the "I think therefore I am"
Heidegger gives a good reason to doubt this "certainty" in "What is a thing"
To me, it sounds like Richard Dawkins was honestly wanting to give him the opportuntiy, but then Sheldrake popped his evidence for telepathy up and Dawkins, knowing he only had a certain amount of time to fit in the documentary, figured it didn't fit with the theme. He may have even felt a bit irked, depending on how late it was brought up or how it was pitched. His documentary's agenda probably was really another mission to debunk certain religions. And evidence for telepathy doesn't fit
@peepo9000 -Oh Yes ! TV shows turn large complex subjects into a few sound bites between the ads. Religion and ESP and Afterlife are inextricably connected in the heads of many skeptics. It seems Odd. Bu there is murky logic to it which they cant fit into a few sound bites. Oh Television !
It is precisely this contempt for evidence that makes Dawkins and those like him less than credible. I'm not talking about religion here, either. I'm talking about repeatable experiments that show evidence for something that can't be accounted for by the Standard Model. What that something is, of course, is open to debate. Perhaps there's a way to fit it into the Standard Model, perhaps a new model is needed. We don't yet know. It's sad that science is subject to such restrictive thinking.
@qtzlctl2012 5-6 years ago. I dont recall the issue.The article was about the virtually unbreakable grip that religion has on mankind and its very much an atheist evolutionist magazine but Dawkins is not the darling of the scientific establishment and he was criticised in the article. You can search NS database if you pay money. Ho Ho
@qtzlctl2012 I have video of an NS article demoishing Evolutionary theory and western science being asleep at the wheel for 150 yrs. You wanna quarrel right ?
@jdx350 I agree that Dawkins and other materialist become less credible when they dismiss any evidence for trascendental phenomena. There appears to be a flaw in the scienific method itself which rests on certain presuppositions regarding the nature of reality. As a sudent of philosophy I have studied these presuppositions and have concluded that positivistic science only gives us part of the picture of reality.
A new paradigm is needed. Check out Peter Russel "The primacy of consciousness"
@ItsHeebyGeeby gee a student of philosophy doubts the value of evidence (of course you'll say you don't cause you have no clue what evidence is), what a shocker. Nietzsche fan?
@qtzlctl2012 I dont have a problem with science. I have a problem with sciences claims about what serves as knowledge (including what serves as evidence). Assuming you know your history of science, you would understand then, that the ontological foundations of science delimit its area of enquiry. Thomas Kuhn said that a science progresses when a crisis in its fundamental concepts occur. I.e Newton v's Einstein. or Aristotle vs Newton.
@ItsHeebyGeeby Aristotle vs newton makes as much sense as a baseball player versus a gardner. Einstein didn't reverse Newton, he expanded it, it wasn't a "crisis" at all.
Your doubts about knowledge are stupid, frankly. Science tests what can be tested, pretty much taht's it. If you think there's something "beyond that limit" then by definition you cannot show it to me and does not manifest in reality. Therefore, doesn't exist.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. - Albert Einstein. Go Rupert!
What a stinking pile of bullshit - you obviously wouldn't know a scientific fact if it bit you in the ass, you cocksucking fraud!
Atheism is the *lack* of supernatural beliefs due to the *lack of evidence* for them. People like you take advantage of people's need to believe in comforting claptrap, because you have no conscience. You are a CON who belongs in jail!
@kimbo99 Are you trying to imply that people should be protected from the truth if it might make them feel bad, if only temporarily? Finding out about Santa was so long ago that I don't remember how I reacted, but I was probably shocked at first, then in denial and finally acceptance with a sense of having learned something. You should try that with religion and other irrational beliefs - it's a load off one's psyche at the very least.
You're apparent sense of conviction that you can "simply recognize" B.S. is not the result of dispassionate reasoning but merely AN OPINION formed unconsciously in the reptillian part of your brain, edited by your biases. The anger with which you argue is the smoking gun that it is your amygdala calling the shots and not your neocortex. I might suggest you read the article "The Certainty Epidemic" if you can
summon the courage to see your convictions for what they really are.
@YD8189 It's quite amazing how you have the arrogance to psychoanalyze me at a distance. My dismissal of supernatural claims is based upon the lack of evidence for them and is hardly mere opinion. It would be very interesting to discover that some of them might be true, however after thousands of years of waiting for this 'truth' to be discovered the most reasonable default position to take is one of disbelief - seasoned with a good dose of sarcasm at the gullibility of one's fellow primates.
Amazing? Hardly. Police departments do it routinely. You are familiar, or am I assuming too much, with criminal profiling? It's hardly a reach to suggest that someone who labels another as a "Cocksucking fraud" possesses a low tolerance of frustration for opinions contrary to his own. I also have considerable doubt about your standards of evidence and imagine that to you evidence is whatever supports your beliefs and that which doesn't is "an unproven premise".
@YD8189@hznfrst what ever happened to debating? Nowadays nobody debates. It's just "You're wrong" "No you're wrong" "No you're an idiot" "No YOU're an idiot". Jesus, a bunch of big words sprinkled in with even bigger insults does not make a debate. This is all I ever see people do while they wait for the bigger debaters to find evidence for them so they can rub it in the other sides face. What's the point? If it's going to be like that? What's the point?
@hznfrst Plenty of evidence if you go and research, but you haven't have you now
Not having a go at you, but before we sound off make sure,you have the facts straight. Its not of interest to you, thats fine, so hence you beiieve there is no evidence, there is plenty
@Rogerlowrey2222 I see on your profile that "quantum mechanics" is one of your interests, but I'd bet the farm you couldn't actually do any quantum mechanics if your life depended on it. I have done it, and it requires a great deal of training in both math and physics. QM is a buzzword that you anti-science types use to con the gullible into buying your books and squandering their money on your lectures, where you never miss a chance to slander real scientists like Dawins. You disgust me.
@FSApetheist Excuse me, but atheists define what atheism means, not some disingenuous believers with an agenda. If you got that definition out of a dictionary the dictionary is wrong - no atheist I've ever met defines it the way you're trying to. If you can't even accept that you're not willing to learn anything and are nothing but a propagandist for ignorance.
You would like to get to rewrite the english language, hahahahahahahahah
Sorry but it does not work that way.
Atheism is the belief there is no god, Saying you lack belief in the supernatural is not a property of the atheist and does not tell us what atheism is, it is saying what you do not do, what you do not do is not what atheism is.
I don't believe there's not alot I could learn from someone who probably knows shamefully little about Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, or Taoism, and who, I'm guessing approaches the great questions of life in black or white terms, rather than one who possesses the intellectual integrity to admit that there are many questions currently beyond human understanding. Judging by the paucity of your arguments, "The Gospel Accordiing to HZNFRST" must be a really thin read.
@YD8189 You certainly have the ability to read things into others' comments that simply aren't there! I've read plenty about all kinds of religions, but that isn't necessary to become skeptical about them since their universal, unproved premise of a supernatural realm of invisible beings is beyond ridiculous. It;s only believers who are certain about these things, not atheists. Of course we don't know everything - that's what makes life interesting and science valuable!
I'm not reading into your comments; I'm merely pointing out that terms such as "cocksucker" and "stinking pile of bullshit" suggest you are consumed with anger. Individuals compelled to resort to such vitriole to make a point are are neither objective or reasoning: they are emoting. You claim not to know "everything," merely that what is isaccessible to your senses and counterintuitive to you is "beyond ridiulous". Clearly, you can't see the contradiction in that position.
@YD8189 So you're a tone troll on top of everything else. If you want people to accept your eccentric beliefs then you have to provide *evidence*, which you can't. Your only defense to criticism then becomes resorting to being "offended" by your critics' sarcastic remarks born of frustration at your inability to admit that *you* might be wrong. You refuse to acknowledge that all we skeptics want is *evidence* and we'd be happy to consider it. You are hopeless.
What beliefs have I stated? I can think of only one: that your sense of conviction is a fraud. It is not based on reason but emotion and as I said, your sense of outrage is an indication of emotional reasoning: "I feel therefore it is."
I don't need evidence to support an intuition about you that I have based on an obscenity-laced post.
I can admit I may be wrong about you--it's a remote possibility but I can admit it. Can you say the same about kimbo99?
@hznfrst I understand your need for evidence, however when we are dealing with any transcendental phenomena we cannot necessarily use standard physical criteria for our evidence. The scientific method at its roots has view of reality that is materialist. The natural philosophers (scientist) of the past such as Rene Descarte set up the presuppositions about the nature of reality which grounded the scientific world view. This ground has been challenged by philosophers such as Martin Heidegger.
