BodyTalk & Quantum Quackery

<< < (4/7) > >>

talker1001 (July 17, 2008, 20:31:20 PM):
Why do these woo peddlers always end with:
What have you to loose by going for a BodyTalk session?
They all must have read the same self help book or something...
So let me answer again;
Nothing, except the fee I have to pay to try it, but if you can arrange for me to do it for free, I promise I will truthfully and honestly report what I find.

PS. I love it when quantum physics are mentioned in these "therapies". Its a dead giveaway that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They think they sound intelligent and mysterious, but the very mention of "quantum" just reveals their deep ignorance of the subject.

A free introductory session can be arranged provided that you will give your honest opinion afterwards.
Mefiante (July 17, 2008, 22:25:13 PM):
Firstly, I am not here to defend myself or the BodyTalk System. I do not need to.
Well, when you barge in here, making bold averments about this bunkum, it very much looks like you’re on a promotional mission. This being a sceptic’s forum, you can expect to be challenged to substantiate your claims, an obligation you now want to dodge.

But I see that nothing I or anyone else wrote here has actually registered, let alone given you pause to think. Maybe you’ll accord a little more respect to the views of other scientific authorities, but probably not, seeing as you already know that this bumph does work, no matter how infantile the “science” behind it is.

James Oschman’s Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis.
Deepak Chopra’s “medical” wisdom.
BodyTalk, SCIO and “Energy” Medicine; (Also here.)

Please read the above links if for no other reason than to be better informed on the substance of the scientific objections to all of the stuff you hold so dear. Then ask yourself which is more likely: that (1) all those mainstream scientists are dumb, or (2) these few lone voices that you rely on are misled, if not deceitful.

'Luthon64
talker1001 (July 18, 2008, 08:42:17 AM):
the sceptics also said the world is flat - i wonder if they still hold that view ...
bluegray (July 18, 2008, 08:55:40 AM):
A free introductory session can be arranged provided that you will give your honest opinion afterwards.
Great! I'm in the Stellenbosch area. PM me the details and I promise I will give you my honest opinion.

the sceptics also said the world is flat - i wonder if they still hold that view ...
I'm sure they did. If you look around you now, the world certainly looks flat. It is an extraordinary claim to say it is round - won't people fall off? But then certain facts came to light that they were unable to ignore. It made it unreasonable to still believe in a flat world. And they were convinced. Because the evidence agreed with the theory.

Now you are making bold statements and we are asking again for you to provide the evidence. Which until now consists mostly of pseudoscience.
Mefiante (July 18, 2008, 11:36:45 AM):
the sceptics also said the world is flat - i wonder if they still hold that view ...
Actually, at the time that the world was commonly thought to be flat, the reigning sceptical school said that one cannot truly know anything, so they wouldn’t have made any firm claims about the Earth’s geometry – or anything else for that matter. In contrast, the modern and much more practical version of scientific scepticism requires that one questions the truth of any proposition for which there is scant or no compelling evidence. The BodyTalk System is very much in that category. In any case, the wholly unrelated beliefs, even if they are erroneous, of others concerning Earth’s form have no bearing at all on the truth or otherwise of your claims. As someone who supposedly has legal experience, you should be acutely aware of this issue of relevance.

All of the above is quite apart from, and in addition to, the historical and evidentiary facts about our home planet’s shape that bluegray V has brought to your attention in broad strokes.

'Luthon64

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page