Zeitgeist: The Movie - Fact or Fiction. You decide.

For those who have not yet had a chance to view this film. I recommend it. It is truly life changing. I'd also recommend keeping a tablet and pencil handy to take notes if you have questions or doubts so that you can do some googlefu afterwards if you wish. The contents are very controversial and will challenge the majority of things you hold to be true.


Zeitgeist: The Movie - 2007 by Peter Joseph from ZeitgeistMovie.com on Vimeo.

Views: 582

Comment by gabethedallasfan5 on May 21, 2011 at 11:09pm

i don't have time to finish the rest of the movie today, but the areas i did notice that seem to be true:


It brought up sweatshops, multi-nationals, etc. This is well known, and is one of the reasons why i am a social capitalist, instead of an unfettered free-market nutjob.


But then, that's another debate. =)


i guess i'll finish tomorrow, but I will say: This movie is combining facts with the conclusions the creator wants, which are not necessarily true.

Comment by Bryan B on May 22, 2011 at 7:49am
Most of the 9/11 stuff has already been discounted but the problems with the media and the banks are all correct.
Comment by Robert Karp on May 22, 2011 at 8:25am
Anyone know if and how WTC building 7's demise was explained or debunked?
Comment by Heather Spoonheim on May 22, 2011 at 8:32am
It has been explained, although not to everyone's satisfaction, including mine.
Comment by Heather Spoonheim on May 22, 2011 at 8:33am
If you try the 911debunked.com site I'm sure they will provide the engineering data that attempts to explain the structural failure.
Comment by Geektheist (Rocky Oliver) on May 22, 2011 at 5:16pm


Once again - sigh.... Let me thoroughly respond, and I apologize in advance for the length of this post (or novella ;) ):

One cannot deny that the most profitable invention of humanity is the means to manipulate and control society. Why else to you think religion has been around for as long as it has?

There are many reasons why religions have been around as long as they have, and why they still exist; but the three most basic, that I think are relevant to this conversation, are:

  1. Humans hate not knowing why something is the way it is - they hate saying, "I don't know." So, throughout recorded history, humans have invented gods to explain those things not understood (I don't think I need to list the countless examples of this phenomenon). As science advanced, gods fell at the feet of knowledge and scientific evidence. So, what are the current pantheon of deities used to explain today? Life after death. As far as the "sheep" of human society are concerned (more on that in a  minute), it is impossible to "know" if there is life after death. These sheep are incapable of understanding and accepting that we're simply animals, and when we die our brains - and the essence of who we are - cease to exist or function. At that point we're just meat, just worm food - and since this is hard for most to accept, these deities continue to exist.
  2. Humans are egotistical, and full of hubris; therefore they cannot accept that - as previously stated - we're simply animals that happen to be at the top of the food chain. They cannot accept that they aren't "special", and subsequently they aren't "animals". They want to believe that they have magical superpowers that allow their "essence" to live forever; this is commonly referred to as a "soul". And if they have a "soul" that exists forever, then there must be a special place for their souls to hang out - with "streets of gold", and "mansions in the sky" - when they croak. Today, most human sheep refer to this as heaven.
  3. Humans, at their most basic level, like to be "sheep" - they don't want to think for themselves, they don't want to be ultimately responsible for who they are and their actions. If there's some super-daddy in the sky, that is ultimately responsible for who they are, what they are, where they're going, and what they do - then they don't have to think for themselves. Remember, everything happens "according to god's plan", and whatever does happen - good or bad - is "god's will". Human animals are "herd animals" - they like to be led, think, and react together.

Why do you think that Governments always brand themselves with religion? Do you really feel that there are THAT many religious political leaders? Or is it more likely that they just say those things in order to manipulate the votes? Honestly?

Governments do not "always brand themselves with religion." Quite a few governments deliberately have not. Remember, even our government was supposed to have "freedom of religion" - it is only since the 1950s that the current religious fervor has tried to create a "theocracy".

As far as "religious political leaders" - yeah, there are many politicians that wrap themselves in the cloak of religion to attract as many sheep - err, votes - as possible. Some believe it; some are just actors playing a part for their own means. But, once again, the current trend of using religious means to reach a political end is relatively current - and this current trend can be traced back to Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority under Reagan.

But, using religion for political purposes does NOT equate into a 9/11 conspiracy, nor does it equate to a "new world order". Essentially the people who are egotistical and maniacal enough to lead a government are NOT cooperative enough to work together. Each of them wants to be the "top dog", and they are not going to play nice together enough to create some one-world government. THAT is reality, and you only have to look at history to see examples of this. Pretty much every empire has failed because of maniacal, egotistical leaders. The Roman Empire, for example. Started out as a republic, wound up being a dictatorship under the Caesars - which ultimately led to their downfall.

Everyone is entitled to their personal view of it.. But it must remain that.. A personal view. Unless of course you can give examples of things you believe to be false that can be researched and proven to be false.

 Uh, as always the proof of a statement falls on the claimant - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. One cannot prove a negative, so you must prove the existence of the conspiracy - it is not up to me to disprove it.

Dismissing something simply as a conspiracy theory and therefore it has to be false without any additional research required is appalling. It's exactly the same thing as being told Jesus is lord. Well of course he is.. People and their wild conspiracies not believing in god, thinking he was invented by man for control..

Appalling? Are you resorting to the appeal to ridicule?

Now, once again let me state that it is up to YOU to PROVE there's a conspiracy of some "black ops" style of shadow government is responsible for such things as 9/11. The movie - and all of the conspiracy sites making the same claims - are using half-truths, straw men, arguments from authority, and logical fallacies to attempt to substantiate their claims. Get some real evidence, and we'll talk.

So I ask again.. Was your review based upon actual identifiable claimed facts that you've known to be false, or simply your personal view on how you feel that subject matter such as this should be reviewed upon based upon it's genre?

Nope. As a skeptic I look at everything with a critical eye - and pretty much anyone who has two feet planted firmly in reality reaches the same conclusion - the claims made in this move do not have any quantifiable, verifiable evidence to back them up.

Once again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary (and verifiable) evidence.

And if thats the case.. How did you ever become an atheist? The whole no God conspiracy theory is kinda like the motherload of them all & a prime example of how a theory so wild and dangerous that people would actually burn other people alive for it.. can turn out to be the truth.. ;)

I became an atheist for the exact same reasons I don't believe in the claims made in this movie - deities and these conspiracy theories don't pass the "smell test". They are all sensational claims that do not stand up to reason. And "no God" is not a "theory" - you cannot prove a negative. If you disagree with this, then I need you to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn do not exist.


In summary, I really think you should read - and then read again - the Top 20 Logical Fallacies found at The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. It will help you not only be able to defend any positions you have in the future, but it will also (hopefully) help you "see the light" in regards to the conspiracies presented in this movie.


Good luck, and happy reading!


--Rock (aka Lotus Geek)
Comment by Heather Spoonheim on May 22, 2011 at 5:21pm

@Rock - if you want another take on religion & conspiracy theories, you might want to consider Pascal Boyer's book Religion Explained, or Andy Thomson's work on the issue.  They get into the various aspects of how our brains work that get hijacked for 'religious thought', specifically a hyper-active agency detection system.  I think one of the best analogies I've heard is how we often mistake a shadow for a burglar but we never seem to mistake a burglar for a shadow.  Anyway, Andy Thomson did a great presentation for the American Atheists - it's about an hour long, but really damn cool... [video]




You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service