|
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
 Posted - 03/08/2012 : 07:22:18
|
David Icke on Richard "Dogma" Dawkins
In his previous book, Human Race Get Off Your Knees, investigative journalist, David Icke, writes:
The Illuminati know how reality works and they want to make sure that their target population never does. Religion was their major vehicle for this through the ages and then 'science' came forward to play its crucial role in suppressing the truth. The party line in the 'science' establishment is that the world is solid and physical and there is no 'afterlife'. Anything to do with the so-called 'paranormal' is condemned or ridiculed by the programmed, often malevolent, 'experts' wheeled out to debunk views, experiences and research that demolish the manufactured myopia that is mainstream 'science'. Ironically, most of what is accepted as scientific 'fact' turns out to be simply assumption and not fact at all. This includes, indeed especially so, Charles Darwin's 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest'. As João Magueijo, the Portuguese cosmologist and Professor in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College London, said: ' ... most science is just a theory and is not motivated by existing observations crying out for an explanation.' He also rightly observed: 'It seems to me that contradicting textbook wisdom is only heresy for those who have learnt it from the text book.'
It is quite a sight to see 'experts', like Professor Richard Dawkins at Oxford University, trying to discredit anything that doesn't fit with their concrete belief-system. He condemns religion while being an evangelist for his own - the religion of this-world-is-all-there-is. Dawkins ridicules the 'God religions', but doesn't realise that he is a leading voice of the 'no-God religion'. He is the High Priest and Chief Zealot of the religion called 'Scientism' and he is desperate to debunk anything that could question his intellectual pre-eminence. Dawkins targets with religious zeal those who challenge the omnipotence of mainstream science. I have seen him close up during a debate at the Oxford Union, and also on his television programmes, attempting to debunk alternative healing and the 'paranormal'. I see fear in his eyes for some reason and almost a sense of panic and desperation. The thought that he could be wrong seems to terrify him, but surely he must know by now that he has been talking bollocks for decades. If he doesn't, given the evidence available, it's a real head-shaker. Where has he been? It is the legions of mind-made, song-sheet scientists like Dawkins that man the barricades whenever the party line is under threat. They are gatekeepers who seek to impose their own ignorance upon the masses. A few of them, and certainly those who run the institutions, know what they’re doing, but most have just been programmed by the system to program others.
[..]
The university system, elite or otherwise, is ever more irrelevant, ever more in retreat from the cutting edge. There is a revolution of perception going on and the isolated intellect simply can't see it, nor can it see how ignorant the religion of intellectualism really is. How is mainstream science ever going to understand reality when it is populated by 'scientists' filtering everything through a left-brain that can only perceive sequence, time and apartness? It never is and it was never meant to. The idea is to keep people from the truth about reality and the human condition by keeping that knowledge from science. It is the head/heart scientists who are at the cutting edge, not the regular bunch personified by people like Professor Richard Dawkins. He's the Darwinism groupie at Oxford University who targets his nose-in-the-air bile and ridicule at anyone who has another view of reality beyond the edges of his postage stamp. He condemns religion and yet he is the high-priest of his own - Scientism, the belief that only mainstream science has the truth and anything else is blasphemy. I once appeared with him at the Oxford Union years ago. It was like debating with concrete on legs. He didn't like me; I can't think why. The whole Darwinist nonsense, which takes the creator out of Creation, was carefully calculated to indoctrinate a mass perception of life with no purpose, one in which we are mere accidents of 'evolution' and life's a bitch and then you die. It still dominates the collective mind of what is bravely called 'science'.
As with medicine, law and education, so the closed-world of mainstream science is structured to repel all boarders who threaten to breach the dam that passes for its perception. One method is to attack alternative approaches to healing and condemn them as ' crackpot' or 'dangerous', but what could be more crackpot and dangerous to human health than chemotherapy? The science establishment presses for new laws to 'protect' people from alternatives while pursuing policies and technologies that are potentially lethal to both people and planet. Scientists who buck the establishment and seek knowledge through an open mind find their funding and job opportunities disappear. Talk to some of those scientists who have challenged the orthodoxy of global warming, for a start. It is the carrot and stick again and it is used across the entire system to keep dissenters in line and truth in the closet. |
|
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
Edited by - teched246 on 03/08/2012 07:44:25
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2012 : 07:42:36 [Permalink]
|
| The grave mistake that "new skeptics" and the religious (same people underneath) commit is to confuse the irrational with the beyond rational. The irrational are ideas, claims, and theories that can be submitted to examination by ordinary mental faculties and disproven on those grounds. Beyond rationality, on the other hand, refers to phenomena that can only be detected by non-ordinary sensory faculties within us. Phenomena of this nature cannot be analyzed, interpreted, or explained by our ordinary -- very limited -- mental faculties (the only place rationality operates), and for this same reason cannot be disproven using these mental faculties. |
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2012 : 08:08:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
The irrational are ideas, claims, and theories that can be submitted to examination by ordinary mental faculties and disproven on those grounds. |
That's a new definition. Here are the old ones:ir·ra·tion·al
adjective
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals. In fact, it seems that your new definition flatly contradicts some of the old definitions.
Do you have a rational argument as to why we should accept this new definition?
Oh, and David Icke seems to just be doing his best (which isn't very good) to discredit science because science doesn't support his ideas. Your quote from him is obviously nothing but sour grapes and psychological projection.
And check this line:The whole Darwinist nonsense, which takes the creator out of Creation, was carefully calculated to indoctrinate a mass perception of life with no purpose, one in which we are mere accidents of 'evolution' and life's a bitch and then you die. My life has plenty of purpose. So does Dawkins'. Where does Icke get these ideas which so-clearly contradict reality?
