David Icke: Methods Of A Madman

[seemslikeadream]

Disrespectful? You're asking questions, demanding answers and you haven't even gone through the prerequisite RI Initiation Rite yet...


I will give you a bit of a clue ....THERE ARE NO DAVID ICKE TRUE BELIEVERS HERE....contrary to what you've been told or assume....so maybe you are going to be disappointed cause nobody is going to engage in that conversation with you...

THAT'S all i was wondering. Nobody here believes Icke enough to engage in the human-alien hybrid questions i asked.

In all these years i have yet to find one person who will openly discuss their belief in the human-alien hybrid reptilian race.

Did you ever consider the fact that maybe they just don't want to talk with you? A persons private beliefs are just that....private...You've already made up your mind...I don't see what good it would do to discuss anything with you

[Mason I Bilderberg]

I'll take that as you not believing in human-alien hybrids.

MIB

I'll take this as you not understanding what I wrote. I'll restate. You are free to post your views about Icke. You are not free to approach other members of this board with any intention other than respectful dialogue.

(edited for formatting)

You can interpret it any way you want, but all i've done is ask specific questions citing very specific references and solicited responses.

If you don't have an answer to my question, why does that make ME disrespectful?

MIB

Because by complaining about and/or supplying their responses yourself, you're not respecting the rights of other people to the private beliefs of their choice.

Possibly you don't think anyone's entitled to that. But I don't know, since you blew me off when I asked. In the event that you wonder where anyone ever got the idea that such a right existed, though:

Bill of Rights, probably.

You're bogged down in mud of your own making and expecting me to pull you out. Not my job.

[American Dream]

If somebody had posted a disney movie here, i don't see how it would be unreasonable to expect somebody here likes disney movies.

It's perfectly possible to like Disney movies without believing the characters in them are real.

I wonder if that is all that David Icke represents to some of his defenders here: purely fictional conspiratainment, and that's it?

Most won't go anywhere near commenting directly on his more science fiction sounding claims, so there is no way to really know...

[Mason I Bilderberg]

c2w wrote:

Why this tremendous focus on whether people believe what Icke says? Rather than on what he says?

I don't think you can even talk meaningful about Icke for very long unless you either believe or disbelieve his basic premise. I mean it is like talking about Copernicus and his theory of heliocentrism. You can talk about how articulate, charming, eccentric, persuasive, etc he is as a person and all the other fascinating topics he may touch on, but in the end you either believe the world revolves around the sun or vice versa, or perhaps are undecided.

The only reason Icke is even discussed is because he has a unified world historical conspiracy. The basic premise is that lizard-men in disguise have ruled the world for thousands of years. That is pretty clear. What isn't clear is whether people actually believe this literally and are willing to support Icke with evidence. I don't think people should be forced to say whether they believe this or not. But if you are going to debate and defend Icke I think you are obligated to make plain whether you believe his core theory or not. If you don't then I think you lose credibility and it soon becomes more about personality and forum politics.

To me it makes perfect sense to ask someone if they believe Icke. On a global warming thread someone arguing the contrarily opinion would not be surprised if they were asked whether or not they believed in global warming. Do you believe in lizard men seems like a fair opening in a thread about Icke.

[seemslikeadream]

you can call it whatever you want


There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world


verses you the blogger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism_i ... lic_Church

Exorcism in the Catholic Church is the use of exorcism for those members of the Roman Catholic faith who are believed to be the victims of demonic possession. In Roman Catholicism, exorcism is sacramental[1][2] but not a sacrament, unlike baptism or confession. Unlike a sacrament, exorcism's "integrity and efficacy do not depend ... on the rigid use of an unchanging formula or on the ordered sequence of prescribed actions. Its efficacy depends on two elements: authorization from valid and licit Church authorities, and the faith of the exorcist."[3] The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism."[2]
The Catholic Church revised the Rite of Exorcism in January 1999, though the traditional Rite of Exorcism in Latin is allowed as an option. The ritual assumes that possessed persons retain their free will, though the demon may hold control over their physical body, and involves prayers, blessings, and invocations with the use of the document Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications.
Solemn exorcisms, according to the Canon law of the church, can be exercised only by an ordained priest (or higher prelate), with the express permission of the local bishop, and only after a careful medical examination to exclude the possibility of mental illness.[4] The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) enjoined: "Superstition ought not to be confounded with religion, however much their history may be interwoven, nor magic, however white it may be, with a legitimate religious rite." Things listed in the Roman Ritual as being indicators of possible demonic possession include: speaking foreign or ancient languages of which the possessed has no prior knowledge; supernatural abilities and strength; knowledge of hidden or remote things which the possessed has no way of knowing; an aversion to anything holy; and profuse blasphemy and/or sacrilege.

[Mason I Bilderberg]

Where exactly is the distinction between plausible and crazy? This is an opinion, and not a very good one at that if you ask me.

Crazy:

• Annanuki aliens fought with aliens from Mars - the Annanuki won.
• The Annanuki cross-bred with humans. Now we have human-alien hybrids running the world.
• Princess Diana was a human sacrifice to a goddess of the same name.

Do you believe these things?

MIB

i'm open to these possibilities.
I'd like to know why you are not

I haven't seen any convincing evidence. This is one of the reasons i would like to find a human-alien hybrid believer - to examine their evidence.

Why would you entertain the idea of their existence rather than dismiss it out of hand?

[Mason I Bilderberg]

If I were a mod, I would have banned you by now.

An interesting answer to a question: Eliminate the question.

[seemslikeadream]

free your mind...the rest will follow



Before you can read me you got to learn how to see me, I said

[Mason I Bilderberg]

If you're completely wrong about [Issue "A"] how can I ever take anything from you seriously . . .

Which is why i wonder how people can say they like Icke, listen to Icke, go to Icke concerts, but they won't discuss or defend their belief in Icke's human-alien hybrid assertion. If Icke's "human-alien hybrids exist" assertion is not true, why do people cling to anything else he says?

[Mason I Bilderberg]

Okay, i need to go take care of some business (super top secret illuminutti stuff).

TTYL

[seemslikeadream]

Icke concerts? I didn't know he was musician




come back soon....you've really made things fun around here for a change

[Canadian_watcher]

oops, darn it, I'll have to try again later. there was a glitch in the matrix.

[Canadian_watcher]

Where exactly is the distinction between plausible and crazy? This is an opinion, and not a very good one at that if you ask me.

Crazy:

• Annanuki aliens fought with aliens from Mars - the Annanuki won.
• The Annanuki cross-bred with humans. Now we have human-alien hybrids running the world.
• Princess Diana was a human sacrifice to a goddess of the same name.

Do you believe these things?

MIB

i'm open to these possibilities.
I'd like to know why you are not

I haven't seen any convincing evidence. This is one of the reasons i would like to find a human-alien hybrid believer - to examine their evidence.

Why would you entertain the idea of their existence rather than dismiss it out of hand?

I don't dismiss anything without first thinking about it. In this particular case, the idea - based on ancient legends, lore & oral histories passed down from generation to generation as well as this and that bit of archeological evidence (submerged cities, tech that 'couldn't possibly have existed! but does, etc) - it doesn't seem out of the realms of possibility to me that beings from other solar systems or planets within ours might have existed and might have been here - might still be here - we might be a part of them now. It's not at all outrageous to me.

I really am curious, though, as to why any of that is so outrageous to you that you do dismiss it out of hand. To me that's the key; the reason you are so disturbed by people who think differently than you do.

[Searcher08]

c2w wrote:

Why this tremendous focus on whether people believe what Icke says? Rather than on what he says?

I don't think you can even talk meaningful about Icke for very long unless you either believe or disbelieve his basic premise. I mean it is like talking about Copernicus and his theory of heliocentrism. You can talk about how articulate, charming, eccentric, persuasive, etc he is as a person and all the other fascinating topics he may touch on, but in the end you either believe the world revolves around the sun or vice versa, or perhaps are undecided.

The only reason Icke is even discussed is because he has a unified world historical conspiracy. The basic premise is that lizard-men in disguise have ruled the world for thousands of years. That is pretty clear. What isn't clear is whether people actually believe this literally and are willing to support Icke with evidence. I don't think people should be forced to say whether they believe this or not. But if you are going to debate and defend Icke I think you are obligated to make plain whether you believe his core theory or not. If you don't then I think you lose credibility and it soon becomes more about personality and forum politics.

To me it makes perfect sense to ask someone if they believe Icke. On a global warming thread someone arguing the contrarily opinion would not be surprised if they were asked whether or not they believed in global warming. Do you believe in lizard men seems like a fair opening in a thread about Icke.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to neither beieve him, nor disbelieve him, but that enters the realm of non-binary logic, which would probably make any holier-than thou reductionists around ball their tiny fists and scream "But but but do you beeeeelieeeeeve - YES or NO?"

I dont accept your protestations of being just here to "discuss" - (or should I say for us to shut up and listen to your 'correct way of seeing things' at face value...
with these links? from a Randi worshipper? Give me a frickken break!

whose site says

I don’t believe in spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, or any manner of invisible agents with power and intention. This blog exists for the sole purpose of entertaining the world with the weird and wacky way people think and believe.

You say on metabunk
I have a pretty extensive background in getting media attention for issues and causes.
No shit? Perhaps you can share which ones?

Links from your website's front page
Conspiracies Debunked

100 Errors in Oliver Stone's JFK
Autistic Skeptic
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Conspiracy Theories Debunked
Contrail Science
Debunkatron
Is that a FEMA Camp?
JFK Assassination Resources Online
Metabunk
Moon Base Clavius
RationalWiki
SkepticWars
The Skeptic's Dictionary
The Soap Box

Skeptics

Autistic Skeptic
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Contrail Science
Debunkatron
Doubtful News
James Randi
Joe Nickell
Metabunk
Michael Shermer
Quack Watch
RationalWiki
Skeptic's Dictionary
The Skeptic's Dictionary
The Soap Box
Watts Up With That?

UFO

Blue Book Archive
UFO files • UK National Archives

Web Pages

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Dihydrogen Monoxide
Doubtful News
Fallacy Files
HAARP Home Page
James Randi
Michael Shermer
Quack Watch
Rubino World
Scottish Rite of Freemasonry
Watts Up With That?

[seemslikeadream]

I have a pretty extensive background in getting media attention for issues and causes......well you got what you came for