Forum:Bi-location forum irrational discussion

< Index | Religious discussion

Yesterday, I added a link on the Rational Wiki page for 'bilocation' to a discussion paper on the most notorious case of bilocation in history, the case of Maria de Agreda, who bilocated over 500 times between Spain and the US in the 17th century. This discussion paper assesses the evidence by reference to the rules of court and rule of evidence used in civil courts in the UK. It concludes that they actually happened. At the same time I posted in this forum an announcement of the the added link.

http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/pedigree_senior.htm#maria

Both the link in the Rational Wiki article AND the post to the forum were removed almost immediately. A comment on the article by the person responsible says that there is nothing in the discussion paper to justify inclusion - this from a person who is clearly neither an expert in bilocation or the law. This is clear censorship by Rational Wiki.

Evidently they are afraid of rational discussion. We'll see how long this post survives... ^{— Unsigned, by: 5.81.227.40 / talk / contribs 14:15, 13 May 2014}

Why do you think "legal" evidence is sufficient? Whether bilocation is possible is a question for science to answer (and answer it has), and science cares not one iota for legalities. - Grant (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't censorship, it's the dumbest thing I have read this week. ^{Don't click here} 14:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What did I just read? Sophie^Wilder 14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Drink! Zero (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What the shit was this fuck? --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?} 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

[1] Sophie^Wilder 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

[2] --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Has not clipped his nail in nearly a year} 18:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha Haa Haaa! Ha Haa Haaa! Ha Haa Haaa! Ha Haa Haaa! Ha Haa Haaa! Ha Haa Haaa!
....
Ha Haa Haaa! Ha Haa Haaa! Ha Haa Haaa! Ha Haa Haaa! Ha Haa Haaa! Ha Haa Haaa! Scream!! (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, the forum thread was removed because the proper place for discussing an article is its talk page. In this case, this is Talk:Bilocation and the person who deleted your forum thread moved its contents there.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So why is this still here? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to the relevant talk page yesterday. Numb-nuts created another forum page in its place. TeenageWasteland (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not even bothering to add the template we're all thinking of, I'll just stop by and say that the trolls are getting lamer and lamer in the shit that they think we're afraid of rationally discussing. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 20:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that "troll" is the appropriate label. "Crank", maybe, but not a troll.

And yes, "this" is still here because I should have written "the forum thread that you had started". It was at Forum:Bilocation.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I lol'ed ROPChain (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Try this, rational people. Hahahahaha! I do hope science catches up with religion soon. I am getting bored of your childish idiocy. I have added it to my web page. Pathetic.

'Star Trek-style "beaming up" of people through space could become a reality in the far future, the leader of a landmark teleportation experiment has said. Nothing in the laws of physics fundamentally forbids the teleportation of large objects, including humans, Ronald Hanson pointed out. "What we are teleporting is the state of a particle," said Professor Hanson, of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. "If you believe we are nothing more than a collection of atoms strung together in a particular way; then in principle it should be possible to teleport ourselves from one place to another. In practice it's extremely unlikely, but to say it can never work is very dangerous." Professor Hanson's team showed for the first time that it was possible to teleport information encoded into sub-atomic particles between two points three metres apart with 100 per cent reliability. Teleportation exploits the way "entangled" particles acquire a merged identity, with the state of one instantly influencing the other no matter how far apart they are. Albert Einstein dismissed entanglement, calling it "spooky action at a distance", but scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that it is a real phenomenon. The research is published in the latest online edition of the journal Science*. A more ambitious experiment, involving the teleportafion of information between buildings on the university campus 1,300 metres apart, is planned in July.' ('Beaming up people could be possible', The Times, 30 May 2014)

• W. Pfaff, B. Hensen, H. Bernien, S. B. van Dam, M. S. Blok, T. H. Taminiau, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, R. Hanson, 'Unconditional quantum teleportation between distant solid-state quantum bits', Science, 29 May 2014.^{— Unsigned, by: 86.158.233.46 / talk / contribs}

So I read you link and as far as I can tell some apparently unidentified person on the internet believes that a hypothetical court would accept that a 17th century nun was capable of biolocation. Is that the essence of the argument?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sure most of these 'I thought this was supposed to be rationalwiki...' People are just socks to give you piss heads an excuse to drink. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Are these people just shills for Big Booze? News at 11. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature of moral choice.} 04:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please say "yes"! And then tell me how I may become one of them 208.29.163.248 (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Entanglement doesn't mean what you think it means, and neither does quantum teleportation (referring to the BoN of course). While it's exciting that yet another experiment has shown how awesome entanglement is, it should be noted that quantum teleportation still doesn't violate relativity. Even if someone were to find away to transfer all of the information in a person (which I'm not sure is even possible given that quantum mechanical particles are indistinguishable) there would still need to be a classical transfer of information along with it. - Grant (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I like that notion about "science catching up with religion" though. :) That was amusing. I don't think that cultists have managed to come up with a unique idea in literally 10,000 years, every cultist still spews and believes the same lunacy that cultists over the past 10,000 years has spewed and believed, nothing new has come out of religious beliefs. "Catching up" as if reality was some kind of foot race. :) Damotclese (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)