Who did you vote for?

[Pistonsbeneath]

What would David Icke have you do then?

he's just trying to educate people right now....many people are waking up...if enough of us wake up who knows what could happen

[saphyre]

I just wanted to say that every1 should go and watch 4 lions, its one of the best films ive ever seen

[the acid never lies]

What would David Icke have you do then?

he's just trying to educate people right now....many people are waking up...if enough of us wake up who knows what could happen

People need to do more than just 'wake up' - knowing the system is corrupt simply isn't enough.

Knowing only as much about Icke as I've read on wikipedia, I can only comment that although I think a lot of what he says is off key, at least he is making a lot of people think about the kind of corruption that rules our lives and hopefully inspiring people to want to do something about it. Whether you think blood sucking reptiles are behind it or not, anybody who thinks the system stinks and that it should be replaced is cool with me (as long as they're not of the nutty zionist conspiracy* variety!)

I would just like to add that although I am an atheist, I can see how religion can help orient people to strive for a better life which is not something to ridicule. Just try not to be so hurt by people thinking your ideas are loopy, understand that these kind of views require a massive 'leap of faith'


*i.e. people who believe in a zionist conspiracy not aimed at 'zionist conspirators'!!

[the acid never lies]

Also, a note about skepticism:

Skeptics usually get classed as disbelievers. That may seem a fair criticism, as anyone would be hard pushed to find a skeptic who believes that a chair could be levitated by mind power, that psychics can predict the future, that homeopathy works by anything other than placebo effects, or that spiritualist mediums are really passing on messages from the dead.

This can lead to believers in these phenomena, and those who may be termed "fence-sitters" on such issues, thinking of skeptics as close-minded disbelievers: people whose minds are closed to the possibility that these things could be true.

Is this fair; are skeptics close-minded disbelievers?

No, that's not a fair or accurate description. To understand why, we need to realise that there is more than one way that knowledge can be classified:

A priori.
This is often described as "before experience" propositional knowledge. This is assumed knowledge that may have come from reasoning, an opinion, intuition, or something that a person may simply have accepted as true.

The defining feature is that it is propositional knowledge, a belief, or an opinion that is formed, without the person having prior experience of the subject.

A posteriori.
This is described as “after the fact” propositional knowledge. This is empirical knowledge that is gained through experience and which requires evidence for validation or support. The best example of a posteriori knowledge is scientific knowledge. The defining feature is that it is propositional knowledge, or an opinion that is formed, that is based on empirical evidence.


When people criticise skeptics for disbelieving, what they tend to imply is that skeptics adopt an a priori position on things, i.e. that they decide not to believe in things in advance of experiencing or examining them.

Of course the truth is that skeptics adopt the exact opposite approach to things. Whenever a claim is made, skeptics do not accept it or reject it; they doubt it and test it.

After testing a claim that is found to be false or lacking in supporting evidence, that is the time that skeptics will disbelieve the claim. In fact, it is no longer disbelief: it's knowledge – a posteriori knowledge.

Example:

James Randi (see: Randi.org) has tested hundreds of people who claim the ability to dowse for various items. Out of those hundreds of dowsers, not a single one of them could demonstrate their claimed ability under properly controlled observing conditions.

Skeptics do not accept that dowsing works. This is not due to close-minded disbelief, it's because of a posteriori knowledge on the subject.

It should be noted that most claims for alternative therapies, ESP, PK, weeping statues, mediumship, etc., have been around for a long time, and have been thoroughly tested and found wanting.

It should be obvious why skeptics do not accept the claims for such things. The real question that should be asked is not, “why do people disbelieve these things?” but “why do people continue to believe them?”

[kay]

What would David Icke have you do then?

he's just trying to educate people right now....many people are waking up...if enough of us wake up who knows what could happen

I think it would be more useful if his education offered constructive criticism rather than just criticism. It's like saying "Shit! There's a bomb in the place!" and then sitting there and doing nothing about it and then watching to see whether other people will get off their arses to do something about it. I haven't read enough of his stuff to decide whether he makes sense or whether he's just one of those contrary people who see most major causes/beliefs to be patently false, but I do think it's somewhat hypocritical to alert people to a potential problem but not offer any form of a solution whether it's a good solution or not. Or even just to say "I have absolutely no idea how to fix it."

[magma]

he's just trying to educate people right now....many people are waking up...if enough of us wake up who knows what could happen

Why is it that when people like the Suffragettes or the Civil Rights campaigners in the US started "waking" people, their cause went from grassroots steamrollered into national and even worldwide movements in a matter of only a few years (Suffragettes started with *coffee mornings* and were voting within about 15 years) but for Icke there needs to be a "tipping point" which has been somewhere undefined (and over the horizon) since the mid 90s... is it just that nobody with the energy/will to do anything constructive has read Icke's ideas? Or is it that there is no possible action to take in this case?

[the acid never lies]

he's just trying to educate people right now....many people are waking up...if enough of us wake up who knows what could happen

Why is it that when people like the Suffragettes or the Civil Rights campaigners in the US started "waking" people, their cause went from grassroots steamrollered into national and even worldwide movements in a matter of only a few years (Suffragettes started with *coffee mornings* and were voting within about 15 years) but for Icke there needs to be a "tipping point" which has been somewhere undefined (and over the horizon) since the mid 90s... is it just that nobody with the energy/will to do anything constructive has read Icke's ideas? Or is it that there is no possible action to take in this case?

Well I think you said it there: grassroots direct action. I know somebody with pretty whacky views about NWO and all this other new age stuff which reads like sci-fi liberation theology and we give hims some stick for that but the guy is a good activist (and a good guy to boot) so we don't lay it on too thick.