GENIUS FORUMS

Renaissance wrote: What David Icke has said was that during his talks people would periodically cross his path who would tell him about the secret blood-drinking ceremonies of the Illuminati

How would these innocent people know about these blood-drinking ceremonies? You think that some of them just stumbled in on a secret meeting, and just so happened to discern that there was blood drinking going on?

Finally, David Icke decided that he had to share this information about the blood-drinking Illuminati

Like I said, how on earth would an innocent person find themselves in the middle of a secret blood drinking ceremony?

Renaissance wrote:Sounds to me like you are 'repeating' the point of view of someone else.

David Icke obviously felt that hearing the information about shapeshifting reptilians being from someone of respect firsthand was better than repeating it so he created an entire DVD interview with Credo Mutwa.

I watched some of that interview, and the guy goes on and on defending African religion (superstition). Sid, if you can't acknowledge that humans have a very primitive tendency for fabricating cartoonish myths (and that this tendency needs to be flushed down the toilet) then there really is no hope for you.

I also doubt very much that pre-colonial Africa had some grand unifying religion, as he claims. It seems more probable to me that each of the thousands of tribes had their own unique, and equally absurd myths.

Cory Duchesne wrote:How am I supposed to determined if said person has solid reasons for believing it?

I'm surprised to see you ask that question. The answer is as simple as "you use your critical judgement": surely you know either intuitively or expressly what sort of standard of evidence you personally will accept. You and I might have different standards, but I would be very surprised to find that you had no standards whatsoever - what, do you disbelieve everything that you hear? That would mean that you didn't bother - and would never consider - attending university, because then you would merely be repeating things that other people have told you.

guest_of_logic wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:what, do you disbelieve everything that you hear?

What I hear are almost always limited views, and limited views raise more questions than give answers. On the other hand, there are somethings which are insane to wonder about - but this truth is something I can understand for myself.

That would mean that you didn't bother - and would never consider - attending university, because then you would merely be repeating things that other people have told you.

Much of university is bollocks, but the lessons I found valuable in university were things I could confirm with my own experience. For instance, Darwinian natural selection was explained with an emphasis on the variation we observe among domesticated farm animals, and I also remember an emphasis on memes, on how some ideas thrive and others fail. Easy enough, I can see how that works for myself. The lessons of chemistry involved demonstrated experiments. The ailments of psychology that were taught exist to mild degrees in my own mind, and I can observe others effected by them.

Really, the only scientific theories I value are the ones that are based on experiments or observations that I can see for myself. If I can't have any degree of first hand experience, then the knowledge is very useless to me.

When was the last time you empirically 'saw' that the sun doesn't actually go around the Earth?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Renaissance wrote: What David Icke has said was that during his talks people would periodically cross his path who would tell him about the secret blood-drinking ceremonies of the Illuminati

How would these innocent people know about these blood-drinking ceremonies? You think that some of them just stumbled in on a secret meeting, and just so happened to discern that there was blood drinking going on?

Finally, David Icke decided that he had to share this information about the blood-drinking Illuminati

Like I said, how on earth would an innocent person find themselves in the middle of a secret blood drinking ceremony?

Cory, strictly logically speaking, why assume any witnesses who reported would necessarily be innocent? Could they not be participants, either willing or unwilling? Also, why belabor the idea of stumbling in or finding themselves in the middle of such a hypothetical meeting? It sounds more like you have a bone to pick, and a predisposition at least, not like you are exercising a scientific mind at all. A so-called innocent person may opt to infiltrate, or to spy from outside. Serendipity need not be involved. Now before you inflame yourself with more aspersions on Icke and possibly also with your views on my supposed regard of Icke (recalling one past thread) please note that my approach here is wholly concerning logical thinking.

These super rich Illuminati are, in fact, slaves to the peon peasants who clean up after them and cook their food. It may very well eventually be that the slaves who know their deep, dark secrets may prove the doom of the occult Illuminati.

Renaissance wrote:When was the last time you empirically 'saw' that the sun doesn't actually go around the Earth?

Based on the fact that I use satellite technology is a strong indicator that mainstream science's heliocentric conception is the more useful model. If the same people who have succeeded in launching and maintaining satellites which orbit the earth, also value the heliocentric model - then obviously the model is useful.

Keep in mind, I'm not so much concerned with pointing out that David Icke is wrong, I'm interested in pointing out that he's useless.

