• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Truther challenge to the skeptics

A Truther challenge to the Skeptics?

Last I heard, you were trying desperately to prove 9/11 was an inside job.
 
I'm hoping that blue will eventually post about Planet X and then 2012 so we can combine all the crazy together.
 
No one here can take on this challenge... Not one of us... we have been defeated by the truthers...:(









Breaking up that much crazy to fit the stundies is impossible.
 
Blue_Sargasso said:
So, you all think David Icke is crazy when he says that many prominent members of our society are actually lizards.
Click to expand...
you think?
David Icke's position is that creatures that understand the workings of the human mind are in the same position as the computers in the Matrix:
Click to expand...
Matrix has been overrated, why keep using it over and over as an example?


I'm not a Truther by the way. I just made that up. Isn't that a worry too...that humans have such a propensity for lying. How do we know that we're not continually lying to ourselves as well as to others?

"What, ultimately, are man's truths? Merely his irrefutable errors." Nietzsche.
Click to expand...
But you qualify as one!
 
Whoever taught you Kant needs to be talked to rather sternly. Your understanding of his philosophy is so very, very wrong.
 
People who think people aren't crazy who say that many prominent members of our society are actually lizards ROCK!
 
Blue_Sargasso said:
David Icke's position is that creatures that understand the workings of the human mind are in the same position as the computers in the Matrix: they can create a reality that allows them to manipulate humans at will. "Mr Smith" in the Matrix would be something akin to one of Icke's lizards. We see him as human, but, every now and again, he would do something that would demonstrate that he had far greater powers than any human. Icke thinks that every now and again the reptiles' masks slip and we see the horrific underlying reality. All of Icke's ideas are reflected in The Matrix, except, for him, lizard-like creatures replace computers as our secret masters. It may be exceptionally improbable, but it's not insane, as many of Icke's detractors claim.
Click to expand...

Actually, as far as DSMIV goes, Icke probably would be considered insane. Of course the manual of psychiatric disorders is written by the chief lizard, so he would say that.

At some point, truthers have to awaken to the reality that there are likely many things we do not know and probably will never know....but that this doesn't mean that you have to give free rein to every impulsive fantasy that passes through your mind and claim that it could be true.

Truthers are for the most part young males with authority issues that they project onto the world, convincing themselves that it's being run by some sinister hidden elite. It was your dad, guys. Time to grow up.

Nick
 
Blue_Sargasso said:
So, you all think David Icke is crazy when he says that many prominent members of our society are actually lizards. Consider the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. As you know, Kant proposed the radical idea that the human mind is not a passive recipient of sensory data, but actively constructs a framework in which to understand the sensory input. In particular, the human mind, according to Kant, creates the concepts of space and time, cause and effect. The world as it exists in itself is called the noumenal world, while the world we perceive, the world of appearances, is the phenomenal world. Kant referred to this insight as another Copernican revolution.

Just to be clear...Kant is asserting that, in all probability, space and time, cause and effect do not exist anywhere outside of our human minds. All of the results of science can be true in relation to the phenomenal world in which we operate, but none of those results may apply in the noumenal world. In other words, science may be nothing more than an exploration of the simulation rules built into the human mind rather than an exploration of any sort of external reality. Think about the movie The Matrix. Scientists within the simulated world of the Matrix could be making the most wondrous discoveries - finding the cure for cancer and such like - and yet the whole thing would be an illusion because human beings, according to the movie, are actually living in a completely separate reality where they are used as living batteries to power a computer world.

David Icke's position is that creatures that understand the workings of the human mind are in the same position as the computers in the Matrix: they can create a reality that allows them to manipulate humans at will. "Mr Smith" in the Matrix would be something akin to one of Icke's lizards. We see him as human, but, every now and again, he would do something that would demonstrate that he had far greater powers than any human. Icke thinks that every now and again the reptiles' masks slip and we see the horrific underlying reality. All of Icke's ideas are reflected in The Matrix, except, for him, lizard-like creatures replace computers as our secret masters. It may be exceptionally improbable, but it's not insane, as many of Icke's detractors claim.

