But, in a way, if Zeitgeist's "debunking" of religion is complete garbage, doesn't that just solidfy the argument that people can believe whatever nonsense is told to them to be factual?

Exactly! All the naysayers are criticizing man's religious dogma and fail to differentiate this man-made world view with the message of the bible or of the ministry of Jesus. They are very different concepts. Religion is used for control; don't throw out the baby with the bathwater however. Good posts in this thread by both Doctor and Conspiracy Clothes.



This is true! Can't the sheep of Zeitgeist see how their faith in this movie is equal to other's faith in the bible? Zeitgeist makes unfounded statements. It's a fact. Why is this so hard for some to come to terms with? The creators of the movie are preaching biblical prophecy!



Exactly! Their claims are bunk which unfortunately brings the whole body of work into question. A lot of the info was good to get out; but they failed to do a good job at researching and verifying what they were claiming is correct.


No, it's not. You can say it is until blue in the face but it will not change the fact that it is not.



Your blind faith in Zeitgeit is on par with fundamentalists literal interpretation of scripture. Do some independent research. It's pretty ignorant given your stance here to defend Islam. Agenda?

Ephesians 4:14

Great discussion!

what jibberish-- scriptures are not evidence of anything except literary imagination which is why the existance of jesus is NOT taught in schools-- you need to face the real facts concerning history and theology and realise how ridiculous you appear from a logical point of view-- "preaching biblical prophecy"??!!?! what a joke! the only thing i defend is logic,reason and truth-- funny how somebody operating on faith can aspire to challenge logic and common sense using the pretense of research and verification...ABSOLUTELY HYSTERICAL!! its not like you plan on backing up your rhetoric with details or clarification

Let's stick to Zeitgeist. The whole first 3rd has been debunked by me (although not here) and by many others. You both have the tendency to think that if you feel the the bible is false, your disillusioned with Christian dogma, etc Zeitgeist MUST be true. It's not. Most of the claims made about Jesus in relation to pagan "sun gods" are purely false. Even an atheist with about an hour of time to research could tell you that. I am not trying to convince you the bible is fact, just that Zeitgeist is not. It's that simple. I like a lot about the film; but putting in so many obviously false statements unfortunately brings the whole body of work into question for others not versed in conspiracy.

Sorry guys; Zeitgeist has made too many bunk statements for you to expect people to take it seriously. They should have done their research before releasing what is an otherwise fantastic film.

Outta curiosity tho It would be interesting to get a die hard christian/'s take/perspective even some high ranking official from the church on this & how ''our own governments'' plan to micro chip us all in the future like live stock (ya know revelations) ...any here on UM Maybe i should start a thread in the religious forum on that sum kinda poll...hmm and how we're constantly lied to put under 24/7 surveillance as if we were all crims inside prison without the bars, slowly having our own ''basic god given rights'' slowly & systematically taken away from us more & more with each passing year etc etc...


Work calls, later.

A good day to you all gentlemen, I have to thank you for a very interesting read so far.

Personally, I admire the Zeitgeist movie for its inherent urge to motivate its audience to think beyond the appararent information (especially the American) media want you to swallow. Mind you, I do not fully agree with the facts, nor do I believe any other critical viewer should, but I do see an obvious merit in simply watching it with a critical mind. And while the movie states some far-stretched facts, I believe its main purpose is to animate us, rather than inform us.

So, while I largely agree with the symantics discussed here and the fact flaws that were rightfully pointed out, I would like to applaud the first part for its mind-motivating purpose. Alas, some of the facts are a tad bit inconcise, yet nonetheless interesting to view and think about, no?

There are some very interesting debaters posting in this particular thread (great thanks to the father who has posted a very detailed and interesting reply to some of the historical "facts"), and while Sunofone may just be a little too blindly believing the "facts" of the movie, he has at least fueled the discussion by being the counter weight that kept the debate going. A little tip to you Sunofone: keep respecting your debating peers, since that will always result in a more pleasant, and interesting discussion.

When children watch bambi, they are taught about right and wrong, about respecting other beings and being a better person. Did Bambi actually exist? Of course not, but the positive result of the movie remains. The same logic can be applied to Zeitgeist, with the only difference that it is not intentionally fictive, but informative. I have read several good papers on politics at my university, and the very fewest of them were largely accurate. But in the end they are all providing an interesting perspective for debate and critical thinking.

I enjoyed the movie, and as long as people understand that facts are subject to interpretation (especiallyhistorical facts), I believe everyone can.

lol I find it hilarious how some of the people on this forum try to send us links to websites that debunk zeitgeist and lots of them are religious websites. BAHAHAHA. ****in stupid sheep. BTW most of part 1 is true but some of it is vague (then debunkers jump all over it and say its all lies). For example, Horus has changed many times but if you gather up all the info you can piece together a story similar to Jesus Christ's. I don't understand why zeitgeist just doesn't attack the contradictions in the bible. Maybe cuz there are so many, part 1 would be like 8 hours long. The truth is Zeitgeist aint 100% right but it's 100% more right than the bible, so im sorry to say but Zeitgeist wins.

A little off-topic, but relevant nonetheless.

I don't know if Part I of "Zeitgeist" is accurate. I do know that all the respectable historical sources I have come across refute it, but c'mon, when people on here are so blindly convinced because apparently "it's obvious", well then it must be true. Real research is not important. It's much easier to just believe a movie with clever editing and ominous music (hah, and this movie criticies people for being blinded by the media...)


But what does bug me is how the film never reconciles Part I with the rest of the movie. I mean, even if every single thing stated in that section is true, still...so what? One culture influended another...OH NO!!!!! What on Earth shall we do?!?!? C'mon, anyone even remotely intelligent understands that there are parallels between many religions, and that organized religion has often been used to manipulate people. But the improper use of religion does not invalidate religion as a whole. I mean, even if Christianity is based on other religions, "Zeitgeist" never explains how that relates to the rest of the film. What, if Christianity did not exist, people would clearly see that 9/11 was a conspiracy (and don't even get me started on the problems with that idea)?

