David Icke - "Don't take the H1N1/Swine Flu vaccine"

Orifiel wrote: »

What if Mr Icke is ...right. Has anyone considered that?

Those referring to his past, what if that was right?

Simple.
If he was right he should be able to prove his claims.

(And based on his claims about vaccines and the immune system we'd probably have to rewrite medical science cause that's not how either work.)

Diogenes wrote: »

I'll think you'll find science puts more weight on documented proof back up by scientific experiment.

Perhaps you could point out a single, say Noble prize winning scientist who earned their medal based on intuition.





Well lets see, I'd love to hear you explain how mathematics is based on intuition when it's basically the purest form of the concept of logic. Fermat's last theorem wasn't solved due to intuition, it was solved by applying mathematical principles. Ditto Psychology and Innovation. Both were about logically implying previous advances in both fields. Do you really think concorde came about out thin air, or because of 30 years of testing and development of jet engines?

As to the "no, fear no faith" I doubt you can find a greater cause of human suffering than face based idealogy.

i'm not talking about result, i'm talking about process

Diogenes wrote: »

Did you do leaving cert maths? You don't get the maximum points for just writing down the correct answer you're expect to explain how you came upon your answer.

You're essentially saying that the process matters, but you think intuition is as valid as reasoning. So pray tell what is the process of intuition and how do you show that there is a process behind intuitation?





PS. Constance, if I was you I'd run away before you dig this hole any deeper.

I can't understand this reliance on "Scientific logic" people are so enamored with.
The fact of the matter is that we exist in a reality which we have **** all knowledge about. Anytime science thinks it's cracked just what the hell reality its looks again and realizes it couldn't be any more wrong.
We gradually learn about our environment over time and many scientists have been pilloried throughout history for having views which went against the grain of societal norms, in yet they were proven to be correct in the long run. So therefore it would be pertinent to take a little from these past experiences of our species and put it into action in how we deal with "mavericks" in our own time.
Just because what you believe in is seen as being correct by the majority of people doesn't make it so. Perhaps the crazy person with the wacky ideas is the new Galileo, how the **** do you know? Being able to make such a judgment would imply that you know everything which I'm sure is not the case

So much of what we understand is just theory, there are very few laws in science when measured against theory. People who label themselves as scientists regularly cite how different they are from those involved in religion. In yet when something comes along to challenges their “norms” they act in the same manner in which religion reacts to them. Somewhere along the line the message isn’t sinking in.

If anyone here can explain the true nature of reality to me and then top it off with the meaning on life then please feel free, I can’t wait.
In the meantime, when you next feel the need/responsibility to belittle somebody else’s beliefs based on your own intellectual snobbery, take a minute to reflect on what I have outlined above and then question the logic of bullying someone based on your differing theorems.

King Mob wrote: »

No good scientist claims they have all the answers.
That's not what science is or does.

I'm pretty sure David Icke has declared he knew the true nature of reality a couple of times.

You say science keeps changing. This isn't because of guesses or intuition, it's because the observed evidence required the change.

Galileo wasn't right because he was a maverick. He was right because he had evidence to back up his claims.
Same with Einstein.

You say scientists are like religious people. But you also say that science has changed in the past because the evidence didn't support the accepted theories at the time.
How does that work?
I'm pretty sure religion does the exact opposite and keeps belief in something despite evidence to the contrary.


But your right we shouldn't belittle peoples belief and make sweeping generalisations about them just because we disagree with them.


So where exactly are we belittling peoples beliefs exactly?
All we're doing is pointing out the fact that David Icke has displayed a lack of knowledge and doesn't back up his claims.
Is this not true?

I just don't get you at all.
Why so confrontational all the time?
You're drawing conclusions on issues you're "pretty sure" about, but quite obviously don't really have a grasp on.
If you have such a problem with this thread just ignore it.
You're putting words into my mouth and misinterpreting what I say to suit your argument. I never said being a maverick in itself makes somebody credible, I merely showed how perceptions can change over time.
As for my comparison of religious fanatics and scientific zealots, you just don't get it do you? There are plenty of people who believe there theories to be correct, even in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary. It's just egocentric madness.
Look at Richard Dawkins, I can agree with him that religion is a plague on humanity, but for him to say that there is no life after death when it's not yet possible to prove something like that to be true or false in any conclusive manner is complete egotism. I have no emotional attachment to the idea of an afterlife, but seeing that it can neither be proved nor disproved I see no logic in saying it couldn't exist.
That was a long winded example but I think it makes a relevant point.

Now, you’ve shown a great ability to create fancy condescending quoted towers which aim to discredit the views of those your prey upon, in yet all you do is offer your own opinion, much like those you are openly attacking.
You offer no conclusive proof or evidence, you merely attack based on your bias, and offer insulting language as your only debating tool.
Criticizing somebody for not offering corroborating evidence for their claims and proceeding to simply make them look foolish through mediums such as name calling is an ultimately futile pursuit.
One thing you have managed to do with no small measure of success is derail this thread completely, for that you will earn your kudos from your fellow pseudo intellectual cyber bullies, bravo my good man, bravo.

ihatewallies wrote: »

what we already know we can prove through 'proof'

but progress, the original, comes through intuition, the intuitional leap.

but because intuition often proves correct before the logic of it is established does not mean that everything that is without proof and from the intuition is correct.

david icke is mentally ill. sadly he is not unique, there have been many similar to him over the years. messiahs with a mix of the idealist and the patently deluded.

it's easy to laugh at him but again, sadly, he actually sees things this way and has no alternative but to act as he does.

You're correct it is easy to laugh at David Icke or to refer to him as mentally ill.
However I would question the credentials of those willing to make such claims. What is your background in mental health and what if he's right and we're all wrong?
You're making an awful lot of assumptions.
You assume that your way of looking at the world is correct because the majority agree with you, the majority of people in Ireland could see that Fianna Fail were corrupt before the last general election and they still won that election comfortably.
People are afraid of change, and they ridicule those who try to change our perceptions.
Being diferent is not indicitive of mental health issues, it just means you're different.
In my opinion, if I see something that I think is mad or completely off the wall I'll ignore it, or say I don't agree with it.
I would not however set about insulting those involved just because it fits my own belief system and boosts my ego.