Zeitgeist the movie, Real? or just Real crap?

[The_Thinker]

Zeitgeist the movie, I watched a downloaded version of it. It can be seen online for those who haven't at this site,

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Its an awesome movie and if its true, its a real eye opener, if its not... Man, I sure got fooled... XD

Now some people claim that its true, some claim that its a load of crap, some say some part is true some parts are not.

For those who have seen it, do any of you know if its really true or not?

 

[Cyrus]

Saw a 1 min clip of it from your link, could you give an overview of what its about ?

 

[moose]

My school's newspaper is quoted on its wikipedia page haha

In addition to attracting significant public interest,[9] it has been criticized for relying too heavily on anecdotal evidence,[11] and for using unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs, quotes, and book citations without page numbers.[12][13][14] In a piece entitled "Internet idiocy: the latest pandemic", the Arizona Daily Wildcat refers to the film as "internet bullgarbage", saying that "witty sayings, fear tactics and a cool, assertive air all enable them to convince the unwitting public of their points".[15] The Irish Times called it "unhinged" and accused it of offering nothing but "surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates."[9]

 

[DaveC426913]

Saw a 1 min clip of it from your link, could you give an overview of what its about ?

Per wiki:

Zeitgeist, the Movie is a 2007 documentary film, produced by Peter Joseph about the Jesus myth hypothesis, the attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank as well as a number of conspiracy theories related to those three main topics

 

[Cyrus]

Per wiki:

Zeitgeist, the Movie is a 2007 documentary film, produced by Peter Joseph about the Jesus myth hypothesis, the attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank as well as a number of conspiracy theories related to those three main topics

Damn, too bad if its crackpot. The one min I fast forwarded to was talking about mosses and the 10 commandments, and how they came from some text in egypt. The little bit I did see seemed interesting... ...too bad.

 

[binzing]

Mosses? "And so God gave the green lump of moss two stone plaques, upon which were the rules to conduct society by." Sorry, smartassing over.

 

[humanino]

Quite entertaining. Is it copyrighted ?

 

[arunma]

The movie is mostly crap, but not entirely. Their theories on Christianity are about as popular in Biblical studies departments as creationism is in science. In fact I remember spotting many major errors myself. The section on 9/11 conspiracies is just idiotic. I've delved into that issue in quite a bit of depth (I have a friend who's a 9/11 conspiracy fanatic), and there's no compelling evidence in favor of an act of terrorism being an inside job. Some of their banking conspiracy theories, however, do have a factual basis. Indeed I knew about this long before I heard it from Zeitgeist. It's true that the Federal Reserve is a quasi-public organization (you can even read about it on Wikipedia), and the history of the government's involvement with wealthy private citizens in establishing our modern currency is more or less correct. But it's quite a stretch to say that this is all part of a worldwide conspiracy to set up a one-world government and control us with microchips that will be implanted in our fingers. This is nothing more than Left Behind minus the antichrist part.

 

[binzing]

Damn, humanino, what is with you and copyrights? You're making me laugh.

 

[moose]

Quite entertaining. Is it copyrighted ?

It was released officially onto google. So it may be copyrighted, but it was released to google with permission.

EDIT: binzing, I believe that posting copyrighted material is against PF guidelines.

 

[Cyrus]

Mosses? "And so God gave the green lump of moss two stone plaques, upon which were the rules to conduct society by." Sorry, smartassing over.

He grows on you.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

All material is copy right to its creator/owner for something like lifetime plus 75 years(?) I think. It doesn't matter if the person has gone through the channels to make it legally official. The creator/owner can though release it to the public domain more or less by giving anyone permission to use the material (usually with conditions such as not for profit).


Anyway... I think that there is a thread here somewhere about the 'Jesus myth' and the man in Italy who tried to sue the church for fraud if anyone is interested.

 

[DrClapeyron]

It is Nazi propoganda. Part of the pro german students at my school like the movie zeitgeist.

 

[binzing]

He grows on you.

Who me and my smart aleck ways, or Mosses?

 

[LightbulbSun]

The movie is utter crap. Don't let it fool you with its spooky music.

 

[WarPhalange]

What kind of theories do they have about Christianity? That the figure of Jesus had already appeared before the canonical Jesus did? That many of the stories and myths of the Bible had come from other sources? Or was it Da Vinci Code type crap?

 

[Moridin]

The conspiracy part about 9/11 is nonsense. So is the part about the federal reserve. The part about Christianity is greatly exaggerated.

 

[Santa1]

What kind of theories do they have about Christianity? That the figure of Jesus had already appeared before the canonical Jesus did? That many of the stories and myths of the Bible had come from other sources? Or was it Da Vinci Code type crap?

I think they say something like this, Horus (an egyptian god) is sort of an interpetation of the sun, and that the figure Jesus is basically Horus. (in short (horus=sun)=jesus.)

edit:

It is Nazi propoganda. Part of the pro german students at my school like the movie zeitgeist.

Therefore it must be nazi? (or are you joking perhaps?)

 

[arunma]

What kind of theories do they have about Christianity? That the figure of Jesus had already appeared before the canonical Jesus did? That many of the stories and myths of the Bible had come from other sources? Or was it Da Vinci Code type crap?

It's a slightly different version than what was portrayed in "The DaVinci Code," but it has similarities. Part of it, as has already been stated, is that Jesus is supposedly similar to many earlier pagan deities (this theory originated in the book "Pagan Christs" published in 1903, I believe by a man named Robertson). They go so far as to draw a parallel between the Jesus and another person from the Bible, Joseph the son of Jacob. Of course at this point they fail to understand that the Bible itself teaches that such a similarity exists, and is understood in the context of typology.

They also make some astrology-based claims (though they do not endorse astrology themselves). They draw some pretty CG pictures of the Earth's precession, and show that in the year 2150 we will enter something called the "Age of Aquarius." They claim that ancient Biblical authors knew about these astrological ages, and that everytime the Bible quotes Jesus as talking about the "close of the age," he's referring to the coming of the Age of Aquarius. I've read a fair amount of ancient literature, and I've never seen anything that would even remotely support this claim.

Anyway, those are the two major claims they make about Christianity that I can remember.

 

[RocketSurgery]

It is Nazi propoganda. Part of the pro german students at my school like the movie zeitgeist.

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that Germans and Nazis are the same thing.

To the contrary, America probably has twice as many neo Nazis as Germany.

 

[humanino]

I watched the entire thing. Why is it one should consider it more than merely an interpretation ? History is not exact science. If you watch the movie, you should better check the claims. Raising the question of interpretation of history is quite interesting to me.

For instance about religion. Part I ends (36') with a short discussion on the concept of myth in the religious sense, in a deeper sense.

A myth serves as an orienting story for people, the focus is not on the story's relation to reality, but on its function.

This is far from being a stupid idea. To many educated christians, it does not matter whether Christ really existed or not, because this does not change the moral of the story. One's faith can rely on whether this person actually accomplished miracles, or instead on what the faith brings to one's life and effectively to one's relation with the world.

By no means do I take the entire interpretation with me as a reference. It is for me merely a suggestion.

I am a scientist, and I am both suspicious of easy analogies and interested in what leads people to interpret reality in such and such manner. There are definitely excellent and very bad arguments in this movie. That's why you need to make up your own understanding, but it requires efforts of thinking. It is important to be open minded enough, to consider all other opinions before making its own.

Rejecting this movie as complete non-sense is no more reasonable to me than accepting it as crystal clear truth. Restricting again to the religious part which I think is less controversial, one way to reach equilibrium in front of a radical interpretation is to display another alternatively radical interpretation. One is expected to only to realize how wide the range of possibilities is, not to side in any extreme position.

 

[DaveC426913]

Rejecting this movie as complete non-sense is no more reasonable to me than accepting it as crystal clear truth.

Hang on - those are not polar opposites.

If 90% of an argument is sound, and then 10% is thrown in that is complate nonsense, it calls into question the reliability of the entire claim, and more specifically, the reliability of the arguer.

So, perhaps it is less accurate to say 'the entire movie is nonsense' than to say 'because so much of it is nonsense, one cannot trust anything in this movie (even if parts of it happened to be spot-on that's just too bad)'.

Nonetheless, the outcome is the same: don't go see it.

 

[humanino]

Nonetheless, the outcome is the same: don't go see it.

Well at least we agree on that. I was just very bored yesterday night. At least, that was not on Youtube.

 

[WarPhalange]

I think they say something like this, Horus (an egyptian god) is sort of an interpetation of the sun, and that the figure Jesus is basically Horus. (in short (horus=sun)=jesus.)

Yeah, but Jesus isn't exactly an original figure created for/from Christianity. Jesus-type figures had been around for a while before that. Things like being born from a virgin, being a demigod, etc., is nothing new.

 

[DrClapeyron]

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that Germans and Nazis are the same thing.

To the contrary, America probably has twice as many neo Nazis as Germany.

That was the entire point for the Nazi propoganda, similar to the Russian pan slavic unity, instead with german unity being the priority.
Zeitgeist is also some german word for unity.

 

[humanino]

That was the entire point for the Nazi propoganda

No, that was far from being important, it is a minor suggestion, obvious BS

Zeitgeist is also some german word for unity.

No.

Zeitgeist is originally a German expression that means "the spirit of the age", literally translated as time (Zeit), spirit (Geist). In some countries it has a different meaning; e.g. in the Netherlands Zeitgeist literally refers to the mind of the time (tijdsgeest), and mind is understood as the mental spirit (state of mind). The word zeitgeist describes the intellectual and cultural climate of an era. In German, the word has more layers of meaning than the English translation, including the fact that Zeitgeist can only be observed for past events.

edit
source : Zeitgeist (wiki)

 

[OrbitalPower]

Where are the refutations on its claims about the Christian religion and the Federal Reserve?

 

[DaveC426913]

Where are the refutations on its claims about the Christian religion and the Federal Reserve?

Isn't this a bit backwards? The onus is on them to show they've made a sound argument in favour of any claims first before anyone needs to do any refuting.

 

[humanino]

Isn't this a bit backwards?

I would not think so. The argument was made and is over now. People here say "made quite badly", without providing much.

It is in fact not easy to provide counter arguments against somebody telling you "my researches shew that Jesus was wearing pink underwear, therefore was probably gay". The interpretation of such result here is stupid, but the question is about the fact, for which nobody has reference of. The only counter argument for the fact is "but then show the details of your research" : however the movie is not about the details of the investigation, but the interpretation of the results of an investigation, no reference being provided for the investigation itself. As such, for me at least, the facts are not acceptable. The interpretation is still something interesting to know about, at least to know that some people out there seriously believe in, although not accepting the facts but being interested in the interpretation is highly contradictory, I must admit

 

[DrClapeyron]

Also from wikipedia

"Zeitgeist" refers to the ethos of a select group of people, that express a particular world view which is prevalent at a particular period of socio-cultural progression.

World view or Weltanschauugen…

In The Langauge of the Third Reich, Weltanschauungen came to designate the instinctive understanding of complex geo-political problems by the Nazis, which allowed them to act in the name of a higher ideal[4] and in accordance to their theory of the world. These acts perceived outside that unique Weltanschauung are now commonly perceived as acts of aggression, such as openly beginning invasions, twisting facts, and violating human rights.

The Nazi belief was Germans, even in non-german lands, must unite because their calling was of a higher status than all other races.

That is zeitgeist in a nutshell. The movie appears to be very anti-American and coincidently has a Nazi propoganda slogan for its title. I think it is safe to assume it is Nazi propoganda.

 

[humanino]

I think it is safe to assume it is Nazi propoganda.

But that does not make sense to me. They call GB nazi and consider it an insult. They are against people they themselves call nazi. At least on the surface, this point of view is inconsistent to me. You can elaborate and call them nazi as you would call Nietzsche a nazi, but then that will be your opinion and interpretation. As far as I understand, calling Nietzsche fascist is mostly disregarded today, and I would not consider it much more relevant here.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Rejecting this movie as complete non-sense is no more reasonable to me than accepting it as crystal clear truth.

Rejecting it is completely reasonable. Any movie that advocates the mindless 9/11 conspiracy theory is a quack movie, and doesn't deserve any praise. That's really the only indicator you need to know its ********. There's no sense in going any further than that.

 

[humanino]

Rejecting it is completely reasonable. Any movie that advocates the mindless 9/11 conspiracy theory is a quack movie, and doesn't deserve any praise. That's really the only indicator you need to know its ********. There's no sense in going any further than that.

Usually, when people react like this loosing a calm and respectful tone, it indicates something has been touched at the border of their understanding. That may be due to their own feelings. If you have personal reasons to be upset by this, I am sorry for you. Maybe you can think about the situation in Israel/Palestine, all the great achievements that had been done before the current administration, and how they gave that up as soon as they arrived, how much they were needed and how they did not care, how many lives there... because of what ? What was the administration so busy with not to continue the negotiations ? So you see, if you feel sorry for what happened here, you can think of what happens there, constantly, and maybe that can put things into perspective.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Usually, when people react like this loosing a calm and respectful tone, it indicates something has been touched at the border of their understanding. That may be due to their own feelings. If you have personal reasons to be upset by this, I am sorry for you. Maybe you can think about the situation in Israel/Palestine, all the great achievements that had been done before the current administration, and how they gave that up as soon as they arrived, how much they were needed and how they did not care, how many lives there... because of what ? What was the administration so busy with not to continue the negotiations ? So you see, if you feel sorry for what happened here, you can think of what happens there, constantly, and maybe that can put things into perspective.

The only thing that touches me is when people wallow in false information. The rest of your post didn't make much sense to me. So to clear up any confusion I'll point you to the following three links:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3573347&postcount=1"
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3573351&postcount=2"
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3573356&postcount=3"

53 errors in the first 11 1/2 minutes. Pathetic.

 

[Santa1]

Also from wikipedia



World view or Weltanschauugen…


The Nazi belief was Germans, even in non-german lands, must unite because their calling was of a higher status than all other races.

That is zeitgeist in a nutshell. The movie appears to be very anti-American and coincidently has a Nazi propoganda slogan for its title. I think it is safe to assume it is Nazi propoganda.

This is ridiculous. Zeitgeist is a term that incorporates what the general public means and feels about everything. Just like slavery is bad, it is a part of the zeitgeist today, but wasn't some hundred years ago.

And I know a lot of germans, none of them are nazis.