Zeitgeist: should we atheists trust it without hesitate?

ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Zeitgeist: should we atheists trust it without hesitate?

Hi there to everyone!

 

I've seen the documentary titled Zeitgeist and even seems very logical to me, I think we should doubt a little bit of its statements according to the skepticism. Or do you think is wrong when all the evidence presented there seems to be perfectly right?

Thank you.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5801
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
ManuAndres44 wrote:Hi there

ManuAndres44 wrote:

Hi there to everyone!

 

I've seen the documentary titled Zeitgeist and even seems very logical to me, I think we should doubt a little bit of its statements according to the skepticism. Or do you think is wrong when all the evidence presented there seems to be perfectly right?

Thank you.

It is a very mixed bag. It presents some good evidence in the first part, but gets very confused on stellar alignments.

The other two parts are just rehashes of some common conspiracy theories.

It looks to me like the first part is meant to appeal to the skeptics, make them trust the film, then dump the other shit on them.

You must be using 'logical' in avery loose sense. The more you know about any of the stuff in the film from other sources, the less impressive it is. It is far from 'perfectly right' in its evidence. You have no justification for claiming that unless you have done a LOT of cross-checking and research of your own.

It is very naive and opening yourself to all sorts of scams, like this film, if you don't check every 'interesting' claim as many ways as you can. 

We should never trust anything without hesitation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
They propose a very closed

They propose a very closed market, where one world government (with some über computers) decide what is made and everything else the economy is supposed to do.

If they take away that freedom, what other freedoms that have nasty consequences could they obliterate? Free speech, for one.


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

ManuAndres44 wrote:

Hi there to everyone!

 

I've seen the documentary titled Zeitgeist and even seems very logical to me, I think we should doubt a little bit of its statements according to the skepticism. Or do you think is wrong when all the evidence presented there seems to be perfectly right?

Thank you.

It is a very mixed bag. It presents some good evidence in the first part, but gets very confused on stellar alignments.

The other two parts are just rehashes of some common conspiracy theories.

It looks to me like the first part is meant to appeal to the skeptics, make them trust the film, then dump the other shit on them.

You must be using 'logical' in avery loose sense. The more you know about any of the stuff in the film from other sources, the less impressive it is. It is far from 'perfectly right' in its evidence. You have no justification for claiming that unless you have done a LOT of cross-checking and research of your own.

It is very naive and opening yourself to all sorts of scams, like this film, if you don't check every 'interesting' claim as many ways as you can. 

We should never trust anything without hesitation.

 

Hi BobSpence! Thanks for your comment.

Well, the documentary was impressive for me but not like an astonishing info because I had read some about Jesus was a solar deity as the rest of them. The thing is I saw the title on a youtube video which claimed a rebuttal to Zeitgeist. I don't have enough information to make contrasts at the moment, but as both of you and me share a similar opinion, I mustn't believe with a closed mind perspective in everything stated in the documentary. Therefore, do you know some web sites or books in which I can pick up some info?

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:They

Thunderios wrote:

They propose a very closed market, where one world government (with some über computers) decide what is made and everything else the economy is supposed to do.

If they take away that freedom, what other freedoms that have nasty consequences could they obliterate? Free speech, for one.

Hi thunderios! Thanks for you opinion!

 

Some opinions consider the conspiracy theories aren't true at all, and are configured to wash brains and for catch up geek's attention, haha. However, there are some episodes very similar to 9/11 conspiracy theory in the world history. For instance, the emperor Nero burned the Coliseum and blamed the christians in order to start pursuing and killing them. I think this could be possible from the perspective of a group of power behind a government trying to take control of the economics and profits in a specific world market. But as there are no evidence to support this idea, you'll agree it's a conspiracy theory.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44

ManuAndres44 wrote:

Thunderios wrote:

They propose a very closed market, where one world government (with some über computers) decide what is made and everything else the economy is supposed to do.

If they take away that freedom, what other freedoms that have nasty consequences could they obliterate? Free speech, for one.

Hi thunderios! Thanks for you opinion!

