It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

page: 36
78
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by shagreen heart
kallisti i'll just ask a simple question:

do you think that first segment of the first zeitgeist movie (which is something you need to be specific about because you keep generalizing all of the zeitgeist movies as bs which is not what we are talking about here and you should really stop that poison the well junk) meant to:

a) get the facts about religious myths wrong?

or

b) illustrate how the sun should be our only "belief" and "religion" because it is real and calculable and benefits us immensely by understanding it's behavior, and even if we don't understand it it is the veritable source of all life on this planet, whereas all the other myths about religions divide us from peace and prosperity?

please choose one and tell us (in your own words, lol) why you think a), or b), is what the first segment of the first zeitgeist movie intended.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care what Zeitgeist intended. Zeitgeist's message is stupid and they set it up with BS claims. I only care about ending the BS claims that Zeitgeist fans spew.

If you don't think the "bad information" was a big deal and that I "missed the point", then leave the thread. That's not the subject of the thread and I don't care about Zeitgeist's philosophy.


it's a really simple question i asked. just pick a or b and explain. if you want to have a REAL conversation then entertain the question so we can proceed to examine at this subject without prejudice or egos, mk? because the issue isn't relgions, and never was, sorry to break it to ya.

as for the rest of your post that evaded the simple answer, let's break down your response:

-"i wittingly ignored the intent of the movie and decided to discredit it entirely based on accidental, unintended, unrelated mix-ups when presenting the religious myths during the first segment of the first zeitgeist movie."

-"zeitgeist's message is stupid". we are now 6 years old. "set it up with bs claims" as if you somehow knew they intentionally got the info wrong.
so what is stupid about not believing in these love-dividing myths that cause us to hurt and kill and hate eachother, and not just believe in nature and reality? and you think they set it up with fake info to drive this point? they didn't even need to mention any religions specifically to talk about this, so no, i don't think they meant to do it on purpose amigo. also let's grow up and drop the name calling, mr. christian.

-get over it? even if the info is wrong, how is it a bad thing? it's their own ignorance, and they didn't ask for your guidance or correction, they can believe whatever they want to believe without you judging them. and i'm gonna ask you one more time to stop generalizing the entire movie/s. you admitted early on in the thread that this thread is only aimed at specific segments of the first movie, but now you just want all of zeitgeist to dissapear. you need to grow up, stop making generalizations, stop the name calling, and have a real conversation with the people who are trying to come to YOUR thread and tell you what's up.

i will not leave the thread, hahaha, i'm being on topic and you're ignoring what i'm bringing to your thread because it's threatening to it. just like you can't tell us to "never post zeitgeist bs ever again omg it is stealing the chrishuns and getting myths wrong!!!!1 people might wake up!!!!"

you are knowingly ignoring facts by witholding discourse from the message o that segment, which is, in fact, and let me state this extremely explicitly for the sake of anyone who is coming to this thread and tryin to understand your ramblings, *THE POINT OF THAT FIRST SEGMENT OF THE FIRST MOVIE OF ZEITGEIST WAS TO TAKE HUMANITY BACK TO IT'S ROOTS AND RESPECT AND BELIEVE IN NATURE BECAUSE IT IS RELIABLE AND IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN UNDERSTAND TO ADVANCE TOGETHER AS ONE".

like i said, the movie DIDN'T EVEN NEED to mention any religions to make this point. they did, they got some things wrong, but that is soooo far from being relevant that it doesn't even matter, because the point of that segment that you are intellectually getting off to by stomping on it, has in fact, nothing to do with religions in essence, and to try and execute the character of this thing with appeals to authority, popularity, and all these other logical fallacies you're oozing, don't matter in any way shape or form. the religions ARE the problem, not zeitgeist. people like YOU are the problem, bickering and keeping the hate raging. religious MYTHS have nothing to do with reality and our world and our livelihood and our advancement together with nature into the future.

i know you understand what i'm saying, i know you understand what you're reading. i know you're upset zeitgeist got information about religious myths incorrect, but that is not the point of zeitgeist, and by willingly ignoring that message, you are just makin an ass out of yourself and are obliviously shining the light on yourself as the kind of people the movie is warning us about.

let's pretend for a second that you could change zeitgeist to say everything correctly and factually. hahaha, guess what? the message is the same: drop the nonsense, love one another as one, learn from nature to thrive together and take care of eachother unconditionally for the betterment and future of our species and the world itself.



fyi you missed this post twice now, it would do your thread a lot of good to reply to it x)

which, your thread that is, by the way, is just a troll thread. it will never end until everyone agrees with you or everyone ignores you. otherwise it's just childish bickering that ignores reality. it's like arguing over superhero vs. superhero hypotheticals while everyone else not arguing at their computers is outside gaining actual superpowers.




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


personally, the reason i keep inserting so much scifi into this is because i think that's what we are looking at. a future of transhumanism, that will result in things that'd make orwell cringe. it's not that we don't have room for improvement, it's a question of what the purpose of the improvement is ultimately for and who's at the helm. you only have so many choices and some of those are seriously hampered by either:

a) a complete disdain and loathing for humans
or
b) an upgrade that can be used against you in some pretty horrible ways.

i'm also considering that in the beginning of all this, we will have an alien type invasion that results in a huge increase in the tech behind transhumanism, and these "aliiens" are the very same ones that don't like humans at all, so the modifications sound extremely unfriendly and have the potential to be something you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Erm, yes, and what they have said they want to do does not include some of the silly things others have accused them of here. Can you tell the difference?


What I see is people deflecting legitimate points of contention by saying "oh, that's not what it is" and nothing more.

 

Communism is the ownership, management and distribution of all resources by the state. Decisions as to who gets what, and why, are at the discretion of the state.

Zeitgeist is the ownership, management and distribution of all resources by Zeitgeist. Decisions as to who gets what, and why, are at the discretion of Zeitgeist.

 

Explain to me how those are different. Don't just say "they are", tell me why. Explain to me Awake_and_aware's ridiculous statement "Venus Projects assumes that everyone is willing to set up a society together" and how they would deal with people who weren't willing to set up a society together. Explain to me the term "infinite resources" which I see in Zeitgeist postings.



You don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. I am likely more opposed to a theocracy than you are, because I'm clearly better versed in history, political repression and social structure than you are.


Fine Christian humility

Sure. Of course you are. In fact your superior to me in every way.


I am simply noting the apparent fact that you have a limited background in those areas, or you'd not make foolish statements like you have been. Prove me wrong.


Do you know what theocracy means?


Yes, though apparently you don't. It doesn't mean "rule by God", as you seem to think. It means "ruled by men who think that they're following God's laws."

Here you go:

theocracy |θēˈäkrəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by undo
 


Dont worry Undo, your theories will never be as whacky as regular Christianity anyway, and at least they are your own and are well researched, unlike the unthinking hand-me-down Christianity of most Christians.

And my point was not to undermine the validity of your ideas - you make a lot of interesting and valid points - it was to highlight the hypocrisy of the the defenders of Christianity whose beliefs necessarily mean that they reject almost everything you say, yet they keep silent on this and even praise you,, as long as you are joining them in opposing Zeitgeist.

Yet I dont recall 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' being one of Jesus teachings.


I guess Christians learned a little something from the military tactics of the Roman sunworshippers who formulated their religion and edited their holy book.

edit on 22-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)


malcram, this is the fifth post I have made to you.
I deleted the other 4 brfore sending it to be postsed

I can tell you this.
I am a disciple of Yah and read my Bible.
I can assure you almost all of the fellow seekers that identify with Yashayah are intimately more aligned with undo's core beliefs and NONE OF THEM even closely resemble the generic strawman representations you use.
I suggest you quit using dark age refrences (out of context even then) and get in the game.
Your presuppositions and bias completely overwhelm your senses and you see a christian boogeyman behind every rock.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 

Look, I can see how the Venus Project would sound nice to some, but you have to understand that it is unworkable unless they force everyone into it. Do you know why Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism won over Trotskyism? Because they were pragmatists; they used guns to get their way. All it takes is 1/5 people to say "no" to the Venus Project for it to totally fail, so what then? How will they get their "Utopia" when people like me are running around pointing out how it would be a nightmare dystopian global state? It's like they came up with the idea after reading Brave New World (to be fair, at least the Venus Project doesn't sound like 1984) and totally missed the point of the book.

As far as depopulation and sterilization, how else would they make such a system work? Our population has grown exponentially since the 20th century, eventually there won't be enough resources for everyone. This also applies to the Venus Project if they gain control (which they won't). So the Venus Project's government will have to figure out how to handle the growing population either by putting massive restrictions on procreation (China, anyone?) or sending people off to the organic low-carbon footprint gas chambers. There's also the option of inventing space travel so the human race could colonize other worlds and deplete those resources, but considering how the glorious new empire will be built over the mass graves of all of the intelligent people, I think we can rule out that option.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
It's like they came up with the idea after reading Brave New World (to be fair, at least the Venus Project doesn't sound like 1984) and totally missed the point of the book.


That's a very good way of putting it. I would say that they are a bunch of spoiled ideologues who have little knowledge of the fields of history, economics and political science, but who believe that they are enlightened in other ways that make their plans feasible.

It's always failed in the past, but it'll work this time, because we've got... *tada* "technology".



There's also the option of inventing space travel so the human race could colonize other worlds and deplete those resources, but considering how the glorious new empire will be built over the mass graves of all of the intelligent people, I think we can rule out that option.


Actually, sending them all off to another planet might be one of the few ways in which their scheme might work, but I propose a simpler experiment. Take a few of these idealists and put them on an island, along with a cross section of the people that they intend to rule, and see how it works out. My money's on a quick descent into violence, as things don't turn out the way that they expect, technology isn't magic, and people get resentful of their ruling behaviour.

Cause I'm guessing that, along with their other intellectual omissions, the Zeitgeists missed the literary output of one William Golding.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


well said.

Obvious troll is obvious.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


well said.

Obvious troll is obvious.


you mean, i (and the other posters) went to all that trouble and the closing argument is the thread is a troll?
aww, come on now. look at all the info in this thread.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


well said.

Obvious troll is obvious.


you mean, i (and the other posters) went to all that trouble and the closing argument is the thread is a troll?
aww, come on now. look at all the info in this thread.


no, the troll is the emotional argument against zeitgeist, not the information within (or not) zeitgeist, but in reality, the conveyance of religious myths is not the intent of the movie and everyone who is up in arms about the religious section of the first movie of zeitgeist are scurred chrishins who emotionally knee jerk to attack it instead of takin the message to heart because it threatens their paradigm and comfort levels.

we can debate religion and the facts of religious myths until the sun explodes, but it has nothing to do with zeitgeist, or the intention of zeitgeist, or reality.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart

we can debate religion and the facts of religious myths until the sun explodes, but it has nothing to do with zeitgeist, or the intention of zeitgeist, or reality.

Zeitgeist has nothing to do with reality

The religious section is lies and bad research, the NWO conspiracy part is debatable (though for the most part I agree with it), and the solution part is moronic idealist psuedo-communist post-hippy movement crap that has no concept of reality.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart
in reality, the conveyance of religious myths is not the intent of the movie and everyone who is up in arms about the religious section of the first movie of zeitgeist are scurred chrishins who emotionally knee jerk to attack it instead of takin the message to heart because it threatens their paradigm and comfort levels.


No, you're mistaken about that. The claims made in Part One are so laughingly wrong that no Christian would feel the least bit concerned about them. Five minutes of research would demonstrate that Murdock, the actual author of that piece, is a non-scholarly hack, who relies on discredited sources for her claims.

Rather, Part One is merely propaganda, designed to dupe people like you, who don't know much about Christianity and aren't keen on it anyway, into thinking that the Zeitgeist is something that you agree with. If you wish to believe it in the absence of evidence, and the presence of significant evidence that it's untrue, then you simply demonstrate the power of propaganda and the weakness of your own will.
edit on 24-2-2011 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by shagreen heart
in reality, the conveyance of religious myths is not the intent of the movie and everyone who is up in arms about the religious section of the first movie of zeitgeist are scurred chrishins who emotionally knee jerk to attack it instead of takin the message to heart because it threatens their paradigm and comfort levels.


No, you're mistaken about that. The claims made in Part One are so laughingly wrong that no Christian would feel the least bit concerned about them. Five minutes of research would demonstrate that Murdock, that actual author of that piece, is a non-scholarly hack, who relies on discredited sources for her claims.

Rather, Part One is merely propaganda, designed to dupe people like you, who don't know much about Christianity and aren't keen on it anyway, into thinking that the Zeitgeist is something that you agree with. If you wish to believe it in the absence of evidence, and the presence of significant evidence that it's untrue, then you simply demonstrate the power of propaganda and the weakness of your own will.


-sigh-. i'm not talking about the religious claims in zeitgeist. still with me? i don't care what they got wrong, or right. still with me?

i care about christianity. still with me?

i'm talking about the message of that segement, despite the religious innaccuracies. still with me? that's what i care about, because that's the point. the sun, the movement of our planet, locations of stars, they all have real bearing in our reality, we can learn how to thrive immensely by studying them. while i love the philosophy of jesus and his morals, and since almost all religions more or less share the same mores, what is the point of bickering about the nuances and trivialities of how they DIFFER?

i'm not blindly taken by zeitgeist, and it doesn't really matter that it got things wrong. i just care that people understand the intent, even if it's effort was poor.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by shagreen heart

we can debate religion and the facts of religious myths until the sun explodes, but it has nothing to do with zeitgeist, or the intention of zeitgeist, or reality.

Zeitgeist has nothing to do with reality

The religious section is lies and bad research, the NWO conspiracy part is debatable (though for the most part I agree with it), and the solution part is moronic idealist psuedo-communist post-hippy movement crap that has no concept of reality.


please, please, please explain how zeitgeist has nothing to do with reality? go as deep as you need to go on that one.
sure, the religious section is bad research, i'm not sure they are lies (lies are intentional), though, but i agree with you on that. HOWEVER, that really isn't the message, and i'm sorry you can only focus on it's mistakes instead of understand the poignant moral the segment is trying to illustrate.

the nwo conpsiracy and any other segments or points brought up int he movies are irrelevant and you're grasping at straws when you bring them up.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart
i care about christianity. still with me?


Perhaps, if you explain why you said "everyone who is up in arms about the religious section of the first movie of zeitgeist are scurred chrishins", which sure doesn't sound like you care about Christianity.


i'm talking about the message of that segement, despite the religious innaccuracies. still with me?


Not really. If a message needs to be steeped in lies in order to be made, then I think that the message is without merit.

Yes, I agree that there are similarities in the underlying basis of many religions, but it is in the values and the teachings, not in the actions. Claiming that Buddha and Jesus had many of the same things to say? Truthful and understandable. Saying that they were both crucified or were born on the 4th of July? Pointless and untrue.

Because of that, I question the honesty, integrity and/or competence of Peter Joseph, and, as a result, the whole movement that he claims to spearhead.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


well said.

Obvious troll is obvious.


you mean, i (and the other posters) went to all that trouble and the closing argument is the thread is a troll?
aww, come on now. look at all the info in this thread.


no, the troll is the emotional argument against zeitgeist, not the information within (or not) zeitgeist, but in reality, the conveyance of religious myths is not the intent of the movie and everyone who is up in arms about the religious section of the first movie of zeitgeist are scurred chrishins who emotionally knee jerk to attack it instead of takin the message to heart because it threatens their paradigm and comfort levels.

we can debate religion and the facts of religious myths until the sun explodes, but it has nothing to do with zeitgeist, or the intention of zeitgeist, or reality.


you must see something we don't

If you are correct in this then zeitgeist would not include religion in their presentation, the lead at that.
If we are right, then zeitgeist is flawed from the beginning.
I am not "scurred chrishun" just because I can see through many holes and misleading assumptions that were meant to be accepted as fact.
part 2 had ALOT more facts to support it and part 3 is simply a prepackaged propoganda for theosophy and the Open Society.
400 years from now they will be calling this the dark ages and be debating how they tried to rewrite history and look at zeitgeist as the source for your cults scriptures if it survives ;-). They will refer to Murdock and Archaya S as similar to the gnostic hermits that attempted it before them in caves and such


What I see in zeitgeist is the beginning of a faith based religion of sorts.
But it seems you need alot of faith in just a few men and women to accept it. Right?
All I have to do is believe in Archaya S and Murdock and I can be saved?
I have to have faith in this great work and set aside my rational mind and critical thought and simply embrace this great idea?
lol, really, is that your plea here as you ask us to ignore the serious flaws it uses to set the whole thing up?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
my response to both of you then is, pretend the segment was factually correct. the message remains the same. pretend the segment had no mention of religion (which it doesn't even need to, but it just helps illustrate the point). the message remains the same:

studying the heavens has helped us thrive immensely throughout history. fighting about religions hasn't. you can teach your child right from wrong without burdening, compromising, and crippling them with guilt and shame and fear. living in and understanding nature is absolutely vital, praying/sacrificing won't help the crops grow. why is everything i'm saying met with so much flak?



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart
my response to both of you then is, pretend the segment was factually correct. the message remains the same. pretend the segment had no mention of religion (which it doesn't even need to, but it just helps illustrate the point). the message remains the same:

studying the heavens has helped us thrive immensely throughout history. fighting about religions hasn't. you can teach your child right from wrong without burdening, compromising, and crippling them with guilt and shame and fear. living in and understanding nature is absolutely vital, praying/sacrificing won't help the crops grow. why is everything i'm saying met with so much flak?


well let's say for example, we take the case of emotions. now if the body is electrical and electrical fields are generated around it, if you are in say, a good mood, you just might generate a different amount of electrical activity in the rest of your body (cause, your nerves are chemical-electrical wires basically, and those nerves play a big part in your mood. now let's say you're angry -- different electrical stimulus=different electrical field. now let's say you're talking to a plant, a person, an animal or even to yourself, the universe, or god, the electrical signals you generate, effect your environs.

pretty much every religion realizes this, except atheism. i'm not sure why, since it can be proven with science that we generate fields, vibrate, give off chemical signals, all based on mood, frame of mind, and stimula which passes thru our body and brain in various ways and impacts our health and the health of others/other things as well.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


because it is wrought with a holier than thou attitude maybe?
Because as much as you want to say otherwise your entire 50 page rant is against Christianity while you pretend it is not about religion?
I see you as the most faithful believer in religion here.
I hate to tell ya this, but we got what you were saying in your first post. We just don't agree with you.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


because it is wrought with a holier than thou attitude maybe?
Because as much as you want to say otherwise your entire 50 page rant is against Christianity while you pretend it is not about religion?
I see you as the most faithful believer in religion here.
I hate to tell ya this, but we got what you were saying in your first post. We just don't agree with you.


the holier than though, hah, yeah, i have kinda had that temperment in these posts i must admit. the TS is bringing up the wrong issues though, they are pointless in the big picture that zeitgeist tried to get across.

christianity is the problem. none of them try to act like jesus christ. i love christ, and everything he preaches however, i just recently realized this, having been without religion my entire life. only his philosophy though, i don't need a religion or anyone else to tell me how to think about things. i don't think there is anything more profound than forgiveness and unconditional, altruistic love, and i don't think there is anything else that could impact the world more profoundly than these things. 50 pages, uh, hardly. i've tried to leave fairly succinct and simple responses in regard to this thread. my rant is against all religions, they are just dividing us, look at this thread. look at the state of the world...?

and i really don't understand when you say "you see me as the most faithful believer in religion here." that's honestly pulled out of your ass in conjecture of your post. i don't believe in any religion except for forgiveness, altruism and unconditional love. i ACKNOWLEDGE that other people believe in religions and religious myths as their faith. but no matter what, they are only beliefs, and faiths. the sun is a reality, nature is a reality, the food you've grown by understanding these sciences is a reality, and prospering as a result would be a reality. belief and faith aren't realities, they're delusions embellished and embellished to seem real. acknowledging and speaking of religion doesn't mean i believe in religion, don't equivocate my words to try and discredit me.

this will sound extremely arrogant, but how can you disagree with my first post? zeitgeist is NOT about religion. this thread's aim is maligned, it's attacking nonsense with nonsense. how many times must i say, the point of that segment was to take us back to our roots in reality, unclouded from these love dividing religions that all spring from the same awesome phenomena, the movement of the heaven's and what we can learn from them and how it affects our survival. we have to be able to take care of ourselves before we can take care of everyone, and religion just puts us back two steps every time it comes into play.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


well this is how i see it: religion is like government. somebody's in charge. it's also like science, because it's predicated on the universe, both visible AND invisible. it's historical. it's archaeological. it's literary. it's poetic. it's intuitive. it's thought provoking. it's ancient, it's futuristic. it contains anecdotes, moral lessons, hope for the future and the present. it can also have bad things because people are all different. if the word was hofpenquarkendouser instead of religion, it would still have the potential to have bad things happen as a result of it because people are all different.


edit on 25-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join