I'm not one of those people who argue that science is true. My argument is that it's useful, while promulgators of superstition and trivia are useless.

Carl G wrote: Cory, strictly logically speaking, why assume any witnesses who reported would necessarily be innocent?

You think it's reasonable to believe that there are people out there who randomly confess that they've attended a blood drinking ceremony to strangers?

Could they not be participants, either willing or unwilling?

If they are willing participants, what would motivate them to tell David Icke about their blood drinking ceremonies?

And if they are unwilling participants, why wouldn't they tell the police, who could investigate the crime?

Also, why belabor the idea of stumbling in or finding themselves in the middle of such a hypothetical meeting?

I'm just throwing some ideas out there, to provoke Sid (or anyone) to give a more precise description of what might be happening.

A so-called innocent person may opt to infiltrate, or to spy from outside.

Yeah, and why not tell the police, instead of a guy who most people think is a nut? (thereby discrediting the information gathered by spying/infiltration).

Icke has the profile and notoriety he does precisely because of the most radical and, frankly, absurd elements of his worldview. Those removed, he is a social commentator no different than 1000 others.

You gotta watch out for these claims that G.W. and others use the Corna to symbolize allegiance to Ba'alzebul ("Prince Most High") because its also used as a symbol of Rock n' Roll and the Austin, Texas Longhorns Football team, they call it the "Hook 'em Horns". So Icke and Jones and others like to use this as evidence that Bush et al. are Reptiles worshiping Ba'al but its more reasonable they are using it at a Austin, Texas football game.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Renaissance wrote:When was the last time you empirically 'saw' that the sun doesn't actually go around the Earth?

Based on the fact that I use satellite technology is a strong indicator that mainstream science's heliocentric conception is the more useful model. If the same people who have succeeded in launching and maintaining satellites which orbit the earth, also value the heliocentric model - then obviously the model is useful.

Keep in mind, I'm not so much concerned with pointing out that David Icke is wrong, I'm interested in pointing out that he's useless.

I'm not one of those people who argue that science is true. My argument is that it's useful, while promulgators of superstition and trivia are useless.

You blindly trust the satellite is giving you a true image so you deny what you empirically experience in favor of technology. What a hero you are! A real GI Joe!

A man of real faith...in technology

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Renaissance wrote:When was the last time you empirically 'saw' that the sun doesn't actually go around the Earth?

Based on the fact that I use satellite technology is a strong indicator that mainstream science's heliocentric conception is the more useful model. If the same people who have succeeded in launching and maintaining satellites which orbit the earth, also value the heliocentric model - then obviously the model is useful.

Keep in mind, I'm not so much concerned with pointing out that David Icke is wrong, I'm interested in pointing out that he's useless.

I'm not one of those people who argue that science is true. My argument is that it's useful, while promulgators of superstition and trivia are useless.

Well, I would have to say that what Krishna has NOW been teaching me at my site is far more useful than most of what David Icke has been teaching. Of course, YOU won't agree. How is that any of my concern?

Click on my profile and see for yourself, but I'm willing to bet pracitically everything I own (all the junk stuff) that you will not agree with me

Cory Duchesne wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:what, do you disbelieve everything that you hear?

What I hear are almost always limited views, and limited views raise more questions than give answers.

What if as a devoted father you heard from your best friend, who was the only other person in the house at the time, the "limited view" that at approximately 3.13pm yesterday (whilst you were away on a business trip) a man with a gun entered your house, tied up your best friend, and then kidnapped your daughter? Would you believe or disbelieve this "limited view"? On what basis would you decide whether to accept it as truth?

guest_of_logic wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:what, do you disbelieve everything that you hear?

What I hear are almost always limited views, and limited views raise more questions than give answers.

What if as a devoted father you heard from your best friend, who was the only other person in the house at the time, the "limited view" that at approximately 3.13pm yesterday (whilst you were away on a business trip) a man with a gun entered your house, tied up your best friend, and then kidnapped your daughter? Would you believe or disbelieve this "limited view"? On what basis would you decide whether to accept it as truth?

I don't like getting too hypothetical, for reasons like: a) I would never have a daughter, b) I wouldn't hire an adult male to be the baby sitter, even if it's my best friend)

But I'll let this one slide....

Anyone in the position you describe would be more than a little dumbstruck. It takes a while for that sort of thing to sink in.

My first instinct would be to ask whether or not the police were notified and then I would want to talk to my friend in person.