Some opinions consider the conspiracy theories aren't true at all, and are configured to wash brains and for catch up geek's attention, haha. However, there are some episodes very similar to 9/11 conspiracy theory in the world history. For instance, the emperor Nero burned the Coliseum and blamed the christians in order to start pursuing and killing them. I think this could be possible from the perspective of a group of power behind a government trying to take control of the economics and profits in a specific world market. But as there are no evidence to support this idea, you'll agree it's a conspiracy theory.

I don't think it's happening right now. But Zeitgeits tells us that the whole economy should be revised. I don't think, though, that their revision of economy is a good one, since it will put the power over the entire earth in the hands of a small group of people, that are going to plan the whole economy. If are going to control our resources, they control everything we do. It does sound like a conspiracy theory, but if you give the entire economy to a few people, they will be corrupted.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44

ManuAndres44 wrote:

 However, there are some episodes very similar to 9/11 conspiracy theory in the world history. 

I've not seen 1 piece of compelling evidence that supports any 9/11 conspiracy theory, that didn't have a better alternate hypothesis.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:I don't

Thunderios wrote:

I don't think it's happening right now. But Zeitgeits tells us that the whole economy should be revised. I don't think, though, that their revision of economy is a good one, since it will put the power over the entire earth in the hands of a small group of people, that are going to plan the whole economy. If are going to control our resources, they control everything we do. It does sound like a conspiracy theory, but if you give the entire economy to a few people, they will be corrupted.

Yes, that's the main problem. No matter if that situation was real or not, the real trouble is to give the control of economics to a little group of people to rule a country, or the world. We must trust in the majorities, in the people by themselves without governments.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: We should

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

We should never trust anything without hesitation.

 

I agree and I can't stress it enough. Question everything, no matter who says it. 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:We should

BobSpence1 wrote:

We should never trust anything without hesitation.

This ^^^

 

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:They

Thunderios wrote:

They propose a very closed market, where one world government (with some über computers) decide what is made and everything else the economy is supposed to do.

Yes, and a closed or well organized market is a good idea, because contemporary markets do not work at all. Billions of people have lack of food, because they don't have money for it, because they don't have opportunities to make it, because rich people make still more money and poor people still less. I think the Zeitgeist's system is better. It won't cause catastrophes like when paranoia of a few global wheat traders caused 33% rise of prices of everything in countries like Mozambique, which resulted in riots and police shooting real ammo into crowds, because they ran out of rubber bullets. 

Thunderios wrote:
 If they take away that freedom, what other freedoms that have nasty consequences could they obliterate? Free speech, for one.
Nope, resource-based economy introduced in Zeitgeist is an act of justice and love for mankind as a whole. It does not take anyone's freedom away, it rather restores the freedom of the have-nots for their fair share of global resources. Our freedom ends where someone else's freedom begins and restoring that equilibrium is nothing to be afraid of. 

Free speech for example has nothing to do with resources, nor with resource-based economy. Resource-based economy would not even restrict printing material, as long as it's produced on hemp paper, which is many times easier to produce in great amounts, compared to wood paper. 

My opinion is, that Zeitgeist solves technical problems by technical means, for example, intelligent distribution and processing of resources. As for our life style and leisure activities in such a brave new world, that is a different question altogether. Answer for it should be sought elsewhere and I just might know where.

Thunderios wrote:

I don't think it's happening right now. But Zeitgeits tells us that the whole economy should be revised. I don't think, though, that their revision of economy is a good one, since it will put the power over the entire earth in the hands of a small group of people, that are going to plan the whole economy. If are going to control our resources, they control everything we do. It does sound like a conspiracy theory, but if you give the entire economy to a few people, they will be corrupted.

The power over entire Earth already is in hands of a (relatively) small group of people. And it is no conspiracy, it is THE economic system we have today. It is the same system we had 200 years ago, it just reached it's limits, beyond which it stops working or making any sense at all. Making money out of nothing and using them to buy out limited resources globally is a telltale sign.

How else could one man suddenly get in control of global supplies of cacao? And I already mentioned the wheat incident. (which started with Putin's embargo on wheat due to wildfires) Really, it can't get any worse, some people are just hesitant because they're on the lucky continents. Once you realize that Earth is basically a big spaceship with limited supplies, and not a magic self-replenishing box of hamburgers and iPods, it will suddenly start making sense. Don't worry about free speech, flapping our jaws costs nothing, there's no need to restrict it.

