MovieChat Forums > Zeitgeist (2007) Discussion > The whole zeitgeist movement seems count...

The whole zeitgeist movement seems counter productive?

posted 15 years ago by twentymooseman
36 replies | jump to latest

The movement seems to call for what is essentially communism minus a fascist government. It rejects a monetary system. In the absence of money or other rewards, there is no drive for competition which breeds innovation. Without any kind of innovation, we essentially just stay at a technological and societal stand still. I know people could do things out of the goodness of their hearts and what not, but how long is someone going to do that without wondering what they personally will get out of it? The whole zeitgeist movement is something that looks great on the drawing board but just doesn't work in practice. A utopia is unachievable because humans are not perfect and therefore cannot create a perfect society as the zeitgeist movement strives to do.

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 15 years ago

Two Observations.


1: Communists never had a Fascist Government. Fascism was the type of efficiency laden model used by Mussolini in Italy in the 1930's and 1940's, not even used by Hitler much less Communists.


2: Basically your right. Worse, they basically try to make everyone homogenous. The only way to ensure equality is to give everyone exactly the same things, because assigning assumed Value without monetary costs is impossible. What is worth more? A Drawing pad or a small plant of witling wood? Is a cane or walking stick worth the same as good trousers? If so, can one guy who likes Hiking get it instead? if he does, doesn’t the other guy now get two pair of trousers for the other guys one? The only way to ensure this sort of equality is either o make sure everyone has the same stuff, or to assign value to the stuff.

Worse, how will it be distributed? In the end it will be like Communism tried to be, warehouses filled with unused stuff and people not able to get hat they need. Someone will be in charge of distribution and will distribute unevenly to suit his own agenda or to reward favourites.

Human Nature wont be ignored.

reply
formatting help
[–] barlowe2003 15 years ago

Will this perfect utopia ever come to fruition? Maybe in heaven. But never on Earth.

reply
formatting help
[–] axl9871 14 years ago

That is a very pessimistic view of humanity in general. Humanity is continuously progressing in knowledge and understanding. More people are doubting the existence of a God and are awaking. I think that in our current situation, where is still popular, we're not prepared for a utopia. But if we take into account the massive social leaps we've gone through in the last decades, we're generally heading more towards the right direction.

In 150 years technology would be supremely developed. I'd say that by 2150 countries would be auto sustainable. Agriculture would reap many benefit from technology benefits, for example: genetically modified giant corn grains to feed entire villages. Famine would be rare. Wars would not be fought for oil, since energy would be renewable by then.

Humanity is not perfect 'at the moment', but with each generation, we're only becoming smarter. A natural consequence to knowledge is progress.

------------
"This is my life and it is ending one minute at a time..."

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Ax-

That is a very pessimistic view of humanity in general.



is more pessemisic to think people buy into this sort of Utopian Rubbish. It was postualted int he 18th Century and lead to terror, int he 19th Century and lead to COmmuism in the 20th century, and lead to enslavement. So far the Utopian Dreams have failed, why should we strive for a failed, Atheistic Humanism that simply defies Human nature?




Humanity is continuously progressing in knowledge and understanding.



Not really. We may have more Technology and more accumulated Knowledge as a whole, but too many peopel don't boher to do real study, makin them suseptable to movies like this. The very existance of "Zeitgeost' shows how gullible Humans are, becsuse its ridiculously easy to discredit this movie.




More people are doubting the existence of a God and are awaking.



You know, sayign that doubtign the existance of a God is "awakening" means that you beleif that those who beleive God exists are somehow Asleep. One thing I've always hated about Modern Atheism is how it arrogantly asusmes anyoen who disagree s is les sintellegent, less enlightene, less aware, or oerall has a lower level of concious awareness.

I mean, that if God actually exists? Would it really be "Awakening" to deny the Truth? And are you really so cerain of yoru conclusions? If so, if an Atheistic society is so much higher in its enlightened conciosuness, why is it that the Atheistic Societies ten to have the most Social problems? The Soviet Union as not a Paridise and despite the use of Sweden n or Norway by Modern Athiest sites as exampels of a good godless Sociey, thse societies have a higher rate of Suicide, lower on average incomes, fewer goods causign them to live a mroe spartain life, and even then aren't really as Atheistic as peopel claim.


Psychological Studies have also shown that those who beleic ein God and atend worhsip services regulalry have higher rates of contentment at work, more successful careers, an suffer depression nd anxiety far less, and recover form joblessness or personal problems much faster. Why shoudl we think they aren'r Awakened and Atheists are?

Arrogance like this just doens't work.




I think that in our current situation, where is still popular, we're not prepared for a utopia. But if we take into account the massive social leaps we've gone through in the last decades, we're generally heading more towards the right direction.



You do realise that in rtodays world most of Europe has sunk into an Economic qwuagmire, and peopls overall optimism or he Future is at an all time Low. Crime is increasign as is social and personal dysnfunction. Manwhile, in America, we are divided along party political lines, and have the same econoic problems as Europe. All brought on by faile dPolitical and econoic theories we are clongign to.


Divorce, failure in personla firendships, and job dissatisfation, as well as underacheivementin life, are at an all time high.



So I don't see hwo this is "The right direction".



In 150 years technology would be supremely developed. I'd say that by 2150 countries would be auto sustainable. Agriculture would reap many benefit from technology benefits, for example: genetically modified giant corn grains to feed entire villages. Famine would be rare. Wars would not be fought for oil, since energy would be renewable by then.




H.G. Wells predicted this too, and it fell through. In fact any 19th century Socialost thinker imagined the world perfected by Science and ztechnology, without God, and embracign the same basic ideals as seen in Zeitgeist, and so fsr its never happened.

Why shoudkl I buy intot he 130 year old fable now?



Humanity is not perfect 'at the moment', but with each generation, we're only becoming smarter. A natural consequence to knowledge is progress.



Actually the latest generation is less intellegentthan the previous, less capable of handlign their own life, stay immature much longer, perhaos into thei rmid 20's, and can't ba;ance a check book, arrange private affairs, or keep personal relationships.


Havgn mroe Tech isnt the same as actuakly beign Smarter.

reply
formatting help
[–] axl9871 14 years ago

How is the idea of a utopia rubbish? Humanity's ultimate goal is to live in fair and balanced society. While it is true that human beings have violent tendencies, we also have benevolent tendencies. We share and we experience pleasure for being benevolent. You've mentioned past attempts at a 'utopia', but that's all they are 'past attempts'. Time and circumstances change, and as I said I don't think that we're ready for a utopia at the moment. But who is to say that in the future we won't be?

"It only ends once, everything before that is just progress."

Well the first idea I had of a utopia as a child, was Heaven. The idea of a utopia isn't just an atheistic theory, it's universal. Everyone wants to live in a 'perfect' world, wouldn't you?

Yeah because the existence of digitally distributed information isn't a sign of humanity's progress right? Religion is far easier to discredit than Zeitgeist was, it's a documentary film it has it's errors in information but in what it's core information was right. I find it difficult not to believe it, the way Zeitgeist was presented made it very convincing. I've watched a lot of many other documentary films and the information connects. Most of what was being said in Zeitgeist made sense.

I personally don't view anybody as inferior for being religious. I can understand why a person would choose to believe in such a thing. You can be a very bright person and still choose to worship just because you feel like fitting in. In reality, doubting the existence of your God is a very courageous thing to do. It goes against everything you're taught. There are people that are raised in religion, reject these beliefs and realize that their God does not exist.

Because of religion we have groups like the Taliban in the Middle East. We have backwards societies where there's no attempt at equality, and suicide bombings and terrorist attacks are common place. The countries with the highest rate of homicides are South American countries where religion is very popular. You can mention Sweden's suicide rate, but despite an 'atheistic' country it's much more progressive than a country like Palestine.

Religion makes people happy, ignorance makes people happy. People do not like the idea that there is no divine purpose to their lives. They choose to believe in order to not be depressed. It comes as no surprise that people who believe in God are going to be happier with their lives. But that does not make the existence of God real.

I can respect religion for making people happier. But religion is just an escape from reality. Of course that people who believe in a God are going to be happier, it's an obvious observation. Reality is not pretty. Slaving away at a job just to pay your bills and survive, it's not the life that people want. But if you believed in God, it's only 'temporary' until you reach heaven. There is no freedom.

Because as long as you think that there is a great equalizer in the sky, you won't care about anything. Everything that occurs to you or to the world is pointless, because you believe that one day everyone will go to heaven. "Religion is the people's opium."

Economic problems? We've already gone through the great depression and gotten out of that. Job dissatisfaction? Because of corporation, jobs today are no longer what they used to be before. You're not plowing fields or growing vasts amount of food to feed your village, you're writing down tons of useless information, slaving at computers while staying indoors, it's not fun. It's either that or you're feeding people heart attacks at a fast food restaurant, it's only understandable why people are dissatisfied with their jobs. They've realized how pointless their jobs are.

Progress isn't a straight shot to the top, there's always been obstacles in the path. In general yes we have been progressing, but ofcourse there's still many things we can improve upon.

The reason so many thinkers have come up with the same idea is because it's only a logical conclusion. The rate of technological development only keeps accelerating.

I don't know where you get your statistics. But the things you mentioned have nothing to do with intelligence. Even if our generation isn't as 'smart' as the past generation, we're certainly smarter than people the 1900s. We've only been progressing.
------------
"This is my life and it is ending one minute at a time..."

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Ax-

How is the idea of a utopia rubbish?


Because if you buy into the Enlightenment and Socialist Drivel that created the concept of a godless Utopia in which people place Humanity as the central measure of all things and seek to live in Harmony base don Wealth Redistribution and a centrally planned society, you are ignoring both Human Nature and the lessons of History.

The type of Fantasy perfect world you have in mind can’t be achieved because it violates what it means to be Human, and even gets rid of the things that make us the most Human, and thus blocks us form real peace.



Humanity's ultimate goal is to live in fair and balanced society.


According to whom? And how do you define “Fair and balanced”?


While it is true that human beings have violent tendencies, we also have benevolent tendencies.