Obviously, Peter Joseph was trying to criticize what happens to be a major religion at this time. He failed to make any worthy point.

"Zeitgeist" advocates open-mindedness, but all I have seen from it's supporters is the kind of close-mindedness that would put the most devout Fundementalist to shame.

I read all 11 pages before commenting, to find Floyd above hit one of my main reasons for deciding to register and post on here. I watched Zeitgeist last night and Part 1 was really not necessary. If they wanted to attack Christianity, they should have done it in an entirely different film. 9 out of 10 posts are solely based on a religious discussion which has been rehashed sooo many times it deserves its own dedicated forum (and probably has one I don't know I have better things to do).

What's sad is of all the topics brought up in the movie the religious topic really has the least significance to us living in the real world. The movie claims that the Lusitania was sailed into enemy territory on purpose to get the US into WWI, it states FDR had prior knowledge that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, it states that the WTC was a controlled demolition - some fairly significant implications - and here all you want to debate is whether a zombie man lived 2000 years ago? I apologize for the downplay of Christ but really, Christian or not, there is no fact that will ever prove the Bible to be true. Christianity requires faith, as simple as that. Some choose to accept the Bible as truth, others don't.

Anyway I don't have any historical knowledge to contribute to your debunking efforts. From reading this thread and many links provided it just seems to me the focus of this whole discussion is about religion. It would seem that a lot of the facts presented in part 1 of the film are exaggerated, fabricated, or simply untrue. All the more reason why the whole 1st part should have been a separate film if presented at all. There's no black and white answer to the purpose of religion. Was Christianity created for control? I don't believe so, but it certainly was used to control by the Catholic Church. I don't believe that the sects that came about post-reformation were formed for the purpose of controlling, rather in a spirit of revolution (quite the contrary). Today religion is various things to various people in many different places. It's a political tool, it's a source of hope and relief, it's a source of conflict, it's a source of control, and like our media and entertainment, it's a distraction.

Did Jesus really live? Probably, I don't know though. It would seem though with this movie's implications we have much bigger fish to fry (no pun intended). All I know is the movie made eye-opening points regarding the privately owned central banking system. If there is evil to be singled out I would look at whoever profits from war, and that isn't the catholic church anymore.

The only part of Zeitgeist that is true is the part about the international banking system and federal reserve. The first part (religious part) has a few facts mized in with wild speculation and flat-out lies. The 9/11 part of the movie is total bu11sh|t. I can't believe some people are s***id enough to believe that CRAP.

edit: frigg'n typos...

Hi all !

I`ve seen Zeitgeist and I think it`s good.

I was indoctrinated with christianity when I was a child by grandmother, but after I got to school I started to ask myself many questions regarding god, he`s army of angels and the evil satan and his minions. In time I figured that the religion is a hoax, because everything you see around you proves there isn`t any god in the clouds, and that the "heaven and hell" are right here on earth, depending on our moods, financial and sentimental situation, etc.

I find hard to believe in any gods now in this century when we learn that the Earth is just a small planet, and our Sun is just a small star, and all this is just insignificant regarding the size of the Universe. We have computers, internet, knowledge at our fingertips, better medicine than ever, sattelites, etc . Why the hell we still praying to some imaginary persons instead of having faith in ourselves ?

Humanity has more to evolve. And to do that it has to get rid of all religions (and I mean all, because all are fake and against evolution of man) and to learn more, to search more, to educate more, and so to become civilized. Religion always drawned back our evolution (by killing the scientist and distroying/hiding their discoveries etc). Not mentioning the horrors made by Church in god`s name.

About the 911 - it had to be an inside job. Too many question marks there. But the media controlls the public, and who controlls the media controlls the public oppinion. About this event there are on the web better documentaries :

"911 Mysteries - Demolitions"
"911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage"
"911 Cover Up Interviews"

Even the firemarshall said the buildings were detonated floor by floor. It fell down too perfectly, like in controlled demolitions.

It is much to discuss here, but we can do nothing. We have no power.

Ill keep it brief. (Also note i cbf reading every post in this thread, so apologies to those who have already stated this)

What a very long post based entirely on unreputable web 'resources' and your own interpretation and bullsh*t. How, might you ask, can i so blatently point out this bullsh*t... well...ahem... im an archaeologist and student of ancient and modern history. Now just to clarify, an archaeologist studies not only what the past has left behind in a material means but also studies and formulates reasons and theories as to how a culture (including modern day cultures - yes america, you too) and its myths and beliefs work.

After watching Zeitgiest, the evidence provided for part 1 (dealing with religion) is 100% accurate, well thought out, logical and most importantly, exactly what i have been taught and is scholarary excepted. As for the other parts, alot of statements are put forward and most DO HAVE the document eivdence to support them. Some though, are provided without 'empirical' (thats solid proof; ie. paper trails, video footage) evidence. To give it credit though, the arguments are all valid, well thought out, logical (are we seeing a pattern here) and again most importantly they point out the LACK OF EVIDENCE on the governments behalf to the incidents involved.

So, in a roundabout answer to your post, these things have not been debunked. The evidence you supply to support this claim are in fact from unreliable, unreputable sources that are no more useful in helping you prove this 'claim' than they take away from your argument for just being there cited as sources. Hell, you may as well have just suggested wikipedia as your main source and got it all over and done with... perhaps i can interest you in some vomit with which to base your arguments on?

Oh, and to all those religous zealots running amuck on this forum... religion and what it claims have been PROVEN wrong by the scholarary community worldwide... minus the u.s... i will reiterate, historians and other closely related professions have proven where religion originally stemmed from - egypt, as was stated in 'zeitgeist' to the point where they know which pharoh instituted it and where it flowed to afterwards (greece -> ottomans (arabs) -> asia -> romans -> modern society). I cbf looking through all the articles, papers and textbooks to cite sources so just ask if you desperately need them/don't beleive a word im saying.

