Skeptic Project

I was sent one of those Facebook event invite things you sometimes get to a London Zeitgeist meeting entitled: "The future of economics - a perspective from the Zeitgeist Movement". I selected "not attending" as I was sure it was just going to be a rehash of the same stuff from the Orientation Guide and past lectures and the "future of economics" was just a way to try and repackage it to try and draw a different or newer audience. And of course, Im sure they were going to video it anyway...

However I saw someone called Dan Ki Moon had posted the following:

"Wary. That first Zeitgeist film was pure conspiracy claptrap."

One of the organisers who I met a few times when I was "involved" briefly with the London "chapter" replied to him saying:

@Dan Baker: "The Zeitgeist movement" was born after the second movie, called "Zeitgeist Addendum", which has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.
You can see the full history of events, from the director himself, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIINgQ1TooE

I then replied and we got into a little back and forth... take a look if you're interested :)

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=125228337494467

Look for roughly the 5th post down by Mark Bass. Based on what I knew of him he is a nice guy so dont want to be too hard on him :)

I might at some point, though I think that might be too much for him at this point.

You see he is a truther so first with those guys I think you need to show him Zeitgeist is filled with lies and the truth movement is a load of nonsense for them to really understand why they should be that upset with being associated with it IMO.

Yea.. and I hate it when they say they don't believe it because of physics...

oh really? I wonder... Who told you physics says its impossible? The guy who believes in high explosive thermite paint maybe? Or maybe its the guy that believes in silent but violent explosives? Its quite remarkable.

I think what annoys me so much about conspiracy theorists, including truthers or global warming denialists and so on, is when they claim to be skeptics and use science. At least religious people tell me you have to have faith, but truthers convince themselves they are backed by science, facts and logic. I guess that's why Intelligent Design and Creationist proponents piss me off as well.

Isn't it also funny how so many seem to believe that if their critics just looked at their material we couldn't possibly disagree with them? So many conspiracy theorists I've talked to show that even though they have believed this stuff for years they have no clue about what any of the criticisms are. I find that amazing. They can go out and start protesting these things and have not tried to check up on any of their claims. That's why I had to make sure I knew and felt I could defend these claims myself before I started doing any of that stuff. This apparently doesn't occur to most conspiracy theorists.