Zeitgeist: Eye-Opening Movie

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 16 Jan 2008 02:22

Aren't your initials SC?

AUTsider · Post by **AUTsider** » 16 Jan 2008 04:08

Jeremy wrote:
AUTsider wrote:http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

this is an intresting movie i found on the net.
i really like the part about religion and money.

enjoy

It's not interesting, it's just rubbish.

Let me summarise the movie in one line for everybody;

There is a massive global conspiracy that has been going on for over a hundred years and they're going to make us all have microchip implants.

i read your first post and i think you maybe take yourself too absolute. i don't know about burning temperatures, molten metal and so on. but i am shure you are no expert eather. (the aluminium,

also i really think this movie is intresting, because it gives an different idea about things. you don't have to believe them. (you better don't) but at least you get the idea ...

AUTsider · Post by **AUTsider** » 16 Jan 2008 04:11

where did my edit button go?! i would like to finish my post and change the spelling

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 16 Jan 2008 04:19

AUTsider wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
AUTsider wrote:http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

this is an intresting movie i found on the net.
i really like the part about religion and money.

enjoy

It's not interesting, it's just rubbish.

Let me summarise the movie in one line for everybody;

There is a massive global conspiracy that has been going on for over a hundred years and they're going to make us all have microchip implants.
i read your first post and i think you maybe take yourself too absolute. i don't know about burning temperatures, molten metal and so on. but i am shure you are no expert eather. (the aluminium,

also i really think this movie is intresting, because it gives an different idea about things. you don't have to believe them. (you better don't) but at least you get the idea ...

I'm no expert, but I've studied physics. The movie definitely deliberately misleads at times, so if it's going to convince me, it's going to need to present better evidence than what it does. There are actually a number of great websites written by experts that completely debunk the movie. Having an open mind means accepting the evidence, not hanging to falsehoods.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 16 Jan 2008 04:30

Initials are SLKC.. I rotate them at times.

AUTsider · Post by **AUTsider** » 16 Jan 2008 12:54

you don't get my point.
i don't say one or the other version of this 911 thing is true. how could i? all i can do is trust one expert or an other one. so i can honestly say i just don't know it, but keep that in mind.
and giving this idea -how little we really know- to other themes seems to me intresting.
no offence

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 16 Jan 2008 15:50

So let me get this straight. No evidence from experts has been provided suggesting that there is any kind of conspiracy. A great deal of evidence from experts has been provided suggesting that all the claims of the conspiracy theorists are false. You feel you are in a position where you don't know enough, so you have to trust the experts.

So what's your position on whether there is some kind of conspiracy or not?

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 16 Jan 2008 23:27

Man... This movie really sucked. People on here rail on Fox News but watch this shit and have life changing experiences. My G-d it cracks me up. I only watched the first part, the Religion part thought because that's all I wanted to talk about and the movie is really long, and if the first part is any example, the rest of it sucks too.

Anyways. The most obvious thing for me watching the movie was seeing that it's main argument in the part I watched comes from a really outdated view that was favored in the eighteen-fucking-hundreds (19c., 1800's), that relied on pointing out similarites between Christian and older Pagan beliefs, concluding that it is implied evidence that there must be a link. Even Jeremy said earlier something about borrowing. Basically they say are trying to reach the fact that Jesus never existed. As I said earlier though, this idea was big a long time ago, but has since been refuted. Even today, the modern proponents of this theory are admitting atleast that Jesus was in fact based on a historical man in 1st century Palestine, or in crack pot book selling cases, that he was put in by the Roman's to divide Jewish power. Look up Parrellelamania on Google. Jesus was in fact a historical figure.

The films basically goes on to pick and choose between similarites between Jesus and other Christ-imitator's, focusing on the date of December 25th as a main point that all were born on. But if there is one thing everyone agree's on today, it's that Jesus was NOT born on December 25th, but that centuries after Christ's death the Church chose to celebrate the day in order to crush out the Winter Solstice celebrations. The Bible talks about Sheperd's in the field with their sheep at the time of Jesus's birth, which would be impossible in that time of year in Palestine. For this reason and many others, the first part of the movie falls completely apart.

Another reason, is because the first part focuses on Egyptian hawk god Horus as the closest Jesus like diety, not focusing really on the fact that he was a hawk, and that most Egyptian's thought him manifest in all individual birds, and not a bird diety himself. There were actually a lot of interpretations of Horus, but to look at an ancient depiction of Horus as a full figured hawk/man and saying that's how the Egyptian's thought of him, it would be incorrect. That would be like most Christian's today saying that God had a long white beard and was aryan and human and so forth. I think Andrew, who mentioned he'd been to Egypt, said earlier that the movies depiction of the myth was very simplified. And it was.

The narrator also says that Horus was consumated (Can't think of the word, he became a newly flowering seed. I never learned English) on December 25th, like Jesus supposedly, but the New Testament points to a Spring birth like I said earlier. The narrator never cites sources for a lot of things, and it appears some of them are outright lies. If anyone can find concrete reference of Horus having 12 disciples I'll let your girlfriend make out with me. Or that he taught when he was 12 years old? Again, he was numerous birds.

As for the other somewhat-dieties, Dionysus is mentioned, the Greek goat-man diety famous for wine and orgies. Krishna gets thrown out there. Mithra too. Thing is, a lot of similarites arise with cultures that had no contacts with each other. Early North and South American cultures also claimed silimiar events and miracles such as these, without having any contact with Eurasian cultures. The whole fucking theory is flawed completely. This movie is bunk.

But we continue. The movie talks about how the cross was some kind of Zodiac symbol, but it's irrelevent because the cross was a verified method of execution in the Roman empire, so it's just another bogus claim.

Here's what another site has to say about some more shit I'm falling asleep.

[quote]But even some of the movies parallels donâ€™t quite work out. The movie tries to make the claim that the Bible is really an astrological text and the biblical term â€œageâ€

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 16 Jan 2008 23:52

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html

This is a good list (With kick ass references) about all supposed copycat Christ's.

This one deals specifically with Osiris and Horus:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

That link also deals with the authors (Tim Leedom, Massey, Acharya, Dohertythat) that the Zeitgeist movie gives as their sources, when if you look in to those people, it's like citing Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reily if you were saying the WTC came down on there own. It's absolutely ridiculous. Most of the shit these people say have no direct evidence for their claims.

The lengths people will go to disenfranchise Christians (Or anyone these days) is hilarious. Christianity is a Religion with the most historical, referanceable backing of any religion of all time. If you want to talk science that's one thing another, but trying to refute Christianity on a historical terms nearly always comes up dry for the refuters.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 Jan 2008 17:34

That's hilarious. Dan you only addressed minor superficial aspects of the story.

What about the part about 3 kinds following the star to Jesus on December 25? Just coincidence?

Also I love this comment;

Christianity is a Religion with the most historical, referanceable backing of any religion of all time.

What about Mormonism, Scientology, the cargo cults etc? For that matter, I would argue that Islam has much more historical and "referanceable" (I don't think that's a word) backing, since it was founded later than Christianity and has not been influenced by cultural movements like the enlightenment the way Christianity was.

Do you believe that your opinion on this issue is biased and do you do anything to attempt to address the bias and look at the issue objectively instead of from a biased perspective?

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 17 Jan 2008 22:13

That's hilarious. Dan you only addressed minor superficial aspects of the story.

Ask me about any single part of the story you're curious about, and I'll give you an answer. The only instance in which I can't give you an answer is when the narrator says something totally unsupported by evidence. I will say again, you can look up the list of the names of authors I have above and see that they are not reliable sources. Honestly, you guys find it hard to believe that shocker, tabloid press books get published for profit; and then buy in to it when the same information is compiled into an uncitable, unreferenced, untrue list of garbage. There are people out there who watched this and had a opinion shifting moment, when it's all just silliness. I will repeat, ask me any question and I'll do my best to respond.

What about the part about 3 kinds following the star to Jesus on December 25? Just coincidence?

This only shows that you didn't bother to read my post. I will answer anyways, by restating what I repeated profusely in my earlier posts, as well as by providing some other information.

Like I've said though about ten times now, the Bible never says Jesus was born on December 25th... In fact, evidence points to a Spring birth for Jesus. Again, no text in the NT says anything about December 25th. The Orthodox Church in rome in 440 decided to celebrate Jesus' birthday as the 25th of December, in order to compete with Winter Solstice.

But I have said that already. The stupid part about the 3 stars is even more easily explained. The narrator says that Jesus â€œwas born of a virgin, born on December 25, star in the East, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was dead for three days, and was resurrected.â€

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 18 Jan 2008 09:29

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 Jan 2008 15:32

Lol Dan, you're so funny.

I wanted to point out this argument to other non religious people, because I'm sure we all know that Dan is relatively intelligent, and we can also all see the flaws in his argument; and this is essentially what religion does. Indeed it's one of the reasons religion survives. You could see it as one of the "skills" or "purposes" of religion, although those are misleading terms when talking about evolution. Daniel Dennett points out that religion hijacks our ability to love. Religious people fall in love (not always perhaps) with their religion. This is why they're so incapable of dealing rationally with it. It's just like the friend with the abusive boyfriend who keeps dumping her, and then she keeps getting back together with. Keep this in mind when Dan responds to this sentence.

So anyway, it's impossible to argue rationally with an irrational person, so I thought a better track would be to try to make Dan see the irrationalism of his arguments for himself. Perhaps that will be more convincing.

So lets start with this quote;

[quote]I contacted former astrologer Marcia Montenegro, author of SpellBound: The Paranormal Seduction of Today's Kids (Cook, 2006), to obtain an assessment of the credibility of the narratorâ€™s claims. Ms. Montenegro practiced astrology for eight years and published several writings in astrological and New Age publications. However, she is now a Christian and is the founder of the ministry â€œChristian Answers for the New Ageâ€

AUTsider · Post by **AUTsider** » 19 Jan 2008 05:39

You feel you are in a position where you don't know enough, so you have to trust the experts.

no i am in a position, where i say i don't know enough and i can't trust an expert.
I don't bother with joining one side and say "yeah thats the way it was. i know the truth!", because in the end my opinion would be based on some questionable sources.
my position is, that i don't say its write or wrong. maybe all was planed by the cia ... maybe osama was the mastermind behind all that. i really don't know and care.
my point is that we easily take informations as true, even if we really don't have an idea about it. so i stay sceptical with the whole topic.

i think the movie is intresting, because it gives "this way of thinking" towards other topices except the trite 911.

thats all i am saying ...

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 06 Feb 2008 20:54

I wanted to point out this argument to other non religious people, because I'm sure we all know that Dan is relatively intelligent, and we can also all see the flaws in his argument; and this is essentially what religion does. Indeed it's one of the reasons religion survives. You could see it as one of the "skills" or "purposes" of religion, although those are misleading terms when talking about evolution. Daniel Dennett points out that religion hijacks our ability to love. Religious people fall in love (not always perhaps) with their religion. This is why they're so incapable of dealing rationally with it. It's just like the friend with the abusive boyfriend who keeps dumping her, and then she keeps getting back together with. Keep this in mind when Dan responds to this sentence.

Jeremy, this whole straw man argument of "Religion as a Virus" is so tired that I'm amazed you still cling to it. Religion can stop someone from being capable to love? Does anyone actually take that literally? What about the millions of people whose LOVED ones now claim that faith has made them better people to be around?

This just sounds like a scare tactic, similiar to the people who make drug commercial's telling you your face is going to face off if you do coke. "Don't have faith in God kids, you'll never love your parents again! Don't believe me, huh? Well did you know that Jesus said 'Anyone who puts his love for father or mother above his love for Me does not deserve to be Mine'. It's right there in the Bible!" That is what this sounds like to me, personally. How is this any different than Religious nutcases who tell you you're automatically going to hell if you don't follow every rigid dogma. It isn't, it's just overly passionate people trying to scare other people. There are rational Atheist's and rational Christians, and of course their are crazy Atheist's and crazy Christian's. I know which one I am Jeremy, do you?

It's just like the friend with the abusive boyfriend who keeps dumping her, and then she keeps getting back together with. Keep this in mind when Dan responds to this sentence.

Yes, that's what we amount to. The billions of people over the ages who have believed in a higher power; the architects, the doctors, the philosophers, the brick layers, the slaves, the carpenters, the businessmen, the poets, the soldiers, the tax advisors, the politicians, the pilots, the cooks; all us are in fact very similiar to a woman who likes to get hit by her boyfriend. You hit the nail on the head Jeremy.

There's a really noticeable error of logic in this one. Think about what I'm arguing, and what this person is arguing, and can you tell me what this massive error is (there are actually a couple, but there is one really big one). Even if you don't think it's an error, what do you think that I think this massive error is?

What's wrong with citing someone who agree's with my posistion? Isn't that the point of citing other people in a circumstance such as this, to make your two posistions agree? I hardly see the conflict of interest. This woman has a background in Astrology, and, like me, is someone who used to not believe in a Christian God, or in my case, a God of any kind. I think the fact that the page I cited this from mentions that she is indeed a Christian, only makes it less dubious. I could have omitted that part myself, to make it seem like she was just an expert on Astrology, but I didn't because I saw not conflict on interest in citing an expert on Astrology, who happened to share the same religion of me.

How about this for a strange contradiction though Jeremy. You laughed off the last 2/3 of this movie as rubbish, but have been vehemently defending the first part. I have countered countless points in this video, and whatever ones anyone else has raised. I can continued to do so until my eyes bleed because the entire video is garbage, and not just the last 2/3. So Jeremy, is it likely, now that I have provided some form of argument and evidence and backing, that you can agree that the first section is probably just as untrue and misleading as the two parts? Or will you stick to your well entrenched zealotry?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 07 Feb 2008 02:56

BainbridgeShred wrote:
Jeremy, this whole straw man argument of "Religion as a Virus" is so tired that I'm amazed you still cling to it. Religion can stop someone from being capable to love? Does anyone actually take that literally? What about the millions of people whose LOVED ones now claim that faith has made them better people to be around?

This just sounds like a scare tactic, similiar to the people who make drug commercial's telling you your face is going to face off if you do coke. "Don't have faith in God kids, you'll never love your parents again! Don't believe me, huh? Well did you know that Jesus said 'Anyone who puts his love for father or mother above his love for Me does not deserve to be Mine'. It's right there in the Bible!" That is what this sounds like to me, personally. How is this any different than Religious nutcases who tell you you're automatically going to hell if you don't follow every rigid dogma. It isn't, it's just overly passionate people trying to scare other people. There are rational Atheist's and rational Christians, and of course their are crazy Atheist's and crazy Christian's. I know which one I am Jeremy, do you?

A "straw man argument" is when you take a position somebody doesn't hold, and then attack that position. Me labelling religion as a virus is not attacking a position somebody holds, it's me putting forward my position (and a position held by other people). It's also an allegory. On the other hand, your claim that I believe that "Religion can stop someone from being capable to love" is a strawman argument, because I've never put forward that view, and I would absolutely disagree with it. What I'm saying is that religion uses the same neurological structure as love does. I would hope that most of us are capable of loving more than one person. For example I love my mother, but I also love my step father. Loving my mother does not in any way prevent me from being able to love my step father, and I fail to see why you think that it would. My point was that because religion is often basically love, it's hard for people who are in love to see why they're wrong. Love doesn't make us behave rationally. I'm a pacifist but when my mother fell over at school and broke her arm and kids laughed at her, my first instinct was to try and beat them up. That's not at all a rational response and goes completely against my values, but if I had have been there at the time, I would have struggled not to. That's what love does. If it was a random stranger who fell over, I'd still be angry with those people, but I wouldn't feel like killing them. Religion is the same, many people are unable to behave rationally with criticism of their religion because the same parts of their brain that are used for loving people are used for religion. It's nothing to do with being able to love other people.

Yes, that's what we amount to. The billions of people over the ages who have believed in a higher power; the architects, the doctors, the philosophers, the brick layers, the slaves, the carpenters, the businessmen, the poets, the soldiers, the tax advisors, the politicians, the pilots, the cooks; all us are in fact very similiar to a woman who likes to get hit by her boyfriend. You hit the nail on the head Jeremy.

You're similar in that you don't behave rationally in regards to your religion. The woman doesn't like to be hit, and you are probably aware at some level that the whole concept of some kind of greater power that has played some kind of role in human development and life on Earth is ludicrous. Of course you'll deny this point ardently, and probably this offensively self referential sentence as well, but both you and the woman getting hit move past this because you're in love, and the experience of being in love is far greater (for you) than the problems you encounter because of it.

What's wrong with citing someone who agree's with my posistion? Isn't that the point of citing other people in a circumstance such as this, to make your two posistions agree? I hardly see the conflict of interest. This woman has a background in Astrology, and, like me, is someone who used to not believe in a Christian God, or in my case, a God of any kind. I think the fact that the page I cited this from mentions that she is indeed a Christian, only makes it less dubious. I could have omitted that part myself, to make it seem like she was just an expert on Astrology, but I didn't because I saw not conflict on interest in citing an expert on Astrology, who happened to share the same religion of me.

How about this for a strange contradiction though Jeremy. You laughed off the last 2/3 of this movie as rubbish, but have been vehemently defending the first part. I have countered countless points in this video, and whatever ones anyone else has raised. I can continued to do so until my eyes bleed because the entire video is garbage, and not just the last 2/3. So Jeremy, is it likely, now that I have provided some form of argument and evidence and backing, that you can agree that the first section is probably just as untrue and misleading as the two parts? Or will you stick to your well entrenched zealotry?

There's nothing wrong with citing somebody who agrees with you. In fact it's always a good move to put forward the views of people who you agree with, rather than your own view (especially, obviously, in law). On the other side of the coin, the position that this person put forward, that you strongly agree with, is fundamentally logically flawed. Now I can post exactly what that flaw is, but I'm sure that you're intelligent enough to figure it out for yourself, even if you don't agree with it, I'm sure you're capable of figuring out what my major criticism of that argument will be, and I'd really love you to do that, because I think you'll gain a lot more from that, than from me telling you what it is. In every debate, another really good tactic, that I always use, is figuring out what the persons response to you will be. I'm in two minds about what your response to this post will be. I think most likely you won't post up my counter argument to that tektonics website, but I have some hope that you will. As I said before, you don't have to agree with my argument at all, I just want to see if you can figure out what it is. Actually I'm sure you can figure it out, I just don't know if you'll choose to or not.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 07 Feb 2008 10:24

On the other hand, your claim that I believe that "Religion can stop someone from being capable to love" is a strawman argument, because I've never put forward that view, and I would absolutely disagree with it. What I'm saying is that religion uses the same neurological structure as love does.

You specifically noted that "Daniel Dennett points out that religion hijacks our ability to love." You go on to say in your owns words that people of faith "fall in love" with their religion. You then go on about something about an abusive relationship.

Now, firstly, if you're going to use to the word "Hijack" or even quote someone you support using it, you have to realize that it is a pretty strong word. When I hear that "Religion hijacks my ability to love", I don't take that to mean that religion just uses the same neurological structure as love, like you said you meant it as. I take it to mean that religion totally takes over my ability to empthasize with others and what have you. So which is it you agree with Jeremy. Which does Mr. Dennett believe? Is hijacked his word or yours? Do you disagree with his wording entirely now?Is it not reasonable to believe that if religion uses the same neurological structure as love, that there are probably other things that use this same structure? Do you have any proof whatsoever that this is the case at all?

And when you then go on to speak about "falling in love", which is usually saved as term of endearment between lovers (And not between family members or others or what have you) it only further emphasizes the point I think you were trying to push, which is generally that all religions are cults which make you devote themselves to them against the benefit of yourself and those who care for you. Obviously, religious people would vehemently disagree with this and point to the area's of their life in which faith has helped them, but you would chalk that up just to the virus that has infected them and is in control of their love lives. WTF?

You're similar in that you don't behave rationally in regards to your religion. The woman doesn't like to be hit, and you are probably aware at some level that the whole concept of some kind of greater power that has played some kind of role in human development and life on Earth is ludicrous. Of course you'll deny this point ardently, and probably this offensively self referential sentence as well, but both you and the woman getting hit move past this because you're in love, and the experience of being in love is far greater (for you) than the problems you encounter because of it.

So Jeremy let me get this straight. Me taking issue with you comparing me to an abused woman, solely for having faith in God, is actually me just behaving irrationally in regards to my religion? Instead of respecting my opinion, like I respect yours, you simply pass me off as unfit for debate. What I find funny though, with all your respect for rationality, is that you vehemently disagree with the majority of this Zietgeist video, blowing it off as the nonsense that it all is, but cling to the first section and continue to support its verdacity here, despite the lies you see later on in the video. Now Jeremy, it'd almost be to easy for me to say that Atheism has hijacked your ability to think rationally, and to see bullshit for what it is-bullshit. You simply will support whatever posistion's you already agree with, and get into silly nuances of the debate. I have countered many points that this video has raised, and will continue to do so upon request. If their is a flaw in my logic, then expose it and I will go back and check it out. Cut out this patronizing bullshit. You sound hardly rational at all.

You're similar in that you don't behave rationally in regards to your religion.

How is this? I admit the possibility that a God does not exist. I have no proof to show that he does, so of course I will admit the possibility. I think that ends that point right then and there.

you are probably aware at some level that the whole concept of some kind of greater power that has played some kind of role in human development and life on Earth is ludicrous.

Why is that? I am a conscious being. It makes sense to me that the possibility is open that it was a conscious being who created me. I find this no less rational than saying somehow somewhere in the eons some little thing began somewhere out of nothing that eventually spawned everything else. Where does it all begin? Their is no rational answer to the question, and trying to find one will lead you to the mindsate that Jeremy currently occupies, one of absolute dogma, with an inability to look outside his own views on certain issues.

Of course you'll deny this point ardently, and probably this offensively self referential sentence as well, but both you and the woman getting hit move past this because you're in love, and the experience of being in love is far greater (for you) than the problems you encounter because of it.

What problems have I encountered in my life because of religion? Religion has removed problems from my life! I am clean and sober and have only God to thank for that. If this is what being an abused girlfriend is all about, sign me up.

On the other side of the coin, the position that this person put forward, that you strongly agree with, is fundamentally logically flawed. Now I can post exactly what that flaw is, but I'm sure that you're intelligent enough to figure it out for yourself, even if you don't agree with it, I'm sure you're capable of figuring out what my major criticism of that argument will be,

I wouldn't say I strongly agree with it. You asked me a question and me, not being an expert in Astrology, deffered to someone else who is familair with the field.

If their is a flaw, drop the patronizing and just write it down. Jesus it isn't really that hard lol. I'm not here to learn life lessons from you Jeremy, if you have a strong point put it in writing so everyone else can see. I will do my best to process that information with my irrational, loveless brain and get back to you. Hahahaha

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 07 Feb 2008 17:13

First let me apologise for the potential length of this post. A sign of a skilled communicator is being able to get across a point with as little pontificating as possible, and I fail at that. I have a strong dislike for long debates where each has many quotes of the post before, as it gets confusing and ends up being many different debates occurring at once, so I'm going to avoid that. Nevertheless, I will attempt to briefly address the criticisms levelled at me from Dan's last post. If I miss a point than I'm sorry, but please let me know and I'll address it.

Religion Hijacks Love

I can't remember if Daniel Dennett uses the word "hijack" or not, however he begins his book with the story of an ant which is constantly trying to reach the highest blade of grass, and then stays there, at this high point, until a cow comes and eats it. This behaviour is obviously not in the best interests of the ant, and yet it behaves in such a manner, and, according to what we know about the world today, it's behave must have evolved because it offers a better survival chance. It is therefore hard to understand how such behaviour could offer some evolutionary advantage, but further investigation shows that there is a clear evolutionary advantage. Of course we're looking at this event in the wrong light. Yes there is an evolutionary advantage, but for who? It turns out that ant has been infected with a parasite and the parasite needs to get into the stomach of sheep or cow to reproduce (having been defecated out and then infected the ant earlier). By controlling the ants behaviour, the parasite gives itself a much better chance of survival and reproduction. Daniel Dennett goes on, over the next 300 pages of the book, to equate this behaviour with religion.

There are currently 2 different opinions on the evolution of religion. One view is that religion evolved because it gives humans some kind of advantage. People who prescribe to this view (all atheists) include Jonathan Haidt, David Sloan Wilson and Scott Atran (three very important scientists, and well worth reading). The other view is that religion is a meme that has evolved both in complexity but also in its ability to protect itself and propagate. Religion has evolved to use parts of brain functions to help it continue to reproduce and spread. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Lewis Wolpert all prescribe to this view.

With that in mind, I think that although he may not have used the word (I don't know if he did or not), Daniel Dennett certainly would agree that religion "hijacks" our ability to love. Love is a very important social trait in humans. It builds protective groups amongst people with very similar genes, providing protection for those genes. It keeps parents together so that they can both provide for a child (usually for 4 years, but that's another issue). Love evolved so that people would better protect their own genes, which are also found in people closely related to them. On the other hand, religion uses love to help protect the religion meme. Many of the actions of religious people, both in the past and today are not actions that help protect their genes at all. Celibacy is not a trait that helps protect genes. Suicide bombings do not help protect genes. Yet both those actions (and I fully concede that one is more extreme than the other) occur because the person's devotion and love for their religion is greater than their evolutionary instincts (in fact in many cases that's not the case, but that's another issue again). The word "hijack" means in the context of this discussion; to use for a purpose other than its original intention, usually in a negative manner. Religion hijacks love because instead of protecting genes, it diverts that to protecting a meme. I totally stand by my usage of the word "hijack" and all my previous statements on this subject. If I were to make any concessions, perhaps the word "hijack" is a little inflammatory, however that doesn't effect the accuracy of the word.

The Zeitgeist and the story of Jesus

First lets address what I originally said about the first section of this movie;

Jeremy wrote: agree with the first part of section one. Christianity, like all religion, certainly did evolve from other previous religious views. The theory of the evolution of religion is very interesting, and something I've read a great deal on. There are a few good books out there; Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast by Lewis Wolpert. Also the work of David Sloan Wilson, Scott Atran, Jonathan Haidt, Nicholas Humphrey etc. Religion evolved for a number of reasons, and religions also evolved for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was certainly the replication and variation (which is what you need for evolution) of stories meant to be useful. We look through religious stories and it's relatively easy to trace them back to stories that were meaningful. Eventually the meaning starts changing to mean something more relevant to the people.

However for decades now, the Left in politics have been making a massive mistake. A mistake based on no evidence at all, but just their wishful thinking. If we look for culprits, post-modern philosophy is certainly a major one. The Left has been looking at religion as if people didn't believe what they say they believe. The Left has been looking at the actions of religious people, and trying to figure out what would make somebody do those acts, ignoring those religous beliefs. Terrorists don't commit terrorism because of their religious beliefs, they do it because they're oppressed (although actually if we look a little more deeper, it turns out that most of them are not oppressed, but they believe their religion is oppressed, and they believe it's their duty to fight, and die, for their religion). So the second half of part 1 is just rubbish. It totally ignores science. It doesn't present any evidence for it's claims. It's based on the false assumption that the people who don't believe in what they're preaching are the best at convincing everybody else that it's true. Why aren't the people who actually do believe it the best at convincing everybody else that it's true? Why do the non-believer frauds always rise to the top? Has anybody worked in sales? What's the most important tip to success? You have to believe in your product...

There's another question that should be asked; What does the truth or fiction of Christianity have to do with the parts 2 and 3 in the movie? Is it just trying to convince you that if you've swallowed one lie, you might fall for others as well?

To summarise this quote. The first part of section 1 is basically true, the second part of section 1 is absolute rubbish.

Now lets have a look at Dan's comments about my opinion;

Dan wrote:What I find funny though, with all your respect for rationality, is that you vehemently disagree with the majority of this Zietgeist video, blowing it off as the nonsense that it all is, but cling to the first section and continue to support its verdacity here, despite the lies you see later on in the video.

Dan wrote:How about this for a strange contradiction though Jeremy. You laughed off the last 2/3 of this movie as rubbish, but have been vehemently defending the first part.

Etc.

I'm sure we can see that actually I do not agree with the first part at all. I strongly disagreed with part 1, as I strongly disagreed with parts 2 and 3 as well.

If we address the first part of part 1, the bit I did agree with, first let me say that I think parts of that were far from convincing as well. Especially the part about the different "ages," and the end of the age of the fish etc. It's also not very likely that Christianity directly or deliberately copied other religions. Those points may be correct, but I'd lean towards disbelief at this stage, as I haven't seen any kind of convincing evidence that they are true. Here is the part of the story that I agree with.

Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years ago, the ancestors of today's humans began to notice the stars. They realised that they follow specific patterns and that almost all of them remain in the same position, relative to each other, while a few do not. As humanity and civilisation progressed, they found many uses for the stars, especially as a calendar, which was very useful for the growth of agriculture. The first major civilisations of the world developed in the same place; the "Fertile Crescent" in the Middle East. All of Western Society, as well many other ancient civilisations grew from that area. It was the first place to domesticate plants and animals, to build cities and construct government. These people used the stars extensively and they developed stories to go with those stars, to help remember which events were important and what to look out for. The 12 star signs were very important for separating out the year. Sirius and the three stars in Orion's Belt were important for marking the end of the winter solstice. The position of the moon in relation to these stars was also very important. The Sun was obviously the most important astrological body to these people.

For thousands of years the stories surrounding these astrological phenomenon grew and evolved. These stories existed before paper and writing, so they were passed verbally, which allowed for much more variation. Slowly, as technology improved, the actual position of the stars became less important, while the stories surrounding the stars evolved further into mythology. The growth of religion, at some point, adopted those stories into it. The people of the fertile crescent spread across Europe, Africa and Asia, in many cases displacing the more primitive societies. They built new, seperate societies. In exactly the same way that evolution of life works, the religious meme that they all held began to vary from location to location. New conditions that were only felt in particular places led to new aspects of the story. Some 8000 years after the founding of the first advanced civilisations in the fertile crescent, Christianity was "born." Except it wasn't born, it was just the continuation of the evolution of the same stories that were so important to the people of the fertile crescent. That's why we see the same themes across religions around that region. We see the importance of the cross, the importance of the winter solstice, the spring equinox, and the astrological events that indicate those events, we see the cycle of birth and resurrection, and then death and sadness repeat itself each year. These religions are the long evolution of a meme, "speciefied" by geographic divisions.

So if we return to the criticism labelled at the video by Dan and by "tektonics" have to say about the video. They claim that it's wrong, because Jesus wasn't actually born on December the 25th. This point is obviously irreverent. It doesn't matter what day Jesus was born, it's the fact that, like so much of the Christian story, the entire story of Jesus' birth is seen in religions across the region, where the linguistic, genetic and historical evidence suggests that the people of all those religions were once the one group of people. Actually the criticism is even more ridiculous in the context of the video, which states that Jesus may never have even existed. I agree with that statement, especially the word "may." He also may have existed, but I don't think the evidence on that question is at all clear, but lets look at the two statements a little more;

The Zeitgeist; Here is the reason why Jesus' birth is celebrated on the 25th; it's because of where the stars are, not because he was actually born on that day. He might not have existed at all.

Dan and Tektonics; Jesus probably wasn't born on the 25th.

If Jesus didn't exist at all, he certainly wasn't born on the 25th. Christianity evolved from other previous religions. Both the stories it tells and the days it celebrate are part of that evolution. The Bible is not a piece of evidence to support the "truth" of Christianity at all, it is an historical record of the beliefs of the people who wrote it, not an historical record of the actual events that occurred.

I hope this post was readable, and apologise for any mistakes I may have made. I'm also sorry again for the length, I try to be more concise, but there are constant misunderstandings when I summarise 10,000 word essays in a couple of sentences.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 17 Feb 2008 20:33

Just watched this movie and was going to post something about WTC7 and why it would be 'demolished', but then i actually did some light research and found that what i was about to post wasnt true. Just goes to show you cant believe everything you read or watch, especially online!

Laroche · Post by **Laroche** » 31 Mar 2008 09:31

I don't want to spoil to much, but quite the eye-opener... the first 12 minutes or so are just a stupid intro, but it gets very very interesting, trust me.

The FULL MOVIE is online at http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

The link is funky, you might have to copy/paste it into your browser.

Zeitgeist: Eye-Opening Movie

Re: zeitgeist the movie

Re: zeitgeist the movie

Zeitgeist