Hope i didnt burst your uneducated bubble there pal

It took me a second to translate this. You're saying "the fact that this is even here is enough to make anyone with an open mind not want to read it"?? I think that's what you're saying. You might want to re-read that for the inherent contradiction-- if you had an open mind, you WOULD want to read it. Just because it is "here" doesn't mean anything. . .



Again, i'll translate: "i'm real sure the guy who writes this is an educated scholar in his illusionary(?) field of theism, but in the real world, conscientiously active souls (those capable of critical thinking, perhaps?) are not this absent minded". So . . . get to the point! Why is he absent minded? How can one be an educated scholar and not be capable of critical thinking?




He does? Astronomy? Zeitgeist doesn't mention astronomy, but astrology, and talk about "illsionary field"s!




So, you "find it extremely odd that someone of the intellect that is claimed by his son, who posts this, would be unaware of the ancient role of Venus-- that it was the trumpet signaling the arrival of God's Sun"? Right?

First, i'm agnostic, so I hate to say this, but you sound a lot like the demon in The Exorcist-- what with the whole untelligible mocking and ranting thing you have going on there. Furthermore, it seems absurd to see someone such as yourself critique the intellectual credentials of someone who, at the very least, has language skills that far surpass your own-- and a much more coherent argumentative style, to boot!

Now, how does Venus' role refute anything the man presented? Also notice that you repeat a mistake made in Zeitgeist equivocating "sun" with "son". Someone backed by such sound provenances, rooted in dedicated research, such as yourself should know that "sun" and "son" ARE NOT etymologically related in any way whatsoever.





Ok, in the last sentence you sounded like the exorcist demon, now you sound like some kid stumbling around outside a rave after having taken too many pills. Can there really be a "personification" between Venus and the Belt of Orion? Can their be a personification between any two things? Are you saying that Orion's Belt is a personification of the planet Venus? No, that can't be true, Orion's Belt isn't a person, and so can't "personify" anything. The other way around then? No, Venus isn't a person either. Hmmmm. . . I guess that would be oblivious to any educated person.

I don't care if Zeitgeist claimed that Daffy Duck is the Son of God and the universe was created by Mickey Mouse. THE most important bit of information I've heard about 9/11 (IMO) was in that film: The NIST Report used the word "vaporized" when describing the planes that supposedly hit the Pentagon and went down near Shanksville, PA. The very word "vaporized," clearly, is a world-class bamboozlement (lie) second only to the notion of babies coming from the Stork. Simply, nothing can vaporize as such. That's the closest we have to a "smoking gun" that 9/11 was an inside job.

Or could they have been lying about or distorting that fact as well? Does anyone have a copy of the NIST Report who can pinpoint the "vaporized" nonsense?

Actually, no. If you were an archaeologist, you would know that your job doesn't include 'formulating reasons and theories as to how a culture and its myths and beliefs work'. That would be the job of a cultural anthropologist. You see, archaeology is a branch of anthropology and cultural anthropology is another branch. What you are saying is equivalent to: "a surgeon is responsible for diagnosing conditions" -- just not true, sorry!



Once again, you're wrong! There is a nice post above (#20), written by a professor of Classics that points out many inaccuracies.



Really? Why are they valid? See, now you're on MY turf (MA in Philosophy). You make an assertion without the rigors of backing it up! How convenient . . .

And 'empirical' doesn't mean that at all. 'Empirical' means 'from first hand experience', not 'based on solid evidence'. There is a huge difference, if you don't think so, I have a few law professors who would love to talk to you.



So, after having admitted that Zeitgeist doesn't provide evidence, you blast everyone else for not providing evidence? Here's a question: Where's your evidence? As far as vomit goes, i'm sifting through yours right now!



Hey!! I desperately need these sources, so please, post them! I don't know why you would just post them to begin with, btw. Religion has never been PROVEN wrong. This is the game of religion: YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WRONG. A great many philosophers have tried to prove religion right or wrong (Descartes, Locke, Hume, Spinoza, et al) and they all failed, either way. There is no proving or disproving a concept such as God, or histories which we can not EMPIRICALLY (used the right way) verify.






To be honest, I didn't even read the post you are responding to-- I just happened to glance up and see yours and . . .

Well, I think it's pretty hard to burst an uneducated bubble with an uneducated bubble . . .

Archaeology is anthropology. It IS the study of past and current societies/civilizations and the study of their values, beliefs, culture and function. Archaeologists who also happened to study anthropology make and formulate new theories that include all of these things. I guess my textbooks, university, professor, lecturers, tutors and current archaeologists in the field are all wrong according to you and don't delve outside of digging. Anthropology is not a subject you major in... it is a supplement to a major... eg, marketing, archaeology, history, etc. You really shouldn't tell me how and what the scope of my job is. Im well aware.



Right, and again i guess all my lectures, professors, textbooks, etc are all wrong. Good on the professor of Classics, the professor of classics i had at university told a different story.



Fair enough, but i did say i was going to be brief. Im hardly going to write a thesus on such an extensive topic for your pleasure. I was stating what i was taught is true or currently thought of as true. You are aware of what the topic encompasses, go look into my claims yourself.



Empirical in philosophical terms might mean that, but according to the science i was taught, my definition of empirical is correct.