Oh, right: according to him, science (with its focus on evidence) is a bad thing, so Icke feels free to make shit up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2012 : 09:03:58 [Permalink]
|
Let it not be forgotten that David Icke is a very nasty work of a man who promotes the delusion that many world leaders are electronically disguised reptilian aliens. 'Nuff said, and end of story as far as I care.
Edited to add: Icke's rampant antisemitism isn't exactly endearing, either. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/08/2012 10:01:51 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2012 : 10:04:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Let it not be forgotten that David Icke is a very nasty work of a man who promotes the delusion that many world leaders are electronically disguised reptilian aliens. 'Nuff said, and end of story as far as I care.
|
What's funny about that is that several "new world order" conspiracy advocates have distanced themselves from Icke when they realized the Icke's lizards weren't just a code for Jews. When they figured out that he really means lizards, they ran for the door. He's even too nuts for many of the nutters.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2012 : 10:53:16 [Permalink]
|
Really a "laughing at" not "laughing with" fellow, this Icke. 
Still, I'd prefer him to be persecuting imaginary lizards, to persecuting real Jews.
Oh, and just a thought: This is a classic case that proves that a rare use of the ad hominem argument is sometimes very relevant and not a fallacy at all. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/08/2012 10:59:31 |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2012 : 12:03:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Oh, and just a thought: This is a classic case that proves that a rare use of the ad hominem argument is sometimes very relevant and not a fallacy at all.
|
I'm not sure that "He's a whacko." is really an ad hominem argument when the person in question is demonstrably a whacko. |
- TW
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2012 : 21:32:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tw101356
I'm not sure that "He's a whacko." is really an ad hominem argument when the person in question is demonstrably a whacko.
|
But wouldn't that be a post hoc rationalization, a "No True ad hominem Scotsman" argument? |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/08/2012 22:22:35 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2012 : 22:36:07 [Permalink]
|
Despite my promise to keep out of this Icke thing, I do have a couple of observations. Icke's arguments against Dawkins are nothing new, but merely rehash the typical scurrilous canards that have been thrown at atheists by theists forever.
They are mainly of the "argument by the pot calling the kettle black" variety.
Calling an atheist who opposes organized religion a high priest is like accusing a duck of being just the same as a hunter, or a rape victim of causing the crime. Such lies are repeated all the time by idiots, but repetition is less seal of truth than a tip-off of a weak argument.
Tellingly, the foulest slander that any wooster, religious or otherwise, has in their repertory is to accuse skeptics of being just like themselves. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/08/2012 22:38:13 |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2012 : 10:46:48 [Permalink]
|
| ...investigative journalist, David Icke,... |
Um, no. Journalism has become bad enough already without lowering it to the umpteenth pit of Hell.
Icke, like Fred Phelps, Bart Sibrel, and a few others, has become his own ad hominem. Just mention his name and watch your audience's eyes roll. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2012 : 21:16:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And check this line:The whole Darwinist nonsense, which takes the creator out of Creation, was carefully calculated to indoctrinate a mass perception of life with no purpose, one in which we are mere accidents of 'evolution' and life's a bitch and then you die. My life has plenty of purpose. So does Dawkins'. Where does Icke get these ideas which so-clearly contradict reality? |
By what measure does your or Dawkins' life have purpose? I wouldn't say the statement contradicts reality on those grounds. I can't define purpose in a way that I can argue is the "real" in any universal sense. As a believer in the "whole Darwinist nonsense," I more or less agree purpose is, at best, subjective, and quite possibly lacking.
Of course Icke's whole statement is a set of unsupported assertions -- not liking the (possible) consequences of a proposition is a silly reason to consider it untrue. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2012 : 23:22:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
By what measure does your or Dawkins' life have purpose? I wouldn't say the statement contradicts reality on those grounds. I can't define purpose in a way that I can argue is the "real" in any universal sense. As a believer in the "whole Darwinist nonsense," I more or less agree purpose is, at best, subjective, and quite possibly lacking. |
If purpose is subjective, then by saying "my life has purpose," it necessarily does.
The "universal sense" is only implied. I reject that anyone's life has any "universal" purpose. But that doesn't mean that my life cannot have some local, temporary purpose.
The real problem is that I've asked Christians what purpose their life takes on simply by having faith in their god, and I've gotten no sensible answer at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2012 : 19:01:28 [Permalink]
|
Don't you sort of pull the rug out from under yourself with respect to some statement contradicting reality by making purpose subjective? Then there's the possibility of the existence of objective reality in which purpose is an illusion altogether. In the first case, argument is pointless because you're arguing between two subjective realities, and so something can be both true and false across the space of all realities. In the latter case, there's no purpose, so it's not an argument anyway.
In general, I would imagine Christians would say their purpose is to pursue a life in accordance with the instructions of their magical book, that it provides an actual objective "good" at which they can aim. (And, therefore, anyone who's not aiming at it is objectively wrong.)
Suppose their religious claims are correct. Do you not agree they have some goal in mind and can at least attempt to understand exactly how to get there and try to lead a life that gets them there? And it's really not necessarily a carrot-and-stick proposition, as their conception of being good requires appropriate intention for these actions.
In this guy's world, there is an objective purpose, so he would be quite okay claiming a lack of purpose in someone else if he has correctly understood what the objectively good purpose is.
Now of course we can attack the assumption of validity of the religious claims, which is where we really need to attack, or else we're arguing within their framework that already has assumed this objective good purpose based on their magical book.
Or we could argue he doesn't understand the correct purpose, but I don't know how because I can't even argue for the existence of objective good, much less what it is and isn't. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 03/13/2012 19:07:17 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
David Icke blasts Richard Dawkins and "skeptics"
