Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ZeitGeist
nyenye
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 185 (412507)
07-25-2007 4:40 AM


http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Watch the movie and tell me what YOU think. I am interested to read.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 07-25-2007 7:54 AM nyenye has replied
 Message 3 by Asgara, posted 07-25-2007 9:49 AM nyenye has replied
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2007 2:27 PM nyenye has not replied
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2007 2:52 PM nyenye has not replied
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 08-07-2007 9:33 PM nyenye has not replied
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-19-2007 2:08 PM nyenye has not replied
 Message 184 by dwise1, posted 11-03-2010 3:52 PM nyenye has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2 of 185 (412519)
07-25-2007 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nyenye
07-25-2007 4:40 AM


Siskel and Danielle at the Movies
well for one I like the quote. You do know what the word zeitgeist means, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nyenye, posted 07-25-2007 4:40 AM nyenye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nyenye, posted 07-25-2007 2:14 PM Phat has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 3 of 185 (412541)
07-25-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nyenye
07-25-2007 4:40 AM


Why don't you tell us what YOU think? Why should we watch a conspiracy movie that is rumored to be very poorly done and laughably wrong about so many things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nyenye, posted 07-25-2007 4:40 AM nyenye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by nyenye, posted 07-25-2007 2:16 PM Asgara has replied

  
nyenye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 185 (412596)
07-25-2007 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
07-25-2007 7:54 AM


Re: Siskel and Danielle at the Movies
Time Ghost

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 07-25-2007 7:54 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 10-19-2007 11:20 AM nyenye has replied

  
nyenye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 185 (412598)
07-25-2007 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Asgara
07-25-2007 9:49 AM


You cannot believe a rumor, you have to see it for yourself. I liked the movie... I believe it's true especially for the 9/11 part, many people that I've talked to seemed to have forgot. The chip too... completely true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Asgara, posted 07-25-2007 9:49 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Asgara, posted 07-25-2007 2:19 PM nyenye has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 6 of 185 (412599)
07-25-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by nyenye
07-25-2007 2:16 PM


Then why should I believe you that the movie needs to be seen? At least those who say to not waste my time have given reasons.
Please, tell us your thoughts on the movie...why should we see it? Have you researched any of the claims to know what is true and what is not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nyenye, posted 07-25-2007 2:16 PM nyenye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Phat, posted 11-03-2010 12:25 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 185 (412603)
07-25-2007 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nyenye
07-25-2007 4:40 AM


The comparative religion section at the beginning was interesting in itself with the comparisons of the various god-heroes and the influences of astrological mythology on early religion. I've seen most of it before but there were some interesting ideas I've not seen presented in that way before. Incidentally - I use the word interesting here on purpose...some of it is highly questionable and I've never seen any evidence to lead me to believe it...but it is interesting.
However, I started to become truly incredulous at the idea that Bronze Age nomads were aware of a 26,000 year cycle of twelve 2150 year periods.
Then out of the blue we turn to the 9/11 conspiracy which I watched a bit of, realised it was fairly old hat and not seeing the point of that section I started skipping chunks of it, just listening to the central claims.
That's as far as I got - and I only watched because another friend also recommended watching it. The first part is interesting for this forum, but I recommend nobody takes anything in the film at face value there is definitely an agenda being put forward. I'll continue watching - we've just got to the part about banks.
The film is about of the power of institution and is marginally interesting, but sceptics may well roll their eyes at certain parts - you have been warned - don't expect accuracy or believability here.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nyenye, posted 07-25-2007 4:40 AM nyenye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 8 of 185 (412615)
07-25-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nyenye
07-25-2007 4:40 AM


Well I tried to watch the banking part but eventually my bullshit detector gave up and I had to stop.
Conclusion: Don't use this film a source of information, but only as a source of entertainment. Believe anything in this film at your peril - check all things with sceptical sources before arriving at any conclusion.
If you don't have a bullshit detector or any form of sceptical instinct, don't go near it. At all.
Here is a response to the first part's bullshit, so that you all get to see the kind of claims it makes.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nyenye, posted 07-25-2007 4:40 AM nyenye has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 9 of 185 (415042)
08-07-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nyenye
07-25-2007 4:40 AM