I did say that most of his claims are provided for with some government document or policy and in cases where he can't find any, he uses the lack of evidence with critical thinking and logic to deduce his other claims. He put research into what he has presented, the original poster here decided to post links to websites without reputable sources. Go zeitgeist websites and he lists his sources. Again, im not writing a ****ing thesus for your pleasure... you want evidence then go look up the topics i mention and the arguments inside those topics i bring up. Also... i blasted one person... not 'everyone'... slipped up again mister critical thinker



Yeah, il get around to it. Religion has been proven wrong you idiot. The existence of god hasn't. Religion is separate to the existence of god. I stated that it was religion not god that was proven wrong. Religion being a manmade system... quite obvious... so much for your philosophy degree, you didnt manage to pick up that minor difference in my argument. Edit: great philosophers tried to prove/disprove the existence of god... not religion




Right, so you have no idea how or who i was addressing this post to. Might i add, you just lied. There is no way you went to this thread and didnt read the threadstarter. Why else would you have clicked on it in the first place? Since when do you read replies before the initial topic discussion... hmm critial thinking skills eh? haha

I hate when people focus on 'disproving' christianity. Sadly our whole society is convinced that it is true, instead of us proving christianity wrong, let's let them prove it right? Right, they can't, the religion is false. Don't put out movies to prove it doesnt exist, let them put out movies to prove it does. If people are dumb enough to believe something 'just because', and make up false comparisons, why?!! Christianity is false. Zeitgeist the movie may be very false as well, two wrongs don't make a right. The logic in Zeitgeist AND Christianity are both flawed, so let's stick to the old scientific way of thinking. Proof. If christianity can not prove themselves, let them rot in their illogical lives.

I have noticed an ironic affect this Zeitgeist film has on viewers.

People believe it. They don't question it.

And in a way isn't this what the film partially says people should not do? The maker of the film Peter Joseph says on the film's website "It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized." To me, the film is almost a test. There are some obvious errors in this film, that it almost raises in my mind whether or not this Peter Joseph actually believes everything in the film. Was this his actual intention; to get people to question "authority", including his authority?

I find it hard to believe, but either way, the film seems to be very successful in creating debate. Ironically, that is what it is asking people to do. Unfortunately, not everyone takes the time to find out the elusive 'truth' for themselves.

It seems to me like this film is presenting a lot of ideas that would be very unusual and radical to many people. Looking at the film from a distance, the effect of the film was this on me: I questioned everything I knew before watching the film. So, what do I get out of the film? I get that sometimes it's important to question authority. I'm not saying the film is right, and I'm not saying it's wrong. That is something I have to discover for myself through research.

And all I was trying to say in my previous comment was that perhaps this was his intention in making this film. Who will question it's legitamacy, and who will accept everything that is presented? Of course the intention of the film could also be, watch this, everything you know now is false, and everything presented in this video is true.

Anyway, that's all I was saying.

You only reiterate my point here: archaeology is a BRANCH of anthropology . . . and i'm looking in my former anthropology textbook right here. It says, "archaeology focuses on the field work involved in the process of anthropological analysis . . . cultural anthropologists seek to make sense of the information archaeologists provide." Ha!



Actually, determining the mythological parameters of Dionysis, etc., would be more the realm of a Classics professor than an anthropology professor. Dionysis is not primitive man, nor does he have anything to do with the rise, survival, or proliferation of societies. He is a myth-- well outside the realm of anthropologists. Sorry. Much of the religious stuff in Zeitgeist is dead wrong, much of it is dead on. However, the very structure of Zeitgeist's arguments are fallacious and prove nothing-- a correlation between myths and figures does not invalidate them. In fact, there are many similarities between the assassinations of Kennedy and Lincoln, it doesn't mean Kennedy didn't exist because he came last.




Well, then, don't make sweeping conclusive assertions you are not prepared to back up. The burden of proof is upon he who makes the assertion . . .




Empirical in any terms means just that. BTW - Anthropology is NOT science, it is social science, so what you know about the scientific definition (which, btw, is non-existent)?




It's "thesis", not "thesus", and he certainly does not deduce any claims, he uses induction, and weak induction at that! Also, Zeitgeist references are useless, badly presented, and make it next to impossible to really view the sources without spending the next year of free time researching it, which is academically unacceptable, but you already knew that! Stop pretending you didn't know that!




There goes the pot calling the kettle black again! Actually, religion has NEVER been proven wrong. A religion is a particular set of beliefs about a particular conception of a "God" or spiritual origins and destinations. So, when a philosopher attempts to prove/unprove 'God', he is attacking or supporting a belief structure known as "religion". Also, these philosophers don't deal with a higher power in general; they go after a particular conception of God, that is, a particular religion. Some of the greatest philosophers are religious thinkers (St. Augustine and Bernardus Silvestris come to mind).





Actually, I was referring to whatever individual person you were insulting and arguing with. So I have no idea what you are talking about here, but you seem more and more like you're studying for your GED, not playing Indiana Jones.

Look, there are a lot of things I like about Zeitgeist, but the religious argument is a real stretch. Besides, the ultimate conclusion of Zeitgeist-- that the powers that be use religion and materialism and various sorts of propaganda to mislead the average unsuspecting individual into a life of mental and sometimes physical bondage, not realizing "their true relationship to nature", is something Jesus bears out quite well. That is, it is the SAME message Jesus brought to his people-- further evidence the author of Zeitgeist could have done better by leaving out the first third of the film. Instead, he could have talked about how mainstream christian religions mislead people about the obvious messages of Christ which appear saliently in the four gospels. In other words, the author abandons what could be a great argumentative piece, and a great way to really stick a knife in the religious minded, since that appears to be what he wishes to do. He misses the boat on that one. I think he's right on point on the bankers, though!

Also remember, when you call people "idiot", casual bystanders will typically think that you are the "idiot", they'll also think you are an a-hole. So, let's be nice. Usually, scrutinizing people's arguments is enough to drive them up the wall anyways. I graduated from the playground a long time ago. . . come along . . .

Actually, religion does not need to be proven, that is the point of religion. It is never meant to be factual knowledge, and religious people who take it that way do more harm to themselves than good. Religious faith, true religious faith, is a response to human skepticism. The fact is, you can't prove that you are not dreaming, you can't prove that your computer is in front of you, you can't prove you're really reading this in any real physical world! Why? Well, go ahead, tell me in exact terms how you know something. Or how you know that you know something. This is much the basis of early intellectual thought. There is a sense of despair that we all grasp at some point, albeit unconsciously in most cases-- you really can't know what is real. Descartes concluded that all he could know for sure was that he existed. This leads to extreme skepticism about knowledge, which leads to nihilism (a self destructive response to existential despair). Nihilism is much the topic in modern and post-modern eras (basically the times we have lived in for several generations now), why? Because science has largely replaced God, and this leads to an unravelling of personal structure. This is why Neitzsche said, "God is dead". This is also why Kierkegaard wrote wonderful books about the necessity of taking a 'leap of faith' in order to live life with assurance and strength-- not necessarily faith in a particular God, but faith in anything which may fill your structure and keep you from going all "Fight Club" on that ass!

If people want to use Jesus as their paradigm of faith, why should that bother you? Even atheists must have faith there is no God-- the structure must always be filled. If you doubt this, go talk to an atheist about God, they will have many strong-minded arguments about why God doesn't exist-- arguments which they choose to believe in, not because they are irrefutable, but because that is what they choose to have faith in, namely, being alone in the universe. Hey, whatever makes you happy, do it. Live and let live . . .

Have you seen the new video in response to all of the anti-Zeitgeist part 1 info?

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked/Refuted? Acharya Responds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9ZyddjaM4

"The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked? NOT!
http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2008/04/zeitge...efuted-not.html

yeah it could be little difficult to prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesnt exist either but it is just as absurd to believe in jesus-- i have to say i resent your assumption that if your not a christian your an atheist-- i was raised catholic and even went to a private school until the 7th grade but my acceptance that jesus did not exist does not make me an atheist-- i consider myself a deist as i do believe in a spriritual creator that in this 3 dimesional reality might be described as an idea inspired by love but in no means did that entity some how interact with our reality and spawn some kind of wizard that can perform magic and return from the dead....pfft how naive i once was as an indoctorinated youth -- anyone that cant see that the story of jesus is an alegorical representation of an ancient astrological tale anthropomorphised into existence will also never see the forest among the trees and will never consider the reality in the 9/11 truth movement or the federal reserves treason -- the definition of faith is "the surrender of reason" which the first step in producing a mind controled society dumb enough to fuel a genocidal war machine founded on eugenics by an elite that believes it is their right to facilitate your death because you are too stupid to not be brainwashed into killing yourselves -- descartes,neitzsche and kierkegaard can kiss my @$$-- the only thing i have faith in is my ability to self sustain with my 10 acres,well,chickens and not too distant future earthship

LOL!!!

I watched the movie close to a year ago, and again watched it tonight. Both times attempting to debunk the entire thing. For hours on end I would search, every detail that was mentioned in the film I googled a few references to ensure that the creators of the film were not the only ones who knew about these alleged 'facts'. My search has not yet ended, but i am about 40 min. through the film ( lookng up every fact mentioned) and I have yet to find any serious misqoutations, false information, or manipulated facts. I believe everyone is searching for the truth but it's also very poplar to modern day to believe and write up, conspiracy theories. However once again, I can't seem to throw Zeitgeist movie off the path to truth.

Obiviously I am new to this forum but I wanted to express my opinions as such. almost everything I have found has ben about the religious debate, which if you remember from the Zeitgeist film, religion was only one of the tools being used to control the masses. Does anyone out there have anyting to say about the other facts? 9/11 as an inside job, it corresponds with all the other wars. What about the Federal Reserve System. I cannot find any information out there to prove the film wrong on that aspect either. The film tells us that we should wake up, understand that we are beautiful, intelligent creatures capable of loving each other in unity. This is the most important message. But loving each other, forgetting our differences... does anyone have any idea where to go from there? Does anyone know how to unite the people, and if so, what then? A political revolution. Power corrupts, no matter who is in the position.
Any thoughts on the other aspects, away from the religious side of the film?

Whilst not attacking anyone on this forum, i'd like to agree that the religious elements in the section do seem rather far-fetched and ungrounded. However, it is true that a 'healer' if i remember correctly called appolonius was around the same time Jesus was reportedly performing miracles (this is where that other documentary claiming Jesus was rescued from the cross and travelled overseas under a different name to do more miracles etc) comes from.

Ok, my point is that whether based on astrological signs, pagan rituals and/or systems of nature...just think long and hard about what happens in these religious texts. Why the 'mircales' or signs that occured aren't ever witnessed today is an obvious question:

Simple answer A- Mere fabrication, to aid the message and genereal motives that lie within the structure and langauge of the text.
Simple answer B- If the above is true then my family (including many 'liberal' christian people) simply say it didn't factually happen, but so what? It doesn't mean anything Jesus died for our sins - big golden gates heaven hell etc.

wait?

Then you get large portions of these people who 'choose' to believe in a conceptual heaven, for hell is created on earth in the minds of 'sinners' etc.
Right fair enough...

So why would people (or messangers from God) in any religion go about creating a book, a docterine that would soon become open to people 'pick n mixing' to suit their life? Either it's all true, some of it is or none of it is. (the latter unlikely, it's all based on some 'truth'- well if there is such a thing)
--------Returning to Zeitgeist the movie, even if Christian texts are based on ancient beliefs bla bla bla or indeed many of them are factually inaccurate all i'm asking people is to ponder over the FACT that there are many documented similarities (outside of the bias film) that i studied in a CHRISTIAN SCHOOL..LED BY A CHRISTIAN PROFFESSOR..WHO WENT TO CHURCH AND GENUNINLY BELIEVED A LOT OF EVENTS SURROUNDING THE BOOK- yet because (and i'm assuming here) even those people who have posted completely negative responses to the entirety of the film are actually religious themselves...and therefore are logically just as FALSE as the FALSE -unsupported evidence put forward in the film.

The 9/11 bit makes sense at the back of the mind even before seeing the film, as does the fact that we are, metaphorically and litereally speaking 'eating' nature by money now (and for a long time) being backed-up by paper=trees=nature=huamn environment (not saying it's killing all our trees though, that's for the environmentalists to think about)

POint being after all this fiddle faddle is unless you're SITTING ON THE FENCE, UNDECIDED, UNRELIGOUS, UNATHEIST (i know un is incorrect whatever) then you cannot critisize anything fairly. Religious people will rip apart anything ANYTHING that speaks ill of their belief system, likewise the atheist will continue to counter every arguement with science (another belief system if you ask me) in a great big game that won't stop.

Regardless of faith take heed of this film, at least for the manipulatory nature of OUR giant governments...the chip idea and so forth. IN THIS LIFE Religion plays a big role so if you have faith you go to heaven (regardless of whether this happens or not) and if you don't believe in anything apart from the human race then you die..that's that. Or, ur energy is transferred and you still live on forever in a sense...but not in a sense where arguing over a film that in my opinion for the most part is trying to open peoples eyes in a POSITIVE way really matters at all.

Enjoy looking at angles but bear in mind you'll most likely still have your own agenda to prove or sustain.

I'm a little drunk this is my week off, i shall return when my mind works again (this may not make sense)


p.s. Of course Zeitgeist, Michael Moore etc is bias...otherwise people would watch the film and not have any clue what it is was highlighting..well apart from that a debate on the subject is a good idea. There's bias and bias...a lot of it makes sense in a genearal picture, so ignore the silly little (or big) insertions of unsupported information as someone throwing a stone at stack of canned food that's already started to collapse.

p.p.s None of this clearly is copied or pasted, i did this from remembering things i've learnt after having watched the film for the first time 2 hours ago..hence i'm just asking people to think, not trying to make people think.

Peace

I've been into this movie also for a while. At first I really believed Pt 1. But with checking it seems it's just like a propaganda movie really. It only presents evidence which backs up its claims and studiously ignores a lot of evidence which doesn't agree. I think it's a con. I still enjoyed it though!

Nick

OK, let me share with you this article I found the other day. For me, personally, it cuts through all the crap. Before I explain why, here it is, Sin - the Ideology of the Military Industrial Complex http://www.awitness.org/column/sin_military.html

So why .........? Well it directly says that the 'God' we have all been indoctrinated in, either forefully, or subtely, the myth permeating all corners of civilization, even the secular--------well this 'god' is a war god! The evidence is in their Bible. And this means his 'Son' is also. But you will have to study the article. For me it really made things plain.

So what about Zeigeist, and the pagan influence on Christianity etc, in light of this?

Well, I repeat, the 'God' of the Bible is a war god, and 'his' creaTORS, the cabal--for want of a better term--have been playing us for generations and generations and generations, and HELPED by the introduction of the Phonetic alphabet, that not only transmits 'his WORD' but also the actual device OF writing and reading further alienates us from the sensual world. A major reason why the big religions have gone round the world perscuting and doing genocide on Indigenous peoples, and all other species. And WHY we are in such a dire situation now where corporations like Monsanto, and DuPont etc seek total control over food. And their mindset connected to a sick overall mindset that seeks total control over Planet Earth, all animals, including us humans and our bodies and even consciousness. And have I mentioned space??!

What does it mean to want to control consciousness?

Well, a good example of this is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. This story has always fascinated me, mainly because of the imagery. And I have explored different translations of it over the years. One of the most powerful revelations regarding it was John M. Allegros study of the actual language of the story in his book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, where he identifies secret references to the Trees as meaning an entheogenic mushroom! But this article for me really sums up what the story is doing. because remember it is being writ down by a patriarchal mindset which is oppressive and dominating (something continuuingly ESCALTING right now!!!) Here is the article: The Oldest Taboo in the World http://www.metahistory.org/OldestTabooIntro.php

Yes. The taboo that not only means we must not eat/drink/snuff etc entheogenic substances, but also must not KNOW this taboo is the control of consciousness par excellence!!

How so?

Well like anything it is complex, but this VERY VERY so indeed. I mean the world --the whole world and all species are under threat from this mindset. So it is extraordinarily complex. But there are clues of course if we are willing to openly explore. IF you simply want to shout and defend worldviews then that isn't being open, as far as I can see.

It is to do with DIRECT experience. Of being UTTERLY responsible. Of seeing DANGER. And we are in danger. Many people may sense this and be fearful to look because it is So complex and coming from all angles, but burying the old head....? it aint goin nowhere. So we HAVE to look, not just for oursake, but for all the other species, and our children and the generations to come

We have become completely alienated from the Land and animals. And yet not many are aware of this. Due to interconnecting mindcontrolling techniques specifically designed by the poisonous-manipulators. the ones who have pirate/poison/death badges on---ya know, skull n bones and whatnot. THEy worship DEATH. They are sadists and very inclusive and greedy! They hate and laothe animals, and see the people as close to domesticated animals. 'Cattle'

So THE clue is to see what THEY fear. Not get caught up in their fear-propaganda which they love because they love to be feared. Its a big part of their 'magic'. A big part of their 'magic' or mindcontrol is their divide and rule tactics which has tried to divide 'you' the reader/believer/obeyer of their authority from your sensual, instinctive being in relationship with the Land and other species and community. The Web of Life.
So they very much fear entheogenic awareness because it can expose their tricks! Such experience can heal this long rift and assault done to us over the many generations. That they fear.

awesome post lakestar i agree-- zeitgeist is an awesome documentary that shreds the three biggest illusions of the day in an efficient fashion-- so mant have been fooled by the jesus hoax just as they fell for the federal reserve and the illusion of terror in the 9/11 inside job

nice i hope u still come here conspiracy clothes, this is for you and any other christian who trashes zietgeist for being documented wrong and or full or lies? my question if where do u get the documentation to prove the bible is true? and how do u know the bible is not full of lies?



here is the ben li chellenge!!! im simply looking for 1 bit of proof that jesus ever existed. find this for me and then we can talk about what is wrong with zeitgeist.