Now, while all of this is all incredibly far-fetched, it is nevertheless impossible to refute Kant. How can a human being ever know what it is like to see the world as a non-human? We can never escape the way our minds are configured, meaning, as Kant realised, that we can never have the vaguest idea of what external reality, the noumenal universe, is truly like. Any claims that we can must surely be met with the utmost skepticism. I am a scientist but I take a strictly instrumentalist approach to science: it is a useful tool that leads to useful things, and a coherent and meaningful way of understanding human experience. However, I am definitely not a scientific realist...I don't believe that science describes 'reality'. I would be in a position to say that science does describe reality only if I were able to consider the universe from some entirely mind-neutral stance - which is impossible. Wittgenstein famously said that if a lion could talk we couldn't understand it. His point, it seems, is that a lion's mind may operate entirely differently from ours. There may be no common ground at all. Imagine one human being trying to communicate with another who had taken a very strong LSD pill. It would be a struggle to say the least! LSD massively distorts human perception of space and time. Maybe it's giving us a glimpse of the Kantian noumenal universe.

And, finally, consider evolutionary theory. Isn't it peculiar that evolution has produced human minds that, in the majority of cases, do not believe in evolutionary theory?! That's the problem with evolution of course. It is on the side of what works in terms of sexual reproduction, not on the side of what is true. There are far more religious believers in the world than non-believers. Assuming that God does not exist and is nothing but a human fantasy then that means that evolution has produced minds that declare unswerving devotion to mass hallucinations and delusions. These minds have proved massively more successful in the gene pool than the more sober minds of scientists. For every scientifically-minded, skeptical person in the world there must be at least ten people who are the complete opposite and who believe in any old nonsense. But since we 'intellectuals' are part of the same gene pool as the credulous masses, how can we be so sure of our own ability to resist delusion? After all, there's very little in genetic terms to separate the brain/mind of a skeptic from the brain/mind of a Truther. And how can we be confident of proclaiming the truth about anything when our minds clearly didn't evolve with the truth as a primary criterion?

I'm not a Truther by the way. I just made that up. Isn't that a worry too...that humans have such a propensity for lying. How do we know that we're not continually lying to ourselves as well as to others?

"What, ultimately, are man's truths? Merely his irrefutable errors." Nietzsche.
Click to expand...

When you pour water into your coffee maker in the morning, what makes you so certain that the water will boil rather than freeze?
 
Blue_Sargasso said:
So, you all think David Icke is crazy when he says that many prominent members of our society are actually lizards. Consider the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. As you know, Kant proposed the radical idea that the human mind is not a passive recipient of sensory data, but actively constructs a framework in which to understand the sensory input. In particular, the human mind, according to Kant, creates the concepts of space and time, cause and effect. The world as it exists in itself is called the noumenal world, while the world we perceive, the world of appearances, is the phenomenal world. Kant referred to this insight as another Copernican revolution.

Just to be clear...Kant is asserting that, in all probability, space and time, cause and effect do not exist anywhere outside of our human minds. All of the results of science can be true in relation to the phenomenal world in which we operate, but none of those results may apply in the noumenal world. In other words, science may be nothing more than an exploration of the simulation rules built into the human mind rather than an exploration of any sort of external reality. Think about the movie The Matrix. Scientists within the simulated world of the Matrix could be making the most wondrous discoveries - finding the cure for cancer and such like - and yet the whole thing would be an illusion because human beings, according to the movie, are actually living in a completely separate reality where they are used as living batteries to power a computer world.

David Icke's position is that creatures that understand the workings of the human mind are in the same position as the computers in the Matrix: they can create a reality that allows them to manipulate humans at will. "Mr Smith" in the Matrix would be something akin to one of Icke's lizards. We see him as human, but, every now and again, he would do something that would demonstrate that he had far greater powers than any human. Icke thinks that every now and again the reptiles' masks slip and we see the horrific underlying reality. All of Icke's ideas are reflected in The Matrix, except, for him, lizard-like creatures replace computers as our secret masters. It may be exceptionally improbable, but it's not insane, as many of Icke's detractors claim.

