1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Zeitgeist, The Movie

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by inFINSible, Apr 8, 2008.

  1. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Um are you a Miami Dolphin player? Yet, you still find discussion about the Dolphins interesting...that's just crazy. Seriously, why do I have to be a believer to find these topics interesting to discuss. And, why am I the only non-believer that you're questioning?


    Ok, whatever. Its still a picture of the devil, glorified to sell a record. Either way i don't care, but having it as you post in here, while busting my chops for trying to enter into serious discussion about the topic at hand, even though I'm an Atheist, is pretty ridiculous.
     
  2. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Actually, it said it was proven a fraud and yet it is still being used today, isn't really a far cry from it being "disputed". In the people's eyes that see it as fraud, they see it that way because it was proven to be a fraud. The one's who don't see it that way, would dispute that proof, and refer to it as true today. Either way, its hardly an important enough "fact" to worry about. Its semantics really.
     
  3. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,351
    23,020
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    Equivalent to saying it is 100% a fraud IMO. Don't really see how you can debate that bit of semantics. If I say it is a proven fact the earth is round versus it is debatable, on the former you would agree, and on the latter you would of course correct me.
    Is it obvious this video was made to persuade yes, I believe most knew that before they even watched it. However, giving only half of the debate, or half of a historic event, etc, is not an attempt to inform readers of my argument, it is an attempt to hustle the audience IMO. You can talk all day how irrelevant or relevant, how big or small, the idea is, but in the end it causes all sorts of questions such as how accurate is the rest of the information, what are the authors true intentions, etc.
    The josephus reference is just an example of what I found to be an inaccurate statement.
     
  4. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Because it is a curiousity, like a single person posting on a marriage advice board.



    For you,the devil doesn't exist, remember?
     
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You missed my point, and that is my fault. What I'm trying to say is, if someone says a text was proven fraudulent AND says it is still being used today, isn't really that much different than saying the text's validity is disputed. In this case, that's essentially what "disputed" means: some people are convinced its been proven false while others don't. Yes, his language wasn't quite that open, but the difference between saying, "It was proven fraudulent X years, but people still use it", and saying, "The text's validity is in dispute", are not so miles apart that it calls into question the validity of everything else the filmmaker (using the term loosely:pointlol:) had to say on the subject.

    Plus, we are talking about texts that were written a long time ago, and not the shape of celestial bodies. The difference is significant because we can observe the Earth, but we can't truly know what is historically accurate text, short of the author claiming it isn't factual. That is another reason why, IMO, the "inaccuracy" that you pointed out, isn't such a big deal. Hell, for all we know, people in a few 1000 years, will believe Forrest Gump was a real person, since the text of the book also contains historically accurate events, people, and places.

    Again, my point was not to say the "the point" wasn't relevant, but the "inaccuracy" that you brought up, wasn't that much of an inaccuracy. I think the actual "point" (was Jesus even real by historical records) is huge, and worth further discussion.

    In fact, I'd love to hear what some of the other inaccuracies you saw were. If you care to.
     
  6. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I didn't realize this was an advice board. In fact, I thought these were open discussion boards. It is very curious to me that you would assume that someone who doesn't believe in a god, wouldn't like discussions on the topic. Should white men never discuss civil rights for minorities? Should I not watch House or Deadliest Catch, because I'm neither a doctor nor a fisherman? You're "curiosity" is so bizarre, that its pretty obvious you're just trying to give me a hard time.

    It does for you, and it is evil and against what you claim to believe is the right way to live. To call me out for posting in a religious forum while being an Atheist, when you're a Christian and are sporting a glorification of the devil, everywhere you post on here, actually makes you the curiosity.

    I've answered you're question as to why I'm here a number of times, so how about you end this busting of my heathen chops and discuss the subject matter of this thread...
     
  7. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,351
    23,020
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    Well if he said x years, which I do not recall him saying, then yes it is not miles apart. However, if the x years would make it from a proven fraud 100%, to a disputed writing. The difference is huge in terms of science, which at least archaeology, is. Does finding one piece of mis information bring a whole argument down, maybe not completely, but it does show a kink in the argument.

    I think you are looking at this a bit wrong bro. Archaeology helps build history. So yes a written document stating such and such is what both are built on. These documents are verified, and ran through a tedious process. Questioning it is fine, all things in science should be questioned from time to time. Giving a lecture and stating a question as a fact, is just irresponsible. Maybe the filmmakers just got one fact wrong fine, but either way if they got that wrong it does call into question how much more did they get wrong and why did they get it wrong?