horus
oh god, i got dragged into this on another board. let me post my analysis here.
the rumors regarding poor production and factchecking are, so far, true. i skipped the first ten minutes of musical slide show, cause... i just don't have the patience for poor filmmaking. sorry. so far, i am four minutes in. yes, four minutes. 4:00. i've just gotten past initial description of horus, and so far every. single. claim has been a lie. every last one! let me say that this does not bode well. i'll condense here from my post elsewhere and summarize the first four minutes:
  1. the association of "sun" and "son" and "god's son" does not seem to exist elsewhere, and using "god" unbiquitously like that makes little sense in a pantheon. which god?
  2. horus is the god of the sky, not the sun. amun-ra is the god of the sun. horus became the sun-god when he enveloped, conceptially, amun-ra and a number of other deities. horus is also the god of the moon, and the stars.
  3. jesus was not born on dec 25th. more like april. it's a rather well established fact of history that the early catholic church chose to celebrate christmas on the winter solstice so christ worship would replace pagan gods. this is not part of the original beliefs of christianity, or found anywhere in the bible.
  4. horus does have a virgin birth story, BUT this is an inappropriate application of it. horus's father is osiris and his mother in isis. osiris (not horus) was killed by set, and horus (or possibly isis, depending on the myth) resurrected him. in one myth, it's isis and she does it without giving him back his penis. so horus, who is born after, needs an explanation -- thus virgin birth. another virgin birth idea comes from isis enveloping her handmaiden, mut, who was infertile. the problem is, of course, is that they use the conflation all three ways. because osiris and horus become the same god, they have horus killed by set and resurrected. and then they have horus resurrect someone (osiris). and then they have a virgin birth. it's sort of like having your cake, eating it, and giving it away. you can't use the same damned story three different ways.
  5. there is no "accompanying star" myth for horus. they made that up -- horus was the god of the stars.
  6. "three kings" are not mentioned in the bible. it's also later tradition. there are an unspecified number of astrologers. ironically, they have shot themselves in the foot by removing the only real reference to astrology in the NT.
  7. there are no baptism/preaching myths about horus. the "figure anup" they mention is anubis, god of the underworld. who is a better parallel for satan than john the baptist. they didn't use the normal name, and slurred it, so people would be less prone to looking it up and saying, "hey wait." pure and simple intellectual dishonesty, on top of an outright lie.
  8. there is no mention of horus ever having "12 disciples." there were a number of gods that were associated with him, but the number 12 does not pop up anywhere. another lie.
  9. horus didn't walk around preaching and performing miracles. horus was a god. even the egyptian gods on earth -- the pharoahs -- didn't do that. they ruled stuff. that's what god's did. and "miracles?" he's a god.
  10. i can't confirm any of the "lamb of god" kind of titles. this is highly suspicious, as egypt was not the sort of culture that would produce such an idiom. they were not shepherds, and weren't as big on animal sacrifice. and which god? horus was a god.
  11. horus was not crucified. crucifixion is a ROMAN invention. osiris was broken into a number of pieces by set (as above). this is another use of the same myth, where they are picking and choosing different bits from bifferent revisions to make it seem like there is a correlation. i cannot find any reference to the duration between osiris's death and resurrection (by horus, or maybe isis).
so that's the first four minutes of actual content. every claim a fabrication, lie, or distortion. i've looked ahead a bit, and there's some doozies based on these claims. and i haven't really even gotten to the judeo-christian stuff, the stuff i actually know a thing or two about. this is from a quick fact check.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nyenye, posted 07-25-2007 4:40 AM nyenye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Spektical, posted 10-18-2007 1:54 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 10-19-2007 4:56 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5977 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 10 of 185 (429057)
10-18-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by arachnophilia
08-07-2007 9:33 PM


Re: horus
First of all I want to remark that Zeitgeist is by no means a completely accurate film or something that should be used as any form of reference. However it is certainly a very effective catalyst for more indepth research on the subjects discussed. The movie's main website reiterates that the movie should not be taken at face value and watchers should go and research. I think that is its sole purpose.
Having said that I want to make a couple of my own points on the ideas presented and the response by arach.
1. There are too many similarities between the story of Horus/Isis/Osiris and Jesus/Mary/God to ignore their parallelism, especially considering the time span between when the 2 supposed stories came to be. The fact that they are not exactly the same or for the most part similar is irrelevant, the real point is myths change based on knowledge or need. They evolve.
2. The accuracy of Jesus' birth should not be questioned since there is no proof that the person Jesus ever existed. The point was what is the significance of the re-occurance of that particular date in history, which leads me to question why you haven't mentioned any of the other historical figures that have the same attributes, ie. Mithra/Dionysus/Krishna etc.
3. Crucifixion was NOT a Roman invention. Its in fact an ancient practice that started with just basic impaling of the victim and evolved to the more complex form in Roman times until it was abolished. It was practiced by many ancient civilizations and the term 'crucifixtion' itself was not how the practice was known by because the act took many forms ie. every execution was done differently.
I hear alot of people say that the film was poorly made. This of course is justified by the fact that the man had no real budget and it was more important to visualize the summary of all of the research he made and present it in the manner he did.
Now as far as the 911 and Banking sections, I'll say this: In order to find the middle of something you have to travel all the way to the other side, come back and repeat the process until you hit the middle.
I found the video remarkable and very thought/research provoking, which I am thankful for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 08-07-2007 9:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 10-18-2007 11:12 PM Spektical has replied
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-19-2007 4:00 PM Spektical has replied
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2007 12:37 PM Spektical has replied
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 10-20-2007 12:43 PM Spektical has not replied
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-20-2007 12:49 PM Spektical has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 185 (429254)
10-18-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Spektical
10-18-2007 1:54 PM


Re: horus
1. There are too many similarities between the story of Horus/Isis/Osiris and Jesus/Mary/God to ignore their parallelism,
well, that's just the thing. there isn't. the story of horus, isis, and osiris is not at all like the jesus narrative. the people who made the movie (and make the claims) have taken little bits and pieces out of context from three completely different versions of the story, as it evolved over the years.
it's not like, say, the flood myth, where the story is exactly the same as the akkadian myth, except for a few details like names and boat dimensions.
and they've literally re-used the same part of the story two different ways.
especially considering the time span between when the 2 supposed stories came to be.
more like four stories. and the timespan between them is as much as 1,000 years or more.
The fact that they are not exactly the same or for the most part similar is irrelevant, the real point is myths change based on knowledge or need. They evolve.
indeed -- but a snippet here and a snippet there, totally out of context and misrepresented, does not make a case for relation. it makes a case for the dishonesty of the person making the argument.
it sort of makes as much sense as saying jesus was the messiah because he road a donkey. oh, right.
2. The accuracy of Jesus' birth should not be questioned since there is no proof that the person Jesus ever existed.
for the purposes of my points above, whether or not jesus was real is an irrelevency. we're talking about the mythology involved, the stories as written.
The point was what is the significance of the re-occurance of that particular date in history,
well, that's the problem. jesus wasn't born on dec 25th. neither was horus, btw (though he's a lot closer). and neither was any other god or religious figure they claimed was. that date does indeed have significance: it's the winter solstice, just as they say.
but where, exactly, is the discussion of the celebration the entire civilized world (except the jews) participated in at the time of jesus, on that date? where is the discussion of the god that revolves around? his name is "saturn." his festival, saturnalia, was one of the big feasts of rome, held for an entire week, just before the winter solstice. why isn't that in the video even once?
the answer is that it doesn't support their case. in fact, it helps invalidate it. because when the date for christ-mass was chosen, overriding the pagan festival of saturnalia was a significant concern in the church's mind. we celebrate christmas today around the winter solstice because of saturn, not because of jesus. the date does not come from the original tradition -- it comes from another source. and a well known one, too.
which leads me to question why you haven't mentioned any of the other historical figures that have the same attributes, ie. Mithra/Dionysus/Krishna etc.
because the discussion died, and i wasn't interested. i watched up until just before mithras (eager to find similarity there, but had some trouble finding a neutral source on the matter). i'll give you a summary: "not a single point was remotely correct, or documented anywhere outside of the video."
would you like more? i posted a break down of the fast claims about attis and krishna elsewhere, i can re-post them here.
3. Crucifixion was NOT a Roman invention.
um, actually, it was. the persians apparently invented something similar, but crucifixion was primarily a roman thing. those other places that did it? former roman states. even as such, crucifixion (or anything remotely similar) is not found in any of the other myths the movie makes reference to. one of the "crucified" messiahs they mentioned for instance, attis, died because he cut off his own testicles at his wedding, because of his lover-on-the-side/former-hermaphrodite demon mother. then he turned into a tree. sound like crucifixion and resurrection to you? it doesn't to me. i can draw more connections to oedipus rex than jesus christ.
I hear alot of people say that the film was poorly made. This of course is justified by the fact that the man had no real budget and it was more important to visualize the summary of all of the research he made and present it in the manner he did.
i have seen some amazing, and amazingly informative films made for next to nothing. it can be done, and it is done. spitting out claims so fast that no one can write them down or notice they're lies is not good filmaking. it's not even good lecturing. and ten minutes of... windows media player visualizations? or something like that? i don't think it takes money to know how to edit a film down.
and i find the "research" claim spurious. ten minutes of fact checking reveals every claim to be false. we're not talking research. we're barely talking wikipedia. i've seen more research in middle school literature papers. which is sort of what this is: a poorly produced book report. you can find the sources on their website -- they pretty much just copied those (faulty) claims wholesale, without a lick of actual cross-checking or verifying. it's conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. nothing more. i think i got poor marks on a book report once in elementary school because all i did was summarize the plot.
Now as far as the 911 and Banking sections, I'll say this: In order to find the middle of something you have to travel all the way to the other side, come back and repeat the process until you hit the middle.
i haven't watched those sections yet. in fact, i haven't gotten very far into the first section yet. it's hard to wade through all the obvious lies. but i think it says something that there are three completely disparate, different conspiracy theories in the film. these people like to go for grand-unification-conspiracies, don't they? something that explains everything might as well be religion.
I found the video remarkable and very thought/research provoking, which I am thankful for.
the only bit that i am amused by is the backlash. some of the "rebuttals" made by christians are simply responses in turn: also outright lies. i appreciate the irony.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Spektical, posted 10-18-2007 1:54 PM Spektical has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Spektical, posted 10-19-2007 10:01 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 10-19-2007 1:57 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5977 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 12 of 185 (429332)
10-19-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by arachnophilia
10-18-2007 11:12 PM


