Zeitgeist

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

Anyone here see the movie Zeitgeist? It answers a lot of questions, and sort of proves Christianity is false. A good movie for... Anyone to watch.

Oh for fuck sake,not this shit again! "Zeitgeist" is NOT "a good movie", it's pure propaganda at its best, pure crackpottery at its worst.

The film was made for the credulous uneducated who have not yet mastered critical thinking.

Below some critical reactions:

Critical reaction
[edit] Conspiracy theory and propaganda

A review in The Irish Times entitled “Zeitgeist: the Nonsense” wrote that “these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."[19] Other reviews have characterized the film as "conspiracy crap",[20] “based solely on anecdotal evidence” and “fiction couched in a few facts”,[21] or disparaging reference is made to its part in the 9/11 truth movement.[7]

Some journalists have focused on it as an example of how conspiracy theories are promulgated in the internet age. For example, Ivor Tossell in the Globe and Mail argued that contradictions in the film are overwhelmed by passion and effective use of video editing:

The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular.... It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context. It derides the media as a pawn of the International Bankers, but produces media reports for credibility when convenient. The film ignores expert opinion, except the handful of experts who agree with it. And yet, it's compelling. It shamelessly ploughs forward, connecting dots with an earnest certainty that makes you want to give it an A for effort.[22]

Filipe Feio, reflecting upon the film's internet popularity in Diário de Notícias, stated that "Fiction or not, Zeitgeist, The Movie threatens to become the champion of conspiracy theories of today."[23]

Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, mentioned Zeitgeist in an article in Scientific American on skepticism in the age of mass media, and the postmodern belief in the relativism of truth. He argues that this belief, coupled with a "clicker culture of mass media," results in a multitude of various truth claims packaged in "infotainment units", such as Zeitgeist, Loose Change, Poltergeist, or The Twilight Zone.[24]

Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, called Zeitgeist "a fast-paced assemblage of agitprop", an example of unethical film-making.[25] She accuses Joseph of "implicit deception" through the use of unreferenced and undated assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, "comically" self-defeating, the nature of “twisted evidence” and use of Madrid bomb footage to imply it is of the London bombings (she approvingly cites a student journalist who calls it an "out and out lie") amount to ethical abuse in sourcing (in later versions of the movie, a subtitle is added to this footage identifying it as from the Madrid bombings). She finishes her analysis with the comment:

Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film’s determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.

[edit] Regarding the origins of Christianity

Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan criticizing the first part of the film (on the origins of Christianity) wrote that "some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally — and sloppily — mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. […] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids."[26] Acharya S (aka D.M. Murdock), a source and last-minute consultant on the official version of the film, responded to Callahan's critique in an article on her publishing company's website. She writes that "it is a curious fact that writers who toss around the words 'sloppy', 'garbled' and 'nonsense' are often guilty of these very things themselves" and that Callahan's "declaration that much of the material in ZG is 'plainly and simply bogus' is false."[27] Callahan responded to Acharya's rebuttal with a counter-rebuttal published in his website's forum.[28]

Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the movie, asserting that it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting, "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie


Acharyra is a notorious fruitloop,Look her up.

I think it's safe to say I'll never waste my time watching that, then.

[The Grand Nudger]

I watched it all the way through a few times. Sucks, you aren't missing anything.

[DeistPaladin]

I especially think the part of Padraic's post...:

these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones.

...was the biggest concern I have. Early on when I was involved in postiing on the internet, it was the biggest pitfall I fell into. It was my first lesson in considering the source and don't believe everything you read. I've tried to learn that lesson well and be more careful in the future.

Religious apologists and neo-cons will both go on the offensive when under attack. They'll pick out the weakest point of your arguments and harp on it endlessly, even if you later retract it (see my earliest exchange with Ryft). The strategy is to find any flaw and use it to discredit the whole (also known as poisoning the well).

It's important when you argue with either group that, whether it's fair or not, you have to review your armor and be sure there are no chinks in it. It's best to focus on what is indisputably proven.

The Bush administration did take advantage of a nation shocked and scared after 9/11 to play a shell game with us that got us into Iraq. This is criminal conspiracy stuff by itself that needs nothing else.

The Christians can only tell a extraordinary story based on gospels of dubious authorship written decades after the alleged events with testimonies that contradict each other and can't be squared with what we know of history. They don't even have their own story straight, never mind have the evidence that meets the burden of proof. Going into similarities with pagan gods, unless you are personally an expert in such matters, leaves you vulnerable to counter attack.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are those of us who are very interested in comparative religion. Nothing wrong responding to a claim, for example, that the myth of christ is a unique one by showing that is not. What possible counterattack is there? We're dealing with myths here, unless someone has any evidence that would call this evidence based conclusion into question. No one should be worried that an apologist scores internet points by "winning" an argument. Evidence or GTFO.