By the way, I always wonder how many skeptical thinkers get Christians on trial any time they can, yet they accept blind expansion of capitalism and speculative economy without question. They may not believe in Yahweh, Jesus or Holy spirit, but it looks to me like they believe in the magic box of endless hamburgers and iPods, or that third world nations should put up with their poverty and not fly airplanes into our rich global trade buildings. It's hard to tell which belief is more irrational.

You should read dr. Raj Patel's book 

Stuffed and Starved  

Markets, Power and the Hidden Battle for the World’s Food System

And of course

The Value of Nothing

How to reshape market society and redefine democracy

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: dr.Raj Patel's book

     Correct, I saw this guy on book TV and Democracy Now ! , he's very good. I wish that more people had the ability to hear him talk.        Here's a link to Democracy Now ! interview with Dr.Raj Patel --www.democracynow.org/2010/1/12/raj_patel_on_the_value_of

Signature ? How ?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
lalib wrote:BobSpence1

lalib wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

We should never trust anything without hesitation.

 

I agree and I can't stress it enough. Question everything, no matter who says it. 

I'm hesitant to take this advise. How can we know this is trustworthy?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote:Yes,

ManuAndres44 wrote:

Yes, that's the main problem. No matter if that situation was real or not, the real trouble is to give the control of economics to a little group of people to rule a country, or the world. We must trust in the majorities, in the people by themselves without governments.

Ever heard of tyranny of the majority? The ultimate conspiracy theory. Considering that the majority are theists gullible enough to believe anything a preacher claims as long as he promises a lot, I think we'd be screwed.

What I'd like to see happen is people no longer accept the idea of being ruled or the need to be ruled. A rational system to pay for using resources and limiting population growth.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, thanks for the

Luminon, thanks for the post. I can't oppose to most of it. I think I'm going to read those books (after I finished my exams, that is).
The entire problem lies with emotions, I think. If humans didn't have their animal instincts to drive them to be greedy and stuff, we wouldn't have this. I think we should build perfectly rational robots, and have them take over, so we don't waste a lot of stuff, and at least our legacy will continue to exist.

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:Luminon,

Thunderios wrote:

Luminon, thanks for the post. I can't oppose to most of it. I think I'm going to read those books (after I finished my exams, that is). 

Good for you. I had both of these books for a while, but soon a friend snatched them away. Probably to make excerpts from them on his website.


Thunderios wrote:
 The entire problem lies with emotions, I think. If humans didn't have their animal instincts to drive them to be greedy and stuff, we wouldn't have this. I think we should build perfectly rational robots, and have them take over, so we don't waste a lot of stuff, and at least our legacy will continue to exist.
Yes, emotions are a great problem, most of people are controllable by emotions, easily deluded, intimidated, tempted or discouraged. But other than that, I don't think we have instincts to be greedy, insticts are so old, that they originate from times when there was no big wealth to accumulate, because it got rotten quickly or couldn't be carried by nomad groups. I think it's the competitive society and poverty, which reinforces greed. Of course, it makes use of the ancient protective instincts.

But people have one redeeming quality: adaptability. People quickly adapt their behavior every time prices change. If they can do bad things as a herd, they can do good things as a herd. Marketing and propaganda can work both ways. If a regime will change towards good, people will likely follow it. 

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: I'm hesitant to

EXC wrote:

 

I'm hesitant to take this advise. How can we know this is trustworthy?

 

 That's the spirit!


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Ever heard of

EXC wrote:

Ever heard of tyranny of the majority? The ultimate conspiracy theory. Considering that the majority are theists gullible enough to believe anything a preacher claims as long as he promises a lot, I think we'd be screwed.

What I'd like to see happen is people no longer accept the idea of being ruled or the need to be ruled. A rational system to pay for using resources and limiting population growth.

Hi there!

That's why I consider to combine the rational thinking leading to atheism in order to create a secular society in which people would realize that there's no need neither for gods nor governments. The current idea of a majority make us thinking in a crazy crowd as in a strike or a pandemonium situation like a chaos. So the first goal is to make people think and then make them to look for their own answers and together with a community.

