Are you trying to hypnotise me?You've never read Descartes.
Are you trying to hypnotise me?You've never read Descartes.
Which answer will make you go away?Are you trying to hypnotise me?
No, I'm referring to Rene Decartes.Perhaps faux pas is referring Stravinsky's "Jeu de cartes"?
Why did you spell her name wrong twice then?No, I'm referring to Rene Decartes.
Why, do you have your head trapped in a laptop or something?Which answer will make you go away?
Shitty attempts at humour won't save you. It's too late for that.Why, do you have your head trapped in a laptop or something?
'her name'Why did you spell her name wrong twice then?
Are you a professional dominatrix, by any chance?Shitty attempts at humour won't save you. It's too late for that.
No, I'm referring to Rene Decartes.
I've warned you not to sit next to that Gilad Atzmon chap at Jazz gigs, you know what he's like :rollseyes:imagine sitting in a room with someone trying to convince you people with your "bloodline" were scum and responsible for all the worlds evils and you should open your mind and become free man. And that there was nothing wrong with this because we're all beings of eternal consciousness. And acting the cringing victim when they were called on it.
I argued that we can know some things are true? Really?That's not what you argued. You argued that you will not discount anything whatsoever because some other things sound unlikely yet are true. This logic cuts a gaping great hole in your argument as it suggests that we can know that some things are true (your example of the earth etc) and that we have developed methods to test them against evidence and so on to reach this conclusion. And when this tested method is used to investigate Icke's bollocks or the provenance of the Protocols of the elders of Zion it destroys them. In the same way that you just destroyed your own argument.
Yes, your whole confused inept example rested on the truth of us beingI argued that we can know some things are true? Really?
on a fucking rock flying through the universe
'confused': Well, at least, in my haste, I only missed out the 's' in 'Descartes' rather than his whole cock and balls.Yes, your whole confused inept example rested on the truth of us being
and our knowledge of this.
?on a fucking rock flying through the universe
It doesn't rest on the truth of it, only that what we understand as true leaves life so mind-boggling that an inch of doubt is reasonable.Therefore we cannot say that Icke is wrong or the protocols are faked.
You doubt that we are:
?
You still don't get why your arguments rests on the truth of your example, an example which it turns out that you may now actually doubt. This is not Cartesian doubt, this is just loon stuff. Would you like then to take back your argument? Or would you prefer to continue to undermine it?
What we understand as trueIt doesn't rest on the truth of it, only that what we understand as true leaves life so mind-boggling that an inch of doubt is reasonable.
It doesn't rest on the truth of it, only that what we understand as true leaves life so mind-boggling that an inch of doubt is reasonable.
Where have I rejected the position of there being truths. You got all excited again, didn't you?What we understand as true
Your argument is that something that sounds unlikely may not be dismissed as untrue because something else that may be false is believed to be true. Apart from being incoherent rubbish this rests on the implicit acceptance of there being truths - a position which you reject!
Lord above.
You can choose completely, but then you'd be falling into a similar trap that 'atheists' fall into.Doubt is virtually always reasonable; refusing to choose between probable truth and obvious falsehood is anything but.
Well you reject the possibility of truth in this very post and your preceding ones in this thread as you argue there are no grounds whatsoever on which truth can legitimately be established.Where have I rejected the position of there being truths. You got all excited again, didn't you?
To rephrase what you wrote:
Something that sounds mind-boggling should not completely and utterly be dismissed as untrue, especially being the case that, what is generally accepted as true, is absolutely mind-boggling itself.
?on a fucking rock flying through the universe
You don't know what 'atheists' are.You can choose completely, but then you'd be falling into a similar trap that 'atheists' fall into.
Don't I? Wow!You don't know what 'atheists' are.
You don't have an inch of doubt though - you have absolute doubt. You have argued repeatedly that Ickes drivel cannot be dismissed.I'm not saying, btw, that because what is understood to be true is so mind-boggling that it makes something else mind boggling more likely - only that, in light of this, it's not unreasonable to have an inch of doubt.
I've warned you not to sit next to that Gilad Atzmon chap at Jazz gigs, you know what he's like :rollseyes:
Okay, I refute the 'atheist' one.Feel free to refute any of these claims I'm making.
You don't know what refute means.Okay, I refute the 'atheist' one.
Your turn.