Yet the only way these can be expressed is through Religion, something you think of as an escape form Reality. Which is Ironic since your pushing ultimately a Religious Line, though because you’re an Atheist you think your not Religious…


But the Religion you hold to will ultimately undermine itself, because it is not sustainable, as it doesn’t reflect reality. You cannot foster Benevolence by simply advocating pleasure.





We share and we experience pleasure for being benevolent.



Doing the right thing is not always pleasurable or easy, and by focusing on Pleasure you’d end up with people abandoning others if the work gets too hard, and in the end fostering selfishness and hedonism.


You've mentioned past attempts at a 'utopia', but that's all they are 'past attempts'. Time and circumstances change, and as I said I don't think that we're ready for a utopia at the moment. But who is to say that in the future we won't be?



What if the only way to have Utopia is to Embrace “Religion” which you see as an Escape from Reality? Are you willing to examine your own beliefs about Humanity?



"It only ends once, everything before that is just progress."



A nice sounding but meaningless quote is not going to make much difference. What you want is still based on a Fundamentally flawed understanding of Humanity that was created by the Enlightenment. The idea that Humanity was made basically good, but does bad things due to societal pressures and can be made perfect through Societal reengineering, that our problems will go away once our material needs are met, and that Religion is at best an Opiate to remove our pain in life is nothing but Shallow Humanist thinking that’s been demonstrated wrong by Modern Psychology.

To Be COntinued.

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

continued from Above.

Well the first idea I had of a utopia as a child, was Heaven. The idea of a utopia isn't just an atheistic theory, it's universal. Everyone wants to live in a 'perfect' world, wouldn't you?


But, your Atheistic world isn’t perfect, and its precisely because you ignore what it means to be Human that it will fail.
Heck, you can’t even grasp what Religion is. You think you aren’t Religious because your an Atheist as if being an Atheist by definition means your not Religious. Because we all know Religion is all about belief in a god…
You can’t create a Centrally planned society, were all our needs are met, and in which we are free to express ourselves. That society will by necessity place greater Emphasis on the community as a whole than on the Individual, and will attempt to erode Individualism in favour of Communalism. The idea of Property Ownership will also be abolished leading to the State ultimately regulating were goods go and who gets what, disenfranchising those who live in the society, who now have no incentive to work, other than the threat of punishment by the State who will be forced to compel them to work.
You may claim this won’t happen, that we’ll learn form the mistakes of the past, but we won’t. This didn’t just happen in Communist nations but also in Plymouth with Bradford. The idea of common ownership ultimately leads people to become resentful, and not feel at all connected to the land they work. People want to feel like they own and have power over the produce they raise or material goods they make or obtain. People do much better when they have their own Land, their own goods, and control over their own lives rather than trying to share everything in common. People want to have choice, not simple obedience to the State. And before you remind me that Zeitgeist premises a Stateless Future where all are shared in some magical Democracy somehow, keep in mind that this is also the Promise of Communism. It never works, no matter how the idea is recycled.
Yeah because the existence of digitally distributed information isn't a sign of humanity's progress right?


No. Not in the way I meant. Just because we have more Tech doesn’t make us wiser, or even particularly smarter, especially when contrasted as individuals. Just how many of us can actually build a Computer? How many know exactly how that Digital Tech even works? And amongst those who do know, does this knowledge make them expert sin History? Law? Social Development? Psychology?
That’s the point, we aren’t really any Smarter, we just have more Tech.



Religion is far easier to discredit than Zeitgeist was,


Actually Religion is impossible to discredit. Religion is impossible to live without. Religion is not the same thing as belief that a god exists, its belief regarding the Fundamental Nature f our existence, its causes and its meaning, and is used to tell us how we should lea dour lives and how the world around us works.
You make a mistake unthinking its just Theism.
You also make a mistake in thinking Theism is easy to discredit.
Its really not.
Meanwhile all three parts of Zeitgeist can be disproven in moments with the use of Google.



it's a documentary film it has it's errors in information but in what it's core information was right.

The Core information wasn’t right, though. The core information was that Christianity was built up on the ideas of former Pagan Mystery Religions. This is not true, its built from First Century Judaism. It claims Jesus never existed as a man, when he did. It claims Theism somehow divides us form nature and each other which is Patently absurd. I mean, you can’t read C.S. Lewis and think he was divorced from the Natural World, as he obviously loved Nature, as did Tolkein. So did Anslam. So did St. Francis of Assisi. Reading what they left us also reveals a deep love of Humanity, not a hatred of it, or a hatred of those hwo aren’t of our particular beliefs. The idea that Theism leads to such disharmony is easy to discredit just by asking you to read the writings of the Theists who are the most Prominent.
But that’s the point, you don’t. You base your idea of what Theism on off of Atheistic Propaganda that in turn is rooted in 18th and 19th Century Polemic Arguments from those with their own Agenda.

The only reason any of this Sounds true to you at all is because you haven’t studied either Theology or History. Atheists have been more divided within their own Societies, like Communist China or the Soviet Union, than Theistic adherents have been.

I find it difficult not to believe it, the way Zeitgeist was presented made it very convincing. I've watched a lot of many other documentary films and the information connects. Most of what was being said in Zeitgeist made sense.


How does the Astrotheology make sense? Yo do know the Astrotheologial information in this was woefully in error, right?

And how does the bit about Horus and the other Saviour gods make sense? If you looked up the life story of Horus you’d soon realise that no matter what books you read, or websites you visit, none of them recount his Virgin Birth, or his teaching at the Temple at age 12, or his 12 Disciples, or his Sermon on the Mound, or his Crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. None. The only source of information about this version of the Horus Myth are from Christ Myther websites and books, like “The Christ Conspiracy” by Acharya S.
No one recounts it. it’s not real.
The bit about Religion being created to control the masses is also 18th Century Propaganda. The irony is its told to control you.
So by all means tell me how this makes sense.

To Be Continued.Again.

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Continued from Above. Again.

I personally don't view anybody as inferior for being religious. I can understand why a person would choose to believe in such a thing.

This is what I mean by not really understanding the terms. Religion is not about believing in a Thing. Religion is not “Belief in and about God”. You have a Religion, and you’ve proven that here.



You can be a very bright person and still choose to worship just because you feel like fitting in.

Is there room in your mind for those who are very bright and who worship God because they believe God actually exists? Or are all smart people really Atheists, with some worshipping God only to fit in?
In reality, doubting the existence of your God is a very courageous thing to do. It goes against everything you're taught.

But what if you were taught to be an Atheist? Doesn’t this question presuppose that you were brought up believing in God? And is it courageous to doubt Atheism? Or are you going to hand me that line about Atheism not being a belief but a lack of belief as if this reflects reality? Because I’ve seen plenty of Atheist who not only deny God, but raise their Children in a very specific belief system, and it would go against all they believe in to question these Atheistic assumptions. Would you call them courageous of they do? Are converts who were brought up as Secular Humanist Brave in your mind? Or just those brought up as believing in God who question it?



There are people that are raised in religion, reject these beliefs and realize that their God does not exist.


Again, religion is not “Belief in God” and being religious is not “Believing in God”. That said, what about those who are raise din Atheism, and yet who reject those beliefs and realise God does, in fact, exist? Or can you only realise God does’t exist because that part is true? Do we have to play as if your Atheistic assumptions are proven fact? If so, that proves my other point about arrogance.

Because of religion we have groups like the Taliban in the Middle East. We have backwards societies where there's no attempt at equality, and suicide bombings and terrorist attacks are common place. The countries with the highest rate of homicides are South American countries where religion is very popular. You can mention Sweden's suicide rate, but despite an 'atheistic' country it's much more progressive than a country like Palestine.

Have you bothered to look at the good that “Religion” does though? IE, In Italy Catholicism is really big, and it has a relatively low Crime Rate. The same is true of the Republic of Ireland. What about Poland? As to Suicide Bombers, the first Suicide Bombers were actually Atheists. The Tamil Tigers were founded in Sri Lanka in an attempt to secede from that Nation, to form a nation for the Tamil people, and they largely practiced either an Atheistic form of Buddhism, or else were outright Marxists. Saying “Religion caused this” when you think Atheists aren’t religious is simply ignorant. Atheists have killed, and explicitly in the name of their Atheistic beliefs. Before the “No one has killed in the name of Atheism” rubbish starts, yes the Communists did kill I n the name of Atheism as did several others. (Since you seem to think Atheist arena’t religious.) and how about Atheistic societies like China?
Worse, you forget things like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, William Wilberforce and how he had slavery abolished, or Martin Luther King and his stand base on his Faith. the countless number of Missionaries who go into third world countries to provide health care, education, and basic necessities to the greatest poor, all because you wan tot depict Religion as causing problems. Gosh, Al Queida bombs us because of Religion, see how bad and dangerous Religion is! We would be a better people if we got rid of it.
Come now…
Religion makes people happy, ignorance makes people happy.

So, religion=Ignorance. Since Religion also means someone beliefs in God I suppose the only way to not be Ignorant is to give up Religion and become an Atheist. You don’t see this as slightly offensive in any way? Or even presumptuous? Not at all Arrogant? Just telling the Truth? Because you don’t seem that well read, and I’d wager I know far more than you do on most of the relevant topics in discussion here.


People do not like the idea that there is no divine purpose to their lives. They choose to believe in order to not be depressed. It comes as no surprise that people who believe in God are going to be happier with their lives. But that does not make the existence of God real.


But, neither is God’s existence disproven by you cliamign that we can be happy without God, or that truly intelligent, well educated people not fearful fo the Truth and willing to leanr and escape ignorance beicme Atheists. In fact, you’re peddling nothing but a Scheme to make people happy, base din part on Atheistic ideals, which means that you want us to believe, basically, that these ideals you hold to are what we shudl hold to because it’d make us happier.
But why should I accept Atheism even Logically?

I have been clinically depressed before, even suicidal, but I have never been an Atheist simply because Atheism seems to be against the evidence I’ve seen, not because it makes me happier to believe in God.