No no, the questions is... does it really matter?

I'm sorry to interject here. I mean no offense, but sunofone you really have completely lost the point.
If the CLAIM that christianity and all the ancient theologies have parallel or precise similarities is based off of FALSE facts...then by definition, that makes the claim FALSE.
Boasting a rebuttal of "prove the bible's real first, then you can say that zeitgeist is false" you are using what is termed regressive reasoning. A principle in the socratic method that states a belief that is given reason which can only be proven with more reasons, proven with more reasons...etc etc, leaves no end to proof and nothing ever ends. Basically it doesn't matter what so ever what the person believes the bible to be true or false. The bible simply can't be proven without endless reasons. What CAN be proven is the fact that zeitgeist quoted "facts" about several ancient philosophies that not only couldn't be proven, but simply couldn't be found at all. There was no reason for the belief of the story of say thor, or buddha had parallel text because the parallels absolutely weren't there. It was a lie. It was exagerated, it was made up. However someone wants to see it, the things being quoted were simply not true...regardless of the validity of the bible.

I have to admit....
I have studied most of the modern religious philosophies...buddhism, muslim, krishna, hindu, christianity, judaism etc etc....mainly because I feel that no man can proclaim that he knows "the truth" without having first studied all available resources (that being religious texts). But that being said, I failed to even glance over dead theologies. IE norse, greek, egyptian theology also known as mythology. I remember learning about them in school, but they were never more than old fairy tales to me because of the fact that their theologies are just absolutely not relevant anymore. I knew very little about the more in depth stories of the ancient mythologies and figured that even though the author of the zeitgeist didn't go word for word for every single little ancient text, he got the summary of each parallel correct. I was pretty bummed to find out that he not only referenced inaccurate sources, but also fabricated some of the ancient mythological stories out right. I was also disappointed in the agenda to create a focus of Jesus Christ "never existing at all" instead of taking a more pragmatic approach to the film and simply leaving the entire concept open to question. Presenting the evidence and then leaving the viewer to make his/her own conclusion. Of course this was really never possible anyway considering the falsehood of facts. BUT, as for me I do believe that the universe and everything in it was conceived by a universal mind...whether that creator be named God, or allah or whatever, the overwhelming evidence that all that exists just on this planet alone, not mentioning the vast unseen universe, has so much yin and yang elements.....you know that certain flower that grows specific shape for one small bird and the bird with the specific shaped beak for that one flower, neither one would survive without the other....everything that exists has such specific finite purposes that the idea of function through random chaos just doesn't seem probable. But this is my own belief and not to be stated as fact.
This also being said, I was disappointed with the false statements of this film pertaining to christianity and mythology, because though I believe that there is a creator and that the Christ did exist and said the things stated in the modern day bible, that the idea that every single word printed by "man" is to be taken whole heartedly as the full word of God, I've always had my doubts.
It is a fact that there is only one historically proven epistle to be written closest to the years christ walked the earth. The very very first epistles of paul are widely agreed to have been written 25-50 years after the christ left the earth, and the actual words of christ from his own lips were not written by eye witnesses but by keepers of each account that was orally passed down until nearly 100-200 years later where they were eventually written and scattered and hidden to keep away from the roman authorities. So even then, the early christian church didn't have written text of Christ's words. Now disregarding those lost jesus letters books and whatnot, there is no written evidence of jesus whatsoever of his own words in his own hand. nothing. It's all 6th, 10th 30th etc. hand accounts of his words. the early church begins congregating and making faiths and rituals off of these accounts. No actual written words.
We fast forward to around 300 AD. Let's not forget, that anno domini is a gregorian adaptation created nearly 600 years later by one man who only "estimated" the incarnation based off of scripture and not an actual time(year), so the length of time between between the reign of constantine and the life of Christ could be as much as 450 years.
It may be just me but 450 years is a long time for lost and hidden scripture to fully surface with it's original source to still in tact.
Also, it was constantine that ordered the gathering of any hidden and lost scrolls and scribes for him and his appointed group of men to read through and decide which text will be bound together to later become what is now considered the new testament. Was constantine truly spoken to by God to convert the empire to accept christianty?, or as a leader of the empire, who with all previous emperors, knew that a national spiritual/religious establishment was the best way to control the population (thus the sole purpose of trying to squash the christian uprising). Constantine, a ruler on the throne at the time when people's faith in the roman God's was disappearing fast and turmoil was rising with the ever growing christian population, is it possible that he simply saw it as a political tool and to attempt to keep Rome's rule over the people, took up the cause of christianity and then rounded up all available christian script to use for his own manipulation?
He was not a dumb guy. He knew that if he blatantly changed the words to favor Rome that the christians would rise up against him, but how easily could he and that group of men who put those scripts into one book, change a word here, a word there, omit this or that. Take away and change just enough that the jews are the bad guys who crucified the song of God and the Roman empire was simply a scape goat.
This circling back around to the idea that I think zeitgeist could have done a much better job at posing reasonable doubt and leaving as more open ended question of truth and done way way better research rather than obnoxiously stating "Christ didn't exist, period"
very disappointing.
As for the rest of the film...I think the skeptics who want to have some false faith in our world leaders and that there's no possible way that they would deliberately kill their own citizens really need to get their heads out of the sand. I fully stand behind zeitgeist in the proof that our government, along with the majority of the world powers don't care about the broke backs of the ones who prop them up. They only want to feed their own fat bellies and keep their stronghold in tact.
AND, I fully believe that these powers and overtly wealthy humans, going all the way back through the ages, have used spiritual belief/religion as a tool to keep their control.

ok heres what it is. zeitgeist is simply not about ''this vs that'' or ''this is true that is not.'' it simply encourages its hearers to: not believe what they hear just because some authority said so.
very intersting because in a twisted sorta way anyone who questions zeitgeist is actually following its advice, now "go likewise and do the same" to christianity.

