Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Zietgeist...

Options
  • 08-04-2009 1:33am
    #1
    Websters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭


    I'm guessing this has already been discussed at length around here. Just wondering if there's anyone who may have missed it. Found it a compelling and important study of the basics of Christianity and other such practices.

    The information seems relatively accurate based on what limited research I can do to that effect. I'd like to get into a library and study some more but that's not possible right now. But simple things like what I read in the Mayan Prophecies seem to cross check quite well here, with particular attention given to the estimated date for the "end of the world" or "end of the aeon", coming in at around 2100...

    Anyway, who's seen it and who hasn't? Thoughts?

    http://www.freedocumentaries.org/theatre.php?filmid=196&id=1105&wh=1000x720

    (it's freely distributed so I'm assuming it's ok to link)


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    achtungbarry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 831 ✭✭✭achtungbarry


    Websters wrote: »
    I'm guessing this has already been discussed at length around here. Just wondering if there's anyone who may have missed it. Found it a compelling and important study of the basics of Christianity and other such practices.

    The information seems relatively accurate based on what limited research I can do to that effect. I'd like to get into a library and study some more but that's not possible right now. But simple things like what I read in the Mayan Prophecies seem to cross check quite well here, with particular attention given to the estimated date for the "end of the world" or "end of the aeon", coming in at around 2100...

    Anyway, who's seen it and who hasn't? Thoughts?

    http://www.freedocumentaries.org/theatre.php?filmid=196&id=1105&wh=1000x720

    (it's freely distributed so I'm assuming it's ok to link)

    I saw it a while ago and as an atheist I found it to be a poorly researched if well presented piece of work. It is all a bit "da vinci code-esque" and does little to further the cause of atheism. It is littered with inaccuracies, hear say and suppositions. It is very light on hard facts and real academic research.

    As a result I personally wouldn't use it to back up my arguments as to me it would only harm the case I am making. To me it is similar to what the crazy ramblings of a fundamentalist christian represents to a more middle of the road christain, embarrassing to their own cause.

    This film is our Jerry Falwell or Kent Hovind.


  • Options
    #3
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    achtungbarry wrote: »
    It is all a bit "da vinci code-esque" and does little to further the cause of atheism.
    There's a cause now? :pac:

    Though I concur with the rest of your thoughts!


  • Options
    #4
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    achtungbarry wrote: »
    I saw it a while ago and as an atheist I found it to be a poorly researched if well presented piece of work. It is all a bit "da vinci code-esque" and does little to further the cause of atheism. It is littered with inaccuracies, hear say and suppositions. It is very light on hard facts and real academic research.

    As a result I personally wouldn't use it to back up my arguments as to me it would only harm the case I am making. To me it is similar to what the crazy ramblings of a fundamentalist christian represents to a more middle of the road christain, embarrassing to their own cause.

    This film is our Jerry Falwell or Kent Hovind.

    I would disagree slightly with that. I found the film engaging but treated it with suspicion. Looking into the various claims it made I found that many of them were ambiguous but not entirely untrue. They were obviously very biased in their interpretations of the data in respect of religious origins etc. but it is on the whole fairly congruent with more referenced and respected works like those of Karen Armstrong for example. I think many people have taken a hardline approach to the film because they see it as slightly dangerous in that invokes a certain kind 'conspiratorial malice' towards those whom it accuses.
    I did not like the part on 911 at all and it totally ruined all the good work that followed on the American banking system & income tax but the part on religion wasn't too bad at all. In a more referential context without the conspiratorial approach it would have had a far better reception.


  • Options
    #5
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    I would disagree slightly with that. I found the film engaging but treated it with suspicion. Looking into the various claims it made I found that many of them were ambiguous but not entirely untrue.

    The claims while being largely nonsense are just as 'true' as Christian readings and interpretations of the same material, so in my mind it's no more silly than reading say the New Testament and deciding it's a manual for building large stone cathedrals, dressing up in fancy frocks and singing songs at Jesus.


  • Options
    #6
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    pH wrote: »
    The claims while being largely nonsense are just as 'true' as Christian readings and interpretations of the same material, so in my mind it's no more silly than reading say the New Testament and deciding it's a manual for building large stone cathedrals, dressing up in fancy frocks and singing songs at Jesus.

    I would give slightly time for thought to it than the new testamnet; slightly. It's a good attempt at a documentary piece nonetheless, next time they should leave their conspiracy hats at home and bring in their history books and they'll do just fine wihtout having to sacrafice much on the ideas they're trying to state.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Websters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Websters


    interesting. anyone care to point out anything facts in particular that are the basis for you opinions?


  • Options
    #8
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Websters wrote: »
    interesting. anyone care to point out anything facts in particular that are the basis for you opinions?

    You could start here. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm


  • Options
    #9
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Websters wrote: »
    interesting. anyone care to point out anything facts in particular that are the basis for you opinions?

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


  • Options
    #10
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


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

    The rebuttal of the relgious part isn't great tbh I found better ones when reseaching it independantly but again there was a considerable amount that I would have to say stood upon examination. I am not even bothering to read the rebuttal of the 911 part!


  • Options
    #11
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I'm not sure exactly what the Zeitgeist is supposed to be. I watched the orientation videos on their own site and thought it was good but they didn't go into all the conspiracy theory, I saw them later on youtube and they completely ruin the credibility of the movement.

    The Venus project I really like and the bit on the failure of the monitory system. If the Zeitgeist is all about bringing about the Venus project then I'm all for it. I don't agree with their view of it but I do think it's important that civilisation has a direction and is working towards a better way of running things.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    The fact that the words for son and sun do not rhyme in most languages seems to be lost on the makers of Zeitgeist.


  • Options
    #13
    pclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭pclancy


    Are there any movies like Zeitgeist that actually are credible? My girlfriend digests facts with more ease through TV type docos instead of books. Zeitgeist was good but as above i was really dissapointed by the factual errors.


  • Options
    #14
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Economics is my field. The maker of this movie has either completely misrepresented the way the money system works, or he failed to understand it, at the most fundamental level. I proposed this to him in an email, which was not a personal attack, but merely observation of inaccuracies.

    I have yet to receive a response. People may think this was optimistic, but the reason I emailed him was because someone I was debating emailed him and did receive a response. But I guess he is only obliged to keep his customers happy.


  • Options
    #15
    Futurism
    Closed Accounts Posts: 553 ✭✭✭Futurism


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Economics is my field. The maker of this movie has either completely misrepresented the way the money system works, or he failed to understand it, at the most fundamental level. I proposed this to him in an email, which was not a personal attack, but merely observation of inaccuracies.

    I have yet to receive a response. People may think this was optimistic, but the reason I emailed him was because someone I was debating emailed him and did receive a response. But I guess he is only obliged to keep his customers happy.

    I've heard of a few people that have recieved replies from him. It's probably a first for a director of a documentary of this style to actually address questions.

    A friend of mine absolutely loves both films and asked me to watch them. So at first, I watched without questioning - trusting his views. Big mistake.
    Him and all the others who watched it and took it in blindly are now 'experts' in everything discussed - be it economics/religion etc.


Advertisement