David Icke's Theories about Christianity Debunked

It goes through all the common things Icke talks about regarding Jesus and Christianity.
This is from a 2.5 hour video called David Icke Debunked

reply to post by Amenti


Star n flag, I read Ickes but I must have the opposite side of the story as well.

The video does stretch some claims but all in all it's worth a view.

How about a summary and some opinions........
The world ended today, I am not sure whether I want to waste 2 and a half hours on this video.

reply to post by Amenti


Chris White puts out some good videos.

He may have coined the term debunkumentary

David Icke is in league with Satan. He refutes Jesus Christ, yet propagates his race of reptilian hybrids, with far far less evidence.

Why does he think there is a bloodline that rules behind the scenes under reptilian control. Why not call it what it is, demonic?

Mistrust everyone, especially David Icke

reply to post by sinthia


You wrote:

["David Icke is in league with Satan."]

This is a brilliant and self-evident argument, with the logic standing a mile out. Why isn't it used more often?

Quote: ["He refutes Jesus Christ, yet propagates his race of reptilian hybrids, with far far less evidence."]

Probably depends on what evidence-criteria you use. Repeating a holy manual as 'evidence' is e.g. an increasingly less popular method, while Icke does present a bit more sense than that.

Quote: ["Why does he think there is a bloodline that rules behind the scenes under reptilian control. Why not call it what it is, demonic?"]

I can't speak for Icke on this, but personally I refrain from using religionist (and especially christian) demonology, as it's part of the intricate christian system of semantic mindgames.

Quote: ["Mistrust everyone, especially David Icke"]

On this suggestion of general paranoia, I think, I would rather start with mistrusting you and your ilk.

Icke uses satanic language.
I gather you are prejudice.
If there is an agenda that has lasted thousands of years, why is it unlikely to be the Satan of the Bible, which has been known about for thousands of years?
What reptilian evidence have you seen?
If you consider that apart from obviously atheists, there is misrepesentation or open hostility towards Jesus Christ from the jews, muslims, new agers, and now conspiracy theorists. Satan is playing a blinder, and the switched on conspiracy theorists can't even see it.

oooh.. guess what I figured out about god? He is auctually two faced, he plays the devil on his other cheek. Only God posseses that kind and form of authority and power to persuade multitudes of people is why. What was wriiten biblically anyway was that satan used to be an angel, and only humans are angels. So, that excludes us as humans.

btw: Did you know, that whole subject of angels, saints and ghosts ect.. is our rank as humans with Angel being our top human rank and ghost being somewhere down below in rank ect. cool huh?

- F.F. Prussia

I dont want to confuse you with my edit of my last post, so let me explain something. Only god is a spirit, and we as humans are souls. So if you were wondering about that, just ignore the entire spirit aspect and just worry about ourselves as souls being in line of human ranks as Angels, Saints, Ghosts, on and on.. ok?

- F.F. Prussia

reply to post by sinthia

why is it unlikely to be the Satan of the Bible, which has been known about for thousands of years?

Because it isn't likely that any such character exists. The word from which we get Satan just means ADVERSARY, the supernatural boogeyman style Satan of modern Christian mythology developed over the centuries and blended with the character Lucifer. There is no evidence for any supernatural entities let alone one conjured from a composite of myths and verses over the course of centuries.

Saying that Icke and his reptilians are satanic makes you look just as crazy as Icke himself is. You might as well be arguing over the color of an invisible unicorn or what style of clothes the naked emperor is wearing.

What evidence?

Originally posted by sinthia
Icke uses satanic language.
I gather you are prejudice.
If there is an agenda that has lasted thousands of years, why is it unlikely to be the Satan of the Bible, which has been known about for thousands of years?
What reptilian evidence have you seen?
If you consider that apart from obviously atheists, there is misrepesentation or open hostility towards Jesus Christ from the jews, muslims, new agers, and now conspiracy theorists. Satan is playing a blinder, and the switched on conspiracy theorists can't even see it.

Satan wasn't the first boogeyman.

Just as Jesus was not the first "savior"

Originally posted by MrXYZ
What evidence?

not funny. churches like 7-11's these days.

"Because it isn't likely that any such character exists. The word from which we get Satan just means ADVERSARY, the supernatural boogeyman style Satan of modern Christian mythology developed over the centuries and blended with the character Lucifer. There is no evidence for any supernatural entities let alone one conjured from a composite of myths and verses over the course of centuries."

No, that is the typical conspiracy theorist fed garbage. The book of Genesis is pver three thousand years old, and that is verifiable fact. The serpent is Satan.

"Saying that Icke and his reptilians are satanic makes you look just as crazy as Icke himself is."

The point was that Icke himself calls the bloodlines Satanic, yet puts their source down to reptilians, rather than Satan, quite an odditity.

"You might as well be arguing over the color of an invisible unicorn or what style of clothes the naked emperor is wearing."
Or what made the big bang, bang, or the origins of life, or the origins of the laws of physics, or moral law, or missing links.......not everything is materially reducable.

reply to post by sinthia

The book of Genesis is pver three thousand years old, and that is verifiable fact. The serpent is Satan.

The book of Genesis never says the serpent was Satan. Congrats, you've failed to even read your own religious text. The book of Genesis also is not fact. Light was created before the sun, as were plants, people get created via magic from dirt and there's magical fruit that gives people knowledge. The story is about as far from factually accurate as is possible.

The point was that Icke himself calls the bloodlines Satanic, yet puts their source down to reptilians, rather than Satan, quite an odditity.

That is odd, I'll give you that. Definitely a misuse of the word satanic but then what would you expect from someone like Icke?

Or what made the big bang, bang, or the origins of life, or the origins of the laws of physics, or moral law, or missing links

Big difference, we know the Big Bang happened, the background radiation is still there and the Universe is red-shifted away from us (it's expanding) which tells us it was all together in a singularity at one point. The laws of physics don't actually exist, they are just descriptions of how matter and energy behave and interact. There is no missing link, we've got plenty of links between ape and man already. Morals also have been shown to have evolved. So you see those subjects have nothing to do with Satan or Reptilians because they all have explanations or evidence supporting them.

The serpent is Satan, read the rest of the Bible.

"Big difference, we know the Big Bang happened, the background radiation is still there and the Universe is red-shifted away from us (it's expanding) which tells us it was all together in a singularity at one point."
I said what made it bang. You assume that the big bang happened, redshift and background radiation are both beliefs based on the notion of the big bang happening. I asked what made the big bang bang


"The laws of physics don't actually exist, they are just descriptions of how matter and energy behave and interact."
Bizarre. How can you possibly 'do' science without at least believing that there are laws which behave in certain ways?

"There is no missing link, we've got plenty of links between ape and man already."
You better tell the other evolutionists then, cus they are still looking. BTW most evolutionists don't even believe that man evolved from apes any more, rather a common ancestor of both. That idea bit the dust when it became evident that we are too physiologically different to primates. Alledgedly we share a common ancestor that both species evolved from some millions of years ago - although there is silence as to how the common ancestor got the DNA potential to form different species.

"Morals also have been shown to have evolved."
Have they, how? If mind is simply a function of an organic chemical/electrical brain then morals are a result of chemical reactions, not independant thought. To Hitler, his morals were correct to himself - do you share his beliefs?

"So you see those subjects have nothing to do with Satan or Reptilians because they all have explanations or evidence supporting them."
I haven't seen any evidence.

reply to post by sinthia

I said what made it bang. You assume that the big bang happened, redshift and background radiation are both beliefs based on the notion of the big bang happening. I asked what made the big bang bang

Simple answer...we don't know how the big bang started, or what was before it. But that doesn't mean you can just substitute the answer with magic and claim a deity did it.