I can respect religion for making people happier. But religion is just an escape from reality. Of course that people who believe in a God are going to be happier, it's an obvious observation. Reality is not pretty. Slaving away at a job just to pay your bills and survive, it's not the life that people want. But if you believed in God, it's only 'temporary' until you reach heaven. There is no freedom.


Again, Religion is not really “Belief in God”, and what your presenting to us is not Freedom and an escape form both Religion and the drudgery that compels us to Religion, but is itself a Religious outlook on life.

And the claim that Religion only exists in order to make life bearable is from Marx, and he wasn’t exactly right about much, so why should I see him as right in this regard?
Psycology has certainly not borne this out. Psychology today reported not too long ago that we are actually hard wired to believe in God, and that belief in God is not really any different form belief in a best friend or your dogs existence. it’s not a mystical other, an the idea its thee to hide us form reality is simply ludicrous in light of today’s clinical studies.
Please step out of the 19th Century and into the 21st.
The idea that people believe in God to escape the misery o this life is just outdated nonsense.

Should I post links to relevant Scientific Journals?


To be COntinued, yet again!

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

One More, continued from Above.


Because as long as you think that there is a great equalizer in the sky, you won't care about anything. Everything that occurs to you or to the world is pointless, because you believe that one day everyone will go to heaven. "Religion is the people's opium."


Again, Marx was wrong about hey people believe in God. It si not about sustaining us and helping us escape an unjust reality, just like he was worn that centrally planned societies would work better.

People believe in God because we are hardwired to believe in God. People believe in God mainly because that is what people see in their own lives and how their brains are designed to work. This functionary theory that God exits to help us escape Hardship fit’s the class struggle thesis, not Reality.

Its also bad Theology. I mean, do you honestly think Christians believe that this life doesn’t matter at all? That Christians are trained by the Eeeeeeeeevil Christian Church to be docile Slaves and just accept whatever comes their way? That they out up with a bad job with low income, and a miserable existence working in a system of injustice were wealthy elites have all the power because God will equalise it in the end? Because if you do you need to at once get a basic introduction into Christian Theology, as this has never been the Teaching of the Church.

Based on peoples Christian Convictions, we’ve seen people fight for the Abolition of Slavery and later for Civil Rights. We’ve seen people topple Tyrannical Regimes. We’ve seen Entire Empires Collapse.

I’ve mentioned before Martin Luther King and William Wilberforce, and that Both men were driven to what they did based on their Faith. So was Desmond Tutu. Have you heard of him? Dietrich Boenhoffer attempted to Assassinate Adolph Hitler. Thomas A Beckette stoop up to King Henry the Second, and Thomas Moore stood up to Henry the 8th. What about Lucricia Mot who stood for women’s rights on her Christian Convictions? What about Jim Elliot? What about Desiderius Erasmus? What about Elizabeth Fry? What about Patrick Hamilton? Andonaram Judson? John Newton? Mary Slessor? Robert Jermain Thomas? John and Charles Wesley? Nate Saint? St. Benedict? Mother Teresa? And who could say a man who escaped Slavery only to return to the land he was a slave in in order to convert them and who managed ot change the enture course of that Civilisation was Complacent and a Coward? I refer to the Inimitable and Venerable St. Patrick.

Christianity doesn’t teach you to lay about Complacent, in the face of a harsh Reality, waiting for God. It teaches you to live today for God and try to right injustice in this world through Dedication, Honesty, and Love.
And that’s just Christianity. I could explain why your wrong regarding Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, ect…

But as Zestiest only attacks Christianity, I stuck to that.

The truth is, the idea of God as a great Heavily Equaliser who will reward you when you die, so that you’ll out up with misery on Earth is an Atheists fantasy version of Christianity, not hat Christianity actually is. Christianity is as much about doing good in this life and possibly dying for it as it is about getting to Heaven. It was never about Complacency in the Face of Evil.


Economic problems? We've already gone through the great depression and gotten out of that. Job dissatisfaction? Because of corporation, jobs today are no longer what they used to be before. You're not plowing fields or growing vasts amount of food to feed your village, you're writing down tons of useless information, slaving at computers while staying indoors, it's not fun.


But doesn’t this contradict your Thesis? If Religion grosw proportionally to how miserable people are, and if Religion is belief in God as a Great Equaliser when you die, then people today should b more Religious (Believe in God more) than the past generation.
They don’t.
And please don’t give me a Trite answer of “People know more now that’s hwy they don’t go into Religion”, because…
1: Religion is not Theism.
2: You haven’t even proven that Knowledge makes one less Theistic.
Try real Data, not Argumentation.


It's either that or you're feeding people heart attacks at a fast food restaurant, it's only understandable why people are dissatisfied with their jobs. They've realized how pointless their jobs are.

Yet in today’s hopeless world Atheism is more common than in the past when people were more satisfied with their work and thought it had real meaning and value.


Progress isn't a straight shot to the top, there's always been obstacles in the path. In general yes we have been progressing, but ofcourse there's still many things we can improve upon.

But Progress depend son having a clear course, and your assuming that this is a Linear progression with a Final Goal that we all agree upon, which is not the Case. If someone doesn’t want the future world you are presenting, how would getting closer to it be seen as “Progress”?

And what if your Future world, which rests on a Certain Philosophical view of things, end sup a horrible and oppressive world? What if our Philosophy is flawed?


The reason so many thinkers have come up with the same idea is because it's only a logical conclusion. The rate of technological development only keeps accelerating.

But, not everyone has come up with the same conclusion, what about all those people who disagree?

Worse, your wrong. The people coming to the same conclusions aren’t doing so because they arrive at these conclusions on their own, using pure logic and Reason, but are building their ideas on the ideas they read elsewhere. Its not like they just sit down and think and arrive a the same conclusions as its just so obvious, they instead read books and newspapers and internet sites that help them form their beliefs about the world. And this has always been true. Karl Marx based his Communism off the works of John Locke and Rousseau and Montesquieu for example. Modern thinkers often base their conclusions off what they learned in school, and what they have read since then. IE, “The Peoples History Of The United States” by Howard Zinn was influenced by his own Communism, based on the writings of Marx, Engle’s, and Lenin. His book was a best seller, and many people who never read Marx, Engles, and Lenin nonetheless felt the influence of their ideas by simply adopting the approach and thoughts Zinn presented them in his own book.
You can actually Trace the ideology and Philosophy of Zeitgeist back to left wing political Theories, the ideas of the 1960’s Radicals, and various Conspiracy Theories.
None of its just arrived at independently and on ones own.

I don't know where you get your statistics. But the things you mentioned have nothing to do with intelligence. Even if our generation isn't as 'smart' as the past generation, we're certainly smarter than people the 1900s. We've only been progressing.

The average High School graduate in 1900 could speak three languages, including his own, Latin, and one spoken foreign. They knew Advanced Algebra and often Calculus. They could do calculations in their head beyond simple arithmetic. They understood the tenets of the laws of their country and could recite its History from abut 300 years back. The Average Graduate from High School in the year 1900, in other words, could outperform the average four year college graduate in 2010, except in Technological matters and those of Historical developments that occurred after 1900. So I don’t see it as “Progress”.
We have more Technology, but we do not have more actual intelligence. We aren’t any smarter.

The End.

reply
formatting help
[–] axl9871 14 years ago

Religion can have different purposes for different people. In my opinion, it is a very effective tool to control people's thoughts. It makes other people feel like their lives aren't meaningless. You mention Marx and making the assumption that I am writing with his theories in mind. In reality, I'm not even familiar with Marx's theories. The things that I've mentioned are just observations I've made on my own. So when you write and mention that my theories are similar to Marx's, that just makes me think I'm right.

If people were hardwired to believe in gods, atheism wouldn't exist. People believe in gods because of tradition, that's all. You keep mentioning Christianity in specific when we're talking about religion in general. Religion has caused people to commit group suicide. Religion has also separated people and given them more reasons to dislike each other. The muslims don't like the jews. I don't see how you can possibly condone something that can cause so much damage? I don't see why religion should still exist.

"Slaves and just accept whatever comes their way? That they out up with a bad job with low income, and a miserable existence working in a system of injustice were wealthy elites have all the power because God will equalise it in the end? Because if you do you need to at once get a basic introduction into Christian Theology, as this has never been the Teaching of the Church."


When you believe in God that type of thinking is inevitable. I'm sorry but when you believe you can achieve eternal life, how the *beep* can regular life be any significant at all?

I know that people have been motivated to do good things because of their faith. But faith and religion are two different things. People get inspired to do good things without being religious. MLK's main motivation wasn't God, it was his fellow negro people. He wanted them and himself to be equal. It was only logical. People are capable of doing bad because of religion, that's the main point. Holy wars. The crusades, the reconquista and the current situation in the Middle East. Suicides bombers murder other people because of their faith. Religion is dangerous because it is capable of leading people into the path of blind faith. People stop rationalizing because of it.

I'm going to rewrite a paragraph you wrote:

Atheism doesn’t teach you to lay about complacent, in the face of a harsh reality, waiting for God. It teaches you to live today and try to right injustice in this world through dedication, honesty and love.

I realize that religion motivates people to do good, but it's also very capable to motivate people into doing bad things. It can and has been used to manipulate societies. The book of Esther wasn't included in the Bible, it provided women with a role model. A woman who was independent.

Imagine for a moment that God didn't exist. How would that make you feel? You're asking for data and evidence in an argument where you have provided none.

"Yet in today’s hopeless world Atheism is more common than in the past when people were more satisfied with their work and thought it had real meaning and value."

If you're not satisfied with your job, that's it. It's better to realize the truth and be unhappy than to live in a lie. Are you suggesting that it's better lie to yourself? (keyword thought)

It has been a linear progression for humanity. There is no other way to see it. I can't think of a rational person that wouldn't want to live in a fair and balanced world. If a person does not want a fair and balanced world, then they are not a part of society. We don't all have to agree upon it, just the majority. It's just doubtful to find anybody that would disagree to a truly fair world. If we're aiming for a utopia, it'll be very hard for it to become a totalitarian state, since that's exactly what we're trying to avoid.