Hmmm.. people not accepting the idea of being ruled by a government wouldn't give a bit of chance to a system like the one you describe. Anyway, personally I don't believe in any politician, any party and any government. I don't to trust none them anymore

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Yes, emotions

Luminon wrote:

Yes, emotions are a great problem, most of people are controllable by emotions, easily deluded, intimidated, tempted or discouraged. But other than that, I don't think we have instincts to be greedy, insticts are so old, that they originate from times when there was no big wealth to accumulate, because it got rotten quickly or couldn't be carried by nomad groups. I think it's the competitive society and poverty, which reinforces greed. Of course, it makes use of the ancient protective instincts.

But people have one redeeming quality: adaptability. People quickly adapt their behavior every time prices change. If they can do bad things as a herd, they can do good things as a herd. Marketing and propaganda can work both ways. If a regime will change towards good, people will likely follow it.  

 

Yeah, instincts helped us to evolve. But as Luminon, I think the misdivision of the wealth caused the greed, the richness and poverty. Or at least make it harder between men and women. The adaptability will lead to help each other, as far as I know, because we aren't thinking to take off all the properties of the rest of the people but to have a chance for living with the most necessary things. The best thing would be prices never changed or, prices never existed.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 ManuAndres44 wrote:Hi

 

ManuAndres44 wrote:
Hi thunderios! Thanks for you opinion!

 

Some opinions consider the conspiracy theories aren't true at all, and are configured to wash brains and for catch up geek's attention, haha. However, there are some episodes very similar to 9/11 conspiracy theory in the world history. For instance, the emperor Nero burned the Coliseum and blamed the christians in order to start pursuing and killing them. I think this could be possible from the perspective of a group of power behind a government trying to take control of the economics and profits in a specific world market. But as there are no evidence to support this idea, you'll agree it's a conspiracy theory.

 

Yah, I am wondering if you could elaborate on your use of the term “conspiracy theory” a bit more. It seems as if you used the term in two very different senses there.

 

The first sense seems to be in the fact that there have been conspiracies in history. Sure there have been such. The Gunpowder plot being a classic example or the conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln.

 

Also, since you mention the 9/11 conspiracy theories (which I don't hold to BTW), were you perhaps thinking of the actual conspiracy known as “Operation Northwoods”? That was scarily like the 9/11 theories.

 

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

 

That much being said, it seems to me that you also use the term in the dismissive sense of “they are only conspiracy theories”.

 

Perhaps it is just me but I don't see the actual reason for two uses of the same term in one paragraph.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

Yah, I am wondering if you could elaborate on your use of the term “conspiracy theory” a bit more. It seems as if you used the term in two very different senses there.

 

The first sense seems to be in the fact that there have been conspiracies in history. Sure there have been such. The Gunpowder plot being a classic example or the conspiracy to kill Abraham Lincoln.

 

Also, since you mention the 9/11 conspiracy theories (which I don't hold to BTW), were you perhaps thinking of the actual conspiracy known as “Operation Northwoods”? That was scarily like the 9/11 theories.

 

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

 

That much being said, it seems to me that you also use the term in the dismissive sense of “they are only conspiracy theories”.

 

Perhaps it is just me but I don't see the actual reason for two uses of the same term in one paragraph.

Hi there!

Yeah, you aren't making a misjudgement. I had to use it in two different ways due the lack of evidence a conspiracy theory could have. I've already read the two links you posted and personally all the facts stated in those articles could be true if we consider most of the time the international policies of the U.S. have worked as empire's policies. You probable cannot think in an empire government nowadays due to the advances in the universal history. But for that reason this politic system needs always a plot, a smoke curtain in order to invade another country without the punishment of a commonwealth or international organisms as OAS or ONU.

Beside of the explanations about the objectives of Northwoods, another main goal was to stop the expansion of the communism. U.S. government always considered the "dominoes effect" that would convert all Central American nations in Cuba's allies. As they thought this in advance, they started to attack Cuba with a plot that wasn't completed at the end. However, during the 80's President Reagan and Carter fought the communism in the civil wars of Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador. In this period, they did it without reservations to the world because war was explicit. You can check it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

This seems to be logical for me. But as we cannot demonstrate with very consistent evidence that there always are plots under a smoke curtain, the best attitude is being skeptic. We can consider the Cuba intervention wasn't real at all, and it has appeared nowadays for distracting our attention from something else. But there are no proofs.

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge