Hi Nodes

The situation , from my perspective, is like this: The possible views a person can have are basically infinite, and for any particualr view that exists, it is almost a certainty that its negation exists someplace or other. One can choose to believe this or that Bible is thr word of God (maybe one of them is, who knows

), but if you do not have any significant reason to believe one or the other, then why select any? As most folks, I have been around the block with regards to belief systems, and have seen what others believe, and why. All belief systems seem to conflict with others, so it is obviously up to the individual to find out for themselves, by whatever method they emply, what they think is most likely true. There is absolutely no certainty that a person will reach "the truth", but is is better than believing the first thing someone tries to convince one is true; this method requires that there be some sort of reasoning supporting the chosen belief system (I will glady share mine with anyone who in good faith inquires); the reasoning does not need to scientific, or logical, or even rationally based, but if it doesn't exist, then what is the point of believing anything? I am sure most would agree, but if not, then perhaps we can explore why not.
Now I admire Mr. Icke for stepping up and telling others what he believes in, but if he is not going to provide any reasoning at all, then I must draw an unfortunate comparison with fundamentalist groups, who basically wish others to believe what they do, because it apparently makes sense to them, and should to others- perhaps the earth is 5,000 years old,
that may very well be for all that I know, but it goes against what I have come to belive is true, and if someone thinks this is true, then it would make sense if they could provide their reasoning for thinking so, so others could evaluate the idea on their own terms. People go on public TV and tell whoppers (knowingly or not), so I do not think this can be used as a gauge. What good is it really if one does not offer evidence? What are they doing on TV? Those agreeing will go on nodding their heads, those diagreeing shaking theirs, and those clueless no less unsure than ever- sadly nothing is accomplished, it would seem.
I do not think that Mr. Icke seems so ignorant at all as to take such a stance without evidence, I am merely saying in the videos provided, he does not appear to volunteer his reasoning; perhaps he does so elsewhere. For all I know, every word of what the Zulu gentleman says may be true, but my inborn prejudices may prevent me from taking what he says at face value, after he goes on to say, "And the lizard men carved two caves into the ground, and made there to be a red light in one, and a green light in another; they wished to see what the people would do, so they had them choose which cave they wanted to enter; regardless of how they went in, the ones leaving the red cave came out men, and the ones leaving the green cave came out women." It simply strikes me as the type of language of fables. Every other thing the man says may be true, but after hearing this, it is difficult for me to sort out what may be true, and what is part of a fable.
I am very sorry if it offends anyone, but from my experiences in life, being burned by false beliefs, and from my reasoning, it is difficult for me to accept new claims as I am told them without reasoning to support them.
Again, I am far from calling Icke or anyone else involved a liar or deluded, but merely stating that from what I have seen so far, I am not yet inclined to belive the Reptiles as mentioned exist. I will gladly change my mind if anyone can offer an honestly convincing reason to do so. I do not consider myself a skeptic at all- I belive many things the public would call radical- I simply cannot embrace what is not explained elaborated on.
I am sorry about any misunderstanding; if anyone disagrees with anything I have said, then kindly say so and we can explore it. Sorry to bore everyone! I hope this clears things up for all.
