Zeitgeist [Religion] The Greatest Story Ever Sold.

[Ã¥scertain]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u ... re=related

hey, what do you all think of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u ... re=related

[pinkocommie]

Eh.  It seems impressive initially, but they pick and choose the information they share in accordance with their own agenda and whole thing definitely has a spin to it that amounts to less than what I would consider intellectually honest fact sharing.

[Ã¥scertain]

Im on part 9 and I think I understand what you mean. Up to this point the argument presented has not only changed - but comes across as very bias  

[TheWilliam]

i remember this video from like '07

I'm shamelessly bias in it's favor because it agrees with me.

[PoopShoot]

I'm shamelessly bias in it's favor because it agrees with me.

Unfortunately a lot of people feel that way.  The reason it's unfortunate is it gives weight to the "faith in atheism" idea by virtue of evidence that (some) atheists will accept any unfounded claim that agrees with their views (much like cretards with Hovindesque arguments).

[pckizer]

Gotta agree with Poop on this one.  To repeat myself (from Zeitgeist posted here just last month):

Yup, seen them.  They're great mind candy and kinda fun to watch, but there's so much fiction in them that they really shouldn't be taken as anything very close to reality or explanatory.

See:

• Ironchariots wiki: Zeitgeist
• Zeitgeist Debunked

Have fun reading!

[TheWilliam]

it does get a little goofy when they go into the real i.d. card and all that stuff.

I'll have to go with what my dude said, "Mind Candy" is the best description.

I might use that in a conversation this week.

what do you guys think about the WTC part where they say the building was destructed?

[PoopShoot]

what do you guys think about the WTC part where they say the building was destructed?

IIRC, the crux of the argument was the angle of collapse on the beams was identical to the angle at which demolition explosives are placed.  I may be wrong about that being the movie's thing, but it is a very common argument.  The argument fails to account for the fact that demolition explosives are placed at the same angle as the natural breaking point of steel.

[Gawen]

If one can show that early Christian practices are related to the Federal Reserve and related to the events of 9/11, you'd be making a case for watching Zeitgeist.

Zeitgeist (notice there were no credits) attempts to show that
1) Christianity is rehashed pagan sun-worship and is used by the rich and powerful to control people,
2) the 9/11 tragedies were part of an elite conspiracy, and 3) the ultra-rich have been secretly manufacturing wars and financial collapses to control the populace and to get richer and more powerful.

How all this fits together is left to your imagination. Breaking new factual ground?...*laffin* ...Zeitgeist spews its conclusions as givens and then looks for the evidence. Much like Christianity. Filled to the brim with 100% pure horse crap; lies, incompetence, shoddy research, attempts to spread ignorance. Very much like Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy (1999), a sensationalist book that has zero academic credibility, not unlike Acharya S herself. Then again...

The video’s producer does say “It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth . . .”
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/statement.htm

[penfold]

Zeitgeist is bogus.

Apart from the shocking lack of any good historical methodology (eg jumping the 3,000yr gap between early Egyptian worship and the Semitic religions without any intervening sources to show continuity), it is also factually inaccurate in many places .

It is worth to taking their list of the various parallels with Jesus and to try and find the original texts these claims come from. More often than not the trail dead-ends.

I think there is an awful lot of ground to be made by showing just how historically complex the figure of Jesus is. I even think that in some cases there is a failure to do so by academic theologians that borders on the deliberate (the systematic refusal to really address the questions raised by the Nag Hammadi texts is a good example). However the makers of this film fail to plug that gap; their work is very unprofessional, they have no rigour, no regard for the truth, and seemingly, no respect for their audience.

The sad thing is that even if there is some truth in what they are saying it has become impossible to distinguish from the BS. They exist in the same tradition of pseudo-history as Dan Brown.