@ItsHeebyGeeby What an insane statement! If there is no evidence why do you continue to waste time on it? It's obvious all you woo-lovers have a deep-seated need to believe "there must be more" - this enormous universe full of stars, galaxies, planets, black holes, warped space and time, relativity and quantum mechanics and who knows what else isn't enough for you?? All these phenomena were discovered by the scientific method, which *works* because it *demands* evidence! You're such fools.
"People like you take advantage of people's need to believe in comforting claptrap"
The atheist bus campaign said " There's probably no god, Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"
The atheist campaign let the cat out of the bag and the operative word there is "WORRYING" the atheist hates the thought of being judged and worries about it, So the atheist bus campaign comforts atheists like you who need to believe there is no god and help them feel there is nothing to worry about.
I put a quote for Carl Sagan at the beginning of my book about psi phenomena. I respected his sceptical though fair and scientific approach. It is clearly distinct from that of Dawkins. I should say that I respect Dawkins on other fronts though. I don't believe he knows he is throwing the baby out with the bath water so to speak.
@metaRising Toward the end of his career Sagan became less materialistic, to his credit. Said recinarantuion should be looked at dispassionately. And he did condemn the pseudo skeptical excesses of the followers of James Randi and Dawkins and the CSICOP skeptic HQ.
@kimbo99 You're full of shit, tossing ad hominems at people who disagree with you and assuming some psychological trauma made them "bitter." This makes you a clueless idiot, especially disingenuous for trying to recruit Carl Sagan to your woo-infested world view.
@gamesbok You think you're being clever, but the topic is telepathy -- and there is lots of good research substantiating it. But anything that conflicts with Dawkin's cherished nihlist dogma is swept under the carpet. He is the Jimmy swaggart of science. its guys like him that gave Copernicus and Galileo such a hard time in years gone by. Wake up.
@Gnosis2078 My comment was not about telepathy, my comment was about the use of words, and it remains the case that evidence of the transcendental is a contradiction in terms.
@gamesbok I suppose that "literally" you are right by today's definitions. However, some of what is currently defined as transcendental may become measurable or better understood with advances in science, and then cease to be so defined. The moving of this line and those who seek to prevent it using debatable scientific superiority, is to me, what this discussion is really about.
@Gnosis2078 There's no evidence at all that supports the existence of telepathy, fool. Too bad, because that would be too cool if there was. How you can call Dawkins nihilistic is evidence that you haven't understood a word he's said or written - Dawkins is an extremely compassionate person and hates to see what religion does to people all over the world. Contrary to your extremely ignorant view, he values the truth above all.
@hznfrst It seems your philosophy has made you bitter, with a need to put others down, while my "delusions" have allowed me to witness alternative practices curing of "incurable" diseases and retire at 42 in an 11,000 square foot house over looking the Pacific. So, when it comes to fundamentalist materialism vs "delusions" as you call them... I'm gonna stick with the mystic. I know that until you experience it, it seems unbelievable, but once you do, all the Dawkins in the world are meaningless.
@Gnosis2078 I put down those who have it coming, and psychic frauds are among those. Did you make all that money defrauding people? By the way, it's amusing to hear someone so "spiritual" bragging about his material wealth, kind of a giveaway there as to your true motivations.
@hznfrst Given it is you who decides who "has it coming" my comment on your need to put down your fellow man stands. I was not bragging about wealth, but rather refuting your assertion that spiritual people somehow wallow in their delusions. I like money as much as the next guy, but I don't allow it become my God. In reality, the spiritual frequently take on that which can't be done and DO IT, because we know we have unlimited power. And no, sorry to disappoint, I made my money in technology.
Well I had never heard of this chap before so I decided to do a little reading. I read a number of articles from a variety of sources, most of which were very unsatisfying flame fests. The funny thing is, the best discussion (by far) I read on the subject was on the James Randi Educational Foundation. Just look for Wiseman vs Sheldrake. The discussion is superb, courteous, flame free, with proponents from both sides. They even contacted people like Dean Radin for clarifications, good read.
why use the digital voice ... it is hard to listen to. You put your mouth where your belief is .. so don't count mine as a view because I got fed up after 10 seconds.
@JubblyJack So what about Steven Hawking?. You are just showcasing your short attention span. You want to be spoon fed. Only two complaints like yours amongst about 40 robot voiced videos. The others all have more expensive beautiful voices. This one uses a cheap demo voice.
@kimbo99 If I had a short attention span I would not have a PHd. I t was annoying digital voice when someone could have spoken normally. I actually agree with Sheldrake about certain experiences which Dawkins cannot explain although I agree with Dawkins about the God delusion. There is something more than what has been taught to us humans, almost like we are being teased. Just give me the spoon and I will feed myself!
@JubblyJack actually its more approiate to call this mass mental illness,the "no god delusion" since the study of fractals proves divine intelligence.
Even if Richard Dawkins had an experience that flipped his view to recognize the existence of a spiritual dimension he would likely not talk about it as this would create the breakdown of his ego.
He would be a real man to admit he was wrong and would be afraid to offend his millions of followers.
He has dug himself into a potential hole !
I would not be in his shoes right now for the world.
If anyone is led by Dawkins in the first place, they to have sealed pineal glands.
@SpecialAngelServices We need more of you people, Angel. I often ponder whether Dawkins apparent obtuseness is real or feigned or a mix of the two. For example pretending not to see patterns, insisting that everything is random. Ttats very common amongst pseudoskeptics
Sadly, this kind of thing attracts the most uneducated in society. Nothing more than a commentary on scientific illiteracy in the world and how this makes cults easier to gain a foot-hold. Hey Kimbo, try getting the degrees like all the other experts in any field of study instead of riding the wave of pseudoscience. Pathetic.
@TheSkepticUn Sneering Narcissism you manifest Oh I smell a pseudoskeptic. Everyone is beneath YOU right? Somany Pskeps pose as scintists. In what subject are you peer reviewed the James Randi Chatline/
Please enter your degrees gained at what university and who employs you doing science? And who peer reviews you? Supply contactable names.
@TheSkepticUn And you are God almighty ,right? possessor of all knowledge, error free. Have you passed peer review anywhere ? Are you a qualified published scientist? Sheldrake is. Whoever asks YOU for advice?
@kimbo99 I never claimed that, so where does your question come from? Actually goof, I am a "published scientist". Your last comment is priceless. "Whoever asks YOU for advice?" Finish high school and with that profound new grasp of English, try opening a dictionary in search of "advice". Where am I offering "advice"? I am offering an educated opinion, you dope! If you had even the slightest grasp of science, you would be able to see how retarded this crap is. Even the video is lame.
@TheSkepticUn you are no scientist.what u are is a well trained academic monkey with a handful of your own shite in your hand ready to fling it at knowledge.go crawl back in your cave of ignorance and stable job.good boy!!
Take yor telepathy & evidence to James Randy if U want to prove it works & colect 1 milion $ reward. Documentary was not about Rupert Sheldrake or his telepathy. Probabely he was hurt after they dismissed yet another loony. They had to work with many loonies since documentary was about varies diferent paranormal BS
@Aleksamson You are just a silly pseudoskeptic. Randi's Million dollar prize has no legal standing whatsoever. It has 10 major defects in contract law- take it from a Supreme court lawyer VIctor Zammit.
Even Randi admits in his one only and only book Flim Flam that he will never payout. A written admission from your hero ! Why dont you believe him?
@kimbo99 I guess there is no legal standing at all, and probabely doesn't realy have milion $ in a first place. That was not the point in a first place ( J.Randi & money are not the issue ) I can see through barking Loony.
@Aleksamson randi is an on stage illusionist &looks like hes conned you very easily.ive ad a telepathic challenge runnin 4more than 10 yrs &was only tested once,no one wants to give me chance to prove myself, and randi is the last person i would want 2test me.his magic trickery wasnt connin people so he created a unique new edge,hes an illusionist, a trickster, a magician &u take him seriosuly as an investigator of the paranormal and science worker, hes a paranormal debunker
You are simply a mentally ill person who makes claims all over the Internet without ever putting the evidence on the table. If you want to win the $million, then it is a simple task and has been made simpler, by Randi. But it also exposes frauds a loons like you for being what they are--You are full of crap and should be seeing a psychiatrist.
And we have to believe this all on the testimonioal evidence offered by Sheldrake's altar boys with no proof that things happened this way. Man, Joe Goebbels must be squirming with joy in his tomb.
