...one can invent any unfalsifiable claim and start speculating from there.
Hey, thanks for the message.
Neither Rory nor I made up a claim, we merely recited them. Allthough yes, I have also proposed some hypothesises above, but even though I might not have mentioned it, even those were based upon ideas I had read prior in the eastern texts.
Humour sometimes succeeds in being "a stimulus for someone to review the logic on which their beliefs are grounded" where logic, data and examples fail. I cannot say I did not think of that when I wrote my sentence, so yes, I'm also guilty of having used humour as an argument against JdK's claims. As a partial excuse I could say that it's not easy to never stray from the right path of correctness after years and years (decades, actually) of hearing about any possible fantastic claim supported by any possible logical fallacy over and over, anyway I apologize personally with you, JdK, for this.
Hey man, no worries, again, this is not about me taking things personally. I am merely defending a realm of science other than modern.
But I really did not mean to joke on you or be condescent. Want to know why? There has been a period in my life, many years ago, when I practiced Yoga, and I actually even came to believe that things such as Chakras and Kundalini were a real thing. I yet have in my library a very fine edition of Hatha Yoga Pradipika with the original sanksrit text. Then, slowly, I started to review the logic on which my beliefs were grounded, which is a long process which is going on even today, 40+ years later. So, JdK, I see you a bit as myself as I was years ago. I wouldn't want to joke about or be patronizing or be condescent with myself, no more than I want that with you, I'd rather like to help myself speed up on the road I took so many years to take, sincerely.
I might have said it before, but since we're all on a debunking website, I do understand where you're coming from, because even though I respect the ancient texts, I too see a lot of well... absence of thinking around me. An example would be this documentary.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBxIRMfa1vs
I really think there's a lot of very interesting information in there, if you can look past/through the garbage that is... a whole lot of illuminati and paranoid stuff in there. For example there is this guy named Eric P Dollard (his interview starts at 4:46:30) and he speaks about how an organ in a church can bring you into these transcendental states and how he was healing a drugaddict with it after getting him high on vegetable juice and blabla. He speaks about one such happening during a planetary alignment, a full moon he said, on the 13th of october in 1980. These are things you can literally check online within seconds and turns out, that day was the 6th day of a waxing moon. No where even close to a full moon. Sure, could've been just a mistake, but why would he even mention the exact date when it is irrelevant to the story (sounds like making stories up and making them believable by adding details). And everyone in the comments is writing about how that documentary is the best thing they've seen in their lives and whatnot, and nobody bothers to actually check things out and verify. Another massively long documentary is
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mds3Ylp8Jn0
It's a flat earth doc someone recommended to me. We could proparbly spend hours to debunk many of the claims made, but one that caught my eye (at 5:07:57) was when they spoke about the sun being in the sky at the same time as a crescent moon, meaning that at that moment "
it is impossible for the sun to be casting the earth's shadow onto the moon." which is thus an argument how round earthers are devoid of logic. which is just the dumbest thing to say because science says only lunar eclipses are due to the shadow of the earth, showing a complete lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of science (and to think people spend over 6 hours watching a doc made by that mind, how much bull will they have aborbed at that point?). When I told him the mistake he answered that many round-earthers that argue with him think that way (and maybe they do, but that just means they too are uninformed in the most basic science).
Another is, I've sent out dozens of e-mails and messages to ayurvedic "professionals" from all over the world to talk about the qualities of peanuts (because it's a controversial topic wether or not they are heating to the body) and I haven't been able to have a serious discussion with even one of them (!). Since the Ayurvedic texts are very detailed I cite them during those conversations, and it becomes apparent that these people don't bother at all to read the original texts (which is fine, but then don't start treating people nor call yourself a
practicioner of Ayurveda). They were making stuff up on the spot which was obvious because all of them gave different reasons to explain the same thing, and when I refuted that with numerous arguments based on the texts, they had all kinds of obvious tactics to steer the conversation away from the arguments (or just stopped responding alltogether) I put forward instead of actually confront them which would have showed their total lack of knowledge of these subjects (They could've simply responded honestly by saying they don't know). And I am in no position to be condenscending to them either, because I have been a part of that world too, untill my doctor confronted me with the fact that my beliefs were based upon opinions and imaginations of actual delusional people and corrupt fake "gurus". People say all kinds of things in the name of Yoga and Ayurveda, but i've come to know that most of those people never even have touched the Hatha Yoga Pradipika or even the most basic Ayurvedic texts, let alone that they studied it deeply.
So I do respect sceptisism where sceptisism is due, and judgement where it is due, but we just differ on our views of where it is due. Believe it or not, most of the time I prefer to speak with someone who is into modern science than to speak with someone who follows a guru or the pop yoga/ayurveda books, because the latter is a world where you can say anything you want without using logic, nor having to cite ancient scriptures nor modern science. So yeah, I do think I know where you're coming from when you complain about the multitud of unsubstantiated claims and all.
LilWabbit:
And it takes a certain pair of 'cojones' for you to even survive this long and sane amongst us while sharing the stuff that you share. Well done! And by the way, a belated welcome to the forum!
Thanks Rory, I appreciate it. (edit: oops, mixing up people here. Thanks LilWabbit)
). In that case sorry for making such a fuss. In the light of debunking... I'm glad that we have debunked tthe idea hat two friendly smiley faces would mean anything other than just that.... two friendly smiley faces 
). I think it'd better be moved to Chit-chat.
