It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Zeitgeist Movement is *Pure Communism*

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:11 PM
This is to address some of your concerns about how a transition might take place.
Transition to an RBE

Who Pays?

Government does. Government traditionally has the role of implementing projects for the benefit of the people that have no profit associated with it (i.e. the internet). Governments will fund research into new technologies and new processes to alleviate the need of human labour.

How do they pay?

A Government that is in debt up to its eyeballs, how can it possible pay? The answer lies in changing the base of our money. Currently we have a fiat money issued by a private institution that is backed by government bonds which is in turn based on their ability to tax. The government needs to call the bonds and retire them; this can be done by swapping cash for bonds. Make the Fed really federal, strip the private banks of the ability to manufacture money out of thin air and charge interest on it and restore the governments ability to issue money by either loaning it out with reasonable interest payable to the government to fund government projects (and not private interests for private gain), or spending it into the economy (to establish a permanent base of debt free money and to provide the interest portion of the money that has to be paid back). It is possible to then repeal the income tax, immediately enriching the people.

For example, the Chinese model of the central bank advances the national interest, not the private interest. They lend to businesses and sprinkle money onto the economy to make use of all productive labour. Look at China’s growth, it speaks for itself. It is no coincidence that they have built a functional maglev; while in the US has only a few test tracks.

What about my job?

As technology improves and as productivity increases prices for products will naturally deflate. This deflation should be embraced. As your number of working hours decrease, prices for goods will decrease in tandem. So everything you could afford while working 40hrs a week, you’ll be able to afford when working 20 hrs a week as prices deflate by half. If you are really worried, you can take on another “full” time job for 20 hrs a week to work 40hrs a week. But you will see that you can maintain your standard of living with less work. It will eventually progress to the point where you no longer pay for shelter, food, water, health care and basic goods, but still pay for some “luxuries”. Over time even these luxuries will either become free or be viewed as obsolete and unwanted.

In an effort to reduce the cyclical consumption cycle, in transition, corporate personhood will be stripped away. Investment will be through joint ventures, no more stock market, and a reduced bond market. Interest burden and tax burden will be reduced on those companies that produce true innovation, efficiency and benefit to society. Thereby business that do not contribute and produce nothing of value (i.e. tangible goods or ideas that impact society for the better) will be at a competitive disadvantage. Also with the changes to the monetary system, business will no longer have to subscribe to the “grow or die” mentality. They can concentrate on producing the best products they can produce. To be clear as time goes on, these business interests will unwind in an orderly fashion as more and more business’s become incorporated into the cybernated system.

Part 2 to follow...

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:15 PM
Part 2
Trans-humanist Agenda

I submit to you that, according to models and graphs presented by Ray Kurzweil in his TED talk,

…there is nothing to be done about the trend in technology. He points out that even during bankruptcies and depressions, wars, and disasters, technology has plodded along at an ever increasing rate. The kind of draconian control you would need to suppress these technologies is the same type of control you accuse the Zeitgeist movement of having to implement to sustain an RBE. How will you stop these technologies? It would require an agreement by everyone and that will never happen, even if it is in their “best” interest not to be dominated by a Strong AI. Using laws and regulations to prevent this avenue of research will only drive it underground where private moneyed interests will most assuredly fund this technology in secret.

The best strategy here is not to try to suppress the technology, but rather to make sure it is developed in government (public) hands and not in private hands. Make sure everyone has access to this knowledge and the playing field for all will be leveled. Incidentally, the concept of equal access to resources (knowledge being one) is a central idea of the ZM/VP philosophy.