I agree. And I watched Zeitgeist a while back and I like it. But I have no problem with other people's beliefs.

As long as it makes you happy, do it.

firstly, i agree with you on virishna, i haven't been able to find anything about this so-called god in the brief time i have spent looking. i'll move on from that point to this...

you said:

'Jesus was actually one of the most anti-religious people that ever walked the earth He had compassion for every low down person he came into contact with, except for the "clergy" of his day. They were the only people he ever spoke a harsh word to..maby a few money changers too. The guy in the new testament would be freaking furious with an organization that claims the kind of things the Vatican claims.'

Jesus wasn't 'anti' or 'pro' anything since he didn't exist. He is Mithra under another name. Mithraism preceded Christianity by several centuries and the parallels have been widely written about, as has the fact that Christianity has tried to destroy all evidence it possibly could showing that they stole much of the Jesus symbolism from Mithraism. Mithraism got its symbolism from... astrology, ultimately... This too has been extensively written about. Jesus is an invention of the Piso bloodline which includes the Roman Emperor who officially deified Jesus in 325AD; Constantine. the bush family is constantine bloodline, contantine is piso bloodline, piso is Ramses II bloodline. in other words, the fiction known as Jesus is the result of a 'family conspiracy' to generate a religion that is recognised by almost all open-minded researches who aren't themselves participating in it, as a mind prison.


you also said

"One more thing, As this movie suggest, I too believe we are at the end of an age. An astronomical age and a spiritual age, the precession of the equinoxes is a real thing,
They have tried to tell you that this impending change is a non-christian Idea, This IS the Idea! It is clearly described in the bible we will indeed change, as will this world, and why it must do so. but they are keeping you from seeing the origin of the warning! The bible has been 100% accurate in its writing history in advance, this is how has validated itself. Challenge this claim It is your duty...'

the idea of 'the end of an age' is not christian, it was stolen by christianity from older traditions and astrology. it's not a christian idea and it's not even slightly original, as has been extensively acknowledged. i realise i'm not providing any sources here but i didn't intend to spend much time typing this up. i'm having a break...

the Bible has been proved by everyone who is not desperate to cling to its lies and misrepresentations, as almost completely un-historical. the only 'historians' that lived anywhere near the 'time of Jesus' who wrote about him, were in on the joke, the piso joke, that is. plutarch was piso, josephus was piso, tacitus was a piso crony, and so on and so forth. read 'the true authorship of the new testament' and 'the piso's further writings'. you acknowledge the precession of the equinoxes but apparently fail to realise the rest of the astrological symbolism inherent in Christianity's doctrine? and so what if some aspects that are exposed as lies were only added after the Bible was written, it just goes to show they've been making it all up as they go along. also, who cares if other Christian claims sync up with the Bible or not, when is has been exposed time and time again as a highly fallacious document? even the Church has admitted that large sections of it are forgeries and it has also admitted that the "titles of the gospels are not intended to indicate authorship... they were... affixed later." see the writings of 'Von Tischendorf' who spent years researching the vatican's secret archives. the vatican heirarchy know that in Christianity they are selling a lie. none of the early popes believed in JEsus because they are all part of the network of people who know it's a farce.

the only way the Bible could possibly be accurate in its predictions is by being heavily based on astrology (due to the fact that it was largely composed by secret society initiates who are indoctrinated into astrology) and astronomy, because that allows certain 'predictions' to be made well in advance, according to the mathematical calculations and calendrical observations. also, if indeed the bible was composed by what is acknowledged as an 'illuminati bloodline', then the possibility must be considered that other predictions accurately made are due to the fact that this same bloodline is involved in a long-reaching agenda, spanning centuries at least, which would allow certain 'predictions' to be made a long time in advance.

as for Zeitgeist's dissection of 9-11 and all that stuff; it didn't provide sources, true. i imagine that the idea was to move people to do their own research which it has certainly done. 9-11 was an inside job, involving 3 controlled demolitions, the most obvious being of tower 7 which fell flat to the ground in a few seconds, apparently of fright, as it had sustained no major damage. controlled demo' takes weeks of preparation which means that someone had access to the buildings and rigged them with explosives well ahead of time. it takes highly trained professionals to do that. on and on we could go....

i'm curious, you are a christian, yes? you 'believe in jesus'? that's the impression i get...

oops, i should probably clarify that i'm responding to an older post from 'christ clothes' i think his name was.
my rant doesn't make sense without reading his first... wherever it is...

This post is an absolute waste of time. Why, when there are such fascinating arguments possible about parts 2 and 3 of Zeitgeist, would you go ahead and start a post about part 1? I mean we all know for a fact that both The United States Federal Reserve and 9/11 actually exist and happened respectively. It seems completely futile to try to win an argument about the similarities between people/gods that in all likelyness, in fact in all evidence, never even existed in the first place.

It should be: As long as it doesn't make other people unhappy(eg. Christians forcing their beliefs on Atheists), do it.

Jesus was a rebel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jXPjt_qCxQ&feature=user

Just a question:

When it mentions that the burning jet fuel could not reach a temperature hot enough to melt the steel girders, is this true or false?

I'm sure this is mentioned somewhere in this forum and, yes I did use the search function however, no luck. So just getting that out there before I'm chastised b/c I didn't at least try to find the answer.

Thanks for the help.

True; Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Steel's melting point at 2750°F...

Having said that, Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F...

*err having said that, I guess the jet fuel would've had to burn a hellava long time for the steel to even reach that temp.


*edit X 2

This is a theme I have been studying since 1998. The astrological connections to the "myth" hidden within.

A line from scripture about the birth of Jesus:
Matthew 2:1, "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,"

Wise men from the Strongs Dictionary.

1) a magus

1b) the oriental wise men (astrologers) who, having discovered by
the rising of a remarkable star that the Messiah had just been
born, came to Jerusalem to worship him.