Re: horus
Well I agree with you for the most part, except for the history of crucifixion part. As I said in my post the movie should not be taken at face value. The reason I thought it was good was because it provokes you to go out and research these things.
Also, the whole Saturn thing...Zeitgeist is a shorter version of a Jordan Maxwell video I watched and he delves into the whole Saturn thing. I thought his video is more complete and thorough than Zeitgiest. My interest stops when people start talking about UFO's however lol.
Its very interesting to see all the points of view about the 911 part though...I'll wait till you get to it.
Alot of people have a general distaste for 'conspiracy theories', but I sort of like them because they wake up the layman.
Also, the whole Saturn thing...Zeitgeist is a shorter version of a Jordan Maxwell video I watched recently, and he delves into the whole Saturn thing. I thought his video is more complete and thorough than Zeitgiest. My interest stops when people start talking about UFO's however lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 10-18-2007 11:12 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2007 1:02 PM Spektical has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 185 (429341)
10-19-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nyenye
07-25-2007 2:14 PM


Re: Siskel and Danielle at the Movies
Zeitgeist does not mean Time Ghost!
Clusty writes:
  • n. - Zeitgeist -- (the spirit of the time; the spirit characteristic of an age or generation)
  • It means the vibes of the culture...not necessarily literal spirits or ghosts!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by nyenye, posted 07-25-2007 2:14 PM nyenye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by ringo, posted 10-19-2007 12:52 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
     Message 43 by nyenye, posted 10-20-2007 1:04 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 14 of 185 (429358)
    10-19-2007 12:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Phat
    10-19-2007 11:20 AM


    Re: Siskel and Danielle at the Movies
    Phat writes:
    It means the vibes of the culture...
    So, how would you sum up today's zeitgeist? Fear of conspiracies (e.g. terrorism)? Gullibility to accept conspiracy theories?

    “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
    -- Joseph Goebbels
    -------------
    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Phat, posted 10-19-2007 11:20 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1344 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 15 of 185 (429360)
    10-19-2007 1:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Spektical
    10-19-2007 10:01 AM


    Re: horus
    As I said in my post the movie should not be taken at face value.
    no, one should never trust lies. that's common sense.
    The reason I thought it was good was because it provokes you to go out and research these things.
    not really. it tries to give you the secret answers to everything. actual research comes from "they can't be serious" backlash against the more obvious lies, not because their points have warranted further investigation. in other words, it's not provoking thought, it's provoking disagreement with proof. their intent is the opposite of the result.
    Also, the whole Saturn thing...Zeitgeist is a shorter version of a Jordan Maxwell video I watched and he delves into the whole Saturn thing. I thought his video is more complete and thorough than Zeitgiest. My interest stops when people start talking about UFO's however lol.
    let me introduce you to a member here named "simple."
    Its very interesting to see all the points of view about the 911 part though...I'll wait till you get to it.
    Alot of people have a general distaste for 'conspiracy theories', but I sort of like them because they wake up the layman.
    "conspiracy theorist" and "crackpot" are synonymous. this is the same confabulation and misrepresentation and faulty connection-drawing that leads to stuff like creationism and holocaust denial and the flat earth society. of, and UFO's. it's all the same camp, really, because the basic premise is the same: don't trust vast majority of evidence, people are lying to you.
    your username is "skeptical." ironically, this term is often used by CT's as well as their opponents. it's that the CT's are "skeptics" of the mainstream. really, the word they're looking for is "denier." true skepticism -- not trust anything -- generally leads away from their ideologies. as with this case.
    Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Spektical, posted 10-19-2007 10:01 AM Spektical has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Modulous, posted 10-19-2007 1:36 PM arachnophilia has replied
     Message 17 by Spektical, posted 10-19-2007 1:51 PM arachnophilia has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024