@tionoc You are just an automatic denialist. Common among Pskeps. You are in Wikipedia you know. Take pride in that. I am sure you will revere Susan Blackmore she was a James Randi groupie inside CSICOP.
Wanting proof of Sheldrakes great wealth you imply. Does he have a million dollars to give away? Who does?
@tionoc Your sneering, denialism, arguing off point, and all your behaviour is well known its documented at debunking skeptics DOT com You can meet a Nobel prize winner there. NO doubt you will have a three word put down for him.
It's sad how Richard Dawkin tries to prove that god almost certainly doesn't exist by using science, when he is in fact, abusing science. Science can't do anything with god. Science draw conclusions based on the scientific method. Any claim that is not testable & falsiable under scientific methodology is not science & they can't do anything about it. God isn't science because it's not testable and falsiable, but Dawkins goes so far, he abuses science.
If you were doing documentary about flowers, you would'n like it to be about mushrooms. That's all. It's not about denying evidence.Dawkins probably read his books otherwise he wouldn't ask him for interview.
Besides even if telepathy is scientific fact it doesn't proof that god exists or that any religion is right, it just means that there is something that we don't understand yet.
@Jakubb126 Telepathy exists.Proven. Irrelevant religions are a non functioning substitute for Gnosis. (knowing God directly) That can be triggered in 20 minutes at website. truebluehealerDOTcom
@kimbo99 Hi, can you send me a link or cite me the source on which you base your claim? The argument I'm referring to is that it's been proven that telepathy exists.
@IppatsuTensei88 Its not my claim its the claim of many, many people, Peer reviewed scientists. Pleanty on the NET. That ou wish to deny dismiss while posing as scientist which you are NOT. For a start you must know more about yourself. Video coming to that effect. I'll flick you some references you really don't want. to know about. You will practice denialism which means lying to yourself and others a lot more than average people do.
@kimbo99 You seem to know a lot about me - or what I will do, how is that? You are NOT a scientist NOR are you peer reviewed on all things concerning my person so how could you know? I'm being rhetorical right now for the sake of argument. You are using "appeal to authority" and "appeal to widespread belief" in your argument. I thank you for sending the links, although to make a comment, most of it was circumstantial concerning dowsing. I won't be buying the book.
@IppatsuTensei88 I knew you woulda voiud picking up two coat hangars. And you have. Do anything but learn and experiment, yourself.. I expected a one word put down to avoid leanring anything. And you delivered." "Circumstantial" was your nebulous word of choice. So why did you ask if you don't want to know anything? Arguing about the rules and types of argument is sure fire pseudoskepticism because it avoids the subject. Thats the game. Million PSI tests -circumstantial no doubt.
@kimbo99 dude, was it you that invented that word: "pseudoskepticism"? You use it quite a bit. What is its definition? I was asking you to validate your claim - and a big claim it was, that this stuff is "proven". In most cases dowsing, when tested, displays little indication other than random guessing. The study which randi did and you sent me is statistically significant to show it wasn't random although it was even more off (by a lot) to test claims that the dowsers would be 80% right.
@IppatsuTensei88 It was invented along time ago by by a man, I think Trizzi who started a skeptical organisation and who wanted to have it balanced 50% for and against the paranormal to get the best quality vetting of psyche experiments. But it was hijacked by fake spektics - professional nay sayers Randfi type followers, professional atheists. some with obviously maladjusted personalities. Dedicated website to this phenomenon debunkingskepticsDOT com. A Nobel prize winner on its board.
@kimbo99 The paper which provided a study for evidence into dowsing was grossly summarised by the link you'd sent. I spent a good hour reading into that paper and found that the figure of 96% accurate represented a combination of dowsing and geoelectrical surveying. It is indistinguishable how much the dowsing had to play in this figure, if any. The only wording for how much dowsing played was speculative only. To take the summary alone, one would think "dowsing 96% success - proven", not so.
@IppatsuTensei88 You are avoiding the central issue in way humopurosuly pointed out in an essay.
Throw a coat hangar on the floor. Cut two coat hangars into L shaped rods. Keep walking toward it mentally asking for a signal. Took me 30 mins. follwing week I foudna conceld object. That is the issue YOU ARE AVOIDING
@kimbo99 you're asking me to submit to the ideomotor effect. have you tried a double blind test yet? I'm not forcing you to but if you're adamant it works this is the way to do it.
@IppatsuTensei88 A million PSI studies metastudied over 40 yrs prove PSI exists. In your inbox. If you want an info trickle weekly about the paranormal with abundant proof subscribe to Victor Zammit's weekly email.
@Batamon1997 He tried to arrest the Pope on his English visit. For crimes against humanity- pedophilia. Judge said we cant arrest a head of state. Stop wasting my time. It was then discovered Dawkins himself said pedophilia wasnt so bad after all in an old video. It was then revealed that statistically priests are no more likely to commit child crimes than biologists..... Oh Golly. And James Randi is associated with pedophilia also at False Memory Syndrome Foundation. CIA funded. Funny that
Every time I see a psuedoskeptic site it makes me ill. They are a pack of woeful creatures, in arrogant and violent denial of everything not endorsed by their own faulty group-think conceptualisation of what science is. Coupled with the self-congratulatory mannerisms and seeping with egotism and onanism, it's a sure-fire recipe for nausea every time. Kudos to kimbo99.
You will notice for the most part that pseudo skeptics tend to be atheists, Anything that puts their materialism in doubt also undermines their need for there to be no god, The anger that they direct towards people that believe in god and to the idea of a creator shows some psychological disturbances, it could be because they feel ashamed of their lifestyle and feel judged(ie homosexuals like james randi) cont:
Or it could because they had a poor relationship with their father or an absent father and god represents the father figure and they are trying to kill him but there anger and over emotional reaction to anything that is outside of their little box shows that they are motivated by emotional reasons not rational ones.
@kimbo99 Wow, somehow you've equated an online user name with a pseudo-intellectual agglomeration of syllables. You've really shown me the door haven't you?
Well, let's put it plainly shall we? People who believe in myths, supernatural phenomena, and fairy tales without substantial, demonstrable, repeatable evidence are self-delusional and not practicing critical thinking.
Some of us think they should reevaluate their thought processes.
@GermanChocolateCake " Lets put it plainly etc " You are superior is what you mean. superior to everyone here. Narcissism. Its a defect. Classic pseudoskeptic self delusion. You are debating non existent people (straw man) people who believe fairy tales. Nobody does that.You're railing against opponents existing only in your own head.Only you know how to think. Only you are rational right? Newsflash we don't care if you are gay. Live with it rather than beating up on imaginary opponents here
@kimbo99 No what I mean is that there is a difference between rational and irrational thought, and that when someone demonstrates irrational thought it is the habit of some of us to encourage said person to reconsider their conclusions.
I've not once made any indication here, real or implicit, that I consider myself better than said person simply because they've made a logical error.
Your conclusion that I am narcissistic is spurious. It also appears to be an attempt to insult me. It failed.
@kimbo99 Furthermore you seem to imply the conclusion that I'm gay, which is also spurious, and probably intended as insulting. You are incorrect. I am not gay, nor would I be insulted by the matter of my sexual proclivities either way.
It's really rather simple. When someone says they KNOW something exists (or doesn't exist) without any evidence to back up that claim, I consider them to be thinking irrationally. Myself included.
Materialists like to think of themselves as being naturally superior, smarter than those of us who are willing to honestly and rigorously evaluate all the evidence. It doesn't help their case that they define valid science as relating only to material cause and effect and simply ignore anything that challenges their belief system.
@esprit1nu -- Well said ! Materialists are frequently notably Narcissistic Denialists and lie more frequently to themselves and others than average people. Lying to cover what ? we wonder.
"It ('The God Delusion') doesn't contain anything which I can recognise as a point of view or train of thought: it just fires off a random series of nasty remarks about Christianity and anything else which happens to come into the author's line of fire. I felt that I had spent the afternoon sipping latte in the company of one of those terribly sophisticated sixth-formers who is planning to leave home while he still knows everything.
'Then there's Wagner, but chaps like us know he's awful; and of course, there's modern French philosophy, but chaps like us know that's rubbish; then there's Descartes, but chaps like us are much too clever to read him.' Or perhaps, with a very, very clever but mildly autistic child, who spouts out an endless stream of non-linear free association: 'There's a big red truck. We had baked beans for tea. That makes me think of Hindus. Catholics are silly, aren't they?
Well said ! Even atheist Flagship New Scientist calls him a counterproductive fanatical fundamentalist. Another video reviewer said the massive book contained only one page of simplistic argument.
Anyway, Sheldrake is a fake. He works with none scientific methods and his agenda is obviously one of selling more books and keeping his funding coming so he can live a pleasant life.
His is nothing more than a Snake Oil salesman and deserves more derision than he gets.
Telepathy and all the rest of that mind whatsokinesis stuff is nothing more than wishful thinking.
You claim its real but where is the peer reviewed evidence and where are the Nobel prize winning researchers from the field?
And you know this how? Oh thats right you are a mind reader. I know one thing, you are a complete fucking jerk with a small penis and a serious problem with self esteem. Go fuck yourself dumb ass!
Any dick with a computer can make a video like this. Doesn't prove dick, Dawkins on the other hand, has a list of qualifications to shame most academics. That still counts for something in the world I live in.
Dawkins is unable to quote holy books accurately , making schoolboy errors, when he rubbishes them. He openly admits to avoiding debates as he is hopelessy biassed and cannot see the other side of arguments. Unscientific he admits he is. Sheldrake is a peer reviewed scientist British New Scientist mag calls Dawkins a fundamentalist fanatic. Which means you are likely a "pseudoskeptic" search "skepcop" discover yourself.
@kimbo99 He avoids debates with people that are converted to the lord of unreason. That seems pretty damn reasonable for someone like him. I'm not a pseudo skeptic but a full blown atheist and naturalist. I look for the most likely explanation before I run away with the ufos and remote viewing bullcrap. In your world, people cast spells and breathe fire and fart love potions and shit like that. Fine, whatever floats your ark on 2012 mate.
You are most certainly a psudoskeptic. Your rude tone and harsh cynicism is typical of that type of person. "The most likely explanation" is not always the right one. A true scientist and seeker of wisdom would know this. I have a strong feeling that you have not even ever bothered to LOOK at the evidence of things like psi. It's so much easier to denounce things when they don't fit your comfy worldview, isn't it?
wtf.? You dont need to read a fiction book to know its fiction. God is un provable and highly unlikely. Why does he need to read holy books to back up that truth?
On the other hand I have met many fundamentalists who try to break evolution without understanding the first thing about it. In order to argue on the terms I have an intimate knowledge of holy books, but other than the fact that they are extremely boring, misogynistic and morally flawed, there is no truth in them.
Einstein and Sagan were against pseudoskepticism. Those two put Dawkins to shame. Oh, and by the way, all that Dawkins has contributed to science is the selfish gene theory, nothing else in the last 30 years.
@hyonchingonchon Oh, and also the meme theory. Not a small thing considering no one before him had managed to look at cultural phenomena or religions as inadvertently reproducing packets of information that can infect human brains the same way viruses infect cells.
pseudoskeptics are to blame for the armenian genocide. There is evidence for telepathy. the pseudoskeptics arent looking hard enough.they havent looked under the cookie jah for example
@mccluskey Shit... you know what you're right! I myself have read there is evidence for telepathy. But what puzzles me is that it has never been demonstrated well enough. Dawkins and his 1 hour lectures about natural selection are clear, entertaining, elegant, awe-inspiring even. And LOGICAL! What this guy comes up with is wishful thinking at best. No one has managed to prove telepathy under scientific supervision says science. Telepathy has been proven say these guys that believe in a god.....
What a load of nonsense. If Dawkins was making a program on atheism, why would he want it distracted with talk of anything else? I agree with Dawkins and with Sheldrake, that they can't agree with each other is neither here nor there, neither of them are my gurus, I think my own thoughts and make my own mind up. Don't follow leaders...
amylnitrateify 1 week ago
@amylnitrateify - It wasnt a program on atheism........chuckle
kimbo99 1 week ago
A sciences level of development is determined by the extent to which it is capable of a crisis in its basic concepts. Dawkins doesnt question these fundamental concepts, he assumes their validity.
ItsHeebyGeeby 2 weeks ago
Dawkins is such a piece of shit.
MrParanormalist 3 weeks ago
Athiests are just left brained people. Usually academically intelligent because that's what's thaught in schools. They will always be athiests if they change beause there nto capable of 'getting' the part of a soul or a higher soul, whereas a right brained person would be more connected to that. For what it's worth i do think organised religion is outdated, but spirtuality will only get stronger in my opinion. There are now right brained scientists, rupert sheldrake for example.
Liam2621 1 month ago
@Liam2621 Good point. I would however point out that its the whole brain thinking that we are after. A synthesis is required for us to progress. Science is left brained because it primarily uses reductionism and analytic thinking to arrive at conclusions. This idea comes from the foundations of science (or natural philosophy) being grounded epistemologically and metaphysically in the "I think therefore I am"
Heidegger gives a good reason to doubt this "certainty" in "What is a thing"
ItsHeebyGeeby 2 weeks ago
To me, it sounds like Richard Dawkins was honestly wanting to give him the opportuntiy, but then Sheldrake popped his evidence for telepathy up and Dawkins, knowing he only had a certain amount of time to fit in the documentary, figured it didn't fit with the theme. He may have even felt a bit irked, depending on how late it was brought up or how it was pitched. His documentary's agenda probably was really another mission to debunk certain religions. And evidence for telepathy doesn't fit
peepo9000 2 months ago
@peepo9000 -Oh Yes ! TV shows turn large complex subjects into a few sound bites between the ads. Religion and ESP and Afterlife are inextricably connected in the heads of many skeptics. It seems Odd. Bu there is murky logic to it which they cant fit into a few sound bites. Oh Television !
kimbo99 2 months ago
@peepo9000 you just assumed based on no facts what so ever,
Rogerlowrey2222 1 month ago
It is precisely this contempt for evidence that makes Dawkins and those like him less than credible. I'm not talking about religion here, either. I'm talking about repeatable experiments that show evidence for something that can't be accounted for by the Standard Model. What that something is, of course, is open to debate. Perhaps there's a way to fit it into the Standard Model, perhaps a new model is needed. We don't yet know. It's sad that science is subject to such restrictive thinking.
jdx350 3 months ago
@jdx350 Too right you are ! Even Maggzine British New Scientist called Dawkins a fundamentalist and an embarassment
kimbo99 3 months ago 6
@kimbo99 what issue?
qtzlctl2012 2 weeks ago
@qtzlctl2012 5-6 years ago. I dont recall the issue.The article was about the virtually unbreakable grip that religion has on mankind and its very much an atheist evolutionist magazine but Dawkins is not the darling of the scientific establishment and he was criticised in the article. You can search NS database if you pay money. Ho Ho
kimbo99 2 weeks ago
@kimbo99 yeah, didn't think so
qtzlctl2012 2 weeks ago
@qtzlctl2012 I have video of an NS article demoishing Evolutionary theory and western science being asleep at the wheel for 150 yrs. You wanna quarrel right ?
kimbo99 2 weeks ago
@kimbo99 good, provide it.
qtzlctl2012 2 weeks ago
@qtzlctl2012 How many refs have you ever supplied to others?
kimbo99 2 weeks ago
@qtzlctl2012 --- You quarrel with everyone here. What a pointless pastime
kimbo99 2 weeks ago
@kimbo99 Countering your bullshit that literally is killing america is not pointless.
qtzlctl2012 2 weeks ago
@jdx350 I agree that Dawkins and other materialist become less credible when they dismiss any evidence for trascendental phenomena. There appears to be a flaw in the scienific method itself which rests on certain presuppositions regarding the nature of reality. As a sudent of philosophy I have studied these presuppositions and have concluded that positivistic science only gives us part of the picture of reality.
A new paradigm is needed. Check out Peter Russel "The primacy of consciousness"
ItsHeebyGeeby 1 month ago
@ItsHeebyGeeby gee a student of philosophy doubts the value of evidence (of course you'll say you don't cause you have no clue what evidence is), what a shocker. Nietzsche fan?
qtzlctl2012 2 weeks ago
@qtzlctl2012 I dont have a problem with science. I have a problem with sciences claims about what serves as knowledge (including what serves as evidence). Assuming you know your history of science, you would understand then, that the ontological foundations of science delimit its area of enquiry. Thomas Kuhn said that a science progresses when a crisis in its fundamental concepts occur. I.e Newton v's Einstein. or Aristotle vs Newton.
ItsHeebyGeeby 2 weeks ago
@ItsHeebyGeeby Aristotle vs newton makes as much sense as a baseball player versus a gardner. Einstein didn't reverse Newton, he expanded it, it wasn't a "crisis" at all.