When you read an idea, you don't immediately think it's true. You have to process the idea, rationalize it see if it makes sense to you. You mentioned earlier that my ideas were similar to other thinkers (like Marx). I'm telling you that if these thinkers did influence me, they did it in a very indirect way. I wouldn't know where to trace my ideas to, because my way of thinking just seems very natural to me. If people haven't come to the same conclusion as I, I ask them to challenge me and try to prove me wrong.

Faith can exist in a utopia, it's just doubtful that it will still exist by then.

In the 1900s, but many people did not even go to school back then. The education might've been better, but only a small percent of people were being educated. Look at 2010, more people are studying now than ever before. That isn't progress? Education is the most important thing in a society.

You need to wake up. We're human, we're able to rationalize. If it's in my nature to beat people, I'm not going to do it because I wouldn't like to get beat up myself. Empathy explains a lot of social behavior, the idea of equality comes with empathy.
------------
"This is my life and it is ending one minute at a time..."

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago


Ax-


Religion can have different purposes for different people. In my opinion, it is a very effective tool to control people's thoughts.




But isn’t that also true of your Humanism? Or are we suppose to believe the Humanist Rhetoric that Humanism I about freeing our Thoughts whilst Religion is about Controlling it? Never mind that Humanism itself is a Religion.


As I said, Religion has only one function. Religion is a set of beliefs about the Fundamental Nature, Origin, and meaning of our existence. Humanism is a Religion because it’s a set of beliefs about the Fundamental nature, cause, and meaning of our existence. This is what Religion is, and why everyone has one.


Saying Religion is a tool to control our thoughts is simply silly.


It makes other people feel like their lives aren't meaningless.



As opposed to you because you have no Religion. Your values are Humanistic, not Religious.

But what do you really mean by that? What is the difference?







You mention Marx and making the assumption that I am writing with his theories in mind. In reality, I'm not even familiar with Marx's theories. The things that I've mentioned are just observations I've made on my own. So when you write and mention that my theories are similar to Marx's, that just makes me think I'm right.




One need not be directly influenced ot be influenced. As I said, people can be unaware of the original thinker, and till get Marxist ideas from other writers who are Marxists. IF they go on to write a book, then the fourth party will get the same ideas from the third, without the second, and without the first, an often with no awareness of them.

I don’t believe you, however, when you say these are independent conclusions you arrived at all on your own. The reason is because you are repeating claims, and using very specific manners of speech to describe concepts, that I’ve seen all too often before. While your natural Defence will be that you Arrived at these conclusions independently, and others agree because they are Freethinkers just like you and this is what the evidence leads to, I don’t buy it.

I think that you have embraced Humanism, and started to assimilate the Doctrines and beliefs of Humanism, from other sources. Your ideas about Religion being used as a tool to control people, and your idea that Humanism is the Alternative to Religion, come out of Humanist Literature you’ve read, or people you have spoken to, not yourself. Your opinion is still guided by what you have learned and what you have decided to accept and how you have decided to interpret the information.








If people were hardwired to believe in gods, atheism wouldn't exist.


Do me a favour, and visit Psychology Today’s website.


Your really not being very bright in this discussion. Atheism is not precluded from the idea that God is hardwired, and you act as if no one can override instinctual values we have inside ourselves.

Yet if I told you that mating and eating were instinctual drives and we have an instinctual drive to keep ourselves alive and out of danger, I doubt you’d think twice before accepting this. Despite the fact that people fast, or starve themselves to death, people are celibate, and people commit Suicide.


This is not a black and white topic to were if something is hardwired it must be and there is no alternative.

Have you even heard of Neural Elasticity?


People believe in gods because of tradition, that's all.



Can you prove this assertion? Because the idea that people only believe in gods after they are told to and because of Tradition is an old Atheist Staple that has nothing to back it but assertion.

Meanwhile, I have brainscans to back my claims.



You keep mentioning Christianity in specific when we're talking about religion in general.


We’re talking about Zeitgeist, lad. Part one wasn’t eaclty a sturring critique of Buddhism.


Religion has caused people to commit group suicide. Religion has also separated people and given them more reasons to dislike each other.



Religion has also caused people to open Soup Kitchens. Religion has also caused them to care for the Homeless. Religion has caused them to leave safety, comfort, and material success in the Western World to go into Developing Countries to build Schools, Roads, and provide them with Running Water and Medical Help. Religion has gotten people over Drug addictions, personal relationship problems, and difficult situations in life, and it has brought communities together.

Or should we ignore all that to focus on the Negative examples? After hits we can pretend Humanism is not a Religion, and then pretend that if you aren’t Religious you follow Humanism, and present it as if Humanist never killed over Humanist Values.




The muslims don't like the jews. I don't see how you can possibly condone something that can cause so much damage? I don't see why religion should still exist.



Religion can’t cease to exist for one thing. As I’ve said, your own beliefs are Religion. The fact that you call yourself nonreligious doesn’t mean you actually are Nonreligious.

And you also ignore how Humanists like you can be just as bigoted and hateful, and are just as willing to kill those who disagree or are different.

And you ignore how “Religion” (Somehow everything but your beliefs_) has done a lot of good in the world.

Heck, it’s not even true that All Muslims hate Jews.

Even if we did think that, and went further and said All Muslim are terrorists and all Muslims want to kill all Jews and all Christians, does that mean Religion is bad totally? Or just Islam?


Is Judaism exactly the same as Islam? Is Christianity? Is Buddhism?

Are all Religions exactly the same?

Do they all do just evil and no good?


Why should we think Religion causes only problems in the world?

Why should we think your own beliefs are an Alternative to Religion rather than just a competing Religion?



"Slaves and just accept whatever comes their way? That they out up with a bad job with low income, and a miserable existence working in a system of injustice were wealthy elites have all the power because God will equalise it in the end? Because if you do you need to at once get a basic introduction into Christian Theology, as this has never been the Teaching of the Church."


When you believe in God that type of thinking is inevitable. I'm sorry but when you believe you can achieve eternal life, how the *beep* can regular life be any significant at all?



If that type of thinking is inevitable when one believe sin God, then why can I list numerous examples that didn’t just settle in and accept he misery and evil in the world but changed the world for the better inspired by their belief in God?


If belief in God just makes you complacent and willing to accept all the evil and drudgery in this world and to put up with abuse and injustice because you await Heaven were its all perfect, then we’d expect no examples of those who believe in God and based upon their belief stood against tyranny and oppression, yet we have Desmond Tutu. If belief in God lead invariably to people accepting this life as short and miserable but not caring because they have Eternal life in Heaven how do you explain the Missionaries who risk their life on Earth to improve other peoples live sin Third World Countries? How do you explain Wilberforce? How do you explain any of the names I mentioned Earlier?


The fact is, it’s not Inevitable to think that, because you have Eternal Life and a better home in Heaven that you can sit about accepting all the evil in this world. Its demonstratably not inevitable because quiet frankly this isn’t what the people on the list above actually did.

Just because its what you prefer to think people who believe in God do doesn’t mean its actually True. I certainly won’t ignore the reality of what they did and how their beliefs guided them to efforts to improve this life just so you can maintain this fiction.


I know that people have been motivated to do good things because of their faith. But faith and religion are two different things. People get inspired to do good things without being religious.


What Religion is hasn’t sunk in to you it seems. You still think Religion is belief in God, and you will insist no one can believe in God and have that as a motive to building a better life even when this isn’t true.


MLK's main motivation wasn't God, it was his fellow negro people. He wanted them and himself to be equal. It was only logical.



Yet he wrote himself that he was moved by his Faith in God. So I suppose he lied?

His motivation WAS rooted in his Christian Faith, and he said so himself. He specifically stated that he wanted a Nonviolent movement because he was a Christian accountable to God. His motivation for belief in the Equality f Races rested on his belief that God had made all men equal. His willingness to forgive the oppression rested in this being what God had taught him.

Also, it’s not illogical to do things for a belief in God. I hate it when Atheists are arrogant enough to think Logic and God are not compatible.




People are capable of doing bad because of religion, that's the main point.


And they do good because of it too, but if they do good you say its not because of Religion but Faith which Isn’t the same thing, then pratgle off on how it wasn’t really inspired by their belief in God…


It speaks of a bias. You want Religion to not motivate nay good, but to motivate evil. Religion to you is belief in God. Belief in God did not motivate anyone to do good, but has motivated evil. Do you not see how self serving and conniving that sort of reasoning is?

And what of Humanist who kill over their own beliefs?



Holy wars. The crusades, the reconquista and the current situation in the Middle East.



The Reconquista is based on the idea that the American Government stole parts of Mexico in the 19th Century and the Mexicans want it back. I’m not really sure how that fits into this.

As tot eh Crusades, you have no idea what they were actually over do you? Atheists like you continually use them as proof that Religion is terrible yet, you likely can’t tell me the first thing about them.

And the situation in the Middle East is because of World Wars 1 and 2, the collapse pf the Ottoman Empire, and how Western Powers have triesd to exploit the region for years. The History of the Middle East in the 19th and early 20th Century play a huge role in the events today.

Do you even understand that? Or is this simply in your mind “Religion”.

Which brings me back to earlier. Anything bad done is “Religion’. If a Religious person does good, its “Faith” and not Religion and has nothing to do with God. So the wars like the Crusades and the current middle east are caused by people believing in God. Religion causes them, and they are bad. MLK was not motivated by Religion.

Do you not see the Hypocrisy?

Basically you make sure that Religion can only do bad by removing all good examples form being motivated by Religion. This is intellectually dishonest of you.






Suicides bombers murder other people because of their faith.



I thought you said Faith was different from Religion, though?

And again, the Original Suicide bombers were Atheists.




Religion is dangerous because it is capable of leading people into the path of blind faith. People stop rationalizing because of it.



Maybe you need to look up the word “Rationalise”.

You may also need to stop reading Sam Harris, and start reading a Proper History book. Religious thinkers have often lead people into greater tolerance and understanding, and Humanist thinking like your own often leads them into murderous oppression and blind faith too.

Look up the Cult of Reason in the French Revolution, then read how Orthodox Priests were murdered in Russia by militant Atheists in order to create a Scientific Utopia.

People don’t stop thinking because they are Religious. And people like you aren’t really all that Super Rational because of your own “Nonreligious” beliefs, in fact your less Rational, less tolerant, and less logical than most people you’d describe as Religious precisely because of this one sided polemic.







I'm going to rewrite a paragraph you wrote:

Atheism doesn’t teach you to lay about complacent, in the face of a harsh reality, waiting for God. It teaches you to live today and try to right injustice in this world through dedication, honesty and love.



Atheism is now being defined by you as a set of beliefs regarding the nature of our existence. That makes it a Religion.

Also, Atheism is only the rejection of belief in God, Not a philosophy regarding how to lead ones life.


Atheism does not teach honesty, does not teach love, does not teach dedication, it teaches nothing aside form “God does not exist”. In that way it is like Theism, which teaches nothing but “God does exist”.

You vaunted view of Atheism, which extends it past its actual meaning, is really shallow, just as your attempt to posit it contra Religion which you insist caused only negative thing sin the world. A list of positive features in Religion causes you to say Religion did not cause them, and I suspect the negatives in Atheisms history will be similarly dismissed as not being caused by Atheism.

That is the Dishonesty I expect from an Atheist like you.

And this is the problem, you want Religion to be Demonised and Atheism to be seen as the path to enlightenment away from Religion, so you’ll ignore anything that contradicts your statements. No matter how internally inconsistent your claims actually are, they will be seen as Logical, and Rational, and all who disagree as Dangerously delusional.

I realize that religion motivates people to do good, but it's also very capable to motivate people into doing bad things.



So is your “Nonreligion”.

SO what’s your point?




It can and has been used to manipulate societies.



So can Humanism, which you insist is not a Religion.

Anything can be used to Manipulate a Society. This alone doesn’t mean its intrinsically evil.




The book of Esther wasn't included in the Bible, it provided women with a role model. A woman who was independent.



Uhm… the Book of Esther is in the Bible. It is in both the Hebrew Bible and it is in the Christian Bible.

You do realise that, right?


Imagine for a moment that God didn't exist. How would that make you feel? You're asking for data and evidence in an argument where you have provided none.



The “Imagine God doesn’t exist” routine is also stale, as other Atheists have beaten you to it. Do you really think no one has you his to me before or I haven’t done this already?

And I have given evidence, you just haven’t read any of the books I’ve referenced, which is really problematic.


No that I need much evidence, as you’re the one making the positive claims in this discussion.




"Yet in today’s hopeless world Atheism is more common than in the past when people were more satisfied with their work and thought it had real meaning and value."

If you're not satisfied with your job, that's it. It's better to realize the truth and be unhappy than to live in a lie. Are you suggesting that it's better lie to yourself? (keyword thought)


But the assumption is that those who believe in God are lying tot themselves, and this in turn is based upon your own misguided narrative about what Religion is and why it exists.

What if they aren’t lying to themselves?

What if they are just happier because they have something more worthwhile to help build from?


It has been a linear progression for humanity. There is no other way to see it.


Well, if you don’t own any History books and never check the net for History. unfortunately I have read History so I don’t see it this way at all.



I can't think of a rational person that wouldn't want to live in a fair and balanced world. If a person does not want a fair and balanced world, then they are not a part of society.



But the ay you define Fair and Balanced is Democracy. You then act as if everyone who believes in Fair and balanced believe sin Democracy.

Doesn’t hat alone show you have a strong Bias?




We don't all have to agree upon it, just the majority. It's just doubtful to find anybody that would disagree to a truly fair world.



And the Majority should be trusted why?



If we're aiming for a utopia, it'll be very hard for it to become a totalitarian state, since that's exactly what we're trying to avoid.



You know, Lenin said the same thing. Funny how the USSR actually turned out. If you read Chi Guevara, or Chairman Mao, you get the same Rhetoric. They won’t become Totalitarian States as this is what Communism set out to avoid.

Of course they did, because in order to create Utopia thy had to Seize control of everything and quell descent, and eventually erected a power base that maintained itself.




When you read an idea, you don't immediately think it's true. You have to process the idea, rationalize it see if it makes sense to you. You mentioned earlier that my ideas were similar to other thinkers (like Marx). I'm telling you that if these thinkers did influence me, they did it in a very indirect way.



I already said it was indirect. Perhaps you should read my posts. I doubt you’ve read the original sources, but you clearly have read sources. Perhaps the Counsel for Secular Humanism as an example.


By the way, I’ll ask you again to look yup the word “Rationalise” in the Dictionary. You aren’t using it properly.

I wouldn't know where to trace my ideas to, because my way of thinking just seems very natural to me. If people haven't come to the same conclusion as I, I ask them to challenge me and try to prove me wrong.



No you don’t. You’ve proven that with me. You won’t even address what I’ve said in the main and just say I’m insane and make no sense.



Faith can exist in a utopia, it's just doubtful that it will still exist by then.




Do you even know what Faith means? Because your spouting Gibberish.



In the 1900s, but many people did not even go to school back then. The education might've been better, but only a small percent of people were being educated.


Actually by the turn of the 20th Century most people went to some sort of school, at least in Great Britain, The United States of America, and most of the Empire.



Look at 2010, more people are studying now than ever before. That isn't progress? Education is the most important thing in a society.


Its not really as the same was true 50 years ago and we got a better education relative to the time. More people drop out, standards are lowered, and schools no longer bother to teach, and we still have a massive dropout rate.

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Continued from the Above.



You need to wake up. We're human, we're able to rationalize.



Rationalising is actually a bad thing, lad.

Before criticising me for saying this, and telling me that Rationalising is what propels us forward and lets us learn new things and wakes us up, please look the word up on a dictionary.


Rationalise doesn’t mean we use reason to find Truth.





If it's in my nature to beat people, I'm not going to do it because I wouldn't like to get beat up myself. Empathy explains a lot of social behavior, the idea of equality comes with empathy.



Equality doesn’t come from Empathy, at least not necessarily, and your describing a Utilitarian Model of Ethics. But why waste time on hwy its wrong as you’ll think I’m uneducated and need to learn more and wake up and tell me that I need to rationalise more…

reply
formatting help
[–] theseyez 14 years ago

Real quick just forget religion and ask yourself about the man they call Jesus. What has Jesus done or allegedly ever done wrong to anyone? Jesus himself condems religion. Forget everything that you know and read the word of God.

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Seyez-

Real quick just forget religion and ask yourself about the man they call Jesus. What has Jesus done or allegedly ever done wrong to anyone? Jesus himself condems religion. Forget everything that you know and read the word of God.



actually Jesus never condemns Religion. Thats because the word really didn't exist in Greek at the time. The way we use it now was not aroudn until the late 18th Century.


Since Religion is really just our beleifs about the world aroudn us, I don;t see why Jesus woudl condemn it. Why xondemn people for understanding the world they live in?

reply
formatting help
[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] axl9871 14 years ago

How are you judging human nature? You're thinking is backwards. If humanity was so selfish, nobody would comply with rules and laws. People would just do whatever benefited them, but that's not how we function in society. We keep and make laws in order to benefit and respect each other, it's that simple. You keep mentioning history, and I've already mentioned that I don't think we're ready for a utopian society at the moment, but we're going towards that direction. You can't seem to look into the future. Do you really think our values are going to end up backwards? People won't let society degrade like that.

Fair and balanced meaning a society where everybody has equal opportunity and a voice, a real democracy. Are you saying that humanity doesn't want to live in a world with equality? What I really find ironic is that you're the religious individual in the argument, yet you're the person who's pessimistic about humanity. You're not making any sense. Religion has caused violence and wars. People who don't believe in God are capable of being benevolent. My values are humanistic, not religious.

We're talking about how benevolence is pleasurable, not work. Work shouldn't get 'too hard' in the first place for anybody, I think we're above slavery already. There is no such thing as a religious utopia, there can be a christian utopia but not a religious one. You seem to forget that there are other religions in existence that aren't Christianity.

I actually think the opposite of that. Humanity does good because of societal pressures, pleasure and rationalization. Societal pressures do more good than bad, because of them we don't discriminate by race anymore. You're just saying random assumptions now. I'm afraid that if the quote flew by your head, that doesn't make it meaningless. In an argument, when you can't understand something, you ask the person to explain. If past attempts at a utopian society have failed, we can only learn from them for our next attempt. How has modern psychology 'proven' anything you've mentioned? I believe you're actually not familiar with psychology at all.

------------
"This is my life and it is ending one minute at a time..."

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Ax-


How are you judging human nature?



By modern Science, and centuries of observation...




You're thinking is backwards. If humanity was so selfish, nobody would comply with rules and laws. People would just do whatever benefited them, but that's not how we function in society.



I didnt say Humanity was so selfish. though Selfihsnes sis an intrinsic problem with humanity, I said thatthey do better with Property Rights and havign the ability to control their own goods. How is that Selfish?

The alternative is to allow an outside governign authority decide hwo all goods and land ar eused, and to wait for hem to allocate o you your lot to live in, which woudl seem far too constrictuing. Peopel woudl feel as if thye had no control over thier own life and woudl soon fall inot a depressed state.






We keep and make laws in order to benefit and respect each other, it's that simple.



Actually Laws ar emade to keep Society togathe, or else to push agendas. Frequenlty Politicans pass useless Laws in order to benifit only themselves or their special interests.


But we weren't discussing that so...



You keep mentioning history, and I've already mentioned that I don't think we're ready for a utopian society at the moment, but we're going towards that direction. You can't seem to look into the future. Do you really think our values are going to end up backwards? People won't let society degrade like that.



I take it you've never read Plato, and know you reject the Bible.


Heres the problem, what we have today existed thousands of ytears ago, and hat we replaced to get what w have now is likly goign to be the Future. Human Hisotyr is not a Leniar progress toward a higher level of Advancement, as if what we have todya is fundamentlaly higher than the past, its Cyclical.

