ZEITGEIST, The Movie



Tons of evidence showing 7 World Trade was extensively damaged by WTC 1.

RkOwens does a great job compiling visual evidence to support this assertion.
 
cisco said:
Of course it doesn't bother you. I mean, it's just accusing innocent people of the murder of 3,000 of their own citizens to the tune of exonerating the guilty, right? Nothing to be bothered about there. It's nice to see change happen!
Click to expand...

Yes. It's nice to see change happen. If you think a bunch of emotive manipulation is going to change anything, haha, well good luck!

Nick
 
Nick227 said:
Yes. It's nice to see change happen. If you think a bunch of emotive manipulation is going to change anything, haha, well good luck!

Nick
Click to expand...

Ahh, I shouldn't be too worried about Zeitgeist, Loose Change, In Their Own Words, etc, then. Thanks for the heads up :cool:.
 
Nick227 said:
Science and objectivity are the means to interpret the world through one filter. This is a pursuit of relationships, not truth. It is not even pointing in the same direction as truth. Truth is not even in the gameplan of science, except for the deluded.

The notion that many have developed, that scientific pursuit relates to truth, finally amounts to little more than a collective tensing of the shoulder muscles and a determined refusal to self-examine. Because of the actual nature of truth, this approach will inevitably not succeed.

Movies like Zeitgeist and What the Bleep work and attract millions of viewers not because they possess any more truth than the work of countless historians or scientists, but because, in the circumstances we find ourselves, they are the mechanisms of change. And change is coming. You can either stand in its way and steadfastly maintain that objectivity and truth are related, in which case - good luck! Or you can negotiate with the future.

Nick
Click to expand...

GrenMe:

Does the above better answer for you why I said what I said.

It certainly helps explain why there is no reasoning with Nick over things like facts and science.

TAM:)
 
I disagree, T.A.M., as I believe Nick and I have had some fine dialogue over those things. Even while we might have opinions that differ slightly based on subjective points of view we can, with enough clarification of what we mean, at least come to an understanding on the language we're using to work from that point on. He's right, though: science doesn't deal in truth, it deals in fact and data. He's also said basically that the film itself doesn't hold the weight of its claims scientifically, that it seems to be aiming for "truth" (or "truthiness", in Colbert-speak) instead, and in that I would agree. I think Nick and I are still not completely agreeing on every semantical piece of the film, but there's at least a language and a dialogue, and I don't think all of Nick's opinions are quite as extreme as they might seem, he just mixes personal philosophy into his posts.

But you're right: you and I are both perfectly entitled to our own opinions on that matter, and you did answer my question, so I won't press further. I'm sure Nick is perfectly comfortable speaking for himself.
 
Billdave2 said:
Zeitgeist gets MSM exposure.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22978727/
Click to expand...

At least they gave it some of the ridicule it has earned.

MSN said:
The breadth and depth of delusional nonsense offered up in this popular YouTube video — and others like it — is simply too vast to cover in this column. Suffice to say that "Zeitgeist" is the "Gone With the Wind" of its genre. It's a comical collection of conspiracy theories that ties together Christianity, the attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank. If there were an Oscar for Best Picture to Connect Completely Unrelated Dots with a Straight Face, this one would get my vote.
Click to expand...
 
Ouch!

John W. Schoen said:
While the “taxes are illegal” myth plays only a minor role in this video non sequitur posing as truth...
Click to expand...

Sometimes, I come across a line that so succinctly sums things up that I wish I came up with it. Can we do a Pith award nomination for an external quote?
 
grenMe:

I guess what I am saying is that facts, and science (through the provision of facts) provides us with answers. These answers are the truth...to me.

eg. Fact - I am a male.
therefore, the truth is that I am a male.

TAM:)
 
GreNME said:
I disagree, T.A.M., as I believe Nick and I have had some fine dialogue over those things. Even while we might have opinions that differ slightly based on subjective points of view we can, with enough clarification of what we mean, at least come to an understanding on the language we're using to work from that point on. He's right, though: science doesn't deal in truth, it deals in fact and data. He's also said basically that the film itself doesn't hold the weight of its claims scientifically, that it seems to be aiming for "truth" (or "truthiness", in Colbert-speak) instead, and in that I would agree. I think Nick and I are still not completely agreeing on every semantical piece of the film, but there's at least a language and a dialogue, and I don't think all of Nick's opinions are quite as extreme as they might seem, he just mixes personal philosophy into his posts.

But you're right: you and I are both perfectly entitled to our own opinions on that matter, and you did answer my question, so I won't press further. I'm sure Nick is perfectly comfortable speaking for himself.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't deal in fact. It deals in data, data accrued from a filtered way of examining the world. It deals in data and it formulates relationships on the basis of that data. When you start to believe that objectivity produces facts (as in something with is absolutely true) you have become lost in your mind, you have lost track of who you are. Objectivity is a tool. With it science can produce many exciting things, things that are beautiful, things that save us time and give us more leisure. I applaud both objectivity and science, but they have nothing to do with fact, and nothing to do with truth...and that is a fact.

Zeitgeist is a propaganda movie. It's a change agent.

Nick
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
eg. Fact - I am a male.
therefore, the truth is that I am a male.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

The "a male" bit might be fact. The "I am" bit isn't. You can't empirically demonstrate personal identity. If you were to say "This body is male" I would probably agree with you, though I haven't met you, but if I had I likely would. We might consider this "a fact" but I dislike the term in that it can be extended to imply a degree of certainty which is incommensurate with underlying reality.

