Conspiracy theories and athiesm must see

Post Reply New Topic

If you are interested in conspiracy theories or strong belief in athiesm....



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 743189197#

Warning, the beginning is pretty boring, and don't be scared by the length of the movie. Just fast forward to PART I. The info should suck you in from there.

I am an atheist, I watched the Zeitgeist, I noticed that it was....shall I say, a load of lies?

A site that debunks every claim made by the Zeitgeist (And it shows all of it's citations unlike the Zeitgeist)

By the way it's spelled 'atheism' not 'athiesm'

eh... you cant say Zeitgeist is ALL lies.
1st of all the site you link to is written by some dude. "some dude" is the same who brought us all kinds of opinions.
either way

the site itself says it _does not dispute_ many of the explanations in the movie, but the methodology etc.
jesus for example, is _clearly_ an old solistice symbol (untill resurrection from death gets scientifically confirmed). the movie just mish-mashes all this into a big conspiracy, but a lot of the elements it uses are actually founded in reality.

Oi, I added 'every' be accident. I just like the site because the dude as you put it cites his sources.

fair enough :]

zeitgeist seems to be a very all-or-nothing kinda topic. either people worship it as a message from above, or they shun it completely as a bag of lies.
my preach-the-golden-middle-path-reflex kicked in :]

thats the biggest problem w conspiracy theories btw, they overshadow real issues. if i try to question or debate the symbolism of jesus and wether or not he was even a historical person, people jump to outlandish conspiracy assumptions, either that im a zeitgeist-fan, or they are, and go "totally! and 9/11 is all about finding the holy grail! i know! its so creepy!"
"that... wasnt exactly what i was going for... "

It can be hard to understand symbolism from 20 centuries ago, I have issues with it at least.

when it comes to jesus, its very glaring. even moderate christians admit that jesus fits well with non-christian and pre-christian religions bothbefore and after. vikings celebrated the 24th as well, and imagine how thrilled they were when they got a whole new bonus-person to celebrate

My take was that there was a lot of interesting information on religion in the beginning. Given, he was trying to use that as a huge example to prove how the government controls people (as if the people in charge were smart enough to use that as a method of control).

Then he goes into the 9/11 deal, and some of that does have some truth to it. When 9/11 occurred, I always wondered why we were going after Saddam instead of Al Quaeda as if that event was something out of the movie, A Long Kiss Goodnight. I also was disturbed at Bush's expression when he found out about it. It was like he already knew it was going to happen, which could have been a result from all the ignored warnings, but either way, a person with autism was able to see the lack of surprise/nonverbal cue. My husband was also saying that he's seen videos of the attack on the WTCs (we all have, but since the incident, revisited the videos I guess), and the second plane he believes it to be a fuel tanker of some sort cause if you slow down the tape, you can see the line on the bottom of the plane that fuel tankers use to line up the plane.

They also talk about how many major wars were created by incidents caused by the state. I am taking an Organized Crime class in college, and while my teacher hasn't put any emphasis on the subject, the textbook (that he rarely uses) had a section on the forms of terrorism. To quote it, "State sponsored terrorism occurs when governmental regimes use or threaten to use violence in international relations outside established diplomatic protocol." The book also goes into "state organized crime" defining it as, "acts committed by state or government officials in the pursuit of their job as representatives of the government. In his (a guy named Chambliss) view, governments often engage in smuggling (arms and drugs) assassination conspiracies, terrorist acts, and other crimes to further their foreign policy objectives." The book gives a variety of examples that fall into this category regarding incidents in Iran,Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Operation Condor, etc. So a lot of what he said about that could have very well been true and fall into that category. My take on that category is while it is illegal, we (as in the the people of the US) still accept it as part of government business, and that's why you don't see people in this realm being investigated and arrested often. As an individual, I kinda face that kind of thinking regularly. Do you do bad things in the name of something good? Considering good and bad are defined subjectively everytime....

Then the third part of the tape goes into how the main goal is to unite the world and put these micro chips into everyone to control them. Now, I think that's bull. It's a very reaching argument considering his only source of the conspiracy is one guy who says so and so says this and that (for the intention of the chip at least). The North American Union was pretty interesting. I always thought the best way to handle our immigration "problem" is to make Mexico a state. Could you imagine big business who built factories in Mexico to get cheap labor and a better deal have to all the sudden act as if they had built it in North Dakota?

Anyway, my main original point (besides to voice my opinion about the movie) is that I do have a hard time understanding why people take the all or nothing approach to it. I can see if they only watched scenes of the movies off the utube videos that are out there (the first thing I saw of it), but are people always like that where they will discredit an entire source if one piece of information is off? If that's the case, do they fall for their own load of crap too?

MussoliniBismarck is right on the mark. The Zeitgeist is one of the worst crank propoganda films I've yet scene - lacking any sources.

The hacks who made that film seemed to forget that Jesus's birthday was re-dated to be in line with Pagan solstice celebrations - not because it was influenced by them.

Furthermore, they idolize faux populist Lou Dobbs. That's just to big a tarnish on one's record to ignore.