And goign bakc to, say, Monarhcy woudln't be seen as Degradign to those who live in a THeoretical Monarhcy of he uture. To them our love of Democracy will seem Primative.





Fair and balanced meaning a society where everybody has equal opportunity and a voice, a real democracy.


Why shoudl I advocate Democracy though? And you can't creae equel oportunity wihtout also creatign total Euaaity in humanity, which cant exist withotu oblitoratign anythign hat makes us any different form anyoen else.

We dotn all have artistic talents, not all of us are good singrs, not all of us are good atheletes.

And, frankly, I like it that way as it ads diversity.


I also don't happen to buy into Democrayc as a self evident good. Dmeocrayc is just allowign the Majority to Rule, and always degrades into nothign more htan Mob RUle, an eventually kills itself.


I am a Monarhcist by the way.


Go ahead and clal me backwards, Human Nature tends toward Monarhcy regrdless.

And read Hoppes "Democracy: The God That Failed" to begin to see why I'd like Monarchy. I can suggest other books too, like Aristotle. He said Monarhcy was the only form of Government crated for the good of all.




Are you saying that humanity doesn't want to live in a world with equality?



Basically, yes.

Why woudl we?

I prefer the Freedom to be myself, don't you?




What I really find ironic is that you're the religious individual in the argument, yet you're the person who's pessimistic about humanity.



But, your also Religious. DIdn't you read my post? Why do you think your not Religious? Beign an Ahtiets doens't make you not Religious, you know.


Also, who said I was beign Pessemistic? I'm just not a Communist. And the idea of a Respruce Based Economy and full Democracy and Equality are inherantly Copmmunistic.





You're not making any sense. Religion has caused violence and wars. People who don't believe in God are capable of being benevolent. My values are humanistic, not religious.



OK, let me use a bullet poitn with ascending values to make sense.


Principle 1: Religion is not the same thing as beleivign a god exists. Religion is any set of beleifs about the fundamental nature, Cause, and meanign of our existance. One doe snot need to beliv ein God to be Religious.

Principle 2: Humanism is a set of beleifs about the FUIndamental Naturte f our eixstance, its cause, and its ultimate meaning.


Conlcusion: Humanism is a Religion.


Principle 1: Religion, if only deifned as beleif in God, has not cause dnay wars.

Counterprinciple 1: What of such wards as the Crusades?

Argument Principle 1: The Crusades were not fought over beleif in God. Thye were fought over territorial and Pilgrimage rites as undertsood in Feudal Europe and the Middle East.


Conclusion: The thesis that Religion has caused wars is not a valid argument.



Here is the problem wiht your thresis. The idea that Relgiion is only beleif in God and that Relgiion causes warsd and Vioelnce, while Humanism doesn't, is meanignless twaddle.

If tyo look back at the Age of Reason, specificlaly at the French Revolution, you'll find pelnty of Athiests killing "Religious people" becuase they aren't becomign Athiests. They had somethign called the Cult of Rason which killed Catjolic Priets and Laity who dared not become Atheitss, all in the name of Rason.


The Soviet Union routinely arrested peopel for beign Relgiious, sent some to Mental institutions and others to Gulags, and shot plenty of them dead. All for htier belifs. All becuase they were not Atheists.


Yet yiu want to beleive yoru Humanism, which you htink isnt a Relgiion, won't cause VIolence?


And you still ignore the good peopel have done in thename of those beleifs.

And spare me the "They woudl do good anyay good peopel always do" rubbish. If the bad done is becuae of Relgiion then so is hte good, and your Religion is no less blood stained,a n is in fact more bloody than mine.

.


We're talking about how benevolence is pleasurable, not work.


But, Benevolence isn't alays pleasurable.

Thats sort of the point...




Work shouldn't get 'too hard' in the first place for anybody, I think we're above slavery already. There is no such thing as a religious utopia, there can be a christian utopia but not a religious one. You seem to forget that there are other religions in existence that aren't Christianity.


No, I dont. I menioend other Relgiions. I stuck to Christinity as thats what Zeitgiest attacks. And as you deifne Relgiion as beleif in God then Im not sure hwo you think one can have a Christian Utopia thats not Religious as Im pretty sure you'd define Christianity as a Religion.




I actually think the opposite of that. Humanity does good because of societal pressures, pleasure and rationalization. Societal pressures do more good than bad, because of them we don't discriminate by race anymore. You're just saying random assumptions now.



But you just proved my three points.


1: Rousseu also said htat Societal Presusres can lead to good. So did all that held to the concept pof Cntralised planning. The COmmunists beleived this. They beelived that our present prder lad to problems and there new and improved Scinetific Utopia woudl be free of thos eproblems becuase it woudl create a new type of society.

But it always failed.

2: But you havent read Rausseu, or even a book on were these ideas came form and have no idea what I'm talking about, therefore what Im sayign seems strange to you.

3: Peopel do good for reaosns other than Societal pressure, pleasure, and Rationalisation or else nothign that went agaisnt society woudlget done and we'd still jhave the Slave Trade. Peopel had to rise agaisnt spciety to get that changed,and the same is true of Civil Rights or anyhtign else you'd want to name.




I'm afraid that if the quote flew by your head, that doesn't make it meaningless.


But it is meanignless because your advocatign essentially a COmmunist view of the world that has been proven a Failure.




In an argument, when you can't understand something, you ask the person to explain.



But you didnt ask em to expalin, you jut assumed that because you didn't understand somehtign I must be wrong.

Heck, you even still see me as the Religious perosn in this discussion, and still therefore see yoruself as havign no Religion.



If past attempts at a utopian society have failed, we can only learn from them for our next attempt. How has modern psychology 'proven' anything you've mentioned? I believe you're actually not familiar with psychology at all.


I'm gettign a Docorate in it. And modern Psycology has shown that beleif in God is innate, and generally presnt throghout life in soem form even in Ahtuests, who sim;y suppress it. THis dosnt prove God exists, but it des give an explanation for why peopel beliv rin God. A Secular theory thats popular now as to why this is woudl b because beleif in an outside Auhroity can help one undertsand both the world aroudnone, and give one a sence of pease, as well as soemtgin to appeal to as an Auhtority in tirbal matters.


The theory that peopel beliv ein God just becuase klife is unfair and htey wait for God to reward them is outdated, and was advocate din the mid to late 19th Century.


reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

One last thing, don’t just asusme people who pffer you something you’ve never heard before are osehow uneducated or stupid, It becomes trite and uninteresting to have to explain ind dtail what I know, only to in the end have soemoen like you throw it out and tel me I don’t know what Im talking about because it contradicts your pet notions.

I’ve made references to Philosophical schools of thought, nd made them obvious, so that should tell you I have at leats osme understandign of the topics I offer you.


Also, why not discuss why Part 1 makes sense to you? You never did cover that area.

reply
formatting help
[–] axl9871 14 years ago

You should understand that I've never called you stupid or uneducated, we're simply arguing. You are very snide in the way you address me and this conversation. I will not apologize if you've taken offense to anything I've said, because I haven't meant anything go offend you. What I have observed about our conversation is that it's difficult for me to understand some of the things that you type because of your disability. I replied to both of your posts, but at different times, I just posted the 2nd part of the argument 30 minutes or so ago. I'm going to bed at the moment.

------------
"This is my life and it is ending one minute at a time..."

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago


Having mised this…


You should understand that I've never called you stupid or uneducated, we're simply arguing.



But what your arguing I’ve heard before, and I also know very well the Philosophical pedigree of your statements, which is why I don’t find in them anything particularly new.


But being accused of not understanding these thoughts by someone who has no idea what I know, and moreover no idea what my own thoughts are, is not something I find particularly endearing.


You are very snide in the way you address me and this conversation. I will not apologize if you've taken offense to anything I've said, because I haven't meant anything go offend you.


Re-read this sentence. Now try to explain all that fancy talk about Empathy and equality.




What I have observed about our conversation is that it's difficult for me to understand some of the things that you type because of your disability. I replied to both of your posts, but at different times, I just posted the 2nd part of the argument 30 minutes or so ago. I'm going to bed at the moment.


I posted four posts, and in reality I wrote one long post and had to chop it up. It may be better to read all four as one continuous post.

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

One last. I believe you mean the Reconquista of Spain and the Iblian Peninsula. But if so, that’s still not a good case about how bad Religion is. If you mean it shows the dark side of Christianity your wrong, they reclaimed land that had been taken form them and prevented invasion of other lands by the Muslim Caliphates. If you mean it ids proof of how Religion is bad because of the Muslim conquests, your still wrong, they acted no differently than other Feudal Kingdoms of the time, or even modern “Nonreligious” nations today. The Soviets invaded Poland for example, and in the name of a Humanist philosophy. America frequently tries to establish Democratic Governments by force under its own beliefs. What’s the real difference?

Using the word “Religion” as a magic word that turns someone’s motives into pure evil, as if these actions somehow don’t take place in nonreligious beliefs, is just further inconsistency. Conquest is Conquest no matter what motivated it, and people try to push their beliefs about society and the world on others by force of arms to this day.

Heck, if it had not been for Woodrow Wilson “Making the world safe for Democracy” we’d still have a boatload of Monarchies around. Wilson used his force and political influence to reshape the world to his liking as much as possible, because of his belief in socialism and Democracy.How does that differ from the Reconqista of Spain?

reply
formatting help
[–] twentymooseman 14 years ago

Wow, this whole thing kind of exploded in the month I completely forgot about it. I guess I'll just sort of reply to some of the statements previously made. Getting rid of money and religion doesn't solve the worlds problems. Really it's just throwing away incentive and something to hope for. People have a natural inclination towards violence, even if money and religion were wiped from the face of the Earth, people would still kill each other. That's just the way it is. We'd still find excuses to start wars or other forms of large scale combat. What I'm saying is that humanity is probably about as good as it's ever gonna get right now. I know the world seems sh*tty right now but in retrospect, humanity has made amazing advances in the past century alone. I'm not saying we'll never get any better, but we'll never be good enough for a zeitgeist like movement to happen because the zeitgeist movement requires a world of perfect humans with no past. We are flawed humans with a history of violence, greed, lust, corruption and other abhorrent acts. To get a perfect society, you have to erase it's past which is something which is completely necessary and would be inhuman to deny someone. That pretty much sums up most of my argument. I'd also like to reply to somebody who said this generation was the dumbest, which I'd like to disagree with. with every generation knowledge builds and to say that this generation (which I am a part of) is dumber is absolutely ridiculous. From our point of view you're much dumber than us. I know you were probably talking about practical knowledge, but who's responsibility was it to teach us in the first place? In my opinion, the failings of one generation are in fact the failings of the previous generation.