Bizarre. How can you possibly 'do' science without at least believing that there are laws which behave in certain ways?

The laws of physics just describe the environment...they are not "entities".

"There is no missing link, we've got plenty of links between ape and man already."
You better tell the other evolutionists then, cus they are still looking.

Of course they are still looking for fossils (why would they stop?), but every fossil they find fits the theory perfectly.

BTW most evolutionists don't even believe that man evolved from apes any more, rather a common ancestor of both.

The theory always stated man had a common ancestor with today's apes

That idea bit the dust when it became evident that we are too physiologically different to primates. Alledgedly we share a common ancestor that both species evolved from some millions of years ago - although there is silence as to how the common ancestor got the DNA potential to form different species.

Complete and utter nonsense

"So you see those subjects have nothing to do with Satan or Reptilians because they all have explanations or evidence supporting them."
I haven't seen any evidence.

I know why

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1e2710c4d6d.jpg[/atsimg]

more like monkey see monkey do?

and then when it happens, hear no evil see no evil speak no evil.

lol

Evil has always been part of the Human Condition.
It will never go away.
Period.

Originally posted by sinthia
Icke uses satanic language.
I gather you are prejudice.
If there is an agenda that has lasted thousands of years, why is it unlikely to be the Satan of the Bible, which has been known about for thousands of years?
What reptilian evidence have you seen?
If you consider that apart from obviously atheists, there is misrepesentation or open hostility towards Jesus Christ from the jews, muslims, new agers, and now conspiracy theorists. Satan is playing a blinder, and the switched on conspiracy theorists can't even see it.

I take it, that this post of yours is addressed to me.

Quote: ["Icke uses satanic language."]

Considerable less than YOU use circular arguments, from where you send out otherwise unverified postulates. In a more common langauge: You spread your own faith-based propaganda, which "is true, because it's true".

Quote: ["I gather you are prejudice."]

Definitely. I'm anti-zombification, anti-loudmoth-moronic, anti-ignorance; pro-competence, pro-education, pro-systematic methodology etc. I'm a very biased person on such.

Quote: ["If there is an agenda that has lasted thousands of years, why is it unlikely to be the Satan of the Bible, which has been known about for thousands of years?"]

I do not expect my opposition to have a university degree in philosophy/logic, 'common sense' is satisfactory.

Being likely or unlikely only qualifies something as an OPTION or not. Other options could be Iblis from Islam, Mara from the east, or the king of goblins hiding in closets or behind doors. Even the flying spaghetti monster has his negative counterpart (but that's besides the point now).

Quote: ["What reptilian evidence have you seen?"]

(I'm serious now): A young, female, hybrid reptilian siiting in my home two meters away from me for a couple of hours. No verbal communication, but meaningful eye-contact.

That I'm bonkers is a possibility, but I'm at least considered non-schizophrenic and un-braindamaged by medical expertice examining me in this context.

Quote: ["If you consider that apart from obviously atheists,"]

Atheists are not uniform or homogenous enough to be 'obvious' in any sense....so please. Clarification.

Quote: ["there is misrepesentation or open hostility towards Jesus Christ from the jews, muslims, new agers, and now conspiracy theorists"]

Concerning 'misrepresentation' don't forget, that christians are the worst enemy of christians through their differing Jesus-interpretations. As far as I can see, 'Satan' is a character created early social engineers as part of a conspiracy theory, with the alleged good guy Jahveh as a counter-point (Jahveh being rather demonic as he is presented in the bible, could never be 'sold' on his own merits).

Quote: ["Satan is playing a blinder, and the switched on conspiracy theorists can't even see it."]

Another explanation is, that brainwashed fanatics present what could be imaginary fantasies, and when no-one can see these fantasies they (the no-ones) are on circle-argumentatory grounds declared blind or similar. You MAY have heard the word 'evidence'. Try to apply it to your argumentation.