Zeitgeist the movie (would be mandatory viewing if up 2 me)

[pepezabala]

Moved to The Lounge.

this one belongs to the war room, not to the lounge ...

[squelcht]

Moved to The Lounge.

this one belongs to the war room, not to the lounge ...

We need The General back specifically just for necro bumps

[Emissary]

Shouldn't you guys be watching the new one that came out a few weeks ago?

http://www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com/

[squelcht]

Page 10, towards the bottom

[Emissary]

from the FAQ

I HEARD "ZEITGEIST: THE MOVIE" WAS "DEBUNKED"... IS THIS TRUE?

The term "Debunked" is found to be used mostly by those individuals or groups who hold an emotional/ideological disposition that is contrary to the message(s) of the film. The three most common groups that tote this rhetoric are the orthodox religious communities, the "patriot" (or nationalist) communities and the monetary/capitalist communities. Zeitgeist: The Movie consists of 100s of points and while there are many angles of obvious debate the work is far from un-sourced or unfounded. In 2010, an update was made to the work that corrected small problems while also clarifying and updating the work in general - replacing the prior version. (See more below) Upon this update a free 220 page "Companion Source Guide" was created to openly show the sources and reasoning. To "debunk Zeitgeist: The Movie" is to debunk this guide. This has not occurred. In fact, it is technically impossible to do so in such a context. Only sections can be isolated and argued. It is important to point out that many who claim to have "debunked" this or that are really often working from the standpoint of debate for the sake of a wanted external perception. In other words, given the nature of semantics and interpretation, many can twist/manipulate points to fit what could be perceived as a viable argument or refutation while, in effect, they are really just denying data, creating "straw men" or simply lying. Anyone who doesn't understand or believe the film's points should read the free companion source guide http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist ... %20PDF.pdf

[Emissary]

anyway why the heck are you guys watching the old one, watch the new one, the first was just a bit of fun. the meat is in addendum and moving forward.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Machinesworking]

Whow, Breaks is back from the war on terror. Hope everything is all right!

So what's next, bomb Iran?

Remember, he had a desk job, lulz! It was this little snag in his image of himself as this "special forces hero for the civilized world" he projected around here that seemed to prompt his lack of regular posting in these parts.


Part three of Zeitgeist is pretty good, better than the first two, mainly because it's just ideas instead of conjecture. Biggest issue I have with it is in it's seeming lack of attention to the negative aspects of human nature. Sure, a new society could be formed if people so wanted, but so far the only ones that have worked have been based on greed or heavy governmental control. Once we get to the point to where greed and animosity are tempered with higher thinking processes a utopia might be possible, but at this point I'm not convinced.

[5meohd]

I still don't understand where it is that people find truth.

[Machinesworking]

Yep. Man is evil, then becomes good. Man isn't good to begin with, imho. Man is born selfish, that's just his nature.

I would say it's a lot different than that, though at this time that's the outcome.

Man isn't born good or evil, people are born with the will to live, and the desire to be apart of a tribe/society. Thousands of years of mere survival has left it's toll on our very natural and logical urge to be fair and get along with other people. Think about it, without other people, mankind is severely under equipped to survive in the wild, our very natural instinct is to cooperate and come to agreement with others, for basic human survival, but our fear of dying (at this point the artificial fear of limited resources) leeds us to more basic instincts like greed. We're not born selfish per say, or we would have died off a long time ago, but the selfish among us have scared our collective unconsciousness.
Got to get to practice, but think about it a little, all pack animals besides us deal with mere survival, we are well beyond that, and we still deal with territorial pissing, and ideological wars that become physical wars.
One of the early bands I was in had the motto Evolve or Die. I think it's still true.

[Homebelly]

he even goes as far as to say that Jesus didn't exist at all, when his existence is a globally accepted fact by Christians, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, Muslims,

Based on what?

and pretty much everybody else.

Like who?

Not that i am a fan of the Z movie, or the Z-movement for that matter.
The whole eden project idea strikes me as a bunch of privileged middle class twits that have never had to actually do any real kind of work, sitting around dreaming up utopian ideas based on fantasies fueled by glossy magazine article pictures or adds where beautifully formed healthy people wash their hair in waterfalls.

In this computer controlled resource based economic world they propose, who is going to build and maintain the computers and the mechanics that transport the resource from where it is produced to where it will be freely distributed?
The Morlocks?

[aizo]

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

This guy rips apart the whole thing part by part

This is a great line at the bottom of the page:

a lot of people claim that "I do not believe everything in the movie, but this thing seems true to me, so you should watch it." Just because something of substance might be found, does not make it a good / factual movie. For example, if I have a pie, and I fill it with dirt and put a slice of apple in it, it does not make it an apple pie -- though some would claim so. If I can't find any information in the film to be true, I will say so, however sometimes people who criticize me say that if I "can't prove it isn't true, then it must be true". I'm sorry, that isn't how science works.

[Homebelly]

he even goes as far as to say that Jesus didn't exist at all, when his existence is a globally accepted fact by Christians, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, Muslims,

Based on what?

and pretty much everybody else.

Like who?

Not that i am a fan of the Z movie, or the Z-movement for that matter.
The whole eden project idea strikes me as a bunch of privileged middle class twits that have never had to actually do any real kind of work, sitting around dreaming up utopian ideas based on fantasies fueled by glossy magazine article pictures or adds where beautifully formed healthy people wash their hair in waterfalls.

In this computer controlled resource based economic world they propose, who is going to build and maintain the computers and the mechanics that transport the resource from where it is produced to where it will be freely distributed?
The Morlocks?

Man, it's a historical fact that he existed - based on a lot of different sources. Whether or not he's the messiah or whatever is what's contested - not whether or not he existed.

And by pretty much everyone else, I'm referring to most other belief systems. I didn't feel like naming every major religion.

But yeah, I agree with you on the rest of what you said. Utopianists (I made a new word!) don't tend to think about logistics.

I don't want to keep laboring this.
But it is not an historical fact.
There is no solid evidence other than the persistence of belief.
Out side of the scriptures there are only two references to some one that might have been jesus and both of those are referencing his "followers" not the actual man.

[Machinesworking]

In my opinion, we are born selfish. The reason we survive? We realize that we have to work with others (or take advantage of them) to survive.

Again, we would not have survived as a species IMO if we were born genetically selfish, (that is exactly what you're implying), and through conditioning learned to cooperate and integrate into a social structure. I'm taking this from a purely scientific standpoint, that the most logical genetic imperative (beyond a natural desire for personal survival and betterment), is one of being part of a group or society, a not purely selfish position.
Again IMO through fear and overpopulation (and the perception of overpopulation), mankind has become needlessly selfish, to the point of putting us at risk.

[H20nly]

I'm taking this from a purely scientific standpoint,

opinions are purely scientific?

[Machinesworking]

I'm taking this from a purely scientific standpoint,

opinions are purely scientific?

The hypothesis I'm stating isn't because I love humanity, or have a religiously (IMO) based belief that humanity is born selfish (evil, or negatively driven to the individual's betterment at all costs), it's out of an acknowledgment that mankind is weak and incapable of survival in the long term outside organized tribes etc. This would suggest that in earlier times when there were less people and less technology available to man, that the instinct to survive and thrive is more closely aligned with cooperation than a purely selfish motive, that it's an instinct for mankind to cooperate, it's not some learned trait while the selfish motive is at the genetic level.

Sure all this is hypothesis, but I wouldn't call it opinion in the same way that you debate different political structures, it's conjecture about nature, nurture, and the primary drive of mankind. I do believe that people very quickly move from believing that man is out for his own survival (obvious), to believing that mankind is motivated towards taking more resources than the next person (greed), from a religious or dire nihilistic perspective; not from taking the question from a purely logical and scientific view. It's also easier on people I think to contain the world they currently live in into a "It is this way and will always be this way." train of thought. So instead of thinking that greed is a byproduct of fear and that in order for the human species to survive it's going to have to be contained by rational thought, logic and a return to primary motives (cooperation and community etc.), it's easier to think that people are designed to self destruct out of our own irrational desire for more than the next man.