In this particular situation, I can experience the fact that my daughter is missing - so I don't rely on testimony there. Why she is missing is explained by my friend - but I wouldn't necessarily accept my friends story until a full investigation is performed.

Renaissance wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Renaissance wrote:When was the last time you empirically 'saw' that the sun doesn't actually go around the Earth?

Based on the fact that I use satellite technology is a strong indicator that mainstream science's heliocentric conception is the more useful model. If the same people who have succeeded in launching and maintaining satellites which orbit the earth, also value the heliocentric model - then obviously the model is useful.

Keep in mind, I'm not so much concerned with pointing out that David Icke is wrong, I'm interested in pointing out that he's useless.

I'm not one of those people who argue that science is true. My argument is that it's useful, while promulgators of superstition and trivia are useless.

You blindly trust the satellite is giving you a true image so you deny what you empirically experience in favor of technology. What a hero you are! A real GI Joe!

A man of real faith...in technology

I would really like to know why we should put more faith in this planet destroying science, and their modern technology, than in our empirical experiences? Why should we blindly believe their claims on faith and reject other things on faith?

Renaissance wrote: I would really like to know why we should put more faith in this planet destroying science, and their modern technology, than in our empirical experiences?

What 'empirical experiences' are you referring to exactly?

Why should we blindly believe their claims on faith and reject other things on faith?

I'm not blindly believing in the claims of scientists. Science is what has given us GPS, a rover on mars, hubble, the computer and internet (among innumerable things) - these are tangible things that we can all use and experience.

For me, I'm not very concerned with beliefs and explanations.

What matters for me is usefulness and predictive power.

Do you understand this point?

"What matters for me is usefulness and predictive power."

MY RESPONSE:

Talk is cheap. PROVE IT!

I have found more usefulness and "predictive power" in the new revelations of Krishna, recently given to me, than in EVERYTHING I have ever seen ANYONE ELSE in this forum write put together since I have been posting here. Science would say that I should reject the revelations as delusions while Krishna says I should embrace whatever lessons imparted I may find useful and hold the rest in question without completely rejecting it.

Krishna's recent revelations make you look like a know-nothing nobody by comparison. My magical profile will indeed take you to another world that is much more exciting and wondrously beautiful than the world of this forum.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Why she is missing is explained by my friend - but I wouldn't necessarily accept my friends story until a full investigation is performed.

That's basically what I was looking for. In other words, you do believe things that other people (e.g. the investigators) say (and presumably, you would be willing to repeat them), but only given certain requirements (e.g. the strict professionalism of the investigation).

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Carl G wrote: Cory, strictly logically speaking, why assume any witnesses who reported would necessarily be innocent?

You think it's reasonable to believe that there are people out there who randomly confess that they've attended a blood drinking ceremony to strangers?

Why would someone's confession necessarily be random if it were to a known researcher? Would a known researcher in the field really be considered a stranger, the same as any person on the street?

Could they not be participants, either willing or unwilling?

If they are willing participants, what would motivate them to tell David Icke about their blood drinking ceremonies?

They may have had later misgivings about what they had done. They may have a revenge motive. There are any number of potential reasons.

And if they are unwilling participants, why wouldn't they tell the police, who could investigate the crime?

Again, many potential reasons, including shame, threat, and the fact that the police are not always the shining beacons of justice we would hope them to be. What if the police administration condones the hypothetical crime? There may also have been a long time lapse between the hypothetical event and the impetus to report, leading to a degradation of evidence. The victim may not even know where the event took place.

Why are not all rapes reported? Why do not many corporate whistleblowers get a fair hearing, and in fact are often roughly treated or ignored by the justice system?

A so-called innocent person may opt to infiltrate, or to spy from outside.

Yeah, and why not tell the police

Why would a investigator necessarily go to the police, instead of publishing? Is blood-drinking a crime? Are the police open to investigating reports of such ceremonies? What if the hypothetical ceremony in question involves so-called pillars of the community?

instead of a guy who most people think is a nut? (thereby discrediting the information gathered by spying/infiltration).

Who cares what most people think? Is that really your litmus test?

guest_of_logic wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Why she is missing is explained by my friend - but I wouldn't necessarily accept my friends story until a full investigation is performed.

That's basically what I was looking for. In other words, you do believe things that other people (e.g. the investigators) say (and presumably, you would be willing to repeat them), but only given certain requirements (e.g. the strict professionalism of the investigation).

No, that's not it. If the investigation leads to tangible results (her body was found, or they find her alive somewhere and return her to me) then their claims would mean something to me. Until the investigation yields tangible results that I can experience, then the investigators claims mean very little to me.

Cory Duchesne wrote:If the investigation leads to tangible results (her body was found, or they find her alive somewhere and return her to me) then their claims would mean something to me. Until the investigation yields tangible results that I can experience, then the investigators claims mean very little to me.

OK, so you only believe things that you've seen with your own eyes, right?

Let me test you with a couple of scenarios.

Firstly take the same kidnapping scenario, but now imagine that you have been best friends with the babysitter since birth - your mothers gave birth around the same time and met each other in hospital. Imagine that you know this man (by the way, I don't believe that I wrote anything to indicate that your best friend was a man, but I was conceiving of the male gender, so I'm happy to go along with that) deeply and have consistently found him to be an honest person of high integrity. You and he have sworn blood oaths to one another to tell the truth no matter what, and to the best of your knowledge, he has never even slightly broken this oath, to the extent that he has gone to jail for a significant period of time for telling the truth about an incident involving the two of you, when he was under extreme pressure from his lawyer to sell you out (where in selling you out, you would have received only a light slap on the wrist, so he could easily have justified this) to avoid punishment. Would this change your willingness to believe (and to repeat to others) what he has told you regarding the explanation of your daughter's disappearance as a kidnapping?

Secondly, take the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around. Do you believe this to be true? If so, then isn't this essentially just repeating what other people have told you, since you've never observed it for yourself? I suppose that you could respond by saying that you have seen video footage of the Earth from space, but it's pretty much impossible to observe motion at all in such footage, let alone whether it's more the case that the Earth is turning around the sun or the reverse. I suppose that you could also respond by saying that this model explains astronomical observations, and that it consistently and accurately predicts others, but have you personally made those observations and performed the relevant calculations?

Carl, you made some good points back there. I realized I lost track of an important point, one which I'm going to emphasize in this post:

Carl G wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Carl G wrote: Cory, strictly logically speaking, why assume any witnesses who reported would necessarily be innocent?

You think it's reasonable to believe that there are people out there who randomly confess that they've attended a blood drinking ceremony to strangers?

Why would someone's confession necessarily be random if it were to a known researcher? Would a known researcher in the field really be considered a stranger, the same as any person on the street?

But why would an evil reptilian confess? These are the blood drinking ceremonies of the illuminati, remember.

Could they not be participants, either willing or unwilling?

If they are willing participants, what would motivate them to tell David Icke about their blood drinking ceremonies?

They may have had later misgivings about what they had done. They may have a revenge motive.

None of that makes sense because these ceremonies are for illuminati members who are reptilian.

And if they are unwilling participants [snip]

But hold on. Why would the reptillian illuminati require human participants in their ceremonies?

the police, instead of publishing? Is blood-drinking a crime? Are the police open to investigating reports of such ceremonies? What if the hypothetical ceremony in question involves so-called pillars of the community?

If anyone spied from the outside, they would have taken pictures of these pillars of the community.

instead of a guy who most people think is a nut? (thereby discrediting the information gathered by spying/infiltration).

Who cares what most people think? Is that really your litmus test?

If you care about spreading your view, you should make sure that your messenger is not prone to fantasy and delusion (Icke used to only wear turquoise and publically made bold and very false predictions) because such messengers are only listened to by similarly foolish minds.

"Secondly, take the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around. Do you believe this to be true? If so, then isn't this essentially just repeating what other people have told you, since you've never observed it for yourself? I suppose that you could respond by saying that you have seen video footage of the Earth from space, but it's pretty much impossible to observe motion at all in such footage, let alone whether it's more the case that the Earth is turning around the sun or the reverse."

MY RESPONSE:

The real crime against intelligence and wisdom is that the ignorant are certain they are not believing the many premises of Earth destroying science on faith. YOU have never personaly experienced the Earth revolving, but all your life you have experienced the sun going around the Earth. They still call it: "Sunrise" and "Sunset".

Those who lost faith in God tended to replace that with faith in the godless 'prophet' Darwin. When have you personally empirically experienced humans evolving from apes, eh? It takes an INCREDIBLE amount of faith to believe things like The Big Bang and yet you godless supposed faithless believe these things on faith without even realizing that you are believing it on faith. This is so friggin stu..... Man, I sure am tempted to insult you du... id....! Better stop here.