Now, while all of this is all incredibly far-fetched, it is nevertheless impossible to refute Kant. How can a human being ever know what it is like to see the world as a non-human? We can never escape the way our minds are configured, meaning, as Kant realised, that we can never have the vaguest idea of what external reality, the noumenal universe, is truly like. Any claims that we can must surely be met with the utmost skepticism. I am a scientist but I take a strictly instrumentalist approach to science: it is a useful tool that leads to useful things, and a coherent and meaningful way of understanding human experience. However, I am definitely not a scientific realist...I don't believe that science describes 'reality'. I would be in a position to say that science does describe reality only if I were able to consider the universe from some entirely mind-neutral stance - which is impossible. Wittgenstein famously said that if a lion could talk we couldn't understand it. His point, it seems, is that a lion's mind may operate entirely differently from ours. There may be no common ground at all. Imagine one human being trying to communicate with another who had taken a very strong LSD pill. It would be a struggle to say the least! LSD massively distorts human perception of space and time. Maybe it's giving us a glimpse of the Kantian noumenal universe.

And, finally, consider evolutionary theory. Isn't it peculiar that evolution has produced human minds that, in the majority of cases, do not believe in evolutionary theory?! That's the problem with evolution of course. It is on the side of what works in terms of sexual reproduction, not on the side of what is true. There are far more religious believers in the world than non-believers. Assuming that God does not exist and is nothing but a human fantasy then that means that evolution has produced minds that declare unswerving devotion to mass hallucinations and delusions. These minds have proved massively more successful in the gene pool than the more sober minds of scientists. For every scientifically-minded, skeptical person in the world there must be at least ten people who are the complete opposite and who believe in any old nonsense. But since we 'intellectuals' are part of the same gene pool as the credulous masses, how can we be so sure of our own ability to resist delusion? After all, there's very little in genetic terms to separate the brain/mind of a skeptic from the brain/mind of a Truther. And how can we be confident of proclaiming the truth about anything when our minds clearly didn't evolve with the truth as a primary criterion?

I'm not a Truther by the way. I just made that up. Isn't that a worry too...that humans have such a propensity for lying. How do we know that we're not continually lying to ourselves as well as to others?

"What, ultimately, are man's truths? Merely his irrefutable errors." Nietzsche.
Click to expand...

Boy, this takes me back to my days in Lincoln-Douglas Debate.
 
Drudgewire said:
Aaaaand check.

This has to be some kind of rules violation, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Possibly spam if the objective is merely to flood the forum with junk threads. Though he/she is being careful to keep it at a minimium...I am no moderator but as far as I can tell by reading the forum rules Blue is skirting a grey area here. Still I agree that it is annoying.
 
moon1969 said:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton shall become the 44th President of the United States. The 9-man inner circle of the Illuminati, meeting in closed executive session conducted in the exclusive resort community of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on May 1, 2000, voted unanimously to sponsor and back Ms. Clinton in her quest for maximum political power.

Source(s):
David Icke book Guide to the Global conspiracy"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080304121739AAhEsif

:D
Click to expand...

AH! But the Alien Lizard hit-squads are geared up to dustify Obama. You forgot that.
I had that David Icke in the back of my London cab once. All he did was complain about how his scales were itching.
 
Blue_Sargasso said:
So, you all think David Icke is crazy when he says that many prominent members of our society are actually lizards. Consider the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. As you know, Kant proposed the radical idea that the human mind is not a passive recipient of sensory data, but actively constructs a framework in which to understand the sensory input. In particular, the human mind, according to Kant, creates the concepts of space and time, cause and effect. The world as it exists in itself is called the noumenal world, while the world we perceive, the world of appearances, is the phenomenal world. Kant referred to this insight as another Copernican revolution.

