Zeitgeist, The Movie

"inFINSible wrote:

Moleman, I'm going to be busy this weekend but i would love to talk more about this with you.....very interested.

I hope we're still buds even though I'm a nut case. :lol:

BFF, inFINS.

"DevilFin13 wrote:

But it does seem odd that building 7 would fall like it did.

That's the fundamental flaw (and bait) of conspiracy theories: They rest upon things that don't seem to make sense, stuff that seems odd, coincidences that seem a little bit too coincidental. The problem is: There's literally no historic event that isn't full of things that don't seem to make sense and coincidences that seem a little bit too coincidental. The proponents of conspiracy theories operate under the assumption that the very existence of these coincidences suggest that there's something fishy about the whole thing. However, the opposite is true: It would be very fishy if there weren't a lot of gaping logical holes in an event of the scale of 9/11. That's, by the way, why opponents of conspiracy theories tilt at windmills when trying to provide logical explanations for everything - it's quite simply impossible and strengthens the position of the proponents.

Take a look at any historical event with the ramifications of 9/11. You'll find "plot holes" a plenty. The assumption that there are no coincidences is a popular misconception that every good historian would pick apart in no time at all. In general, I'd advise to apply good old Occam's razor: Don't look for the perfect explanation (because it doesn't exist) but for the one taking the fewest assumptions. In the case of 9/11 that's the official version. If a conspiracy theoriest came along with a better theory, I'd be all ear. But the thing with the conspiracy theorists is that they don't provide theories - they poke holes. That's a legitimate thing to do of course but a rather pointless exercise if there isn't a better theory at the end than the one you've just poked holes into.

To get back to your original point: Yes, it does seem odd that the building would fall that way. But I'll happily ascribe it to coincidence because the alternative would be to take a whole bunch of completely unproven assumptions. I generally prefer to think horses, not zebras.

"Vendigo wrote:

That's the fundamental flaw (and bait) of conspiracy theories: They rest upon things that don't seem to make sense, stuff that seems odd, coincidences that seem a little bit too coincidental. The problem is: There's literally no historic event that isn't full of things that don't seem to make sense and coincidences that seem a little bit too coincidental. The proponents of conspiracy theories operate under the assumption that the very existence of these coincidences suggest that there's something fishy about the whole thing. However, the opposite is true: It would be very fishy if there weren't a lot of gaping logical holes in an event of the scale of 9/11. That's, by the way, why opponents of conspiracy theories tilt at windmills when trying to provide logical explanations for everything - it's quite simply impossible and strengthens the position of the proponents.

Take a look at any historical event with the ramifications of 9/11. You'll find "plot holes" a plenty. The assumption that there are no coincidences is a popular misconception that every good historian would pick apart in no time at all. In general, I'd advise to apply good old Occam's razor: Don't look for the perfect explanation (because it doesn't exist) but for the one taking the fewest assumptions. In the case of 9/11 that's the official version. If a conspiracy theoriest came along with a better theory, I'd be all ear. But the thing with the conspiracy theorists is that they don't provide theories - they poke holes. That's a legitimate thing to do of course but a rather pointless exercise if there isn't a better theory at the end than the one you've just poked holes into.

To get back to your original point: Yes, it does seem odd that the building would fall that way. But I'll happily ascribe it to coincidence because the alternative would be to take a whole bunch of completely unproven assumptions. I generally prefer to think horses, not zebras.

Well said. Plus there is the fact that someone would have needed to plant some sort of explosives or do whatever they have to do in order to prepare the building to be taken down. How they did that without anyone seeing it is just as beyond me as how it fell. So I think you're right that you have to go with the one with the fewest assumptions.

Oh look, Zeitgeist has a new fan...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351428,00.html

:lol:

I just watched it.

I just read the entire thread too.

First, thank you, Infins. It took some orbs of short and curlies to post this knowing the overwhelming conservative nature of these, the nether forums.

Secondly, to Rick...:rolleyes: Your continued arrogant tacts with which you lurk these boards, while impressive for its sheer obliviousness, is ultimately grating. Your views and outlooks may even be ultimately right, however, your approach is akin to Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, and others, and because of that your message becomes diluted. Case in point, you blast the maker of the film, by accusing he uses no sources, yet, the truth is, he uses more sources to state his opinion then you do yours. So, instead of listening to your message, I'm busy awash in your hypocrisy.

That leads me to the real issue going on here...dilution.

By that I mean, for example, I've read on this board alone many posts arguing if debris was from a missile, plane or bus, yet precious little to the overall theme of what did our government actually do or not do. We can argue all day and night, if jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel enough for the buildings to collapse they way they did, but it is really irrelevant, to finding out why, inarguably, the government failed on such monumental level to prevent this. They did fail. The real question here is why.

It seems there are two camps on this. The one camp claims that it was a conspiracy. The other claims that proper safety measures were not in place. The problem is, neither explanation is a reason for optimism. If the conspiracies are true than our government is corrupt. If the the other camp is true, then our system doesn't work, and we need to take the liberties our country was founded upon away, by way of the Patriot Act. They both suggest we live in a lie.

Considering our President is still elected by the Electoral College and our congressmen are propped up by PACs and lobbyists, and with the corporate welfare systems that are in place, it is not hard to envision that our leaders are corrupt. In fact, saying otherwise, smacks of romanticism. The real question is, how corrupt are they regardless of party line?

As for the Part 1 of the movie...That is all easily verifiable as true. Some may view the Christian "cribbing" of other religions as merely propaganda to convert the uneducated masses. Others see it as another (in a long line) of lies and fabrications, that are sold off as "The Truth". I also get that same feeling of romanticism, with those that think the former.

The reality of all of this is, the answers, probably, lie somewhere in the middle. But the day we stop, looking at opposing view points, whether we'll ever know the real answers or not, is the day we lose. Its the day we become slaves to the person directly above us on whatever scale is around and being used to judge. That to me was the real underlying point of this movie...think for yourself, before someone else does it for you. To me, letting go of your ability to think for yourself, is the true epitome of evil. After all, its not a far leap from being a LAMB of a god, to FLOCKING to watch the news and its advertisers, to being a SHEEP who doesn't think beyond the HERD.

"Finascious D wrote:

As for the Part 1 of the movie...That is all easily verifiable as true. Some may view the Christian "cribbing" of other religions as merely propaganda to convert the uneducated masses. Others see it as another (in a long line) of lies and fabrications, that are sold off as "The Truth". I also get that same feeling of romanticism, with those that think the former.

From what I read alot of it is half truths.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

From what I read alot of it is half truths.

Like?

"Finascious D wrote:

I just watched it.

I just read the entire thread too.

First, thank you, Infins. It took some orbs of short and curlies to post this knowing the overwhelming conservative nature of these, the nether forums.

Secondly, to Rick...:rolleyes: Your continued arrogant tacts with which you lurk these boards, while impressive for its sheer obliviousness, is ultimately grating. Your views and outlooks may even be ultimately right, however, your approach is akin to Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, and others, and because of that your message becomes diluted. Case in point, you blast the maker of the film, by accusing he uses no sources, yet, the truth is, he uses more sources to state his opinion then you do yours. So, instead of listening to your message, I'm busy awash in your hypocrisy.

That leads me to the real issue going on here...dilution.

By that I mean, for example, I've read on this board alone many posts arguing if debris was from a missile, plane or bus, yet precious little to the overall theme of what did our government actually do or not do. We can argue all day and night, if jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel enough for the buildings to collapse they way they did, but it is really irrelevant, to finding out why, inarguably, the government failed on such monumental level to prevent this. They did fail. The real question here is why.

It seems there are two camps on this. The one camp claims that it was a conspiracy. The other claims that proper safety measures were not in place. The problem is, neither explanation is a reason for optimism. If the conspiracies are true than our government is corrupt. If the the other camp is true, then our system doesn't work, and we need to take the liberties our country was founded upon away, by way of the Patriot Act. They both suggest we live in a lie.

Considering our President is still elected by the Electoral College and our congressmen are propped up by PACs and lobbyists, and with the corporate welfare systems that are in place, it is not hard to envision that our leaders are corrupt. In fact, saying otherwise, smacks of romanticism. The real question is, how corrupt are they regardless of party line?

As for the Part 1 of the movie...That is all easily verifiable as true. Some may view the Christian "cribbing" of other religions as merely propaganda to convert the uneducated masses. Others see it as another (in a long line) of lies and fabrications, that are sold off as "The Truth". I also get that same feeling of romanticism, with those that think the former.

The reality of all of this is, the answers, probably, lie somewhere in the middle. But the day we stop, looking at opposing view points, whether we'll ever know the real answers or not, is the day we lose. Its the day we become slaves to the person directly above us on whatever scale is around and being used to judge. That to me was the real underlying point of this movie...think for yourself, before someone else does it for you. To me, letting go of your ability to think for yourself, is the true epitome of evil. After all, its not a far leap from being a LAMB of a god, to FLOCKING to watch the news and its advertisers, to being a SHEEP who doesn't think beyond the HERD.

Alright Finascious, I'll bite, you've posted all over this particular subforum, yet you do not claim to believe that there is a God, so what exactly is on your mind?

"padre31 wrote:

Alright Finascious, I'll bite, you've posted all over this particular subforum, yet you do not claim to believe that there is a God, so what exactly is on your mind?

Um...not sure what you're asking...

"Finascious D wrote:

Um...not sure what you're asking...

What is your itch, why are you hanging out here?

"padre31 wrote:

What is your itch, why are you hanging out here?

What is so weird about me being here? I'm here because I like discussion about these topics, isn't that why you're here? Or did I intrude on a club of all like minded people?

"Finascious D wrote:

What is so weird about me being here? I'm here because I like discussion about these topics, isn't that why you're here? Or did I intrude on a club of all like minded people?

Well, it is a bit funny that you have no belief in God of any stripe, and yet here you are, are you here to discuss Religion or Faith?

"padre31 wrote:

Well, it is a bit funny that you have no belief in God of any stripe, and yet here you are, are you here to discuss Religion or Faith?

Why? I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I really don't understand the big deal. You guys aren't just sitting around comparing gods, you're talking about relevant, current events that involve religion. As a non-believer why should that not interest me too. I'm here to discuss all of it. Religion, faith, spirituality. It almost appears that you have a problem with me being here. Have you questioned other non-believers that have posted in, not only in this sub-forum, but specifically, this thread?

Is it really any "funnier" then you being a believer, yet you have an avatar glorifying the Devil?

"Finascious D wrote:

Why? I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I really don't understand the big deal. You guys aren't just sitting around comparing gods, you're talking about relevant, current events that involve religion. As a non-believer why should that not interest me too. I'm here to discuss all of it. Religion, faith, spirituality. It almost appears that you have a problem with me being here. Have you questioned other non-believers that have posted in, not only in this sub-forum, but specifically, this thread?

The guy with the Christ Died for our Dunken Donuts avatar wonders why i would be curious about his pariticipation?

Is it really any "funnier" then you being a believer, yet you have an avatar glorifying the Devil?

The title of the song that goes along with the Avatar is "Purgatory", make from it what you will.

"DevilFin13 wrote:

I'm no expert either. So both ways seem to make sense to me. I can see how the jet fuel heats things up enough to make things happen the way the gov't says. But it does seem odd that building 7 would fall like it did.

Yeah there is a lot of stuff I want verified before I buy into it. I'm not sure how feasible it is to verify the stuff in part 3. On a certain level I want to believe it but on another I don't want to.

I guess the thing I take away from it is we should have a certain level of distrust toward just about everything and everyone.

That's really not a bad place to be. That's about where I am, and believe me, I'm as big a conspiracy theorist as there is. I absolutely believe there are organizations that have infiltrated our government, our universities, religious institutions for the sole purpose of bringing our Constitution down and merging us into a one world government.

Best advice...prove all things as best you can and ALWAYS GUARD your Liberty Jealously!

Edit: BTW, I do not believe the U.S. Government had anything to do with the events of 911.

"Finascious D wrote:

Secondly, to Rick...:rolleyes: Your continued arrogant tacts with which you lurk these boards, while impressive for its sheer obliviousness, is ultimately grating. .

Let me assure you that, if I found myself worried about what faceless pixels on the internet thought of me or how I presented my opinions, I believe I would check myself into a psycho ward.

I believe what I believe and I present it how I present it. If it offends you, ignore it. Or don't. Either way, I don't particularly care.

"Finascious D wrote:

Like?

off the top of my head the josephus writing which they state as being a known fraud is in actuality a disputed writing. The rest I don't remember right now.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

off the top of my head the josephus writing which they state as being a known fraud is in actuality a disputed writing. The rest I don't remember right now.

And even then, if the disputed writing is not considered, Josephus's account of James Brother of Jesus death is not in dispute, so even "if" weight is given to the dispute, it does not erase the other account of Christ and the Church's existence...

"padre31 wrote:

And even then, if the disputed writing is not considered, Josephus's account of James Brother of Jesus death is not in dispute, so even "if" weight is given to the dispute, it does not erase the other account of Christ and the Church's existence...

yup just read that ;)

"padre31 wrote:

And even then, if the disputed writing is not considered, Josephus's account of James Brother of Jesus death is not in dispute, so even "if" weight is given to the dispute, it does not erase the other account of Christ and the Church's existence...

The whole idiotic movie reminds me of a commentary I once read about Zecharia Sitchin's silly Annunaki books...something about how the linguists the reviewer talked to said that Sitchin's linguistic analysis was bunk, but they found his science impressive...whereas the scientists the reviewer talked to said that Sitchin's science was horrible, but they found his linguistics impressive.
Same in this case. The people who know the facts about 9-11 say "well, but the religious stuff is interesting," and the people who know the religious facts are bunk say "well, but the 9-11 stuff is intriguing," and those who are aware that both of those parts are nonsense say "well, the stuff about the banks is interesting..."
:lol:

"padre31 wrote:

The guy with the Christ Died for our Dunken Donuts avatar wonders why i would be curious about his pariticipation?

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?

"padre31 wrote:

The title of the song that goes along with the Avatar is "Purgatory", make from it what you will.

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.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

off the top of my head the josephus writing which they state as being a known fraud is in actuality a disputed writing. The rest I don't remember right now.

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.

"Finascious D wrote:

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".

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.

"Finascious D wrote:

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.

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.

"Finascious D wrote:

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?

Because it is a curiousity, like a single person posting on a marriage advice board.

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.

For you,the devil doesn't exist, remember?

"unluckyluciano wrote:

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.

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.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

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.

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.