How it could grow

With an RBE, we do not require everyone’s co-operation, we only require some land and to able to assess the carrying capacity of that land. So let’s say we get 100 acres and initially we only have enough resources to carry 10 people and we won’t even be totally self-sufficient. That means those ten people will have to spend some time labouring in the capitalist economy to sell their labour for dollars to purchase those materials that they cannot do without. Over time as their ingenuity increases, the carrying capacity of those 100 acres will rise and their self-sufficiency will increase so that they have to spend less and less time selling their labour and more and more time solving their own resource problems. As a living example, people will be inspired to start their own mini-RBE’s and these satellite RBE’s will share information with each other in co-operation because it is in everyone’s interest that the RBE’s survive and thrive. Contrast this to a capitalistic system where information is considered proprietary and confers competitive advantage on to one group and that group uses that advantage to grind their competitors out of existence, wasting lives and resources along the way.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:22 PM
I’ve spent the last week and a bit reading through your posts (about 29 pages of just your posts copy/pasted to MS word) and your website (the AGI one crashed my browser a few times, but I persevered), a voluminous amount of material to be sure. I’ve done this because I want to give you a fair accounting of your position and what you’ve stated without being more biased (then I already am) and more inflammatory (the tendency to argue out of emotion).

I’ve come to the determination that you are not just an angry man lashing out, but you are genuinely concerned about the direction society is taking. I have to thank you for all the materials you provided on trans-humanism as it was a fascinating and exciting subject (I have Ray Kurzweil two latest books on hold at my library).

Common ground:
We both believe the current system is corrupt.
We both agree that the Constitution was a great document.
We both believe that the founding fathers knew what was what.
We both think that Stalin’s version of communism was a bad idea.
We think that ending the Fed would be a good start
We both think that reigning in corporations would be a good idea
We both think that sound money is a must have, not a nice to have.
We are both against the NWO.
We both believe that if we hit the singularity with the rich in the seat of power we will suffer a break in the species and class warfare that will result in genocide for those of us unfortunate to be not among the rich.

I would say that you and I have share significant common ground.

Your Solutions:

Return to an uncorrupted system, some redistribution of wealth, strengthening of regulation, sound money, repealed the fed, repeal corporate rights. Return to the Constitution the founders laid out as advocated by Michael Badnarik.

Get an abundance of energy, water and food!

I apologized if this list is not exhaustive

My critique of your solutions:

I indeed support the all of your suggestions, but I recognize that none of these solutions will be permanent. Money has the tendency to corrupt and laws are easily repealed and circumvented. Case in point, the number of central banks in US history that had been brought into being under the guise of “helping” the economy and then shut down because their help was really a thinly disguised attempt to profit on usury, the Fed being the latest incarnation. Your solutions would help in the transition but this is a stop gap measure.

Issues (as you’ve raised in your posts, I apologize for any inadvertent misinterpretations):

Calls ZM a utopian/dystopian fantasy

JF has never called his system a utopia and has in fact denied that it is a utopia. It may seem like a utopia from your perspective because of the idea that we can provide for our basic necessities at no monetary cost to us. Let me reiterate that our proposed system is not perfect, no system is.

Idea of choice and how a central cybernated planning system would restrict choice.

What is the difference between having a cybernated system decide that something is unavailable to you or having the market price it out of your reach. Both systems make the decision for you. Thinking that you have more choice under the free market is an illusion, it is not you deciding not to purchase something, it is the invisible hand of the market deciding you can’t have it.

Believes ZM is the purest form of communism.

It has certain communal characteristics and shares some elements of stateless communism. To say that is inherently bad is to exclude the fact that pure Marxism or stateless communism has never existed in this world before. Keep in mind there are no leaders, all decisions are arrived at through discussion and weighing of the facts.

part 2 of this thread to come...

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:26 PM
Says ZM lacks the technology to carry out the vision.

Your own links about the technological singularity prove that this will not be an issue. With technology advancing at an ever increasing rate we should see some pretty spectacular advances in the next 5 years.

Says ZM is promoting technological unemployment.

Technological unemployment is inevitable. ZM just acknowledges that it is happening.

Says most people want to be lazy and rewards laziness.

Most people hate their jobs and are not innately lazy. Look at how much time I spent researching and reading to compose a response to you. I’m not getting paid to do this. Give people a chance to do that which they really what to do and the will do it. Keep in mind, during the transition the amount each person has to work, steadily declines, so even if some undesirable jobs hang around, they eventually get spread out and are not so onerous. For example, if we couldn’t automate # shoveling, and you got stuck with it, it would be for 2 hrs a day and that is it. A small price to pay for the access you enjoy. People only want to be told what to do today because that is how society raised them to be, sheep. Given the proper environment everyone could be the captain of their own ship.

Says we will never get all 7 billion people to agree with our view.

You do not need to get 7 billion people to agree with you. It is not about debate, it is about discussion. You need to understand the difference. For example, you sit down and discuss with your roommates what kind of toppings you would like on your pizza; you do not debate with them. There are no winners and losers, you arrive at a decision, in this case an acceptable compromise.

Says the government must implement this plan.

Yes I come to agree with you here.

Says we need to establish global control.

You make it sound so sinister, but it isn’t. We are not taking control through devious means; we are not taking control through force. We would be taking control through consensual agreement.

Says that the proposed energy systems cannot provide for the world at a feasible cost.

See Kurweil's TED talk, this is only a few years away.

Says that ZM will actually slow down technological advancement (based on what happened to the USSR).

So I have to ask which is it? Are we advancing the NWO agenda or not? I don’t think they (the NWO elite) want to wait eons. Based on your reasoning should be for us then, not against us. But just so we are clear, Ray Kurweil predicts that by 2045 we will have practical nanotechnology.

Says PJ just wants us to wait around for the collapse.

There are other alternatives to waiting. It would be dangerous to allow the collapse, because there is no telling who will fill the power vacuum. In this I dissent from the mindset of the movement.

Says ZM and NWO are one in the same.

We promote free access for all, especially information. This is hardly a trait of the NWO.

Says ZM wants a global dictatorship.

We don’t want to rule anyone; we want to free them from the bonds of unnecessary labour and debt. Ruling people takes time and resources away from activities that are truly productive.

Says ZM wants to end all religions.

We believe religions will eventual die out if people are given ample opportunity to educate themselves. But if they don’t, then we certainly will not ban them.

Says ZM wants population reduction.

JF believes we can actually feed many more people than currently exist today. He also recognizes that although we are not at that limit yet, someday we will be, but people will mature enough to take appropriate action on their own. It is called responsibility. How capitalism accomplishes this is by starving people by pricing the food out of people’s reach, thereby shifting the blame from the rich onto the poor (i.e. they are too lazy to work, so they starve).

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:30 PM
Says people will always be competitive.

We didn’t get the civilization we have today without being co-operative first. Co-operation is just as deeply ingrained and should be encouraged rather than suppressed.

Says a RBE society will still need enemies.

These will be enemies that are common to all people, old age, heart disease, etc.

Says system will have to be enforced.

All systems imply an order. If you mean violent, oppressive enforcement, this is not necessary in a fully mature RBE.

People will have to be re-educated to conform.

All education is self-directed. JF himself came from a self-directed educational background.

Says property rights will cease.

Yes and no, big property (land, cars), yes. But you can still have small property that is still yours (books, personal items). Private property would be a burden in an RBE as you have access to everything you need to survive, maintaining your “things” would be a waste of time and energy.

Look at the root cause of why property rights were so important, when we were hunter/gatherers property rights had little meaning as we roamed from place to place following the herds and the seasons, once agriculture was established we became stationary, it was paramount to be able to defend our claim to land as it was necessary to our survival.

Property rights are not so much as our claim to our land, but rather our ability to restrict other people’s access to our land. Mr. Badnarik speaks about this in his talks about rights and privileges in the example of you walking across your land in contrast to you walking across your neighbours land. You have the right to cross your land; you have the privilege to cross your neighbour’s land, if he grants it. He has the power to restrict access as evidenced by the granting of privileges.

In an RBE, resources are for the common heritage of all, everyone has access and no one has the right to restrict access, because we have advanced to the point where we no longer are dependent on one strip of land for our survival. Believe it when I say that we have to ability and the means to feed everyone today in perpetuity, but yet we do not? We would rather let 1/7th of our population starve and struggle.

Says the system will own all resources (i.e. control)

The system will manage the resources and production for the benefit of everybody, but ultimately we control the system. You either believe we are capable of that or you don’t. We can agree to disagree.

Says we cannot dispense with the need for a measurement of worth.

We have scientific measurements that are not subject to fluctuations of value, i.e. weights, volumes, area. You can, if you must, infer value by the following equation, amount of material required to sustain one person for one day*by the number of people (globally or in the region)/the total amount of the material produced by day(globally or by region). The closer this figure is to 1 the higher the importance of the resource. Values higher than one indicate a shortage and therefore a priority to fix either through greater efficiency or through available substitutes.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:30 PM
I never watched the first Zeitgeist as I heard much of it was bunk but.

I think Zeitgeist addendum / venus project was #ing great, brilliant film, really enjoyed it, try as much as I can to cross-check thing's to make sure im not filling my brain with non-sense.

Gives me chills every time I watch that movie, it feels so powerful.

Just my personal opinion, but Ive never heard anything that genuinely made it look like complete bogus (Im talking about Zeitgeist addendum now), everyone talks the talk but can't walk the walk, I need help here because I loved that film, absolutely thought it was great.

As far as I know you can't even donate to their causes, so I really don't see what is in this for them except truth and a new idea for a social structure that has never been tried, call it communist if you will, but communism still involves money, the venus project's idea just doesen't. Sorry, I completely 100% disagree with you here.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by Mr Zeropoint]

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:34 PM
Says there is no science to support the abundance.

The reams of information you have referenced on the technological singularity says otherwise. If it doesn’t exist already it will exist within the space of a few decades. Ultimately the advent of nanotechnology makes this argument moot, and would make capitalism moot as the ability to manufacture anything by rearranging atoms makes the concept of charging for anything irrelevant.

This level of technology is closer than you think. For example, the human genome project was slated to finish in 15 years, and 2/3rd of the way through that time they had completed approx 1/10000th , but yet in the last 5 years technology advance sufficiently to allow for the timely completion of the project because technology is advancing exponentially. Ray Kurzweil talks about this phenomenon quite a bit.

Says that ZM embraces a total machine takeover and does not question if that is a good idea.

What we embrace is a delegation of drudgery to uncomplaining machines. We advocate better living through science and technology. We do not advocate machine dominance over humanity.

But something to consider, since the technological singularity is inevitable, what system would be best suited to handle it, a capitalist one, or a stateless communist/technocratic one?

Says that ZM wants to destroy any and all privacy.

To track demand and resource usage will require less invasive measures than we currently use today as we are not there to market anything to you. Generally we only need to know how much is being consumed, not which individual is consuming it. Any private information that does exist (like for example medical information), will not be available to unauthorized personnel (Doctor’s only).

Says that ZM is going to take away our celebratory holidays

We would keep all holidays that the people wanted to keep. We might add a day or two, like Z-Day or V-Day.

Says that ZM claims it is the only solution to our problems.

This is a useless semantic argument. We are all free-thinking individuals in the movement, and if another viable permanent solution made itself apparent we would either incorporate it into our current model or we would supplant ZM/VP altogether. This is the nature of the scientific method, old outmoded ideas are discarded and new ideas are championed.

Says that VP will have to ration.

This is an argument that is trying to link VP with the bad aspects of communism. Stalin’s USSR did ration, but that is all they did. They did not have the technical proficiency to provide an abundance of the right materials at the right times. Are there some items VP might have to ration? Perhaps initially, but the goal is to provide abundance and to use problem solving to attain that goal. Ultimately nanotechnology makes this argument moot.

Assumes that AI will logically conclude that we are a threat or a waste and remove us.

Based on what? The niche an AI would occupy is very different that the niche humans occupy. The physical size of the first strong AI will be about the size of a sugar cube. Machines don’t require much, energy and some raw material for repairs. They don’t need to procreate, but could do so through making back-ups which takes up minimal space.

Proposes safeguards for Capitalism.

It is ironic you could propose safeguards for a system that is so vulnerable to corruption and interpretation, but at the same time deny that we could place safeguards in our AI’s. Safeguards for capitalism is not a permanent solution, any law you come up with will eventually be repealed or circumvented by the moneyed interests.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:53 PM
Says ZM is a cult.

Cults don’t do much of anything and don’t have plans to change much of anything. We aim to change the world for the better.

Says that in an RBE you will have no influence

You can participate as much or as little as you would like in an RBE. If there is a change you would like to make or a new design to contribute, as long as you can make a good case that your change would contribute to the benefit of society (and thereby yourself) and it is superior to other designs or processes currently offered then they is no reason why you cannot exert influence to get this change enacted. Conversely it is unlikely you could influence society solely for your own selfish gain, because your suggestion can be easily trumped by those who disagree. Hence co-operation and consensual agreement are key. Again it is not a debate, but rather a discussion to arrive at an answer.

Says that ZM is like the Illuminati

On the face of it we would appear to share some of the same goals, of abolition of government, property, and inheritance. The ideas of patriotism, family and religion are not on our agenda to abolish. Patriotism will fade out on its own as national states eventually become regions, you can still be proud of where you come from, but you won’t be fooled by false patriotism to engage in any wars. The idea of family will change to eventually include the community in which you grew up. This sense of community is something we’ve lost in this selfish pursuit of the individual and profit. Religion as I have stated before will remained untouched as long as no one is persecuted by it. Religion will eventually become something very personal and private, a singular communing between yourself and your god, to be shared among intimates and the like-minded.

In conclusion, although I doubt I have said anything to convince you otherwise, if you look at the motivations of ZM/VP you will see that we mean well and our intentions are pure. While it is true we have co-opted certain ideas that can be scary to the population at large, this fear is largely unfounded as we want to use technology to free us so we can re-establish the bonds with our fellow man that have been cast away in the drive for the latest products and the biggest profits.

I would venture to guess that years of propaganda has ingrained in the western world consciousness that communism=bad, so thereby anything that resembles it (or at least doesn’t resemble a republic/democracy/capitalism) must also be bad. I declare that this system has never existed before in this form, with the present and near future technology that will be available, and lastly with the maturity that we as a species are capable of demonstrating if given a chance. Our movement only wishes to begin a dialogue with the world to arrive at solution that everyone will find acceptable.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by ciaran_anthony
Jacque Fresco is a former member of the Klu Klux Klan and The White Citizens Council!

So it turns out you are on to something...not.

And now for the rest of the story...

JF will attest that he did indeed join a chapter of the KKK, so he could over time change their views on race. The chapter ended up disbanding because they could no longer sustain their prejudices. Anyone who has heard JF speak on the subject of race knows his stance on this, he is for all races. If you had listened to any one of his speeches in your extensive "research" you would have discovered that.

So what that tells me is you are incompetent, or you didn't bother researching, which is sloppy.

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:43 PM
• Central Bank.
• Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
• Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
• Government Control of Labor.
• Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
• Government Control of Education. [/QUOTE]

The United States and practically every country practices these things. The US system has a central bank, a progressive income tax, government control of labor (army) corporate farms , and government control of education. So I guess you can say that we ALREADY live in a communist world government.

We have things like AI and nanotechnology and cybernetic technologies that can raise the standard of living of every man woman and child to that of a modern day billionaire Right now. From a technological standpoint it can be done. Just as we can obliterate the world with these WMD, we can do the exact opposite according to newton. How can it be on the consciousness of every body that we can destroy the world and the human race and make things exponentially worse but not the exact opposite? Tell me that?

From what I could gather, I have concluded that the Zeitgeist movement is harmless and not sinister at all. It shares some of the ideas of Technocracy but so what? Communists, the big bad communists share ideas with Plato and Socrates and Aristotle and st. simon etc. etc.

Ignoranceisn'tbliss, I'll add some more stuff but I have to go.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Tim Bradley]

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Tim Bradley]

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Tim Bradley]

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:55 PM
I really wish I had time to respond to this page. Take a look at my sig if you don't believe me.

Originally posted by Tim Bradley
From what I could gather, I have concluded that the Zeitgeist movement is harmless and not sinister at all. It shares some of the ideas of Technocracy but so what? Communists, the big bad communists...

Dictatorships. Hey is you like dictatorships go for it, but when you try and impose it on me we'll have war.

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I really wish I had time to respond to this page. Take a look at my sig if you don't believe me.

Originally posted by Tim Bradley
From what I could gather, I have concluded that the Zeitgeist movement is harmless and not sinister at all. It shares some of the ideas of Technocracy but so what? Communists, the big bad communists...

Dictatorships. Hey is you like dictatorships go for it, but when you try and impose it on me we'll have war.

Have you read the ZM orientation guide?

I have read the ZM orientation guide and the Technocracy study course and there are similarities but the ZM just shows that we can intelligently raise the standard of living of every man woman and child to that of a modern day billionaire. It is possible. And they show how it is Technically possible.

You don't mind your microwave or your elevator taking you places or cooking your food do you? You don't mind your calculator dictating to you?

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:49 PM

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:10 AM
Oh boy again.

Quick facts:

1. 1% of the US population owns 95% of the wealth of America
2. All money is created out of DEBT!!
3. The money needed to pay off the interest of AMERICA's DEBT DOES NOT EXIST!!!!! -we need more-

You're being caught up with labels and missing the fact that the current monetary system is NOT SUSTAINABLE.
A resource based economy has a measure stick that is NEED. When you think about it four people do not need four cars.

BTW: There are 148939063.133km^2 of land mass on Earth. In acres that is 3.680364401e+10 or
3.680364401 * (10 ^11) or 36 803 644 010 acres of land available. EACH PERSON IN EXISTENCE CAN BE GIVEN OVER 5 ACRES OF LAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE ARE USING RESOURCES INEFFICIENTLY.


posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:18 AM
What I took issue with in the latest film was how they talked quite a bit about how things as they are now are wasteful and inneficient... All I could think was: So, if we build all these localized circular cities... isn't that intensely wasteful? Add to that, what about all the architectural marvels that stand in the existing cities? Places like Westminster Abbey, the Louvre, and the Collisseum? Some of the greatest architectural and artistic achievements of mankind are located in these 'wasteful' cities. I noticed there was not one single mention of what would happen to them once we're all living in these utopian, localized cities of sameness the Venus Project seems to be pushing.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 06:18 PM
I was reading through this thread, I have no stance on the issue. However, I do have one concern.

Statement/Claim: Capitalism creates Scarcity.

Truth: Existence/Circumstance creates Scarcity. We have unlimited needs and wants, and limited resources to attain them. This is Scarcity. If you are in an entropic economy/ecology, then scarcity will dip so low, as to deprive you of your needs. This will happen no matter what society you are in.

I do believe that the person who was speaking meant "Capitalism creates Relativistic Scarcity". Which it does. Your ability to attain your needs/wants is disproportionate to another's ability to attain their needs/wants.

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 06:20 PM
A measure of resource will always be required, so long as our economy is functional and logical. I think the real question is "who will decide" and "how transparent the decision"...

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The 3 stages of Truth:

1. Ridicule.

2. Violent Opposition.

3. Acceptance.

Reasoning has failed to work, from many different attempts, you stubbornly remain stuck at stage 1. People with wisdom have no trouble skipping over steps 1 and 2. If you can't see it work now, then you will have to wait until you experience it, for experience is true wisdom. But unfortunately, you've decided to take the full 3 step program, and prolong what otherwise could be a peaceful transition into a time of prosperity and peace.

A resourced based economy will happen, it's just a matter of time, and up to all of us as a whole to decide when. There doesn't have to be much suffering in the transition process, we can make it work. Ever woken up from a dream and realized you're still asleep? Well, you are still asleep.

Put your ego aside, let go of your fear. Please wake up and join the rest of us, or at least take a hit of '___', that might work too

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 08:38 PM
Both Peter Joseph and Jaqque Frescco are atheists. And they make it clear in their movies, that's what makes it really scary for me. They want a society totality run by science, there is no emotion in such authority. That will make life on Earth a living hell!!
You can say whatever you want about 'religion'. We have spiritual development, the problem is education. Your crazy to think that an atheist society will resolve our problems. No seriously, people actually thinking that way are batsh*** crazy.
edit on 13-2-2011 by _SilentAssassin_ because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
Both Peter Joseph and Jaqque Frescco are atheists. And they make it clear in their movies, that's what makes it really scary for me. They want a society totality run by science, there is no emotion in such authority. That will make life on Earth a living hell!!

Even a better reason to support Zeitgeist.

Except the misconception of Atheism. That kind of sucks.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in