Your doubts about knowledge are stupid, frankly. Science tests what can be tested, pretty much taht's it. If you think there's something "beyond that limit" then by definition you cannot show it to me and does not manifest in reality. Therefore, doesn't exist.
qtzlctl2012 2 weeks ago
@jdx350 You're talking about repeatable experiments that point to a transcendental? Does the Nobel board know about this?
Seriously, name one or STFU
qtzlctl2012 2 weeks ago
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. - Albert Einstein. Go Rupert!
Gnosis2078 4 months ago
What a stinking pile of bullshit - you obviously wouldn't know a scientific fact if it bit you in the ass, you cocksucking fraud!
Atheism is the *lack* of supernatural beliefs due to the *lack of evidence* for them. People like you take advantage of people's need to believe in comforting claptrap, because you have no conscience. You are a CON who belongs in jail!
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst Were you raised as a fundamentalist christian and rejected it ?
kimbo99 4 months ago
@kimbo99 Thankfully not, I simply recognize bullshit when I see it - and I hate it with a passion.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst And at what age did you realise Santa was BS ? Were you happy with that conclusion?
kimbo99 4 months ago
@kimbo99 Are you trying to imply that people should be protected from the truth if it might make them feel bad, if only temporarily? Finding out about Santa was so long ago that I don't remember how I reacted, but I was probably shocked at first, then in denial and finally acceptance with a sense of having learned something. You should try that with religion and other irrational beliefs - it's a load off one's psyche at the very least.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst
You're apparent sense of conviction that you can "simply recognize" B.S. is not the result of dispassionate reasoning but merely AN OPINION formed unconsciously in the reptillian part of your brain, edited by your biases. The anger with which you argue is the smoking gun that it is your amygdala calling the shots and not your neocortex. I might suggest you read the article "The Certainty Epidemic" if you can
summon the courage to see your convictions for what they really are.
YD8189 4 months ago
@YD8189 It's quite amazing how you have the arrogance to psychoanalyze me at a distance. My dismissal of supernatural claims is based upon the lack of evidence for them and is hardly mere opinion. It would be very interesting to discover that some of them might be true, however after thousands of years of waiting for this 'truth' to be discovered the most reasonable default position to take is one of disbelief - seasoned with a good dose of sarcasm at the gullibility of one's fellow primates.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst
Amazing? Hardly. Police departments do it routinely. You are familiar, or am I assuming too much, with criminal profiling? It's hardly a reach to suggest that someone who labels another as a "Cocksucking fraud" possesses a low tolerance of frustration for opinions contrary to his own. I also have considerable doubt about your standards of evidence and imagine that to you evidence is whatever supports your beliefs and that which doesn't is "an unproven premise".
YD8189 4 months ago
@YD8189 @hznfrst what ever happened to debating? Nowadays nobody debates. It's just "You're wrong" "No you're wrong" "No you're an idiot" "No YOU're an idiot". Jesus, a bunch of big words sprinkled in with even bigger insults does not make a debate. This is all I ever see people do while they wait for the bigger debaters to find evidence for them so they can rub it in the other sides face. What's the point? If it's going to be like that? What's the point?
peepo9000 2 months ago
@peepo9000 Well said
ItsHeebyGeeby 1 month ago
@peepo9000 well said,
Rogerlowrey2222 1 month ago
@hznfrst Plenty of evidence if you go and research, but you haven't have you now
Not having a go at you, but before we sound off make sure,you have the facts straight. Its not of interest to you, thats fine, so hence you beiieve there is no evidence, there is plenty
Rogerlowrey2222 1 month ago
@Rogerlowrey2222 I see on your profile that "quantum mechanics" is one of your interests, but I'd bet the farm you couldn't actually do any quantum mechanics if your life depended on it. I have done it, and it requires a great deal of training in both math and physics. QM is a buzzword that you anti-science types use to con the gullible into buying your books and squandering their money on your lectures, where you never miss a chance to slander real scientists like Dawins. You disgust me.
hznfrst 1 month ago
@hznfrst
"Atheism is the *lack* of supernatural beliefs due to the *lack of evidence* for them"
Nope, Atheism is the belief there is no God and does not say that atheists cannot believe in the supernatural.
There is a stinking pile of shit and that is the shit that you are posting here.
FSApetheist 4 months ago
@FSApetheist Excuse me, but atheists define what atheism means, not some disingenuous believers with an agenda. If you got that definition out of a dictionary the dictionary is wrong - no atheist I've ever met defines it the way you're trying to. If you can't even accept that you're not willing to learn anything and are nothing but a propagandist for ignorance.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst
"the dictionary is wrong"
You would like to get to rewrite the english language, hahahahahahahahah
Sorry but it does not work that way.
Atheism is the belief there is no god, Saying you lack belief in the supernatural is not a property of the atheist and does not tell us what atheism is, it is saying what you do not do, what you do not do is not what atheism is.
FSApetheist 4 months ago
@hznfrst
" disingenuous believer with an agenda"
Oh the projection from you is wonderful
FSApetheist 4 months ago
@hznfrst
I don't believe there's not alot I could learn from someone who probably knows shamefully little about Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, or Taoism, and who, I'm guessing approaches the great questions of life in black or white terms, rather than one who possesses the intellectual integrity to admit that there are many questions currently beyond human understanding. Judging by the paucity of your arguments, "The Gospel Accordiing to HZNFRST" must be a really thin read.
YD8189 4 months ago
@YD8189 You certainly have the ability to read things into others' comments that simply aren't there! I've read plenty about all kinds of religions, but that isn't necessary to become skeptical about them since their universal, unproved premise of a supernatural realm of invisible beings is beyond ridiculous. It;s only believers who are certain about these things, not atheists. Of course we don't know everything - that's what makes life interesting and science valuable!
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst
I'm not reading into your comments; I'm merely pointing out that terms such as "cocksucker" and "stinking pile of bullshit" suggest you are consumed with anger. Individuals compelled to resort to such vitriole to make a point are are neither objective or reasoning: they are emoting. You claim not to know "everything," merely that what is isaccessible to your senses and counterintuitive to you is "beyond ridiulous". Clearly, you can't see the contradiction in that position.
YD8189 4 months ago
@YD8189 So you're a tone troll on top of everything else. If you want people to accept your eccentric beliefs then you have to provide *evidence*, which you can't. Your only defense to criticism then becomes resorting to being "offended" by your critics' sarcastic remarks born of frustration at your inability to admit that *you* might be wrong. You refuse to acknowledge that all we skeptics want is *evidence* and we'd be happy to consider it. You are hopeless.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst
What beliefs have I stated? I can think of only one: that your sense of conviction is a fraud. It is not based on reason but emotion and as I said, your sense of outrage is an indication of emotional reasoning: "I feel therefore it is."
I don't need evidence to support an intuition about you that I have based on an obscenity-laced post.
I can admit I may be wrong about you--it's a remote possibility but I can admit it. Can you say the same about kimbo99?
YD8189 4 months ago
@hznfrst
I wear your contempt as a badge of honor.
YD8189 4 months ago
@hznfrst I understand your need for evidence, however when we are dealing with any transcendental phenomena we cannot necessarily use standard physical criteria for our evidence. The scientific method at its roots has view of reality that is materialist. The natural philosophers (scientist) of the past such as Rene Descarte set up the presuppositions about the nature of reality which grounded the scientific world view. This ground has been challenged by philosophers such as Martin Heidegger.
ItsHeebyGeeby 1 month ago
@ItsHeebyGeeby What an insane statement! If there is no evidence why do you continue to waste time on it? It's obvious all you woo-lovers have a deep-seated need to believe "there must be more" - this enormous universe full of stars, galaxies, planets, black holes, warped space and time, relativity and quantum mechanics and who knows what else isn't enough for you?? All these phenomena were discovered by the scientific method, which *works* because it *demands* evidence! You're such fools.
hznfrst 1 month ago
@hznfrst
"People like you take advantage of people's need to believe in comforting claptrap"
The atheist bus campaign said " There's probably no god, Now stop worrying and enjoy your life"
The atheist campaign let the cat out of the bag and the operative word there is "WORRYING" the atheist hates the thought of being judged and worries about it, So the atheist bus campaign comforts atheists like you who need to believe there is no god and help them feel there is nothing to worry about.
