Vaipen said:

Basically you are saying that Hancock should fight alone. That he cannot relay his predicament to others because that would "incite" his 'followers'. He should, according to your argument, keep things quiet and is personally responsible for how his 'followers' choose to respond. The same argument is used by one of the TED people in the comments. That Hancock's  view on Ayahuasca might be resulting in  some kid flying off to the Amazon to drink Ayahuasca' and that Hacock would be irresponsible somehow.

---

Vaipen said:

I am certain that the pope many hundreds of years ago would call it 'pseudo-science' when some obviously mistaken person said the Earth orbited the sun by looking at the phases of Venus.

---

Vaipen said:

The use of the word 'sensationalism' is preposterous in describing what is happening. People have the right to free speech and in this day and afe on the internet people WILL share if they are upset. I don't see any proof that Hancock is 'sensationalist' or using any strategy at all apart from honestly sharing that he is being attacked basically for his point of view, by people from this scientific advisory board, which seems to act as an unseen inquisition. If he would feel slandered, he has the right to show that.

---

Vaipen said:

Mentioning Atlantis is totally absurd in this discussion. It is a sleazy tactic to drag Hancock in the dirt by associating him with something that has nothing to do with the speech he have on TEDx. It is, again, the same tactic used to justify the removal of his speech. And I do not see how Hancock can be held responsible for the format in which the discussion was poured and that TED's  website functionality is such that they throw both Hancock and Sheldrake in together.

---

Vaipen said:

They are doing ever fucking thing wrong and I don't think it is only just blatant incompetence but also a willful strategy to undermine and confuse the situation.

---

RiderOnTheStorm said:

BlindSophist said:

I'm not a fan of either Hancock or Sheldrake, but completely disavowing yourself from unpopular ideas does not constitute "skepticism" in its virtuous form. That is what TED has done.

---

No it's not. Perhaps you should watch the videos and read the comments and discussions before making such statements. If they had "completely disavowed" themselves from it they would not be hosting it on their blog and giving more attention to these videos than they do to anybody elses.

BlindSophist said:

How has the ontological argument for the existence of God been "minimized" in its "probability"?

---

It's mainly the a posteriori arguments for god that have been minimized in probability, but the ontological argument for god is not without rational, logical criticism either. As Kant pointed out, the ontological argument relies on the assumption that existence is more perfect than nonexistence. This is not a given truth. When you use the logic of the ontological argument against itself it looks like this:

The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.

An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist. Ergo:
God does not exist.

The ontological argument is no more convincing of god's existence than the above is convincing of his nonexistence. Both are a futile effort of assumptive mental masturbation.

---

Hmm! Thanks for the interesting response, I'd never heard of this "rebuttal" of the ontological argument, though it does seem to have profound gnostic implications.