Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake

[The Grand Nudger]

People say that.  NOMA and what have you....but I don;t know that it;s actually true.  I think we'd be hard pressed to find an example of religious belief that isn;t falsifiable.  

We;d have to find a religion that made no claims whatsoever.

[Drich]

Is contemporary science based on 10 dogmas, or is Sheldrake full of shit?

speed of light/"intellectual phase locking" plus this guy's whole opening statement... I have pointed to from the beginning in my arguements concerning the "faith" in science.

Why is it when I bring up a topic it's garbage and when someone with a british accent speaks on the same subject, it is a matter of discussion?

[Anomalocaris]

it’s because of you.

[Drich]

But doesn't that speak volumes to how weak a system of belief is?

If a specific individual brings up a point, or points out a flaw in personal reasoning or even in this case draws a parallel between faith in science and faith in religion, and this person's conclusion is dismissed just because it came from a specific person, doesn't that conclusively show you how weak your beliefs are? In that inorder to refute the message you must kill the messenger or in my case discredit the messenger so the message doesn't have to be taken seriously.

So what say you now?

You've Got a youtube guy with a british accent telling you that belief in science is faith based because of how wrong it is most of the time. That science is not the foundation that 'educated' people have been programmed to believe it to be.

Isn't this the format you've been programed to accept new information? White professor type, who uses big words and speaks with an intelligent accent provides a statement then proves it's existence by using contemporary examples and wrapping it all up with a easy to understand conclusion? Al gore used the same format to tell you the sky was falling and low and behold you fell for that... Why not this?

why does this fail? is it because of me again?

[Angrboda]

But doesn't that speak volumes to how weak a system of belief is?

If a specific individual brings up a point, or points out a flaw in personal reasoning or even in this case draws a parallel between faith in science and faith in religion, and this person's conclusion is dismissed just because it came from a specific person, doesn't that conclusively show you how weak your beliefs are? In that inorder to refute the message you must kill the messenger or in my case discredit the messenger so the message doesn't have to be taken seriously.

So what say you now?

Your nonsense was dealt with, Drich. Your 'message' was rejected for various reasons, not just because of who the source was.

[Amarok]

Your a scientifically illiterate moron Dirch

Stick to sucking at defending you imaginary friend .

[Drich]

Your a scientifically illiterate moron Dirch

Stick to sucking at defending you imaginary friend .

Hey retard, answer the OP's video. Or are you saying that guy is scientifically illiterate as well? Or are you saying anyone who disagrees with you is scientifically illiterate??

That's a panic stop button you placed on the conversation if I ever saw one.

Your inner dialog:
"Question too deep for me to answer.. better.. press.. panic.. stop.. button.." Button reads: "you too scientifically literate for me to speak to." 

"Whew, a second more and everyone would have found out I don't have the chops to hang with Drich or the OP video on this topic. Personal pride saved another christian eats my dust."

---

But doesn't that speak volumes to how weak a system of belief is?

If a specific individual brings up a point, or points out a flaw in personal reasoning or even in this case draws a parallel between faith in science and faith in religion, and this person's conclusion is dismissed just because it came from a specific person, doesn't that conclusively show you how weak your beliefs are? In that inorder to refute the message you must kill the messenger or in my case discredit the messenger so the message doesn't have to be taken seriously.

So what say you now?

Your nonsense was dealt with, Drich.  Your 'message' was rejected for various reasons, not just because of who the source was.

Oh, that's right I'm a liar, not by reason or evidence but because you are tired of reseach and arguement so you've reduced all points don't to because you say so.

What ever happened to alpo of old? the smart sparing partner I once had and respected? She died and left me with jorge.

[Angrboda]

Your nonsense was dealt with, Drich.  Your 'message' was rejected for various reasons, not just because of who the source was.

Oh, that's right I'm a liar, not by reason or evidence but because you are tired of reseach and arguement so you've reduced all points don't to because you say so.

What ever happened to alpo of old? the smart sparing partner I once had and respected? She died and left me with jorge.

I know that I personally addressed your nonsense Drich, and I wasn't even finished. But you were too busy congratulating yourself to actually respond to objections. You are your own worst enemy, Drich.

So what is this nonsense about me not providing reasons and evidence? Hell, I even give Little Rik a chance to defend himself. You on the other hand jump to a conclusion based on nothing more than your inflated ego.

(And, in addition to other arguments, I did present evidence that you were a liar, so fuck you and your claim that I represented my point solely on my say so.)

[Amarok]

[Jehanne]

Is contemporary science based on 10 dogmas, or is Sheldrake full of shit?

speed of light/"intellectual phase locking" plus this guy's whole opening statement... I have pointed to from the beginning in my arguements concerning the "faith" in science.

Why is it when I bring up a topic it's garbage and when someone with a british accent speaks on the same subject, it is a matter of discussion?

I have no idea where this "dude" is getting his information about the speed of light;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#History

Seems like he is suffering from some sort of dementia or something along those lines.