Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by kcfusion
 


I think you misunderstand. I'm not here to say that what the Bible says is true or to claim that Jesus was real. Like I said before I'm mostly agnostic.

When I say the Bible has been textually analysed, all I'm saying is that, whatever text was changed in it, you can go see for yourself what text was changed or is missing in most cases if you liked. Nobody is trying to hide what text was changed.

If what the text says is true or not, I don't know. I'm not making any claims as to if the Bible is true or not. That's not we're debating. We're debating if the claims made in the OP's video are true are not and that's all. Therefore the only ones that need to provide evidence are the authors of Zeitgeist and people that argue that Zeitgeist is true because the authors of Zeitgeist are the ones that are claiming that Jesus never existed AND that Jesus was a Freemason even though he never existed. They need to provide evidence that both are true because they have claimed both.

I don't need to provide evidence or prove the Bible was true, because I don't know if Jesus was real or not. I'm not trying to tell he was. And I don't know if the Bible was right or not. I'm not trying to tell you is. I'm just saying we know pretty much what the original text said. I can't speak to if that text was correct or not.

But the supporters of Zeitgeist are the ones with the burden of proof because they're the ones making the claim that Zeitgeist is true. If they were to say, they didn't know if it were true or not, that would be different. But that's not the claim they're making.


Ok its seems there is a miscommunication of some sort, maybe I need my morning coffee, but I agree with what you are saying. However how to you prove if someone existed or not if there's no proof? And that's the crux of the argument I suppose. Zeitgeist has a theory of how the Christ figure came into existance and I accept that it could be wrong, but it doesn't really matter as there's no proof either way of Christ existance and at the end of the day the message of Zeitgeist was a strong and powerful one and it struck a chord with many many people, and anything that gets people thinking and taking the blinders off is a good thing in my opinion.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Very well said spikey! My point exactly.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


reply to post by kcfusion
 


I know Zeitgeist struck a chord with many people, but if it does so by telling lies, then maybe that's a chord that shouldn't have been struck? If we find out they're lying we must ask ourselves, why are they trying to strike that chord, and why do they have to lie to do it? This is what we must ask ourselves.

Their general idea, that Jesus never existed, may very well be right. The problem is how they came to that conclusion. We're just calling out their evidence. We know that doesn't mean Jesus was real. We're not trying to say it proves Jesus was real.

The Zeitgeist people, their ending conclusion may be right. But the problem is we have to consider that if their evidence was wrong then their conclusion they based on that evidence may have been wrong too.

And if that's the case, that means we haven't learned anything. We're still stuck where we were before not knowing the truth. Even if their conclusion is right, we have no way to know! We still have to go out and look for more evidence to prove it, and worse, they may have set us back on our path to find it.
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 



Like i said in my last post, you sure have alot of faith, as were you around the time of jesus to verify your accusations, or just spewing more propaganda that you learned from kindergarden



Religion is one hell of a way to keep the masses worried about every little thing that they do, if the government does not get you, god sure as hell will, sound about right
edit on 17-2-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-2-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


I've said repeatedly in this thread I don't believe/disbelieve in God or Jesus and don't take things on faith. WTH are you talking about? Are you even reading the thread?

Could you please quote any propaganda? All I'm asking for is evidence to refute the OP's video. All I've heard so far are misrepresentations of what the OP's videos say and we've all addressed them. What propaganda?
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


oh, and the three stars in the belt of Orion don't point to Sirius

Um, not sure how good you are astrologically, but the belt of Orion DOES point to Sirius. follow the belt to the left and downward and there is Sirius.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


I know Zeitgeist struck a chord with many people, but if it does so by telling lies, then maybe that's a chord that shouldn't have been struck? If we find out they're lying we must ask ourselves, why are they trying to strike that chord, and why do they have to lie to do it? This is what we must ask ourselves.


Toting the proverbial fence per se!

You dont state that you are for or against, BUT how many times do you throw that the Zeitgeist are lying into your sentence


Looks like a Red Herring argument to me

edit on 17-2-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
J.A.R.M. Just another religious moron! Zeitgeist is NOT "totally refuted" and we WILL continue to post stuff about Zeitgeist. I love how you think that now we should abandon the entire film because YOU think you have disproven its claims...FAIL!



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


BUT how many times do you throw that the Zeitgeist are lying into your

edit on 17-2-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)


How many times? ZERO. I say IF WE FIND OUT THEY ARE LYING!



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
This thread is totally refuted.
I just say it, because there is one thing OP got wrong (that is the way he/she is evaluating Zeitgeist) - we DO NOT KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED 2000, 3000, 4000 or even 200 years ago, because history is written by victors and bible was written few centuries after supposedly JK walked these fields.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
First off, kudos to the OP for creating the thread -- the number of people who have responded with "stop bashing Zeitgeist, your refutation has no more validity than it does" either did not bother doing any research, or they have no concept of what research and evidence is.

The claims of the religious portions of the Zeitgeist movie (the only bit that I'm interested in) have been refuted as being based on false data produced by incompetent and/or discredited researchers, or stems from claims that appear to have absolutely no historical basis. Acharya S (aka. D.M. Murdoch) writes that Krishna was born on 25 December (of which there is no proof, not that it matters, no serious Christian believes that Christ was born on 25 December) and cites the pathetically inaccurate Kersey Graves as a reference source. Even critics of the historical Jesus ignore Graves.

So part one is a collection of shoddy scholarship and outright fantasy ("Son" = "Sun", get it? I might, if the original scripture was written in English.) I have no interest in part two or three, but I wonder what the lack of credibility in part one says about them? It would seem that part one was intended to "shake things up a bit" by taking something that most people know a little about, but few people know much about, and then toss out a bunch of allegations that make it all seem contrived and controlling. Dan Brown proved that you can use junk history to convince the masses of pretty much anything that they are inclined to believe, whether it's true or not. The number of people who believe Brown's claim that Constantine determined the contents of the Bible is shockingly high, even though there is zero evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against it.

I don't know, that seems, to me, to be a rather controlling thing, in itself. Taking advantage of people's ignorance, in order to further your own agenda.

But what's behind it all? I had to laugh at the guy who dismissed any sort of connection to the NWO, apparently because he has a preconceived notion of what that is. No, I don't think that the Zeitgeist Movement is the Rockefellers or DuPonts or Federal Reserve in disguise (though they might be, I suppose.) But they're clearly a movement that has a New World Order, a one world government, as its goal.

Here's what they're on about:

Started in late 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement exists fundamentally as the communication and activist arm of an organization called The Venus Project. In some ways it could be categorized as a "Sustainability Movement", in part. The basic pursuit of The Movement is to begin a transition into a new, sustainable social design called a “Resource-Based Economy”. This term was first coined by Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project and refers to an economic structure based exclusively on strategic resource management, as the starting point for all decisions.
-- (source)


So what's a "resource-based economy?" Well, it's one in which you, Joe Blow, own exactly bupkiss. You're entitled to nothing, because it's all "the people's resources."


In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.
-- (source)


Does that sound familiar?


For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones.
-- source: Karl Marx, German Ideology


Now, how are they going to be sharing all of these resources? Think they might come round and say "hey, you've a car, this chap over in India doesn't have one. You get this bike, and we're going to smash up your car to make more bikes." You don't like it? Tough.

Never mind that utopia-boy there ignores the "elephant in the room", which is resource scarcity. Once you've handed over your sovereignty to your Zeitgeist overlords, you've given up the ability to determine, for yourself, whether you should have something or not. If there are only enough iPods to entertain 1/3 of the population, under the current system, you can work hard until you're able to be one of the 1/3, no matter where you are. Under their system, if they decide to keep them for themselves, or give them out randomly or whatever, if you don't have, you don't get. Period.

"You need an operation? Well, so does this other guy, and he's one of the leaders, so you're going to have to wait." Don't like it? Guess you should join "the Party" and become one of the decision making elite.

It's been tried before, and it failed, miserably, because you can only get people to go along with that kind of thing at the point of a gun, and the ONLY reason that the people who were suffering under the system were able to get out from under its thumb is because there was not a one world government, which is what these people propose.

In short, not only are their claims (at least in part one) laughably wrong, their goal is EXACTLY what they claim to be rising up against.

"Total control is absolutely unacceptable... unless I'm the one in control."
edit on 17-2-2011 by adjensen because: oopsies



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


I know Zeitgeist struck a chord with many people, but if it does so by telling lies, then maybe that's a chord that shouldn't have been struck? If we find out they're lying we must ask ourselves, why are they trying to strike that chord, and why do they have to lie to do it? This is what we must ask ourselves.

Lets break your small paragraph up shall we



1) but if it does so by telling (( lies))

2) If we find out they're ((lying)) we must ask ourselves

3) and why do they have to(( Lie)) to do it?

Yep looks like a Red Herring argument if i have ever seen one before.

Definition: A red herring is a deliberate attempt to divert attention.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gandhi
Watched it already.

It's basically calling out bullcrap, while using bullcrap as a debunking method.

It's such a touchy topic with so many different perspectives that has contributed to it over the years, it's literally impossible to get everyone under one conclusion in anything. Why? "because I'm right and your wrong, watch this video".


This.
Totally refuted my ass. This is just a bias BSer making the same, opposite, claims without hard evidence that it accuses zeitgeist of, it all seems to come down to he said she said, if even experts dont agree on some stuff then how can you act like your side of the arguement is correct. Even if some of it is wrong the basic premise stands, anyone with half a brain realizes that there are alot of incredibly suspiciously common themes and stories across many religions extinct and present, and trying to deny that is typical christian stubborn willfill ignorance just like you fools try to deny ("totally refute") evolution or whatever else doesn't fit in your pretty little bible must be right picture.
edit on 17-2-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Also, Based on your title of this thread, and the very poor videos, nothing I have seen from you has been proof? All the opinions on this thread against the Zeitgeist films have been just that, opinions. i have yet to see irrefutable evidence to support your claims?

IMO, Zeitgeist brings to the table some very interesting points, some of which have been proven documented history, ( all the ancient Egyptians history, and the history of the zodiac for example), but I have also seen some valid arguments from the other side of the flip. But loss of credibility, because of no substantiated evidence to support your claim will most likely be your undoing~ Oh well~



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Somewhat old news but certainly worth posting again to rub in the faces of the many anti christians.

I love the moronic attitude of:

durr yeah its wrong but christianity is still a copy durr, rock on new age luciferianism, and the venus flytrap project.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I only had an elemetary understanding of apologetics when the local athiest forced me to watch it because it would "change everything I believe in". I quickly pointed out the stupidity of it in that only in the English language does the word son and sun sound the same phonetically. There was no mixing of pagan sun worship and the Son of God.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


I'm sorry, what is your issue with the video that the rest of us are actually discussing? The video is the one making the claims that Zeitgeist is lying. Not me. Take it up with the video.

I am also not the one that posted the video.
edit on 17-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
I have done my research and I chose Christianity. I have heard the other side and I am comfortable where I am. The atheists may be right, but they can't prove themselves anymore than I can. Zeitgeist on the other hand is not ambiguous, it's claims are false and it doesn't take much research to see that (which is why I am so frustrated with Zeitgeist posters, because they haven't researched).


Hey, don't get frustrated. Remember that some people absolutely hate Christianity and even actively persecute Christians. It's not as if this is unexpected. Christians were warned they'd be persecuted. Matthew 5 deals with that adequately.

As for ignorance in archaeology and religious matters, there's little you can do to change it. Some are wilfully ignorant and heap up lies for themselves to believe. Again, that is not unexpected. 2 Tim 4:3 deals with that.

All you can really do is state your case and hope that some will see that they are being lied to. There's little to nothing you can do for people who have already made their decision to hate Christians and everything they stand for or in extreme cases those who are so compromised that they are no longer able to discern truth from lies.

I think it's cool that you fully admit there are plenty of legitimate ways that one might argue against Christianity but that the Zeitgeist nonsense is simply counterfactual, not a legitimate attack which a scholar might take seriously.

Unfortunately the vast number of popular objections to Christianity are not scholarly and would be dismissed by atheist scholars, let alone Christian ones. You can't expect to have a scholarly debate with people who are not scholars and who don't understand what constitutes evidence. You also can't blame most people when the examples that are held out for them are of self-proclaimed scholars who use debating techniques and rhetoric to win points in debating sessions put on for the entertainment of the public or in the press.

Anyhow, I think it is really cool to see someone who is not trying to defend their own counterfactual version of reality or faith, but someone who has studied enough to appreciate what are and are not valid objections to their faith. It is rare to see someone defending their faith from a position that does not come from fear or ignorance.

[Can I assume that you are in fact a Christian? I notice you say Ya'hshuah rather than Jesus as most people would say. It sounds like a variant a Messianic Jew might use? I'm not ignorant of the anglicisation of the name, I'm just curious that you don't use it. I suppose I've encountered enough variants of Christianity over the years to know that unusual things like this can sometimes be an indicator of an imitation gospel (and sometimes it means nothing peculiar at all).]
edit on 17-2-2011 by XtraTL because: You don't have the clearance for that.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I have a feeling that a lot of people only skimmed through the videos. It appears to be more factually sound than Zeitgeist, having statements traceable back to respected professionals, many of whom are alleged to work at renowned universities.

It took only my basic high-school knowledge of Egyptian mythology to see the inaccuracies in Zeitgeist. I've heard the public education is pretty bad in the US. Maybe that's why the film went down so well...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
OP,
dont ever tell me what not to post.
Have a good day.





new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join