FSApetheist 4 months ago
I put a quote for Carl Sagan at the beginning of my book about psi phenomena. I respected his sceptical though fair and scientific approach. It is clearly distinct from that of Dawkins. I should say that I respect Dawkins on other fronts though. I don't believe he knows he is throwing the baby out with the bath water so to speak.
metaRising 5 months ago
@metaRising Toward the end of his career Sagan became less materialistic, to his credit. Said recinarantuion should be looked at dispassionately. And he did condemn the pseudo skeptical excesses of the followers of James Randi and Dawkins and the CSICOP skeptic HQ.
kimbo99 5 months ago
@kimbo99 You're full of shit, tossing ad hominems at people who disagree with you and assuming some psychological trauma made them "bitter." This makes you a clueless idiot, especially disingenuous for trying to recruit Carl Sagan to your woo-infested world view.
hznfrst 4 months ago
Evidence of the transcendental is a contradiction in terms.
gamesbok 6 months ago
@gamesbok You think you're being clever, but the topic is telepathy -- and there is lots of good research substantiating it. But anything that conflicts with Dawkin's cherished nihlist dogma is swept under the carpet. He is the Jimmy swaggart of science. its guys like him that gave Copernicus and Galileo such a hard time in years gone by. Wake up.
Gnosis2078 6 months ago
@Gnosis2078 My comment was not about telepathy, my comment was about the use of words, and it remains the case that evidence of the transcendental is a contradiction in terms.
gamesbok 6 months ago
@gamesbok I suppose that "literally" you are right by today's definitions. However, some of what is currently defined as transcendental may become measurable or better understood with advances in science, and then cease to be so defined. The moving of this line and those who seek to prevent it using debatable scientific superiority, is to me, what this discussion is really about.
Gnosis2078 6 months ago
@Gnosis2078 There's no evidence at all that supports the existence of telepathy, fool. Too bad, because that would be too cool if there was. How you can call Dawkins nihilistic is evidence that you haven't understood a word he's said or written - Dawkins is an extremely compassionate person and hates to see what religion does to people all over the world. Contrary to your extremely ignorant view, he values the truth above all.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst Best wishes. Have a great life.
Gnosis2078 4 months ago
@Gnosis2078 I will, while you waste yours wallowing in delusions.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst It seems your philosophy has made you bitter, with a need to put others down, while my "delusions" have allowed me to witness alternative practices curing of "incurable" diseases and retire at 42 in an 11,000 square foot house over looking the Pacific. So, when it comes to fundamentalist materialism vs "delusions" as you call them... I'm gonna stick with the mystic. I know that until you experience it, it seems unbelievable, but once you do, all the Dawkins in the world are meaningless.
Gnosis2078 4 months ago
@Gnosis2078 I put down those who have it coming, and psychic frauds are among those. Did you make all that money defrauding people? By the way, it's amusing to hear someone so "spiritual" bragging about his material wealth, kind of a giveaway there as to your true motivations.
hznfrst 4 months ago
@hznfrst Given it is you who decides who "has it coming" my comment on your need to put down your fellow man stands. I was not bragging about wealth, but rather refuting your assertion that spiritual people somehow wallow in their delusions. I like money as much as the next guy, but I don't allow it become my God. In reality, the spiritual frequently take on that which can't be done and DO IT, because we know we have unlimited power. And no, sorry to disappoint, I made my money in technology.
Gnosis2078 4 months ago
Oh, and the robot voice is irritating and obscure.
gamesbok 6 months ago
This seems to be an insult to Dawkins. No case was presented. I think it's shameful.
gamesbok 6 months ago
Well I had never heard of this chap before so I decided to do a little reading. I read a number of articles from a variety of sources, most of which were very unsatisfying flame fests. The funny thing is, the best discussion (by far) I read on the subject was on the James Randi Educational Foundation. Just look for Wiseman vs Sheldrake. The discussion is superb, courteous, flame free, with proponents from both sides. They even contacted people like Dean Radin for clarifications, good read.
milesalpha1 7 months ago 3
@milesalpha1 Good to meet an open minded skeptic ! And I have something for you.
kimbo99 7 months ago
why use the digital voice ... it is hard to listen to. You put your mouth where your belief is .. so don't count mine as a view because I got fed up after 10 seconds.
JubblyJack 7 months ago
@JubblyJack So what about Steven Hawking?. You are just showcasing your short attention span. You want to be spoon fed. Only two complaints like yours amongst about 40 robot voiced videos. The others all have more expensive beautiful voices. This one uses a cheap demo voice.
kimbo99 7 months ago
@kimbo99 If I had a short attention span I would not have a PHd. I t was annoying digital voice when someone could have spoken normally. I actually agree with Sheldrake about certain experiences which Dawkins cannot explain although I agree with Dawkins about the God delusion. There is something more than what has been taught to us humans, almost like we are being teased. Just give me the spoon and I will feed myself!
JubblyJack 7 months ago
@JubblyJack Permit me to be philosphical. You just dont realise what you are asking. But here it comes. Video in your rinbox.
kimbo99 7 months ago
@JubblyJack actually its more approiate to call this mass mental illness,the "no god delusion" since the study of fractals proves divine intelligence.
golden mean
dan winter
bobo007xx 7 months ago
@bobo007xx if the study of fractals had undeniable evidence of a god, guess what, no one would deny it.
gamer2021 5 months ago
Comment removed
SpecialAngelServices 8 months ago
@SpecialAngelServices
Even if Richard Dawkins had an experience that flipped his view to recognize the existence of a spiritual dimension he would likely not talk about it as this would create the breakdown of his ego.
He would be a real man to admit he was wrong and would be afraid to offend his millions of followers.
He has dug himself into a potential hole !
I would not be in his shoes right now for the world.
If anyone is led by Dawkins in the first place, they to have sealed pineal glands.
SpecialAngelServices 8 months ago
@SpecialAngelServices We need more of you people, Angel. I often ponder whether Dawkins apparent obtuseness is real or feigned or a mix of the two. For example pretending not to see patterns, insisting that everything is random. Ttats very common amongst pseudoskeptics
kimbo99 8 months ago
Please go to this link and get rid of the myth that only the religious right is against evolution;
Google survivalOfTheFakest
Excerpt
These are obviously philosophical rather than scientific
views. Futuyma, Gould, and Dawkins have a right to
their philosophy. But they do not have the right to teach it
as though it were science. In science, all theories – including
Darwinian evolution – must be tested against the evidence.
LifeGuru1000 8 months ago
When will people realize that Richard Dawkins thing is a book selling racket, why should he try to confuse the issue with evidence?
LifeGuru1000 8 months ago
@LifeGuru1000 Well Said !
kimbo99 8 months ago
Sadly, this kind of thing attracts the most uneducated in society. Nothing more than a commentary on scientific illiteracy in the world and how this makes cults easier to gain a foot-hold. Hey Kimbo, try getting the degrees like all the other experts in any field of study instead of riding the wave of pseudoscience. Pathetic.
TheSkepticUn 8 months ago 2
@TheSkepticUn Sneering Narcissism you manifest Oh I smell a pseudoskeptic. Everyone is beneath YOU right? Somany Pskeps pose as scintists. In what subject are you peer reviewed the James Randi Chatline/
Please enter your degrees gained at what university and who employs you doing science? And who peer reviews you? Supply contactable names.
kimbo99 8 months ago
Are you serious folks? Shedrake is a quack and this video is a joke.
TheSkepticUn 8 months ago
@TheSkepticUn And you are God almighty ,right? possessor of all knowledge, error free. Have you passed peer review anywhere ? Are you a qualified published scientist? Sheldrake is. Whoever asks YOU for advice?
kimbo99 8 months ago
@kimbo99 I never claimed that, so where does your question come from? Actually goof, I am a "published scientist". Your last comment is priceless. "Whoever asks YOU for advice?" Finish high school and with that profound new grasp of English, try opening a dictionary in search of "advice". Where am I offering "advice"? I am offering an educated opinion, you dope! If you had even the slightest grasp of science, you would be able to see how retarded this crap is. Even the video is lame.
TheSkepticUn 8 months ago
@TheSkepticUn you are no scientist.what u are is a well trained academic monkey with a handful of your own shite in your hand ready to fling it at knowledge.go crawl back in your cave of ignorance and stable job.good boy!!
bobo007xx 7 months ago
@bobo007xx ...because a stable job is a bad thing right?
gamer2021 5 months ago
@TheSkepticUn Video of your life is coming your way
kimbo99 8 months ago
Take yor telepathy & evidence to James Randy if U want to prove it works & colect 1 milion $ reward. Documentary was not about Rupert Sheldrake or his telepathy. Probabely he was hurt after they dismissed yet another loony. They had to work with many loonies since documentary was about varies diferent paranormal BS
Aleksamson 9 months ago
@Aleksamson You are just a silly pseudoskeptic. Randi's Million dollar prize has no legal standing whatsoever. It has 10 major defects in contract law- take it from a Supreme court lawyer VIctor Zammit.
Even Randi admits in his one only and only book Flim Flam that he will never payout. A written admission from your hero ! Why dont you believe him?
kimbo99 9 months ago
@kimbo99 I guess there is no legal standing at all, and probabely doesn't realy have milion $ in a first place. That was not the point in a first place ( J.Randi & money are not the issue ) I can see through barking Loony.
Aleksamson 9 months ago
Comment removed
magnusalexa 8 months ago
Comment removed
magnusalexa 8 months ago
Comment removed
magnusalexa 8 months ago
@Aleksamson randi is an on stage illusionist &looks like hes conned you very easily.ive ad a telepathic challenge runnin 4more than 10 yrs &was only tested once,no one wants to give me chance to prove myself, and randi is the last person i would want 2test me.his magic trickery wasnt connin people so he created a unique new edge,hes an illusionist, a trickster, a magician &u take him seriosuly as an investigator of the paranormal and science worker, hes a paranormal debunker
magnusalexa 8 months ago
@magnusalexa Magnus,
You are simply a mentally ill person who makes claims all over the Internet without ever putting the evidence on the table. If you want to win the $million, then it is a simple task and has been made simpler, by Randi. But it also exposes frauds a loons like you for being what they are--You are full of crap and should be seeing a psychiatrist.
TheSkepticUn 8 months ago
@TheSkepticUn
I love you pseudo skeptics so much fun to read
TheArcaneSanctum 8 months ago
And we have to believe this all on the testimonioal evidence offered by Sheldrake's altar boys with no proof that things happened this way. Man, Joe Goebbels must be squirming with joy in his tomb.
tionoc 11 months ago
@tionoc You are just an automatic denialist. Common among Pskeps. You are in Wikipedia you know. Take pride in that. I am sure you will revere Susan Blackmore she was a James Randi groupie inside CSICOP.
Wanting proof of Sheldrakes great wealth you imply. Does he have a million dollars to give away? Who does?
kimbo99 11 months ago
@tionoc Your sneering, denialism, arguing off point, and all your behaviour is well known its documented at debunking skeptics DOT com You can meet a Nobel prize winner there. NO doubt you will have a three word put down for him.
kimbo99 11 months ago
It's sad how Richard Dawkin tries to prove that god almost certainly doesn't exist by using science, when he is in fact, abusing science. Science can't do anything with god. Science draw conclusions based on the scientific method. Any claim that is not testable & falsiable under scientific methodology is not science & they can't do anything about it. God isn't science because it's not testable and falsiable, but Dawkins goes so far, he abuses science.
Science is a tool, not a motivation!
IceAges14Aces 11 months ago
@IceAges14Aces Well said ! and there is a little poem that nicely encapsulates that Dawkins' problem in your inbox
kimbo99 11 months ago
What ??
If you were doing documentary about flowers, you would'n like it to be about mushrooms. That's all. It's not about denying evidence.Dawkins probably read his books otherwise he wouldn't ask him for interview.
Besides even if telepathy is scientific fact it doesn't proof that god exists or that any religion is right, it just means that there is something that we don't understand yet.
Jakubb126 1 year ago
@Jakubb126 Telepathy is a scientific fact. I have put a link into your inbox.
And search Victor Zammit for much evidence of afterlife in a weekly email in many languages.
kimbo99 1 year ago
@Jakubb126 Telepathy exists.Proven. Irrelevant religions are a non functioning substitute for Gnosis. (knowing God directly) That can be triggered in 20 minutes at website. truebluehealerDOTcom
kimbo99 1 year ago
@kimbo99 Hi, can you send me a link or cite me the source on which you base your claim? The argument I'm referring to is that it's been proven that telepathy exists.
IppatsuTensei88 1 year ago
@IppatsuTensei88 Its not my claim its the claim of many, many people, Peer reviewed scientists. Pleanty on the NET. That ou wish to deny dismiss while posing as scientist which you are NOT. For a start you must know more about yourself. Video coming to that effect. I'll flick you some references you really don't want. to know about. You will practice denialism which means lying to yourself and others a lot more than average people do.
kimbo99 1 year ago
@kimbo99 You seem to know a lot about me - or what I will do, how is that? You are NOT a scientist NOR are you peer reviewed on all things concerning my person so how could you know? I'm being rhetorical right now for the sake of argument. You are using "appeal to authority" and "appeal to widespread belief" in your argument. I thank you for sending the links, although to make a comment, most of it was circumstantial concerning dowsing. I won't be buying the book.
IppatsuTensei88 1 year ago
@IppatsuTensei88 I knew you woulda voiud picking up two coat hangars. And you have. Do anything but learn and experiment, yourself.. I expected a one word put down to avoid leanring anything. And you delivered." "Circumstantial" was your nebulous word of choice. So why did you ask if you don't want to know anything? Arguing about the rules and types of argument is sure fire pseudoskepticism because it avoids the subject. Thats the game. Million PSI tests -circumstantial no doubt.
kimbo99 1 year ago
@kimbo99 dude, was it you that invented that word: "pseudoskepticism"? You use it quite a bit. What is its definition? I was asking you to validate your claim - and a big claim it was, that this stuff is "proven". In most cases dowsing, when tested, displays little indication other than random guessing. The study which randi did and you sent me is statistically significant to show it wasn't random although it was even more off (by a lot) to test claims that the dowsers would be 80% right.
IppatsuTensei88 1 year ago
@IppatsuTensei88 It was invented along time ago by by a man, I think Trizzi who started a skeptical organisation and who wanted to have it balanced 50% for and against the paranormal to get the best quality vetting of psyche experiments. But it was hijacked by fake spektics - professional nay sayers Randfi type followers, professional atheists. some with obviously maladjusted personalities. Dedicated website to this phenomenon debunkingskepticsDOT com. A Nobel prize winner on its board.
kimbo99 1 year ago
@kimbo99 The paper which provided a study for evidence into dowsing was grossly summarised by the link you'd sent. I spent a good hour reading into that paper and found that the figure of 96% accurate represented a combination of dowsing and geoelectrical surveying. It is indistinguishable how much the dowsing had to play in this figure, if any. The only wording for how much dowsing played was speculative only. To take the summary alone, one would think "dowsing 96% success - proven", not so.
IppatsuTensei88 1 year ago
@IppatsuTensei88 You are avoiding the central issue in way humopurosuly pointed out in an essay.
Throw a coat hangar on the floor. Cut two coat hangars into L shaped rods. Keep walking toward it mentally asking for a signal. Took me 30 mins. follwing week I foudna conceld object. That is the issue YOU ARE AVOIDING
kimbo99 1 year ago
@kimbo99 you're asking me to submit to the ideomotor effect. have you tried a double blind test yet? I'm not forcing you to but if you're adamant it works this is the way to do it.
IppatsuTensei88 1 year ago
@IppatsuTensei88 A million PSI studies metastudied over 40 yrs prove PSI exists. In your inbox. If you want an info trickle weekly about the paranormal with abundant proof subscribe to Victor Zammit's weekly email.
Telepathy and many paranormal things covered.
kimbo99 1 year ago
I think Dawkins wants religion erradicated.
Batamon1997 1 year ago
@Batamon1997 He tried to arrest the Pope on his English visit. For crimes against humanity- pedophilia. Judge said we cant arrest a head of state. Stop wasting my time. It was then discovered Dawkins himself said pedophilia wasnt so bad after all in an old video. It was then revealed that statistically priests are no more likely to commit child crimes than biologists..... Oh Golly. And James Randi is associated with pedophilia also at False Memory Syndrome Foundation. CIA funded. Funny that
kimbo99 1 year ago
Comment removed
fabian23rock 1 year ago
Every time I see a psuedoskeptic site it makes me ill. They are a pack of woeful creatures, in arrogant and violent denial of everything not endorsed by their own faulty group-think conceptualisation of what science is. Coupled with the self-congratulatory mannerisms and seeping with egotism and onanism, it's a sure-fire recipe for nausea every time. Kudos to kimbo99.
effyoutwob 1 year ago 3
@effyoutwob You have a way with words I'll have to quote you somewhere !
kimbo99 1 year ago
@effyoutwob
You will notice for the most part that pseudo skeptics tend to be atheists, Anything that puts their materialism in doubt also undermines their need for there to be no god, The anger that they direct towards people that believe in god and to the idea of a creator shows some psychological disturbances, it could be because they feel ashamed of their lifestyle and feel judged(ie homosexuals like james randi) cont:
AestheticAtheist 1 year ago
@effyoutwob
Or it could because they had a poor relationship with their father or an absent father and god represents the father figure and they are trying to kill him but there anger and over emotional reaction to anything that is outside of their little box shows that they are motivated by emotional reasons not rational ones.
AestheticAtheist 1 year ago
*their
AestheticAtheist 1 year ago
Fundamentalist Pseudoskeptic? Well I see the nonsense, invented labels game is still well underway.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake "invented labels game" look at your own invented moniker Ha. An unusual combination of words has tripped you up.That's all.
kimbo99 1 year ago
@kimbo99 Wow, somehow you've equated an online user name with a pseudo-intellectual agglomeration of syllables. You've really shown me the door haven't you?
Well, let's put it plainly shall we? People who believe in myths, supernatural phenomena, and fairy tales without substantial, demonstrable, repeatable evidence are self-delusional and not practicing critical thinking.
Some of us think they should reevaluate their thought processes.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@GermanChocolateCake " Lets put it plainly etc " You are superior is what you mean. superior to everyone here. Narcissism. Its a defect. Classic pseudoskeptic self delusion. You are debating non existent people (straw man) people who believe fairy tales. Nobody does that.You're railing against opponents existing only in your own head.Only you know how to think. Only you are rational right? Newsflash we don't care if you are gay. Live with it rather than beating up on imaginary opponents here
kimbo99 1 year ago
@kimbo99 No what I mean is that there is a difference between rational and irrational thought, and that when someone demonstrates irrational thought it is the habit of some of us to encourage said person to reconsider their conclusions.
I've not once made any indication here, real or implicit, that I consider myself better than said person simply because they've made a logical error.
Your conclusion that I am narcissistic is spurious. It also appears to be an attempt to insult me. It failed.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago
@kimbo99 Furthermore you seem to imply the conclusion that I'm gay, which is also spurious, and probably intended as insulting. You are incorrect. I am not gay, nor would I be insulted by the matter of my sexual proclivities either way.
It's really rather simple. When someone says they KNOW something exists (or doesn't exist) without any evidence to back up that claim, I consider them to be thinking irrationally. Myself included.
GermanChocolateCake 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
There is NO "evidence" for "telepathy" ...
tellnet 1 year ago
People like Dawkins prey on the lack of philosophical education of the public.
I invite all beginners in that field to start looking it that, perhaps on my philosophy playlist.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
Materialists like to think of themselves as being naturally superior, smarter than those of us who are willing to honestly and rigorously evaluate all the evidence. It doesn't help their case that they define valid science as relating only to material cause and effect and simply ignore anything that challenges their belief system.
esprit1nu 1 year ago 2
@esprit1nu -- Well said ! Materialists are frequently notably Narcissistic Denialists and lie more frequently to themselves and others than average people. Lying to cover what ? we wonder.
kimbo99 1 year ago 2
"It ('The God Delusion') doesn't contain anything which I can recognise as a point of view or train of thought: it just fires off a random series of nasty remarks about Christianity and anything else which happens to come into the author's line of fire. I felt that I had spent the afternoon sipping latte in the company of one of those terribly sophisticated sixth-formers who is planning to leave home while he still knows everything.
mccluskey 2 years ago
'Then there's Wagner, but chaps like us know he's awful; and of course, there's modern French philosophy, but chaps like us know that's rubbish; then there's Descartes, but chaps like us are much too clever to read him.' Or perhaps, with a very, very clever but mildly autistic child, who spouts out an endless stream of non-linear free association: 'There's a big red truck. We had baked beans for tea. That makes me think of Hindus. Catholics are silly, aren't they?
mccluskey 2 years ago
That makes me think of Vikings. We don't like Wagner, do we? Or Muslims. Or Jews. Or Post-Structuralists.'"
mccluskey 2 years ago
Well said ! Even atheist Flagship New Scientist calls him a counterproductive fanatical fundamentalist. Another video reviewer said the massive book contained only one page of simplistic argument.
kimbo99 2 years ago
Comment removed
mccluskey 2 years ago
Comment removed
mccluskey 2 years ago
Comment removed
mccluskey 2 years ago
Comment removed
mccluskey 2 years ago
Comment removed
mccluskey 2 years ago
Comment removed
mccluskey 2 years ago
Anyway, Sheldrake is a fake. He works with none scientific methods and his agenda is obviously one of selling more books and keeping his funding coming so he can live a pleasant life.
His is nothing more than a Snake Oil salesman and deserves more derision than he gets.
Telepathy and all the rest of that mind whatsokinesis stuff is nothing more than wishful thinking.
You claim its real but where is the peer reviewed evidence and where are the Nobel prize winning researchers from the field?
believerornot 2 years ago
@believerornot You know nothing about that stuff.
Batamon1997 1 year ago
@Batamon1997
And you know this how? Oh thats right you are a mind reader. I know one thing, you are a complete fucking jerk with a small penis and a serious problem with self esteem. Go fuck yourself dumb ass!
believerornot 1 year ago
@believerornot Fuck youself, cunt!
Batamon1997 1 year ago
@Batamon1997
Too late I got you first!
believerornot 1 year ago
@Batamon1997 What?
Batamon1997 1 year ago
Any dick with a computer can make a video like this. Doesn't prove dick, Dawkins on the other hand, has a list of qualifications to shame most academics. That still counts for something in the world I live in.
truthchannel 2 years ago 2
Dawkins is unable to quote holy books accurately , making schoolboy errors, when he rubbishes them. He openly admits to avoiding debates as he is hopelessy biassed and cannot see the other side of arguments. Unscientific he admits he is. Sheldrake is a peer reviewed scientist British New Scientist mag calls Dawkins a fundamentalist fanatic. Which means you are likely a "pseudoskeptic" search "skepcop" discover yourself.
kimbo99 2 years ago
@kimbo99 He avoids debates with people that are converted to the lord of unreason. That seems pretty damn reasonable for someone like him. I'm not a pseudo skeptic but a full blown atheist and naturalist. I look for the most likely explanation before I run away with the ufos and remote viewing bullcrap. In your world, people cast spells and breathe fire and fart love potions and shit like that. Fine, whatever floats your ark on 2012 mate.
truthchannel 2 years ago
You are most certainly a psudoskeptic. Your rude tone and harsh cynicism is typical of that type of person. "The most likely explanation" is not always the right one. A true scientist and seeker of wisdom would know this. I have a strong feeling that you have not even ever bothered to LOOK at the evidence of things like psi. It's so much easier to denounce things when they don't fit your comfy worldview, isn't it?
Elentaurel 2 years ago
@truthchannel You're really smart! You use the word "crap".
Batamon1997 1 year ago
wtf.? You dont need to read a fiction book to know its fiction. God is un provable and highly unlikely. Why does he need to read holy books to back up that truth?
On the other hand I have met many fundamentalists who try to break evolution without understanding the first thing about it. In order to argue on the terms I have an intimate knowledge of holy books, but other than the fact that they are extremely boring, misogynistic and morally flawed, there is no truth in them.
believerornot 2 years ago
Einstein and Sagan were against pseudoskepticism. Those two put Dawkins to shame. Oh, and by the way, all that Dawkins has contributed to science is the selfish gene theory, nothing else in the last 30 years.
hyonchingonchon 2 years ago 5
@hyonchingonchon Oh, and also the meme theory. Not a small thing considering no one before him had managed to look at cultural phenomena or religions as inadvertently reproducing packets of information that can infect human brains the same way viruses infect cells.
FlameBlazers 2 years ago
@truthchannel Sheldrake is a biologist! Are you a biologist? You're just deluded into thinking your rational!
Batamon1997 1 year ago
*manthropology
mccluskey 2 years ago
Dawkins is a tosser. Manthroplogy is about his ilk
mccluskey 2 years ago
pseudoskeptics are to blame for the armenian genocide. There is evidence for telepathy. the pseudoskeptics arent looking hard enough.they havent looked under the cookie jah for example
mccluskey 2 years ago
@mccluskey Shit... you know what you're right! I myself have read there is evidence for telepathy. But what puzzles me is that it has never been demonstrated well enough. Dawkins and his 1 hour lectures about natural selection are clear, entertaining, elegant, awe-inspiring even. And LOGICAL! What this guy comes up with is wishful thinking at best. No one has managed to prove telepathy under scientific supervision says science. Telepathy has been proven say these guys that believe in a god.....
FlameBlazers 2 years ago
@flame errr.... try... Sheldrakes website. Videos there.He write books that are clear logical entertaining and elegant. Coincidence?
kimbo99 2 years ago
written straight off the can. get lost
mccluskey 2 years ago