Skeptic Project

"First of all, as I described on my about page, I am a huge believer in technology. The first time I heard of The Venus Project was sometime prior to 2000, around 15 years ago, and from the beginning I was in love with the idea of putting technology in a position to help us rather than hold us back.

...The only difference between the two is how Jacque Fresco and Technocracy, Inc. thought production should be tracked. A concept so small and unimportant it's a shame, to me anyway, that Jacque Fresco is no longer a member of Technocracy, Inc."
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist-addendum/</p>

See also: "What are your political beliefs?" http://conspiracyscience.com/site/faq/</p>

He is a technocrat. The difference between The Venus Project and Technocracy is so tiny that it's really quite funny in some ways. It's also very similar to other social concepts, too, though, so therein lies the distinction.

@Edward,

Technocrats gave us the cold war.

Living in the cold war pretty much sucked.

That thing was pretty much run by dudes with pencils.

@Brenton,

Discredit? No, maybe not.

But it gives a real good reason to be suspicious of them.

They weren't even pushing a utopian idea at RAND. Hearing technocrats pushing that is absolutely terrifying to me. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that it would be total fascism with numbers.

@Edward,

Technocrats have their place, like everyone else. My point is like everyone else, too much control and society is toast.

@Brenton,

What other technocratic movements?

I sure hope there's no Truthers in them.

"And, continue with free-exploitation and humanity wont be able to sustain itself. More than society will be fucked."

You're the kind of guy who sees free-exploitation in hot dogs. This debate would go nowhere.

Are you ever going to tell me why it is illogical to assume that a movement that has no internal leadership will ever make it to Realworldistan?

@Edward,

I agree with all of that. Which is why I find Brenton's visions of technocratic movements aligning with his cause to be a bit absurd.

Edit: I mostly posted that stuff about the cold war to tr0ll u.

@Brandon:

I wanted to reply to this earlier but got sidetracked on the Joo thing. :)

You wrote:

"Well this is one area where I'm on the fence because I actually found the first film because I searched the internet for a film on the 'Jesus myth hypothesis' after buying and reading Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's 'The Jesus Mysteries'.
By your watch such a book is 'hostile' to the religious yet for the most part it's received rave reviews.
The only reason you see ZI as hostile is because it made the religious right loose it."

---

A common misconception between Zeitgeist 1 supporters, or should I say defenders, is that only religious people have a problem with Zeitgeist 1: Part 1.

Lets get this straight. The fact that fundamentalist Christian apologists practically fell over each over to attack Zeitgeist was because they are fundamentalist Christian apologists. In other words, they will claim anything someone says that negative of the Bible is false, even if its true.

The problem with Zeitgeist: Part 1 is, they had a point.

Zeitgeist Part 1 and the work its based on is not even respected in the atheist / skeptic community. That book you referred to "The Jesus Mysteries" for example has been discredited in the same way by ATHEISTS.

Example: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/The_Jesus_Mysteries

Quote:
""Internet Infidel" Richard Carrier wrote of Kersey Graves' book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, "All this is not to say Graves didn't have some things right. But you will never be able to tell what he has right from what he has wrong without totally redoing all his research and beyond, which makes him utterly useless to historians as a source. [8]" A very similar thing can be said for the book The Jesus Mysteries. Their repeated misuse of sources makes them so unreliable that one would have to look up their references just to make sure that they didn't misrepresent them. This makes them useless as an authority. In addition, following up on their sources often yields evidence that undermines their thesis. The Jesus Mysteries is an all too good example of pseudohistory. "

So if anything you and Peter shouldn't be arguing with Christian apologists, since even if you were right they'd never admit it, you should be debating with atheist skeptics who ALSO say you're wrong. Peter never likes to talk about that part and if he did I would guess he'd just say they are brainwashed just like I imagine he thinks most of the scientific community is that doesn't accept 911 Truth.

The fact remains you can prove essentially the same basic point, that the Bible is not unique and not original and many of its tales can be found in similar legends without having to resort to using such sources that even most atheists think are wrong.

I will also offer up a guy called Aron Nelson (AronRa) who now has a well respected youtube channel on evolution (http://www.youtube.com/user/aronra ) but used to post for YEARS in long debates about Creationism and evolution and religion. He often talked about Jesus and the comparisons to other myths and legends as well, in a similar way to Zeitgeist but somehow doesn't need to stretch to using Acharya S. If there is any truth to some of the claims he can probably demonstrate it to a skeptics satisfaction. Note: he doesn't believe Jesus never existed.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1141085-21/#post10760997</p>

This thread goes on a long time and they do pick up the topic again later on if you are interested in reading it.

>"You won't find many technocrats talking about destroying religion, creating weird super psychology clinics for criminals, and so forth."<

What positive things for society do religons create?

Do you think our current prison system works?

So forth...

If technocrats avoid these topics it is not because they do not hold views on them or believe the current system works, but avoid such topics because they are taboo.

>> What positive things for society do religons create?

I never said it created anything positive, but lying about religions in order to help make them look stupid has never worked for anyone, ever. One of the main reasons Socialism and Communism didn't take too big of a foot hold in the US wasn't because workers didn't like the ideas, it was because many of the leaders within the ideology promoted atheism. Not promoting religion one way or another, and never talking about it, guarantees more success (see Social Democrats in Europe).

>> Do you think our current prison system works?

Of course not, the entire prison system is based on the Quaker idea that people should basically sit and think about what they did, which doesn't work.

>> If technocrats avoid these topics it is not because they do not hold views on them or believe the current system works, but avoid such topics because they are taboo.

Wrong, you can find a lot of technocrats talking about religion, but won't you want find is "Fuck yeah, destroy it all!" because that doesn't work. The topics aren't avoided, but they're very sensitive, and I suggest for real success you should avoid them completely.

Anything the TZM is trying to talk about or bring up was all done at least 90 years ago by technocratic, communism, anarchist, and other movements, they're doing nothing new or cutting edge, except they have the Internet now.

>> and edward, you have a seriously different tone when speaking upon ideals that you hold dear to your heart, Furhter evidence of your bias standpoint that Technocrazy is the way....sound a lot like CTers to me. Just trying to get your point across, as do they. So maybe you should be less harsh and more welcoming of different ideas.

You know, this could be because Brenton didn't accuse me of having premature ejaculation, prostate problems or sitting on the computer all day instead of addressing my points. He's polite, so I'm polite to him.

Yes, I do have a bias towards technocracy, because that's what I believe in, so why wouldn't I? I also have a bias towards atheism too. Having bias makes you human, being an emotional robot makes you a conspiracy theorist.

Charities = unarmed robbery

a (false) sense of community while the celibate priests molest your children.

Tolerance of this society that we live in, which you claim that you do not back, yet back it every chance you get.

@Wilbur:

"Charities = unarmed robbery
a (false) sense of community while the celibate priests molest your children."

Evidence that all religious charities abuse children?

Thought not.

>"The pastor of the church I sometimes go to when I care about it is married and has children. I am pretty sure he only fucks his wife.<"

Why the hell do you go to church, then talk about your pastor fucking his wife behind his back? You still trying to get to heaven, i take it:)

And even though the movie is offered for free, or to be bought, i am not a full-time backer of Z movie. Honestly, i came here because i found it interesting and was hoping someone did un bias research about its validity. Although not unbias, Ed still did way more research than my lazy ass was willing to do.

Being unbias is pretty much impossible, but I did do my best to remove any bias I had from the research and look into everything honestly.

I didn't take them seriously and they didn't make me angry, but when you're having a discussion and all of a sudden start talking like that, especially with the person you're arguing with, people tend to believe they're red herrings instead of addressing the issue directly.

Matt's a contributor, and he may say 'fuck you' when he wants to, but he also contributes a lot to the conspiracy science community and does debunk things. Besides, I always thought I was more mean than him, are you sure you're not just targeting him because he goes to church from time to time?

Edward writes:

Well most technocrats aren't the ones talking about having everything under control of a massive super computer like TVP.

Fresco advocates something like this in his book "Looking Forward." He calls the super-AI "Corcen," a Soviet-like portmanteau word for "Correlation Center."

Kind of like the computer which takes over the world in the 1970 film, "Colossus: The Forbin Project," in other words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMst6sqRlMU