    Of course it is and it is very much open for debate. At one point jesus was thought to be 100% real, then at another he was thought in history circles to not be. So you are correct it is a worthy debate.

    Naw man I don't feel passionately enough about this to read and watch the film and break it down again. Sorry. I gave an example that stuck in my head, and that is as far as I will take it. I do need to finish the film because I told infins I would. :wink2: I'll let you know if I find anything else.............
     
  8. DonShula84

    DonShula84 Moderator Luxury Box

    9,311
    3,464
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    I dont see why a forum on spirituality would disregard the thoughts of those who arent spiritual. It still seems like a point of view that's salient to the forum, no?
     
    inFINSible and Fin D like this.
  9. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    You are discussing God? Isn't that a bit like discussing the easter bunny?

    There is no devil...

    Heathens believe in many Gods.
     
  10. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    Are there a couple of billion people claiming that the easter bunny did, in fact, exist, that they are "talking" to it on a regular basis, and that worshipping it was your ticket to salvation?
     
    inFINSible likes this.
  11. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Aren't there billions of people who celebrate Easter?
     
  12. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    Do they believe in the easter bunny?
     
  13. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    If there is no Easter Bunny, then why bother to post here?
     
  14. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    Because I view religion as a philosophy and like talking about philosophy. I really don't see where you're going with your line of posts. You can't be arguing that anyone who doesn't believe in God shouldn't talk about religion. That's nonsense and I suspect you are aware of it. So I assume you are taking joy in playing the devil's advocate and driving people nuts by trying to poke holes in their position. Got you :tongue2:
     
  15. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Wow.

     
  16. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I think he said "100 years" or something to that affect. Again, I'll admit the filmmaker could have said this differently. What he said wasn't patently false. It was true, with his agenda's slant put on it. Essentially, the text's validity is in question, so how can it be used to verify the other side's point. That's all the filmmaker needs to prove his point in this particular part of the discussion.


    Yes and no. First off, the text in question, clearly hasn't been verified. Otherwise, it would not be in dispute. Yes, the filmmaker was irresponsible with his choice of wording, but, again, he wasn't entirely wrong. Secondly, ancient texts are not proof of a god's or deity's existence. Otherwise, many Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Sumarian, etc. writings would be proof of their gods existence. What ancient texts tell really tell us is about more basic things, like day to day life, government, belief structures, and such. Now if there was a census with his name on it, that would be different story.


    Fair enough bro, it was enjoyable. Thank you. :up:
     
  17. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,399
    14,750
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Absolutely. In our house its a tradition to eat rabbit on Easter
     
  18. Vendigo

    Vendigo German Gigolo Club Member

    7,723
    5,683
    113
    Nov 30, 2007

    Blasphemy! You're eating your savior! That's ... that's ... well, that's what Catholics do every other weekend. Never mind.
     
  19. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,399
    14,750
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Great link. Watched part of it and though I have my doubts about certain aspects of the subjects they touch on the overall message of things are not how they seem is one that needs to be repeated. People tend to accept things to easily. The part on the international banking system is one that really needs to be taught in school although in a much more intelligent manner lol. But the fact that they touched on what a ripoff our monetary system is needs to be repeated often and loudly.

    I havent finished watching the whole thing but one question that popped into my head was why the part about religion was included at the beginning. I already knew that all the religions basically steal from each other and though the connections were put together very well, I couldnt figure out what that had to do with the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. Is the point that people are easily manipulated? Maybe the connection becomes apparent at the end of the movie
     
  20. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,399
    14,750
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    The easter bunny is the savior? Man church has changed since the last time I went
     
  21. Rick 1966

    Rick 1966 Professional Hipshooter

    6,816
    2,373
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Lakeland, FL
    Do you eat leprechauns on St Patrick's Day?
     
    finswin56 likes this.
  22. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,399
    14,750
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Only if she's real cute
     
    inFINSible and finswin56 like this.
  23. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,351
    23,020
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    midgets need loving too.......
     
  24. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,399
    14,750
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    :lol::lol:
     
  25. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,399
    14,750
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Well I finished the movie. Good stuff overall but a little hokey at the end. Love the stuff about the income tax and banking system and they were dead on about the wars. We couldve destroyed Vietnam if we wanted to
     
  26. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    [media]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&hl=en[/media]

    this one is more specific, based on the "illegal" federal reserve and IRS.
     
    DevilFin13 and inFINSible like this.
  27. Soundwave

    Soundwave Phins Sympathizer..

    7,855
    3,221
    113
    Apr 15, 2008
    Watched part one after people insisted how important this 'documentary' is / was. Struck by the fact that at no time are refrences cited, and by the end of part one was convinced I was being sold a load of bull****.

    Turns out I was right. The guy at the below link actually cites his sources:

    http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

    Wizards First Rule: People are stupid, and will believe what ever they want to believe. :no:
     
    DevilFin13 likes this.
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Meh.

    The author of the "debunking" is missing the point completely.

    The movie says, "The Bible is nothing more than an astro-theological literary fold hybrid, just like nearly all religious myths before it." This quote sums up all of the religious portion of the movie. Yet, the debunking author, takes the filmmaker to task for things not being exactly the same.

    Furthermore, many of the "sources" the author is hanging his hat on, are just websites. When a real source is used like Encyclopedia Brittanica, it is used to "debunk" something the filmmaker didn't say.

    The author says, "The sun was not the creator god in all cultures, but rather only a few. While the sun was widely worshipped, more often than not, most religions believed the earth was given birth to (along side the sun and moon) by a different god, or in some cases the earth is the back of a giant turtle. This is hardly something that can be seen through most religions, and is a bit of a stretch[2c]"

    The problem is, the author said this in response to:
    "In other words, the early civilizations did not just follow the sun and stars, they personified them with elaborate myths involving their movements and relationships. The sun, with its life-giving and -saving qualities was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god. It was known as "God's Sun," the light of the world, the savior of human kind."

    So what we have here is the author saying the filmmaker said the sun is god, and proving that false when the filmmaker never said that. Much of this "debunking", at least in the religion portion, is similar to this. The author is simply missing the point, and arguing based on the misconception.
     
  29. FinSane

    FinSane Cynical Dolphins Fan

    19,861
    5,792
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Melbourne, Fl
    man, Infins is going to blow a gasket...
     
  30. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Why?
     
  31. Soundwave

    Soundwave Phins Sympathizer..

    7,855
    3,221
    113
    Apr 15, 2008
    What sources were used by the film maker?

    We're just gonna take his word for it? i didn't realize you were such a man of faith.. lol
     
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'm not.

    But questionable sources are just as reliable as no sources.
     
  33. Soundwave

    Soundwave Phins Sympathizer..

    7,855
    3,221
    113
    Apr 15, 2008
    that makes absolutely no sense.

    So Horus, Attis, Dionysus, and Mithra were born on December 25th?

    factually accurate or not?
     
  34. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    How does that not make sense? Questionable sources are not sources of facts. For example, use of "liberal media trash" like MSNBC or NYT, as a source, is categorically thrown out.

    The author "proved" as much as the filmmaker did...nothing.

    To answer your other question... I dunno. Maybe you can tell me if Jesus was born on December 25th?
     
  35. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    34,118
    24,390
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I have read a few websites about on this subject and most of those sources are from books.

    Take www.jesusneverexisted.com.

    From just their page http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/sex-2.html

    Their sources are

    Cullen Murphy, The Word According to Eve (Allen Lane, 1998)
    Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Bantam, 2006)
    Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (1927)
    Sam Harris, The End of Faith (Free Press, 2005)
    Paul Tabori, A Pictorial History of Love (Spring, 1968)
    Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (Phoenix, 1980)
    Uta Ranke-Henemann, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven (Penguin, 1993)
    Peter Brown, The Body and Society (Colombia, 1990)
    James Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty (Harper,2006)

    My point is basically just because it is "On a website" does not mean it is less of a source than the Encyclopedia Brittanica
     
    unluckyluciano likes this.
  36. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    34,118
    24,390
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    No he wasn't born on the 25th or at least there is no proof he was born on the 25th.
     
  37. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,135
    43,576
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That's not what I'm saying.

    My point is, unless we are talking about trusted or peer reviewed sites, then quoting them as "sources" is irrelevant. They don't prove anything. Which is the claim that the author and Soundwave were making. I'm calling shenanigans.
     
  38. Soundwave

    Soundwave Phins Sympathizer..

    7,855
    3,221
    113
    Apr 15, 2008
    What 'trusted or peer reviewed sites' did the maker of this 'documentary' use??

    It's hilarious that you would give this film maker a pass simply because you agree with him. It doesn't matter to you that he's using a factually inaccurate line of reasoning to support his thoery.

    Fake but accurate? Hell yeah!

    As long as he's stickin' it to them dirty Christians... lol
     
  39. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    34,118
    24,390
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I do have to admit this is one of the dumbest quotes I have ever read.
     
  40. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    34,118
    24,390
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    It is funny. That quote is from a book series that is VERY anti-religion.

    It could easily be used for the side in believing that jesus existed and walked on water.
     

Share This Page