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

You should be very careful who you tlak to. Yo u shoudl also rea dmore carefully.

For starters, I also said gettign rid of Religion is impossilble because Zeitgrist presents a Religion itself, and Religion is not the same htign as Theism.


That said, I didn't say this generation is the DUmbest of all, I said that this generations educational institutions are far less comprehensive than those of an Earlier Stage of Development, say 1910.

I also argued, hwoever, that Humanity itself is about the same as its always been, and that Human History goes through cycles of accomplishment advancement, followed by and Failure and degredation.


You shoudl also not assume I'm all that old, I'm in college gettign a Doctorate, not nearign Retirement age.

reply
formatting help
[–] twentymooseman 14 years ago

sorry, the whole thing kind of came off as condescending so i just reacted. I was only referencing the generational thing, not any of your other comments. So I apologize for my rudeness about the whole generational thing. It just came off as a little insulting so i hastily reacted.

reply
formatting help
[–] marcusaurelius_00 14 years ago

Granted religion is probably very unlikely to be taking an early exit in the way society does things, but I think axl9871 was mostly referring to monotheistic religions like Islam and Christianity that believe in a superhuman agency at work and responsible for creation.

Of course we can fast forward 1000 years from now and all be living in a free thinking perfected pseudo socialist world where technology has resolved most things we fight over today. But yet we could still have religion by then, maybe not any monotheistic ones, but perhaps others more akin to Buddhism.

Besides technically you can be an atheist and a buddhist at the same time, since Buddhism does not call for a belief in an all seeing all knowing omnipotent God per se. They also claim to be the fastest growing religion since the late 20th century.

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Marcus-


Granted religion is probably very unlikely to be taking an early exit in the way society does things, but I think axl9871 was mostly referring to monotheistic religions like Islam and Christianity that believe in a superhuman agency at work and responsible for creation.


But there is no Logical reason to think even they ar eon the way out. Atheists use mainly modern Cultural Trends with the Secularisation Thesis teaching that as Humanity advances and becomes more educated and learns more, Religion (Christianity and other monotheistic Faiths) cease to exist. The assumption this was base don was that Reason leads to Atheism, and simply teaching facts and Science and Critical thinking leads automatically to Atheism, so when those things become more progressive, and when all our needs are met by Technology and Social Progress, there would be no need for God.

It also assumes that God exists as simply an explanation for thins we don’t understand yet, and to make us feel good or have hope.

Modern Psychology has rendered the whole Secularisation Thesis its Deathblow though. People don’t believe in God simply to fill the gaps of their understanding of the Natural world out of Ignorance and an attempt to understand, and belief in God is not really the product of Suffering and desiring something better, either. Belief in God is generally something Humanity is innately driven to by Predisposition, and by experiences Humanity has. There are actually several Reasons that people choose to believe in God in addition to this, many of which are from an entirely Rational perspective, rather than emotion.

That said, the reason most people become Atheistic after Education ended up being the Biases in the Educational Material itself.



Studies shows that Students who attended Schools run by Churches are less likely to end up Atheistic than those who attend Secular Schools, and when you examine the Educational Material in the Secular Schools you soon e\learn that they aren’t just presenting facts in a Neutral manner but have their own Predisposed Biases and beliefs infused. This really can’t be avoided, given that you have to teach form some perspective.


This is also why so many Secularists want Faith Schools closed down, because the Students who Graduate from them end up being GASP! Religious, and they assume that being Religious is a mark that they have been Brainwashed and didn’t get a proper grip on understanding topics. This is in spite of the evidence because Faith Schools still have to teach the same basic Curriculum and have the same educational Requirements as Secular Schools, and the Faith Schools also end up performing better on Test Results which are administered by and standardised by the State. The idea that Faith Schools do not allow Students to learn Science, or who to think Critically, is patently False. They just teach from a different perspective, and the Students tend to copy what they have learned in school no matter what that School is.

Today’s trend toward Atheism and Humanism stems more form the fact that those who write the School books and who are in the upper echelons of the Educational Establishments tend to hold to a Humanist belief system, and thus write the Curriculum according to Humanist beliefs and Values, which are then subsequently Taught to the Students.

But this Trend need not remain Constant, and History shows that few Tends are. Even Christianity has not always been strong until recent times, and the people who see it weakening now and presume the current Trend will go on seem to think that once Christianity took hold of the Culture we live in, it remained a Dominant and unquestionable force over the Hearts and Minds of the people until the Enlightenment began to Erode it. They views its decline now as Unique in History and show it as irrevocable. Yet in the 1700’s before the Great Awakening, Christianity was seen as in Terminal Decline, and people assumed that it would be extinct.

During the early 18th Century Colonial Era in America, most people were Unchurched, and Church attendance was in Sharp Decline, and the same patterns we see today happened then. Most Congregations were Elderly, and it was assumed that once the older Generation died, the Churches would close their doors and simply fade away.

That obviously didn’t happen and instead a massive Revival hit called “The Great Awakening” which revitalised the Church form Certain Extinction, all of which was brought on by a single Sermon from a man named John Edwards (No he did not talk to the Dead, nor is he the bloke who cheated on his Cancer stricken wife when running for President). The Sermon was named “Sinners in the hands of an Angry God”. Soon, Churches were filled to capacity with strange Religious Fever sweeping the Continent and the Motherland.

All those Unchurched masses, many of whom grew up outside the Church, now found their way into it.


This also coincides with the Methodist Revivals in England which soon spread to the rest of the British Isles and then to America with Circuit Riders, like James Coke.

The Deathknell for Christianity in Britain and America was reversed, rather than fulfilling everyone’s expectations. And this wasn’t a fluke, it happened again. In the mid 19th Century, where Church attendance s one more in Sharp Decline, and people predicted Christianity would slip into Irrelevance. Then came Charles Fenny and the Second Great Awakening, and he whole thing started over again.


Heck, there was a general drop-off in Religious Devotion in around the year 1000 AD, and again in the mid 1300’s, and again in the 1500’s right before the Protestant Reformation. So I don’t think its logical to view modern Trends as some perfect indicator of how the Future will go, as if those Trends will never Change.


Of course we can fast forward 1000 years from now and all be living in a free thinking perfected pseudo socialist world where technology has resolved most things we fight over today. But yet we could still have religion by then, maybe not any monotheistic ones, but perhaps others more akin to Buddhism.


But you haven’t explained why Monotheism would be incompatible with the Above. I don’t think Socialism will ever produce a Happy and perfectly harmonious society that has ended all that we fight over, but I gave reasons for this. But lets pretend it can, why would Monotheism die as a Result of this? How does a Perfectly Democratic, Egalitarian society in which Technology provides what we need prove God doesn’t exist or make people not believe in God?

By the way, the Religion need not be Buddhism. Secular Humanism is also a Religion. Secular Humanist insist they aren’t , but they do fit the actual Definition of a Religion, which was my point.

Religion will always exist simply because it’s a catch word for our most Fundamental beliefs. Those who say thy have no Religion generally don’t know what the word actually means but have assigned it a negative connotation, and generally react to it emotionally rather than Rationally.

Besides, Buddhists aren’t as Peaceful a people think, and Buddhists have killed people of other Religions, or even other Buddhists who hold to divergent beliefs fro their School of Thought; And so have Secular Humanists. They just pretend they haven’t.








Besides technically you can be an atheist and a buddhist at the same time, since Buddhism does not call for a belief in an all seeing all knowing omnipotent God per se. They also claim to be the fastest growing religion since the late 20th century.



Actually Christianity is the Fastest Growing Religion in the world at the moment. While it is in decline in the Western World, it is growing in Asia and Africa, and a lot faster than Buddhism.

reply
formatting help
[–] marcusaurelius_00 14 years ago

That is a very interesting take on the subject. I had not heard that angle on current day religiosity. I do come from a faith based schooling system myself, so I am quite familiar with it. But perhaps you understand the mechanisms as to how having a higher education inevitably leads to a learned person automatically aligning themselves to monotheism. There must be a major part to this religious deductive reasoning and erudition I may have overloooked.

reply
formatting help
[–] ZAROVE 14 years ago

Marcus-


That is a very interesting take on the subject. I had not heard that angle on current day religiosity.


Its ntot hat hard to discover. Do a basic internet search.


I do come from a faith based schooling system myself, so I am quite familiar with it.



I’ll reserve judgement on that if you don’t mind.



But perhaps you understand the mechanisms as to how having a higher education inevitably leads to a learned person automatically aligning themselves to monotheism.


You mean like N.T. Wright? Or Francis Collins? Or C.S. Lewis?


I’m sorry but, this is not really the Truth, as plenty of educated persons are actually Monotheistic. In fact, most are. There is a Higher percentage of Atheists amongst the educated though.

However, the old claim that Education alone leads to Atheism clearly can’t be True as there are far too many who simply aren’t Atheists, or Polytheists, for this to be viable.

That said, there’s also a Trend in Academia to be Liberal. This must men that Conservatism is because people just don’t know a lot. Well, unless you look at the Curriculum.






There must be a major part to this religious deductive reasoning and erudition I may have overloooked.



How about asking yourself if it’s the mere fact that they are educated, and huts know how to think for themselves and how to use Critical thinking skills, and that they are Armed with Facts, and that this assumption that Education leads to Rejection of Theism is True?


A Higher percentage of those who attend a University of College based around a specific Faith will actually believe that Faith or one Similar. IE, if the University is run by Catholics a higher percentage of its Graduates are Catholic by the end of their stay than in the beginning. Liberty University turns out a lot of Evangelical Protestants, too.


You can say this is because they are taught form a Christian perspective, and be right. But the same applies to Secular Universities. If you assume they don’t have an Ideological Bias and just teach the facts, your making a huge assumption that is proven wrong already. Even unbiased academic surveys of both Professors and Curriculum show an intrinsic bias towards Liberal Political thought and Atheism.

Its less that they are educated and more about what perspective they are educated in that will determine these things. Most Students simply adopt the beliefs they are taught, rather than fully form their own thinking, and if they are taught by a Strident Atheist, from a Perspective of Humanism, there is a higher chance they will apt Humanism and Liberal Political Values from the learning process than if they learned form a Conservative Evangelical Christian. Who teaches the class, and what Source material the class uses, will factor into these things.

reply
formatting help
[–] beans_of_steel 11 years ago

Studies shows that Students who attended Schools run by Churches are less likely to end up Atheistic than those who attend Secular Schools, and when you examine the Educational Material in the Secular Schools you soon e\learn that they aren’t just presenting facts in a Neutral manner but have their own Predisposed Biases and beliefs infused. This really can’t be avoided, given that you have to teach form some perspective.


Can you please post a link to theses studies, I'm having a hard time finding them.

reply
formatting help
[–] raul_delcorazon 14 years ago

Three things:

One, It's either that or you're feeding people heart attacks at a fast food restaurant, it's only understandable why people are dissatisfied with their jobs. They've realized how pointless their jobs are.


Yet in today’s hopeless world Atheism is more common than in the past when people were more satisfied with their work and thought it had real meaning and value.

- Very well said.

This atheist movement is filled with hypocrisy, contradictions, and inconsistencies.

Two, anything positive you point out that is rooted with religion, this person responds with allegations of selfish intentions...however, when pointing out the negative, this person has NO PROBLEM hanging on to the idea of a religious drive and motivation behind a person's actions. THIS IS THE EXACT SELECTIVE, CLOSED-MINDED, HYPOCRITICAL, DOUBLE-STANDARD, JUDGMENTAL MINDSET AND THINKING FOR WHICH THESE PEOPLE ACCUSE RELIGION OF.

Since this person will only point to selfish intentions with the positive done in faith but maintain religious intentions with the negative, I will do as he did:

You want to talk about selfish intentions? ("you" being "axl") You claim that these suicide bombers are doing this in the name of faith? Maybe you should really take a look at this bold claim. Here is why these people suicide bomb...it is not because of these fundamental extreme beliefs in Islam...it is not because of this "Jihad" and deep faith in Allah...it is quite simple...it is because their families are being paid and promised to be taken care of...THAT SIMPLE...how is that NOT a selfish intention and a religious faith? These people go out and blow themselves up because they are promised that their families will be paid...THAT SIMPLE FOLKS!!!!

Now, let's continue on the idea that Jihadism is the RELIGION'S fault and not a PERSON'S fault...

If the people that claim so much that this is SOLEY RELIGOUS AND JIHAD AND FOR A GREATER CAUSE...then why are their families even PAID MONETARY COMPENSATION IN THE FIRST PLACE?? Why is a sacrifice for the "greater good" not sufficient enough??

And if the people that are paying the poor to blow themselves up truly are doing this because of religion and are doing this only in the name of Allah...then WHY ARE THEY NOT BLOWING THEMSELVES UP INSTEAD OF PAYING OTHER PEOPLE AND KEEPING THEMSELVES PRESERVED AND ALIVE??? If it were truly in the name of religion, they would just do it themselves...it is so so so quite simple and the same concept as the point of the ending of the movie. It is not about religion. These "Islam" extremists are doing NOTHING IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. THAT IS A FRONT! And a front to distract the arrogant atheists to take blame and responsibility away from the people themselves and put it on the "collective dumbing of the system."

THEY KNOW THIS AND EXPLOIT THIS! YOU are being exploited my friend, YOU are being deceived and swindled...YOU!

Take note of this next statement!!!

The people who have done negative in the world in the name of religion have NOT in fact been doing in the name of religion at all! The crusades?? Inquisition? Islam extremism? Simple...SELFISH CONQUEST AND POWER...it was not about religion...the religious front put up was simply to make people ok with SLAUGHTERING OTHERS. If people knew they were slaughtering people in the name of a few elite and their conquest...would they do it? No...so they take something that they know has driven people to do AMAZING THINGS AND SACRIFICES, and sacrificed SO MUCH for the ACTUAL greater good, and they take advantage of it.

RELIGION HAS ONLY DRIVEN PEOPLE TO DO WONDERFUL THINGS, ALL ELSE IS PERSONAL GAIN OR PERSONAL AGENDA WITH RELIGION BEING TIED BEHIND IT TO WIN OVER THE MASSES OR TO MAKE THEMSELVES FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEIR BIGOTRY.

That is what makes this so evil. The people (many listed off) who have truly sacrificed in the name of the greater good or religion are being DISGUSTINGLY associated with people who have committed atrocities in the name of personal gain. Everything gets lost in this big pot of hypocrisy and slander.

I cannot believe these people are ACTUALLY implying that MLK and suicide bombers are in the same category...are you out of your mind???

Everything is so wrapped up in religion, politics, controversy, and conspiracy, THAT is what "dumbs" or numbs the people. They are so obsessed with arguing over God and religion, they are blind the the atrocities of MAN, not religion.

This brings me to my third point...

All of the inconsistencies and "goofs" pointed out in this movie are in regard to the beginning of the movie about religion...THAT IS IT! That is what is so disturbing. People are so busy squabbling over Astrological accuracies, they are blind the the absolute horror of the ideas in the end of the movie...which, of course, there were no "goofs" pointed out about. All of the debunking of this movie I have found is for part I and part II...I have found NOTHING to debunk part III...WHICH IS WHAT WE REALLY SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH PEOPLE!!! That is the only part where they had credible citations and could back them up.

EVERYONE HAS BEEN SO PERFECTLY MANIPULATED WITH THIS MOVIE, WHETHER INTENDED OR NOT. Had this person not put the religious twist in the beginning, and maybe just stuck with the astounding ideas (that actually have BACKING) in part III, he would have had a greater audience. Regardless of what you believe in religiously, I'm sure we can all agree that if what is in Part III is true, something needs to be done about it ASAP! Unfortunately that gets lost because people see the slander and hypocrisy in the beginning and say, "ok...screw this, I'm not going to sit hear and let this guy shove his personal agenda down my throat and completely belittle and offend those that don't agree with his theistic ideas and do exactly that for which he is accusing religion of doing..." I have a feeling that if the religious twist would not have been in the beginning, there would be a MUCH BIGGER MOVEMENT.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE PEOPLE, I BEG YOU, THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE, TRUST ME...I KNOW IT IS HARD...BUT SIFT THROUGH THE BS AND WATCH THE END...

And the "Venus Project..." Well...again, like communism, good on paper...So we all live in this Utopia...so what motivates that "10%" that still have to have jobs? The scientists? The doctors? The emergency personnel? They talk about the education system...what would even motivate people to get an education?? "Hmm...I could either continue to pursue computer science and work my a** off for the 'greater good,' or I could just lay around like the rest of the 90% and live off of this 'abundance.'" Is it fair to judge someone that asks that question?

It also sounds like quite a boring world also. What would there be to do other than lie around? What if you want to go water-skiing, or see a movie? Although I do agree that the world is being more "dumbed-down" with the garble on the TV...but what is wrong with watching a movie or TV show every once and a while for entertainment? Heck, I enjoy watching shows like "The Universe," is that "dumbing me down"?

If so, who would build the movie theaters? Who would maintain all the mass transit systems and energy systems or fix them when they broke? Again, what motivation would they even have to fix it? What will set people apart to drive them? You're telling me you really think people will be willing to work their a**es off for the greater good of the people that are laying around all day?

I go back to my question about boredom...What if I want something? Anything? I want a jet-ski...what would I do? Is the answer, "sorry...you are not allowed to have things other than basic human survival needs..."? We would basically not be allowed to have fun, and if we were allowed to have fun, it would be SOMEONE ELSE'S idea of what fun would be. To me, THIS is what sounds like a terrifyingly controlling government. Wow, I'm not even allowed to HAVE THINGS or do things that I WOULD DEEM enjoying.

The other problem...what about crimes of passion? What about the crimes that have absolutely no monetary motive? Or, if there is no monetary motive, a motive to "have" something? When someone says, "I want that," how would they go about obtaining it? That is where crime would also step in. What if a spouse is cheated on? First of all, would adultery be condoned? Would it just be wild hedonism and disregard for a human's innate need to bond with a single life-partner? What about the person that doesn't agree? Their spouse goes off and sleeps with whomever they please and well...they snap. What would happen to the person that murders their spouse and/or the person they were sleeping with?

reply
formatting help
[–] jinrui-zhang 12 years ago

bro i've read till this repost and i came into a conclusion: dont waste a secund of your time with this pseudo-intellectual-embrightened-dumbass. he obviosly lacks actual knowledge, information and critical thinking (but has a very good expressive skills thou). the last post he posted made my head hurt with the amount of stereotypes and untrue comun sense. Well one thing is true thou: his beliefs feeds him and makes him 'happy' just like the way religions feed their believers.

reply
formatting help
[–] rmiikku 14 years ago

After quickly searching this thread I did not find mention that zeitgeist is pretty much text book anarchist communism. Fascinating ideology but wont work in real world.

reply
formatting help
[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rmiikku 12 years ago

I don´t really know what kind of political ideology hypercapatalistic ego based societies are, but it sound fascinating.

reply
formatting help
[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Captain America: Brave New World Discussion | Nosferatu Discussion | Anora Discussion | The Brutalist Discussion | Companion Discussion | The Substance Discussion | Heart Eyes Discussion | I'm Still Here Discussion | Babygirl Discussion | Ne Zha 2 Discussion | Conclave Discussion | Emilia Pérez Discussion | A Complete Unknown Discussion | Love Hurts Discussion | The Monkey Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2025 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit