Is it possible to debate woo woo topics?

A post piqued my interest concerning a possible debate among people like David Icke on woo woo topics. That reminded me of a saying that I believe in completely:

You can't argue a belief system.

Is it possible to debate woo woo topics?

First, we need a good definition of "woo woo." I think the following is a good definition:

woo-woo adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs. (source: Double-Tongued Dictionary)
www.waywordradio.org...

Do David Icke's beliefs meet that definition? On the topics that people would want him to debate most, I believe the answer is yes. Here are some examples of his beliefs that I would like to see him debate:

1. Reptilian theory

2. Saturn-Moon Matrix theory

3. "We're all one consciousness"

4. Red dress program theory

I believe that all four of those are woo woo according to the definition above. Some will claim that they're based on science/scientific evidence but I've never seen Icke present any actual scientific evidence for any of the four theories above.

So, could any of that be debated? Can any woo woo be debated?

Since debate is ultimately dependent on genuinely factual information; I don't see how a debate on woo woo topics is possible.

Again, you can't argue a belief system. And, woo woo is all based on belief.

Yes of course we can but it's less of a debate and more of a sharing of ideas which is more fun anyway.

How about an idea..

You can both never be wrong and also always be wrong at the same time

Good luck.

a reply to: Profusion

Did I miss something? Thought " woo woo " was sex. Do I sound dated?

Why would you even want to argue a belief system other than That belief harms others.
You can't change peoples beliefs.

a reply to: Profusion

I don't think you'd be able to debate it with the correct meaning of debate.

BUT....

maybe start a thought experiment?

That should cover belief vs belief, right?

a reply to: Profusion

Again, you can't argue a belief system. And, woo woo is all based on belief.

I would say yes, and no. Yes, on the belief system. I would add, you can't argue 'against' a belief system.
But onward to the woo woo.
Is any woo woo real? We can only find out by finding out.
One thing we have learned about woo woo is that much of it is not real, and even more importantly dangerous.
Woo woo can easily become one of those belief systems that draw a person in and then engulfs them and they can never get out again,
nor want to.
Just like political frameworks.
I don't think that woo woo can be debated. There is no meeting ground between there is woo woo and woo woo is not. It will always come down to proof, and one mans proof is another mans fabrication.

a reply to: Profusion

Yes, ATS has a prime example where there is a constant debates over the Official US government woo woo versions of 9/11 and JFK against what actually happened.

No its not
Just go look at the crazy evolutionists and their blind faith acceptance of evolution

Woo Woo

I like that term woo woo, so in other words only the very mundane and measurable is not woo woo. Im all for woo woo then cause life without woo woo is very drab indeed. Now if it is over hyped woo woo that is another matter.The spin we put on anything must be gooey woo woo.a reply to: Profusion

Is any woo woo real? We can only find out by finding out.
One thing we have learned about woo woo is that much of it is not real, and even more importantly dangerous.
Woo woo can easily become one of those belief systems that draw a person in and then engulfs them and they can never get out again,
nor want to.
Just like political frameworks.
I don't think that woo woo can be debated. There is no meeting ground between there is woo woo and woo woo is not. It will always come down to proof, and one mans proof is another mans fabrication.

We can certainly discuss it.
As to it not being real, well, that's your perception. While it seems you are referring more to conspiracy theories, than what I would define as Woo. "The Woo" is in most circles more akin to Skinwalker Ranch experiences, and a great example is this thread are CornShucker's accounts.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lots of formerly new-age stuff has since been found to be reasonable, altho we don't exactly understand the mechanics.Such as Therapeutic Touch, Remote prayer etc....
Those two at least have been studied and found to be valid.

There is of course plenty of ground between "there is woo-there is not"
For instance the cochlear implant is the mechanical way of what most refer to as "mindspeak" or more incorrectly telepathy.

While human eyes certainly don't see in all spectrums, that doesn't preclude things occurring in those light spectrums that can and seem to be picked up on camera, or in analysis with different filters.

Now as to one man's proof being another man's fabrication. It's relatively easy to find accounts of people having weird experiences in different places, going again and having different yet more oddness. While that may not be proof for you, it demonstrates that Woo is to an extent replicatable. What screws us up is we don't apparently use the correct equiptment. What we think will measure it doesn't so it's time to maybe think outside the box.

a reply to: Profusion

anything can be discussed, if everyones manners are on the same level, than discussion has no limits and only we put limits on it by being childish.

personal experiences are seeded in our imagination and even if others cannot see it or feel it, it still does not make it false or based only on belief. This implies lack of personal woo woo experiences, implying they don't or cannot happen in reality and should be treated as something unreal or purely imaginary.

Everything about woo woo are mostly personal experiences and therefore the only medium which we can use is our imagination expressed through language. But that does not make it false. That only makes it more appealing in my eyes, and probably for some people it has the opposite effect.

yes, science should be put on hold as far as these debates go and asking for scientific evidence is meaningless for most instances at the present.
Science is about honest observation and reporting, but we are already our own observer by default. Why can't we try to join "science" and our powers of observation within?
And instead of relying on science one can start doing something and try to get his own personal experience. By trial and error with some practice (meditation, lucid dreaming, mental practices, rituals, etc...).

What David has been pointing in his AMA is nothing "new age" but something which was around from ancient history. He is using the oldest concepts of self awareness and "unity and infinity" as far as I can say, at least he briefly touches them in some of his posts about self awareness and some others.

"new age" is just a trap or disinfo operation by powers that be as far as I am concerned anyway. A lot of what today is considered new age was originally ancient knowledge. But in modern times we managed to recycle a lot of old ideas and added fake informations and labeled it new age.

a reply to: Profusion

Belief basically equates to a concept people dont naturally have that needs to be grasped to be understood, so applying more concept on top of more concept is of course a common modality. Taking such for reality is of course a choice and also a common modality.

Experience varies and individuality in form has to have something creative to occupy itself with... if people dont get stuck or delsuional about belief or woo woo then its typically a harmless creative pursuit.

No, I don't think so.
We can describe to each other our experiences, and that is interesting to do.
Sometimes we have experiences which contrast each other, and that comes out as a sort of opposition or clash, but I don't think could really be called a debate.

a reply to: Profusion

I think if you try not to feed the trolls and stick to your points despite their efforts to sabotage your points then yes. It use to be that the theosophy Society was the place where you went if you wanted to discuss these topics and it was very good because we had a mixture of every religion coming but I moved and haven't had time to join one down here though.

originally posted by: Profusion
A post piqued my interest concerning a possible debate among people like David Icke on woo woo topics. That reminded me of a saying that I believe in completely:

You can't argue a belief system.

Is it possible to debate woo woo topics?

First, we need a good definition of "woo woo." I think the following is a good definition:

woo-woo adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs. (source: Double-Tongued Dictionary)
www.waywordradio.org...

Do David Icke's beliefs meet that definition? On the topics that people would want him to debate most, I believe the answer is yes. Here are some examples of his beliefs that I would like to see him debate:

1. Reptilian theory

2. Saturn-Moon Matrix theory

3. "We're all one consciousness"

4. Red dress program theory

I believe that all four of those are woo woo according to the definition above. Some will claim that they're based on science/scientific evidence but I've never seen Icke present any actual scientific evidence for any of the four theories above.

So, could any of that be debated? Can any woo woo be debated?

Since debate is ultimately dependent on genuinely factual information; I don't see how a debate on woo woo topics is possible.

Again, you can't argue a belief system. And, woo woo is all based on belief.

People woo wooed plenty of topics before they were invented. Had they thought debating woo woo topics should be avoided we may not have had many of the things we have today.

Belief is powerful. Powerful enough to change other's beliefs or keep the current belief from changing. Belief is so powerful some don't believe in anything, which is a belief in and of itself and makes belief totally unavoidable in all self aware beings.

originally posted by: Onesmartdog
a reply to: Profusion

Did I miss something? Thought " woo woo " was sex. Do I sound dated?

I think you may be confusing it with whoopee.



Of course, one thing often leads to another, and whoopee can bring about it's fair share of woo woo.

a reply to: Profusion

Of course it's possible to debate these "woo woo" topics, but not with any real depth of scientific discourse, because it's not based on scientific principles.

I could debate someone about the presence of Green Hedgehogs on the Moon, but they still can't prove to me that their theory is correct because they have absolutely nothing more than their faith or belief to support their notions.

It's the same with people like Icke - in fact it's the same with most people here who believe in almost any conspiracy theory - almost none of it is based on any actual evidence or the basics of scientific reality.

It's impossible to extend such debates past a certain point before the conversation becomes ridiculous, there's only so many times you can say "prove it" before you feel like you're slamming your head against a brick wall and you need to dismiss their opinions as being entirely without merit.

If something can be replicated is it not objective science? To know one must objectively measure increase of awareness by looking at the Quantum state in real time.

One of the recipes for energetic body awareness/kundalini awakening.
1 Have a fear amagydala overload. This will blow "the fuse" limiting awareness and the calmness occurs. The brain was created with a safety valve. Warning this is a very painful thing to do.
2 If something/someone comes and tempt you. Say no.
3 Go into hyper awareness mode and where your awareness will push thru.

Synchronicity and third eye abilities can be explained by quantum entanglement creating information exchange that can reach the consciousness. If you look at the under laying probability field that creates the material world one energy part at a time you can literally understand fate/probability. The double slit experiment was a good start.

A thoughtful debate requires respect on both sides of the issue. The term "woo-woo" is condescending and dismissive. So, no, I don't think you could see a quality debate on "woo-woo".

originally posted by: VegHead
A thoughtful debate requires respect on both sides of the issue. The term "woo-woo" is condescending and dismissive. So, no, I don't think you could see a quality debate on "woo-woo".

I agree with your assessment and I also take issue with the given definition of 'woo woo', as spirituality has many definitions with some scientific research.

www.spiritualcompetency.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Well, you could try and debate the internal consistency or logic of a woo woo topic.

But even this approach is prone to failure, as the believers are free to make up stuff as they go. You'll end up chasing a moving target.

Exchanging woo woo ideas and cheer-leading, on the other side, works just fine. All you have to do is open your mind and free yourself of any logical constraints.