Nick
 
Last edited:
Nick227 said:
Zeitgeist is a propaganda movie. It's a change agent.
Click to expand...

If you concede that it's trying to "change" facts to suit its agenda - which is propped up by lies in direct contradiction to facts - then we can finally agree on this :).
 
cisco said:
Ahh, I shouldn't be too worried about Zeitgeist, Loose Change, In Their Own Words, etc, then. Thanks for the heads up :cool:.
Click to expand...

Hey cisco,

Good one! Fair enough. But change is coming, man. It's the end of the aeon and that's how it is. You can stand in the way of it and be broken, one way or the other, or you can get with the program.

That guys like Peter Joseph and Dylan Avery make movies in their bedrooms and they get watched and believed by millions upon millions of people, to me that just god behaving like an old mafia boss. He showing all the rigid fear-filled fools that run our planet, seen or unseen, that he's got weight on them, that he just needs to lift his little finger. Orthodox Christianity is past its sell-by date. Rigid "us and them" interpretations of the world the same. The guys pumping this **** out are getting dealt with.

Otherwise it's more floods and global warming and god knows what catastrophes.

Nick
 
Last edited:
cisco said:
If you concede that it's trying to "change" facts to suit its agenda - which is propped up by lies in direct contradiction to facts - then we can finally agree on this :).
Click to expand...

Well, I don't believe WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition, but who knows? I don't know much about the financial stuff. I do know enough about religion and spirituality to know that objectivity is not what it's about anyway.

Facts are ok, but when you harden around them and put them up as being intrinsically more valid than supposition, all you're doing is showing you have no idea who you are.

Nick
 
Nick, you're switching up language in mid-argument. Facts don't change, you were closer when you were talking about the interpretations of those things. Facts don't change, which ones people want to use and how they use them do.
 
GreNME said:
Nick, you're switching up language in mid-argument. Facts don't change, you were closer when you were talking about the interpretations of those things. Facts don't change, which ones people want to use and how they use them do.
Click to expand...

It's just that I don't like the hardness that has come to be associated with the word. A "fact" is just an agreed position. Objectivity produces "facts" through different people observing similar phenomena. But the presence or significance of facts does not necessarily undermine subjective evaluation, or the value of phenomena which can only be experienced subjectively.

When you believe that objectivity absolutely overrides subjectivity, you are believing in the prevalence of duality over non-duality. This is not how things are. The experience of duality, of the subject-object divide, occurs after the experience of simple multiplicity, or non-duality. Objectivity arises from the assumption of a limited observer. It is entirely conceptual.

In esoteric circles the belief that duality has prevalence over non-duality is frequently referred to as Satanism. It is the belief that the 2 has dominion over the 1.

Nick
 
I understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't mean the word needs to be redefined. For the dualistic or really any esoteric, facts (non-subjective, though subject to interpretation) might come up but it focuses mainly on truth (quite subjective, the goal and source of personal interpretation). They're not mutually exclusive terms, but one does not necessarily have to be intertwined with the other.

One can lie with facts.
One can tell truth (honesty) with facts.
One can compile a report or essay with facts.
One can construct a lengthy rhetorical piece with facts.

In simple terms, two plus two, even if you include the equation in a complete fabrication otherwise, still equals four regardless of the fabrication. It just may simply be that 2+2=4 has no bearing on the accuracy or is not supportive of the rest of what it is connected to ("2+2=4, therefore the Earth is flat").
 
GreNME said:
I understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't mean the word needs to be redefined. For the dualistic or really any esoteric, facts (non-subjective, though subject to interpretation) might come up but it focuses mainly on truth (quite subjective, the goal and source of personal interpretation). They're not mutually exclusive terms, but one does not necessarily have to be intertwined with the other.

One can lie with facts.
One can tell truth (honesty) with facts.
One can compile a report or essay with facts.
One can construct a lengthy rhetorical piece with facts.

In simple terms, two plus two, even if you include the equation in a complete fabrication otherwise, still equals four regardless of the fabrication. It just may simply be that 2+2=4 has no bearing on the accuracy or is not supportive of the rest of what it is connected to ("2+2=4, therefore the Earth is flat").
Click to expand...

Hi GreNME,

Well, I pretty much agree. It's just that facts are really not much use when it comes to investigating truth. Perhaps they are useful to start with, as a jumping off point.

Nick
 
Not that I want to interrupt the current discussion...but I remembered something today.

In the film they make reference to the story from the old testament...regarding Joseph and his 12 brothers...(My memory may be failing me..)

A former mennonite friend of mine was telling me that when she was younger there was frequent comparison between jesus and joseph, which made me wonder why the film or the people that researched the material that the film was based on didn't spend more time on this.

If I were looking for a clues to the origins of chrisitianity I suppose the first place I would look would be in the various jewish writings that preexisted the events of the new testament.

I guess I bring it up because if one had the time to go over the previous jewish writings in detail I suspect one might find more relevant material from which to base a comparison rather than leaping to egyptian influence.

GreNME- Are you aware of any significant influence between the semitic cultures outside egypt besides the hyksos that you mentioned awhile ago?
 
fact:
A rock is a rock.

It might be CALLED different words in different languages, I may be used for different things in different cultures, but it is what it is, a rock, and that is a FACT. I don't care if 100 other people have DIFFERENT POSITIONS on what they think it is, it is still a rock.

But why am I arguing this...as in all issues like this, the proponent will not be convinced by any argument from his opponent.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom