It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My take on Zeitgeist: Addendum and The Venus Project. Please read!

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform
 



Originally posted by lifeform
i don't think the bloke who was speaking on the venus project was talking about people not being able to teach their children values, morals etc, i think he was simply explaining the way corruption works and the way it is today.


But many people have many different values and morals. My values and morals could be different from your values and morals and it could or could not be because of the way each of us were raised or the type of religious views we were brought up around.

Someones values and morals COULD be to teach their children to believe in a certain deity or to have certain religious practices.

And these things should not be done away with.




posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform
 


As for the rest of what you said -- I enjoyed reading your reply, lifeform. Thank you for replying.


I think you make some excellent points -- but I honestly think that crime will never be eradicated regardless of what society we live in. There will always be someone born with defects that, say, make them sadistic and make them want to kill.

And yes, you're right about still needing scientists and doctors and engineers and other things -- and those people would probably, in the long run, hold more value then say, people like me, who just want to be there because it SOUNDED good but can provide no use whatsoever to the society in terms of technology or anything like that.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I haven't seen the movie but from what I've garnished from this discussion, I like the ideals.

I also agree that technology will very soon take away the need to work for economical reasons.

But there will always be a spiritual need to work but it doesn't have to be 8 hours a day. It just has to fulfil that need that we all have to contribute.
Everyone would and could work an hour a day, even if for no reason but to reap the inner and spiritual rewards of pulling their wieght.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
Native North Americans were not communistic, or fascist. Our black and white idioms do not describe the beauty of an equal system. Initially all people would be struggling to erect in groups, homes for each other, including people who aren't physically capable of labor. Resources would have to be pooled and shared. So the idea of sharing versus winners and losers is communism? Then that means anything thats not sharing should immmediately have an ugly negative word as well, since sharing is obviously the righteous, ideal, loving and fair thing to do.

Our current building is wasteful and destructive to our forests. Here are some examples of what we could accomplish Bali style, were the communities get together and raise houses for each other:

www.greenhomebuilding.com...

www.earthship.net...


IMG]http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn251/mystiq123/IMG_0161highlight.jpg[/IMG]












These are just teasers of a bali style roof raising.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by mystiq]


They were Communist...ask one. Communisn is the nature state of any society in it's purest and most beneficial form collectively



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cetta
reply to post by lifeform
 



Originally posted by lifeform
i don't think the bloke who was speaking on the venus project was talking about people not being able to teach their children values, morals etc, i think he was simply explaining the way corruption works and the way it is today.


But many people have many different values and morals. My values and morals could be different from your values and morals and it could or could not be because of the way each of us were raised or the type of religious views we were brought up around.

Someones values and morals COULD be to teach their children to believe in a certain deity or to have certain religious practices.

And these things should not be done away with.


i agree with you. but i don't think he was saying you could'nt have different values and morales in his idea of a better society, he was simply explaining the way it is today, and how values and morales are promoted by the state and children are indoctrinated through the state, and parents in that state because they have been raised in that state pass on the indoctrination to their children unaware, thinking it is the norm and how everybody should be.

therefore shaping how people live and think. it was this process he was talking about doing away with.

not irradicating individual beliefs and morales, just the promotion through the state. so no one belief is favoured over another and no one looks down on somebody for believing something other than what the state promotes.

the state promotes nothing, that was his idea.

all beliefs are considered equal and can be shared freely with out the state pressuring people they should think this or think that.

no religon promotion by the state, because they are all equal. and all beliefs should be accepted and wether somebody is relious or not should not effect their standing in society etc etc.

in america that kind of stuff effects if you become president or not, its always a talking point. wether the president to be is religous or not. it should'nt matter. ( but those who believe there is still deMOCKERY, i mean democracy do this, based on their indoctrination through the state)

muslims would'nt accept a none muslim leader, and christians would'nt accept a none christian leader. yet if we are truely going to live in a world where all are equal, people have to get past that. and the beliefs of the individuals in charge should not shape their decisions, hence no promotion through the state. all religons are equally accepted but not the rule of law and decision making.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Communism is a fascist government, very large and intrusive government, and is a relatively modern concept. Applying terms like these to First Nations People is incorrect and misleading. Communal, or cooperative societies are the feminine energies of ying and yang. Next you'll be saying women are communists. Well between capitalism, fascism and a moneyless, cooperative resource society, I know which one will save the human race, and the only one that is worth bringing a child into. All the others are child abuse.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
Communism is a fascist government, very large and intrusive government, and is a relatively modern concept. Applying terms like these to First Nations People is incorrect and misleading. Communal, or cooperative societies are the feminine energies of ying and yang. Next you'll be saying women are communists. Well between capitalism, fascism and a moneyless, cooperative resource society, I know which one will save the human race, and the only one that is worth bringing a child into. All the others are child abuse.


Why is it that you never actually reply to the things being said, you just keep on going and going about how great it is?

Do you understand that you can't have a money less society as long as things have value?

Do you understand that as long as a resource is limited, it will have a value?

Do you understand that you are in effect, wishing to give government everything of value when you let them handle resources?

The day we can conjure up matter with our minds, then you can have a money less society. Because then resources will not be limited. Until then, everything will always have value. And as long as things have value, then you have a form of money. A resource based system is still a money based system. Otherwise you wouldn't need a system.

But you just outright refuse to acknowledge these things. How in the world are we supposed to have an intelligent discussion when simple principles like I've pointed out above are not even recognized in the discussion?



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
There is one potential way to create a government based on a "communist" approach where the leadership that would determine a fair and truly balanced system of resource disbursement based on available resources and the leadership would be completely immune to normal behaviors associated with corruption and elitism.

Problem is, most people would never accept it.

I hesitate to even suggest it because of the way people would react


I won't get into specifics, and I'll say that we definitely wouldn't want this system to be involved in every aspect of the society, you'd only want it involved in resource distribution and it would required a detailed knowledge of available resources.

But a properly created software solution could carry out much of that without fear of corruption. Unfortunately, it would always be questionable because you'd have to ensure no one could ever tamper with the code.

I'm just throwing it out there for nothing more than a thought experiment.


[edit on 10-10-2008 by SimpleAnswers]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeform
 


Okay, whether he was saying that you can't have differences or not is something we will disagree on. In affect I felt like he was speaking very negatively on the differences of other cultures and traditions and dogmas. If I can remember direct quotes, I'll give them to you. Or I'll just re-watch the entire video and give you direct quotes if you need. But when he mentioned INDOCTRINATING your own children with your own beliefs, that should've been the eye opener that this man wanted to do away with fundamental differences.

Also as for the state indoctrinating children and Fresco being against that, and that having anything to do with religion... Did you not at all read my post? Do you not at all see how some religions ARE persecuted in schools? I know of a school in New Jersey that my cousin went to that wouldn't even allow secular Christmas Carols like Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer because it had to do with Christmas. It seems like the opposite of what you just said.

Also as for Muslims electing Muslim leaders, or Christians electing Christian leaders -- Muslims in Muslim countries electing Muslim leaders won't change. And we shouldn't try to MAKE it change. People trust those that are like themselves. That is human nature. Christians electing or wanting to elect Christian leaders -- the same goes for them. It's their right to elect who they want based on whatever reasons they seem fit. Their RIGHT.

I don't agree with it. I don't think politics and religion should mix. But try telling that to the millions who disagree. Then try getting them to change their view. Lol. And not only try to change their view, but make it so that they CAN'T HAVE their view (about politics and religion mixing, in case you get confused as to what I mean).

It's like I said in the comments to my post here: ritualistic.org...


...

I think it’s the CORRUPTION of religion to wage war. I never knew a single, true Bible believer that wanted war and strife and conflict. Those that claim to be Christians and want that don’t really know their Bible or Christian warfare (what this country was supposed to be based on). As for the Muslim religion, that’s been heavily, heavily perverted too by a lot of people. Like the tribes in Afghanistan that just do what their tribal leaders tell them to because they think that’s apart of their religion — but I’m not even saying that’s bad either because that’s like tribes in Africa, or Native American tribes that do what their leaders tell them to.

And before we get into the tribal Muslim leaders telling them to hate and attack Americans, you and I both know that’s a separate subject all together.

But my point is it’s the rights of these people to keep their tradition and heritage — even the perverted, warped versions (as you and I see them) of their religion. This is their culture. This is how it’s done. Even Ronald Reagan said something to the effect that we don’t understand Middle Eastern politics or ways of life and should leave them be — this could be said for ANY way of life or culture that is different.

...


I don't really see this as good for humanity at ALL or their RIGHTS. Zeitgeist talks about society and how if you don't conform you're ostracized -- You can also indirectly apply this to The Venus Project.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by cetta]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
Communism is a fascist government, very large and intrusive government, and is a relatively modern concept. Applying terms like these to First Nations People is incorrect and misleading. Communal, or cooperative societies are the feminine energies of ying and yang. Next you'll be saying women are communists. Well between capitalism, fascism and a moneyless, cooperative resource society, I know which one will save the human race, and the only one that is worth bringing a child into. All the others are child abuse.


Lol, the feminine energies of ying and yang? Do you mean Yin and Yang? By the way, only one is feminine. The other is masculine. They balance each other, yadda yadda. And yes, I know, before you go on and attack me for correcting you, there is a little bit of opposite energy in both of these. I know AAAALLLLL about it.

Any and all points you make are now moot to me, because you just tried to say ... that because someone disagreed with your ideas that next they'll be trying to equate women to communists because... why, again? "Cooperative societies are the feminine energies of ying and yang"... ?

...

[edit on 10-10-2008 by cetta]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by cetta
 


you obviously believe the way you respect everbody is by respecting your personnal beliefs over anybody elses.

he proposes a world goverment for the good of ALL human beings. no just christians.

hence the state would not promote any belief over another, the people would do that THEMSELVES! the state would STAY out of it.

and as for religon being persecuted in schools, what rubbish. have you never heard of a religous school? have you never heard of a church to teach people in?

why should all schools indoctrinate children into a religous belief?

for every one school that abolishes religon, there are 500 promoting it, and teaching it in lessons, in the U.K. it is called R.E. or religous education.

the parent have no say in it nor do the children. so please explain to me why it is O.K. to have religous school, have the vast majority of other schools teaching it, plus the churches and T.V. channels!. but your not allowed to have none religous schools?

relgion belongs in church, or a mosque, not in school. if parents want their children to pratice religon they should send them to a religous school.
or a school that promote religon.

but what about parents RIGHT to send their children to a school that dos'nt promote religon? and why does it bother you what other peoples children are being taught? do your children go to the school that will not promote the mythical santa claus and his imaginary raindeer?



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
www.youtube.com... You be sing this song after you get there and start living the way they want you too. What a bad marriage. Get a working one and let people see what it is they are getting into before you jump off a cliff like lemming. It’s a fraud and I hope the mods get together and see that it is and we have debunked this lie (the Venus project) before the masses of uneducated people do something that is just plane and simply wrong.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
the only thing i found stupid about the venus thingy, you listen to him spout off about money being bad and wouldnt it be nice to give somebody a painting instead of them buying it, look at the web site shop, they want donations, you can buy autographed prints, videos and it kind of deflated me a bit, seems like a bit of double standards if you ask me,



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform
 


I am confused by your first sentence. I respect everyone's personal beliefs, even their beliefs to think another groups beliefs are wrong and shouldn't be respected.

In essence? I respect their RIGHTS to believe what they want.

In a personal debate I'll tell them where they're wrong, but we're not talking about PERSONAL debates, we're talking about something on a grand scale, and something as impersonal or intrusive as government.

If you mean that I don't respect what YOU'RE saying... . . . I'm merely disagreeing with you, and have agreed with you on other things as well. The same can be said to you for disagreeing with me. But I don't feel that way or think that way, so I won't say that.

We all ready have a world government (to call The Venus Project a GOVERNMENT would be an oxymoron though, no?) that will be presented to us. Many of us on this board do not like it.

Anyway, if you read the rest of what I said on this board at all you'd see I wasn't just sticking up for CHRISTIANS -- I believe I even mentioned in this discussion the Lakota Indians and their epidemic with their children committing suicide at the highest rates of any group and how one of the main reasons was because of a lack of faith in their culture (and how it was taken away from them even in academic schools).

You must have a problem with Christians, therefore think that anyone who talks about religious rights is just talking about Christian rights.

As for religious school -- I've heard of private religious school that you have to pay for to send your children to. Don't want your child to go to religious school? Well then, send them to public. Lol. But don't get rid of something that you don't like if you have the option to avoid it ALL together.

As for the UK promoting religion in their public schools, and there are 500 schools doing it for every one school that gets rid of it.. I'm shocked to hear this. Religious education should be really be a choice.

I found this quote here: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Parents have long been allowed to take their children out of lessons involving religion, while in 2006, sixth-form pupils were given the right to opt out of "collective worship" such as religious assemblies.


Well there you go. Lol.

In Brooklyn we had that too when I went to elementary school. Every Wednesday some kids would leave the class to go to CCD. I wasn't one of those kids. Why? Because my parents opted out of it. Apparently it IS a choice.

And why do I care what other peoples kids are learning? Because I may have kids one day... and as for the school, where I mentioned my COUSIN went to, not MY kids, that didn't allow secular Christian songs to be sung -- all of the children who went there to this school WERE celebrating Christmas and ALL of the parents were MAD about it.

Shouldn't the school have respected the rights of pretty much every single individual involved there? Why didn't they... . . .

And this is what I meant by Muslim people won't stop electing a Muslim leader. Because if it's a heavily populated area of Muslims, they'll do things that make sense to them.

A heavily populated area of Christians or those that celebrate Christmas? Even a secular Christmas? They'll do things that make sense to them and should be allowed to.

Hence respecting their rights.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by cetta]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I'd like to make a quick introduction, this being my first response to an ATS forum. I'm from California, USA. Have lived here my whole life. I've lived in Southern Ca, Central Valley Ca, and Coastal Ca, where I currently reside. My thoughts and beliefs are based primarily on the experiences I've had living here, as well as traveling to other states and Mexico. I have had the great misfortune of being unable to view the world from the perspective of another country, and have only recently begun searching for news sources outside the continental US for a more objective viewpoint. I was raised in a lower-class single-parent family and have been lucky enough to develop, what I call, great moral values, which I hope to prove to you all, and perhaps even have altered, by viewpoints more informed than my own. My family was non-theist, and I have spent random bouts declaring my self atheist, agnostic, and the second-coming. Currently, I'm non-theist, but working on a belief system that integrates scientific fact with a possible hypothesis, which I would go into greater detail privately. I appreciate almost every viewpoint I have encountered, assimilated useful tidbits of information, and attempted to pass on what many would call 'wisdom,' but that definition is purely subjective. I look forward to interacting with you all, and hope that in the end, whether agreeing or disagreeing, we can be tolerant, understanding and respectful of the other's position. I have a BA in sociology.

In regards to ZG:A, I think the point was to present one of many possible alternatives to the current system. There are a few assumptions that must be considered true (and always arguable) regardless of how any implemented system comes to fruition:

1. Society has always come into contact with other societies and attempted to integrate the others into a respectable institution, defined as ally/ enemy/ conquered state. Thus, society is inexorably drifting towards a global community. How that community is going to be defined may largely be influenced by the choices we (that is myself, and you the reader) initiate that change.

2. As science continues to replace 'belief' with 'fact' (not 'truth'), Religion will continue to decline on behalf of those who wish to obtain knowledge. For instance: Knowledge of multiple pre-existing belief systems exhibited similar morals and tales that is gained using the methods of archaeology, sociology, and psychology in conference with theological history as presented in ZG has led many to question both the authority of Christianity and the scholarship of the scientific evidence.

3. The previous assumptions assume that no major cataclysmic event will impede the current development of either's trends, such as asteroid collision, solar flare interference, or global nuclear warfare.

My conclusion is this: Eventually, logic and reason will overcome irrationality. This trend will then establish an 'in-group' and an 'out-group.' The in-group will support the proliferation of logic and reason to the global community, while the out-group will understandable question it's authority. Logic and reason will make a convincing argument, drawing support from the out-group, while the in-group allows for 'civil dissent' of its own. Human Psychology regarding the mob-mentality suggest that the remainders of the out-group will assimilate themselves into the in-group, and through the course of 2 generations, Logic and Reason will become the driving force of the new society. Understanding and tolerance will be pivotal, and allowance of questionable tactics or 'logical parodoxes' will also be required to perpetuate a tolerant society.

This is not to accuse Believers of being irrational, only that unquestioned belief in an unsubstantiated claim produced by a secularly unverifiable source is unreasonable. To 'take a leap of faith' is to commit risk with oneself, and others. Surely the last 3000 years of bloodshed in the name of (diety) reflect that.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ProPeace77
 


Did you notice how you viewed your way of things as rational, and those which did not go in, as being irrational?

Did you notice how you grouped everyone in this world of diversity into 2 groups, or duality?

Did you realize there is more than 1 way of seeing the bible, and that you will view it as the worse case scenario and present it as such, to further you own personal agenda?

Is it possible, that what you lined out is simply majority thinks/believes is right and the only right? And tell me, how is that different than when the majority were christians and made people go along with that?

Does it occur to you that it's not so much what you force people to do, but the act of forcing people that is wrong?

You say they will question the authority. Don't you think that would consist of taking authority as truth, rather than truth as authority. And if so, then how does that make you different than whats going on today, and what makes you different?

On a side note, why are the questions I've asked many times always ignored by the people who support this stuff? Does the truth really hurt that bad? Are you guys frustrated because you can see the problem, but can't see a solution that doesn't involve controlling and forcing your will on others? Is it really that hard to live and let live? Is 1 life not enough to have control over?

[edit on 10-10-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by cetta
 


i honestly have not got a clue why you find it hard to think as the world as one, rather than individual countries and different religons.

because that is what he was proposing, he says a world goverment for good of ALL human beings. he was'nt saying you could'nt pratice religon or have belief, he was saying the state would'nt promote it, or rather the venus project would not promote it and it would'nt be what they are about.
because it would be irrelivent, like all the other things he talks about being irrelivent

that dos'nt mean there would be no place of worship or people are unable to pray or are unable to have their individual beliefs.

" You must have a problem with Christians" no you have a problem with none christians, thats why you were complaining one school did'nt allow a silly christmas carol. also to get facts straight, i decided to send my children to a school that is very religous. the title of the school name is saint .............. and they are linked to the local missionary which does work in the community to help familys in need. a part of their donations are children bringing food into school etc etc.

what i was complaining about, is that you seem to think every school should teach religon, i was merely pointing out that parents should have a choice. not all parents like their children to be taught religon, so they should have that option. and while ever there are religous schools it should'nt bother you.

the reason i send my children to a religous school, is so that they have the best of both worlds, we as parents do not promote religon in any way, if my children were to ask me about religon, i'd simply say i don't believe the versions that are given. because that is my right not to believe. however my children have the same right, hence we send them to a religous school so they can learn about it, but it is not enforced at home that it is something they have to believe in. thus giving them the freedom to choose for themselves as free beings without mine or my partners beliefs being enforced on them, but also without them being forced to believe religon at home. some christians would find it very hard to allow their children freedom of choice.

if i hated christians i would object to them being in that school. and by the way we don't pay, it is a state run school which accepts all religons but teaches religon and has a religous tone, our oldest daughter is singing at the local parish soon(going with the school), she is looking forward to it.

as for the quote from the gaurdian, notice it says in 2006, why has it took so long to beable to opt out? why can we not just have religon free schools as well as religous schools? yep thats it, christians will complain because they do not respect peoples right not to believe in religon or have their kids away from it all together.

i certainly was'nt able to opt out when i was at school. religon belongs in religous schools and churches, end off imo, it really does amaze me how some christian believe their religon is being persecuted because its not plastered over every doorway in the country, yet it is the most widely favoured religon. by state. and tax free.






[edit on 10-10-2008 by lifeform]

[edit on 10-10-2008 by lifeform]

edits: grammer, to make it more readable(apology's if their are still errors)

plus edit to add:

what he is proposing is simular to what me and my partner are doing, we are the head of the household, we do not promote religon in anyway what so ever, however that dos'nt mean other people are not allowed to believe it or have their own individual beliefs.

i hope this helps in understanding. some people find it hard due to their indoctrination, they cannot cope with anything different that goes against that indoctrination.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by lifeform]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   


1. Who gets to decide how many resources each individual gets?
2. Who gets to decide how to "manage" the resources "properly"?
3. What do you do with the people who do not go along with it.


1, 2: Are you presupposing that the 'who' you reference will be in total control, regardless of the spectrum of human ethic from which that 'who' derives, and will thusly act malevolently to the controlled?

3. You are assuming that there will be people who do not go along with it. In a society in which the entire culture has been brought up to pursue knowledge, and regard the potential of the individual in association with contributions to mankind, it is conceivable that such dissent may not exist. If I were to offer a possible solution to your question, I would support the people's opinion inasmuch as their intent to act stayed within the bounds of respect and responsibility. As soon as an action caused intentional harm of any kind to anyone, it would be addressed accordingly, in proportion to the offense committed. You are correct in noting that the Venus project declines to comment on this topic, and that is a reasonable concern.



Money is merely a symbol of value. The real value behind money is in the value of the resources. That is the ONLY thing of value - which will be controlled. And this is different from today how?

Regarding things of value, there are things today that many would consider 'lavish' or 'unnecessary' or 'extravagant.' Regardless of what those things of value are, they may one day be wholly considered 'unproductive' or otherwise lacking the potential to further contribute value to Human pursuits, assumably advancement of the race, betterment of mankind, and increasing the whole of human knowledge.
I submit that it is a flaw in your argument that, in order for nothing to have value, infinite resources are required. Value can be maintained, but the objects upon which we place it should be changed from the material to the fraternal. If a population valued its people over the notions of personal gain, then this quandary is thusly avoided.

It is interesting that you note the lack of a proper solution in the film, yet fail to present one of your own. One might assume that, being a part of this forum, you would be just as concerned about the human condition as any other poster in this forum. Have you not any solutions to offer in the name of making a more egalitarian society?

I also believe it is assumed too frequently that this 'Utopia' is bereft of violence and punishment. In my opinion, a culture in which the value of others is placed over the value of self or the material, it will be standard of ethic and etiquette not to pursue harmful intent upon another individual. For those that 'undoubtably' violate the status quo, the people would elicit shame and humiliation upon the transgressor by noting the action frequently in civil conversation with said person. Should the transgression happen more than once, a series of mediation might be pursued in which the transgressor is examined for remedial traits. If the transgression is deemed 'unhealthy' by the populace, then, in accordance with the needs of the many overwhelming the needs of the few, the transgressor might be exiled or put to death. In either case it should be a moment of great mourning for the people, as one of their own has been proven unable to further contribute to the pursuits of society, whatever they may be.

(to be continued)



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

It's just more status quo. It's like these people expect these kinds of things to be presented as bad. Of course it's going to be pushed as being better/for the good. But anyone who examines it beyond the image can see exactly what is going on.


I believe the point of making information accessible, and not editting its content, will avail the people of the proposed future the ability to decide and judge for themselves the validity of any presentations. This unedited accessibility, combined with the cultural practice of valuing the whole over the few, will also make whatever leadership that might exist unable to propagandize.


Did you notice how you viewed your way of things as rational, and those which did not go in, as being irrational?

No I didn't. I carefully chose my words simplistically in a method I describe below.

Did you notice how you grouped everyone in this world of diversity into 2 groups, or duality?
Yes, for the sake of simplicity, I chose the 2 averages from 2 bell curves. One demonstrated actions that would be considered positive in society, the other negative. I then compared the frequency with which positive and negative events occur as reported by behaviors that elicit rewards and punishments. I arbitrarily labeled the positive average "rational behavior" and the negative average "irrational behavior." For the most part, positive behavior occurs in the realm of rational thought, whereas negative behavior occurs in irrational thought. See the work of Bandura for more.

Did you realize there is more than 1 way of seeing the bible, and that you will view it as the worse case scenario and present it as such, to further you own personal agenda?
I find it interesting that you assumed I was attacking the Bible, even though I qualified my one reference to Christianity as being presented by ZG. If ZG wanted to expand its scope to refute all faiths, then IMO, it should have included precise references to Muhammad, Allah, and Yahweh. As for knowing there is more than one way to see the Bible, ZG:A did point out the various denominations of Christianity, which suggests that they exist precisely because of different ways of seeing the Bible. I view it as "the worst case scenario" (very vague, BTW) because it is credible evidence to me that, by the alterations that have historically occurred to specifically the Bible over time, and the aforementioned various genealogies of belief stemming from the primary belief system, that none of the current versions has perfected the system, and that they each claim that believers of the other systems are not 'saved' speaks volumes of their own intolerance.

Is it possible, that what you lined out is simply majority thinks/believes is right and the only right? And tell me, how is that different than when the majority were christians and made people go along with that?
I'm not forcing anyone to go along with my beliefs. I'm placing them out there to be argued back, so that I might acheive more convincing arguments. Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis, which becomes the new thesis until the introduction of yet another antithesis, ad infinitum. See Marx for more.

Does it occur to you that it's not so much what you force people to do, but the act of forcing people that is wrong?
If someone attempted to kill you, would you not attempt to force them not to? I argue that forcing someone to accept the notion of not harming someone is not forcing at all, but attempting to communicate reason. It would also seem that you are attempting to 'force' me to believe your above-stated claim, thus, if accurate, negating the effectiveness of your own argument.

(to be continued)



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

You say they will question the authority. Don't you think that would consist of taking authority as truth, rather than truth as authority. And if so, then how does that make you different than whats going on today, and what makes you different?
Because in my imagination, the truth IS the authority, and the dissenters are those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept it. If Truth is the authority, what would you call those that refuse to accept the truth?


On a side note, why are the questions I've asked many times always ignored by the people who support this stuff? Does the truth really hurt that bad? Are you guys frustrated because you can see the problem, but can't see a solution that doesn't involve controlling and forcing your will on others? Is it really that hard to live and let live? Is 1 life not enough to have control over?
I have only noticed your stated questions once, and have proceeded to answer them to the best of understanding. I have read every post you have made on this specific thread and attempted to understand your point of view. I have mentioned before that your lack of offering a solution is apparent, and accusing others of their lack of solutions only includes yourself among their numbers. In my belief, it is possible to allow a Utopian society to exist, ruled by self-government, something that so many people I have debated has said is not possible, but that is because they were brought up by the very establishment which seeks to convince us that we cannot. Living and letting live would be a victorious middle ground if those that wrest control of us would relinquish that control. I apologize if I inferred that I wish to have control over others. As appealing as the concept is, I have the capacity to override that desire in favor of the concept I have attempted to promote: The value of the whole over it's parts.

Now, if you could answer a question for me, badmedia: Why is that your posts to this thread seem so angry, posed in such a way that comes off at best biting and at worst spiteful. Is not the purpose of this thread to engage in discussion and amicable debate to determine the course of pursuit for our brethren? You offer many questions and raise interesting points in the arguments of others, and for this you do a critical service for those of us pursuing a critical thought process. But you do not seem to empathize or sympathize with the majority of posters who, like I, seek the establishment of a comparable Utopia, and believe it to be possible. It has been said that belief has made our current civilization possible, so why not the belief of an egalitarian civilization to lay the foundation for the future?

P.S. To the poster that suggested that the position of 'a state is not to promote the ideals, but that the ideals promote the state' was superb.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join