Just to be clear...Kant is asserting that, in all probability, space and time, cause and effect do not exist anywhere outside of our human minds. All of the results of science can be true in relation to the phenomenal world in which we operate, but none of those results may apply in the noumenal world. In other words, science may be nothing more than an exploration of the simulation rules built into the human mind rather than an exploration of any sort of external reality. Think about the movie The Matrix. Scientists within the simulated world of the Matrix could be making the most wondrous discoveries - finding the cure for cancer and such like - and yet the whole thing would be an illusion because human beings, according to the movie, are actually living in a completely separate reality where they are used as living batteries to power a computer world.

David Icke's position is that creatures that understand the workings of the human mind are in the same position as the computers in the Matrix: they can create a reality that allows them to manipulate humans at will. "Mr Smith" in the Matrix would be something akin to one of Icke's lizards. We see him as human, but, every now and again, he would do something that would demonstrate that he had far greater powers than any human. Icke thinks that every now and again the reptiles' masks slip and we see the horrific underlying reality. All of Icke's ideas are reflected in The Matrix, except, for him, lizard-like creatures replace computers as our secret masters. It may be exceptionally improbable, but it's not insane, as many of Icke's detractors claim.

Now, while all of this is all incredibly far-fetched, it is nevertheless impossible to refute Kant. How can a human being ever know what it is like to see the world as a non-human? We can never escape the way our minds are configured, meaning, as Kant realised, that we can never have the vaguest idea of what external reality, the noumenal universe, is truly like. Any claims that we can must surely be met with the utmost skepticism. I am a scientist but I take a strictly instrumentalist approach to science: it is a useful tool that leads to useful things, and a coherent and meaningful way of understanding human experience. However, I am definitely not a scientific realist...I don't believe that science describes 'reality'. I would be in a position to say that science does describe reality only if I were able to consider the universe from some entirely mind-neutral stance - which is impossible. Wittgenstein famously said that if a lion could talk we couldn't understand it. His point, it seems, is that a lion's mind may operate entirely differently from ours. There may be no common ground at all. Imagine one human being trying to communicate with another who had taken a very strong LSD pill. It would be a struggle to say the least! LSD massively distorts human perception of space and time. Maybe it's giving us a glimpse of the Kantian noumenal universe.

And, finally, consider evolutionary theory. Isn't it peculiar that evolution has produced human minds that, in the majority of cases, do not believe in evolutionary theory?! That's the problem with evolution of course. It is on the side of what works in terms of sexual reproduction, not on the side of what is true. There are far more religious believers in the world than non-believers. Assuming that God does not exist and is nothing but a human fantasy then that means that evolution has produced minds that declare unswerving devotion to mass hallucinations and delusions. These minds have proved massively more successful in the gene pool than the more sober minds of scientists. For every scientifically-minded, skeptical person in the world there must be at least ten people who are the complete opposite and who believe in any old nonsense. But since we 'intellectuals' are part of the same gene pool as the credulous masses, how can we be so sure of our own ability to resist delusion? After all, there's very little in genetic terms to separate the brain/mind of a skeptic from the brain/mind of a Truther. And how can we be confident of proclaiming the truth about anything when our minds clearly didn't evolve with the truth as a primary criterion?

I'm not a Truther by the way. I just made that up. Isn't that a worry too...that humans have such a propensity for lying. How do we know that we're not continually lying to ourselves as well as to others?

"What, ultimately, are man's truths? Merely his irrefutable errors." Nietzsche.
Click to expand...

After reading this, my head almost exploded. But yeah dude, I'm with you on this 100% :)

But icke was using metaphors right? But what icke was talking about and what bill hicks was talking about were out there, I mean way out there. I can dig it though. You keep up the good work man. These people here love the status quo and fear change.
 
HE"S BACK!
HE"S BACK!

And has not learned a damned thing.
But the idea of a Blue Sargasso/RPIR together promises a critical mass of paranoid craziness that will astound.
 
ronpaulisright said:
After reading this, my head almost exploded. But yeah dude, I'm with you on this 100% :)

But icke was using metaphors right? But what icke was talking about and what bill hicks was talking about were out there, I mean way out there. I can dig it though. You keep up the good work man. These people here love the status quo and fear change.
Click to expand...

WildCat said:
Soon a sock will appear here and call Blue Sargasso a disinfo agent.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom