Comment by Dave G on December 22, 2009 at 3:39pm

I see it's time for our semi-monthly Zeitgeist post.

For those interested in a breakdown of Zeitgeist and its flaws, check out Nelson's blog post, which has tons of links, as well as this site, which also has a section on The Addendum.

Comment by Aric on December 22, 2009 at 4:44pm

Someone recommending Zeitgeist and then someone else saying, "Now, wait just a minute..." seems to have become a staple of the site. Seriously though, check out Nelson's post.

Comment by Nelson on December 22, 2009 at 5:21pm

thanks guys. yeah, it does seem like we could set our watches by these posts...

interestingly i just came across this post via John Loftus at DC. some great info there.

once again, Zeitgeist has been debunked over and over and over again. it contains half-truths, overstatements, and outright falsehoods. suggest it to people at the risk of your own credibility.

also in the news this week was the discovery of a house dating to the first century in Nazareth. one of the claims of the mythicists has been that Nazareth didn't exist in the time of Jesus (despite this never being the scholarly consensus). now we have material evidence proving otherwise.

Comment by krissthesexyatheist on December 22, 2009 at 7:40pm

I wish the first part of "Z" was true, but (seemingly) it is not. Although the references make good reading. There is one dude on there, John Allegro, that worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls and he came to the conclusion that the Jesus cult was really a sexed up mushroom cult. It was even featured in (if I recall correctly) Time mag..Pretty fun reading, but take it with a grain of salt. The 911 part is false because it claims that the Bush administration was behind 911, and as we all know that administration couldn't do squat.

Comment by Reggie on December 22, 2009 at 9:23pm

What Aric says...

Comment by Nelson on December 23, 2009 at 3:37am

and just in time for this newest blog post wherein we are urged to watch Zeitgeist here's two more links discussing the holes in Jesus myth theory.
John Loftus at DC points out the fundamental problem with Earl Doherty's argument. then there's this post at Diglotting discussing a recent essay of Robert Price arguing for Jesus as myth and the response to his essay by some other scholars.

Comment by Zero One on December 24, 2009 at 7:08pm

well i for one believe that parts of this film reflect exactly what i have been poking at for years. As far as I am concerned the government did at least allow 9/11 to occur. About the jesus theory in the beginning I just want to know if there are really that many other religions that base there "holy one" off of the same dates/ideas/ ect. ? I already look at the fact there are MANY religions started at various times in history to PROVE they are ALL BULLSHIT.

Comment by Nelson on December 25, 2009 at 12:03am

sorry but the 9/11 and fed stuff, that's conspiracy theory nonsense. (i suggest you read Timothy Melley's Empire of Conspiracy for information on the psychology behind the appeal of conspiracy theories.)

of course there are many religions that have dates and rituals in common. events like the winter and spring solstice held people in great sway and so figured into their religious traditions. celebrating the rebirth of nature in spring and mythologizing the day with the shortest duration of sunlight and the longest night, we should be surprised if people had not done so. but, the movie doesn't argue just that many religions share common elements but rather that those common elements are evidence that Jesus was a whole cloth invention. your response to my critical comments seems to indicate that you don't share the film's views on this but it makes me wonder why you would post a suggestion that people watch the movie without telling people that you don't agree with this and that of the film's conclusions.

and that's all besides the point. you're recommending that people watch a movie that is filled with utter nonsense. like i said in the my first post, to do so is to risk your credibility. at the very least, if you feel the need to suggest that people watch a film such as this, you should be forthright about making sure that the people reading your suggestion understand that those that find the conclusions in the film convincing are a tiny minority. to do otherwise is to mislead people i think.

Comment by Zero One on January 15, 2010 at 5:08pm

I am all for freedom of thought, I don't buy this film at face value. I just think its a stimulating film and at least it is thought provoking- This film is about as credible as the bible, the matrix, sesame street and out government. I don't take any of it too seriously.

Comment by Nelson on January 15, 2010 at 9:56pm

and yet you misleadingly titled your post "ZeitGeist the Movie, Facts about religion and government ties". the title is doubly misleading insofar as the movie contains few if any "facts about religion and government ties" while neither is the title representative of your opinion of the movie given that you "don't buy this film at face value" and that the film is "about as credible as the bible".
perhaps you have a different view of the bible's credibility than i do and/or perhaps you had a different definition of "fact" in mind when you titled your post.

the suggestion that people watch this movie is a poor suggestion. the poor suggestion is compounded when the suggestion is made while neglecting to make sure that you tell your readers that the movie is widely acknowledged (almost universally so among scholars) to be downright awful, much less telling people that the movie contains facts about religion and government ties. you say you don't take any of it too seriously... why call the movie factual then? why not warn your readers about the extent to which anyone should take the movie seriously?

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page