Zeitgeist

Having looked into the backstory of the film, I honestly haven't found anyone that's been able to debunk, with any level of satisfaction, any part of the film.

Since the film largely portrays the facts of whatever it's discussing, the religious portions are actually well documented



Really?

A simple google search shows the whole religious connect the dots between all the dietys to make a sun god = the son of god is bullshit. The majority of the information they use to make their case, things like dates of birth and deaths just aren't true.

when you are trying to persuade people to your point of view, any lie you tell calls into question everything else you say
 
Really?

A simple google search shows the whole religious connect the dots between all the dietys to make a sun god = the son of god is bullshit. The majority of the information they use to make their case, things like dates of birth and deaths just aren't true.

when you are trying to persuade people to your point of view, any lie you tell calls into question everything else you say

Proof?
 
Really?

A simple google search shows the whole religious connect the dots between all the dietys to make a sun god = the son of god is bullshit. The majority of the information they use to make their case, things like dates of birth and deaths just aren't true.

when you are trying to persuade people to your point of view, any lie you tell calls into question everything else you say

I'm not about to beat this dead horse anymore, there was nothing in your post that provided any information other than your own personal opinion. I don't doubt my position on the mater, I don't need proof to back it up to convince myself, and I don't honestly care if you agree with me over the subject.
 
juz has a point

watch addendum and then whey start talking about ulysses s grant and his rise to power, go to his wiki

their 'facts' and the real facts are not even close
 

Do a fucking Google search. Don't just "HAY GUYS I SAW A CONSPRICY THEERY MOVIE AND IT LOOKS TROO LOLS" and then buy into it hook line and sinker, find out for yourself for fuck sake.

Here, faggots, I'll make it easier for you...

Let me google that for you

Seriously, if it looks like steak but smells like bullshit, check it out thoroughly. Don't just pick it up and eat it.
 
Really?

A simple google search shows the whole religious connect the dots between all the dietys to make a sun god = the son of god is bullshit. The majority of the information they use to make their case, things like dates of birth and deaths just aren't true.

when you are trying to persuade people to your point of view, any lie you tell calls into question everything else you say

if you are trying to prove a point you should provide some names and examples other than a hasty generalization of things you may of not of liked to of heard/believe.

as for the religion stuff, i believe the doc has a point. look up the gods that they spoke of and it all lines up. even in an art history class that i took the professor showed us and explained Egyptian heiroglyphics depicting their religion and the virgin birth of the Sun god Horus by Isis -

Just imagine a love triangle between three gods - Set, Osiris and Isis. Set is jealous of Osiris for having Isis. Set in turn chops Osiris into pieces and throws him into the Nile. The only intact piece was Osiris' penis.

One day Isis bathes in the Nile and becomes impregnated because the severed penis of Osiris had given fertility to the Nile.

So yeah... a story of a virgin birth of a Sun God (and a son of a god) that predates Christianity by over 2000 years
 
Last edited:
You guys better stop or you're going to get Dumpy and Tsetse in here. Then you will be sorry.

Don't watch the movie as an 'information source', watch it as a way to 'ask questions'. The movie raises a lot of question and there's tons of info to answer them out there.

Careful, the zombie jesus lovers are very threatened by this movie. It makes them look a little gulible. In some cases it threatens to undermine everything they've built their lives around. I can see where it would scare them.
 
Last edited:
Having looked into the backstory of the film, I honestly haven't found anyone that's been able to debunk, with any level of satisfaction, any part of the film.
This guy is pretty good at it:

Zeitgeist Movie Response | Facebook
Code:
This is a response to the Zeitgeist movie intro posted in this group and the debate that followed. I promised to begin making a list of all of the factual inaccuracies, and as the regulars know, while I might be annoying and sophomoric at times, when I promise something, I'm good on it.

This is all I could handle for one evening...24 erros in a span of 3 minutes (approx. one error every 7.6 seconds) during part 1 of a 90+ minute movie. Enjoy. I will cite all my sources when I get done...which will be another day. I gave time references for each error, but make sure you use the timing from the link I provided.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz_C20TeaxE


Zeitgeist Factual Review

1. “This is the cross of the Zodiac”, 1:38. It’s actually the Greek Zodiac Wheel, but admittedly a minor error. Nonetheless, it implies a word that makes it seem more related to Christianity.
2. “Horus…the Solar Messiah”, 2:57. The Ancient Egyptians did not have the word or concept of a Savior or Messiah…the movie simply adds that word on for later relationship to Jesus.
3. “Metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set, while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld.” 3:10. This is not Ancient Egyptian mythology, but rather the product of Zeitgeist’s writers. Horus and Set were enemies, but there was no myth stating their battles were the daily cause of daylight and nighttime. “Metaphorically speaking” is the very nice way of saying this.
4. “Horus was born on December 25th…” 3:33. Incorrect. Horus’ birth was during the Egyptian month of “Khoiak”, which falls in what is now October and November.
5. “…of the virgin Isis Mary…” 3:36. Incorrect on both the name and her virginity status. In truth, Horus was born to Isis (the “Mary” seems to be added by Zeitgeist writers to make it sound like Jesus’ birth), the widow of Osiris. She used her deceased husband’s phallus and sperm to conceive Horus, but there is absolutely nothing about her being a virgin; her formerly being married to Osiris shows otherwise.
6. “…three kings followed to adorn the newborn Savior” 3:42. There is no evidence in any of the birth stories I’ve found for any kings visiting or adorning the child; in fact, Horus is born as a falcon and flies away. As we all know, it’s hard to catch a falcon to adorn it. It’s also worthy to point out…again…that the concept of a “Savior” was not part of Egyptian Mythology.
7. “…at the age of 12 he was a prodigal child teacher…” 3:47. He was quite a kid but I have found nothing about Horus as a “teacher” of anything, let alone at age 12.
8. “…at the age of 30 he was baptized…” 3:50. The Egyptians did not “Baptise” anyone. That term is obviously Christian and it’s application to Egyptian mythology is grossly misled. All of the information I can find about this also cites some of the above facts I’ve debunked as true, and I’ve found nothing to indicate Horus was dunked in water of any kind from any actual reputable source.
9. “…Horus had 12 disciples…”3:53. Horus had four disciples/ followers, not 12. They were called the “Heru-Shemsu” if you want to look it up.
10. “…(Horus) walked on water…” 3:57. Horus never walked on water. This appears to be nothing short of a Zeitgeist made piece of fiction.
11-15.“…known by many…names, such as ‘The Truth’, ‘The Light’, ‘God’s Anointed Son’, ‘The Good Shepherd’, ‘The Lamb of God’,…” 4:03. There is nothing in support of this anywhere. The Egyptians did not even have a “God” in the sense of a single god known by that title.
16. “…Horus was crucified…” 4:09. There was no such thing in Ancient Egypt. The civilization pre-dates crucifixion by over 1,500 years.
17. “…buried for 3 days and thus resurrected…” 4:11. Once again, there is no evidence for this claim. His father, Osiris, is resurrected by Horus’ actions in some myths, but Horus himself does not undergo this. Again, all online sources that support the Zeitgeist seem to have gotten their information from the movie.
18-19. “…Attis, born of a virgin (Nana) on December 25th…” 4:28. Nana is a nymph and conceives children by holding an acorn to her breast, and there is nothing indicating it happened on December 25th. Attis is associated with springtime, not the winter or the solstice. 
20. “…(Attis is) crucified…” 4:30. Attis castrates himself under a pine tree; he is not nailed to a piece of a tree by other people like Jesus was. 
21. “…(Attis is) resurrected…” 4:31. Attis never comes back to life. Requests by others to resurrect him are actually denied; Attis eventually becomes a pine tree. Zeitgeist fabricated this “fact” apparently…seems to be a pattern emerging…
22. “…(Attis is) placed in a tomb…” 4:31. See above…there is no tomb for poor Attis.
23. “Krishna, born of a virgin…” 4:37. Krishna’s parents had seven children before Krishna. They apparently were fond of intercourse, actually.
24. “…Star in the East…” 4:40. Again, there is absolutely nothing to this anywhere. Appears to be Zeitgeist nonsense again.
25. “…Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin…” 4:50. Zeus impregnates either a mortal woman (Semele), or Persephone; either way, he impregnates them with his god stick, not a divine touch. Virgin birth was never an element of Dionysus.
26. “…on December 25th…” 4:52. There is nothing anywhere in the Dionysus myth mentioning this day, the winter solstice, or a birthday of any kind. Like Attis, Dionysus is associated with spring, not winter.
27. “…travelling teacher…” 4:53. Dionysus did travel, but virtually all of his “teaching” was about wine making and he taught nothing spiritual.
28. “…such as turning water into wine…” 4:55. One of my law professors once told me, “lawyers don’t lie, they interpret the truth.” This movie is about two steps closer to lying than a lawyer apparently. Dionysus was the god of wine and gave people the power to turn things they touched into wine, and he also filled empty vessels with it. Oddly enough, none of these stories contains him or anyone with his powers turning water into wine.
28-30. “…he was referred to as the ‘King of Kings’, ‘God’s only begotten Son’, ‘The Alpha and Omega’…” 5:00. All false, of course. Dionysus was never the highest ranking god, never a king, had many, many half siblings (Zeus got around), and had a very well defined beginning.
31. “…Mithra, born of a virgin…” 5:07. Mithra actually sprang out of a rock in some traditions and ancient artworks, and none of the other myths provide any details of birth.
32. “…he had twelve disciples…” 5:09. Mithra was occasionally shown surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac, which, as one might guess, are not actually disciples.
33-34. “…and upon his death was buried for three days and thus resurrected…” 5:11. Mithra never actually dies in any myth, and so was also never buried. The living don’t need resurrections either.
35-37. “…called ‘The Way’, ‘The Truth’, ‘The Light’…” 5:16. He was called “the warrior angel of light” in Iran, but that’s actually a completely different Mithra from the Roman one pictured in the movie and referenced with the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Go figure.
38-40+. “…the fact of the matter is there are different Saviors from different periods from all over the world which subscribe to these general characteristics…” 5:25 A list of about 20 ancient gods are presented, some of which I can’t even find. The ones I know off of the top of my head are ridiculous to place in such a category…and some are even synonymous with before presented gods. Osiris of Egypt? Zoroaster from Iran? Thor? Quexalcote (who is from the New World and would have been completely unknown to the Jews of 20 CE)? They bare virtually nothing in common with Jesus (that IS what this is going for after all), and are not “saviors”. Remember that it is a Christian word and concept. Assigning this section as 3 errors is letting the movie off very easy.
41. “…let’s examine the most recent of the solar messiahs…” 5:48. This is a misleading/ wrong statement for a number of reasons. Jesus is the only “Messiah”, to start with, and if the previous gods are supposed to be other solar messiahs, then this is still wrong, since some of them actually are more recent than Jesus.
***42. “Jesus Christ…was born on December 25th…”*** 5: 53 *This is perhaps the biggest error in the entire section 1, and undermines the next fifteen minutes as completely moot.* 
The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John- the books that are supposed to be a historical reflection of Jesus and contain his birth story(s) ) were written down between 58 and 110 CE, with John being the last. The celebration of Christ’s birth as December 25th is not within the Gospels, and the date actually appears nowhere within them with reference to anything. Originally, the day appointed to mark Jesus’ birth was March 25th, the start of spring, and the same day the early Christians believed Jesus was crucified (they believed prophets died on their birthdays, as they were set to live a specific number of years). It was not until the year 354 CE, 240+ years after the last pen drop of the Book of John was finished, that “Christmas” was created and placed on December 25th. The primary reason for this day was to replace old Roman Pagan solstice festivals with a Christian one.
Furthermore, the evidence within the Gospels themselves virtually forces Jesus to be a spring birth (and adds solidity to March 25th being more accurate). The Palestinian winters are quite cold, and shepherds would not have been tending their flocks in the fields in late December, as the lambs would die of hypothermia. Basing Jesus’ birth story on the Astrology of December 25th is ridiculous and 101% baseless. If you don’t understand why, here’s an easy analogy:
I write a book about a hero named Bob tomorrow, and set the story in the summer of 2008. In the year 2307, people like my story about Bob so much that they make a holiday for Bob, Bobmas, and assign it to November 16th. In the year 2960, some historians reconstruct my story about Bob, and publish a paper showing how I wrote the story based upon the Astrology of November 16th, though my book neither took place on that date, nor did I even mention it. It’s tantamount to trying to explain the 4th Season of “Seinfeld” based upon the movement of a comet. It’s just loony and makes no sense when you actually look at the facts.
Code:
18 errors in 63 seconds = 1 error every 3.5 seconds...we're headed downhill quickly it seems. Keep in mind that there would actually be more than 18 if I had the patience to do thorough background checks on all 20+ gods presented in the list.

So far: 42 errors in a span of 246 seconds = 1 error every 5.86 seconds.

It seems that they weren't counting on anyone actually checking out the claims...seriously. I've taken a look at some of the sources, and many of them are literally laughed at by the Theological, Anthropological, and Historical communities, and the older ones ripped apart. One of the authors published his translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were immediately ripped apart for impeccable levels of inaccuracy and an odd "bias" toward making them seem more vicious and "pagan" than they really are.
Code:
43. “…The star in the East is Sirius, which, on December 24th, aligns with…Orion’s Belt…” 6:45. Sirius is well away from Orion’s belt and does not move in the night sky with relation to other stars; no stars do. Only planets move in relation to the stars (the stars do move, technically, but it takes many hundreds of years before even slight changes can be noticed).
44. “The three brightest stars are called today what they were called in Ancient times- the ‘Three Kings’…” 6:52. Yes, they were called that…in South Africa. In Greece, Rome, and the Middle East, they were Orion’s belt. The Sahara Desert kept the folklore of South Africa down there quite effectively, and the “The Kings” reference does not begin showing up in Aramaic Texts until 300 CE.
45. “…all point to where the sun rises on December 25th…in order to locate the sunrise; the birth of the son…” 7:07. This is incredibly misleading. All stars move east to west like the sun, and any set of stars in the sky could have been picked as “pointing back to the sunrise”. Next, the implied connection between “sun” and “son” is a play on words in English; no one spoke English when all of these events took place, obviously.
46. “…This is why other virgin mothers, like (Myrra’s and Buddha’s mother’s) names start with an “M”…” 7:32 Buddha was born to Maya, who had been married for 20 years before his birth. There is no indication of her being a virgin in any Buddhist traditions. In addition, the only sites I can find claiming Myrra had anything to do with virgin birth are “Greatest Story Ever Told” sites that read virtually identically to the Zeitgeist. Based upon the Zeitgeist’s merits, I can say that I would be highly skeptical of those sources.
47. “…Bethlehem is thus a reference to a place in the sky, not on earth…” 7:56. This statement is based upon the contellation Virgo’s being called “The House of Bread”, and Bethlehem literally translating in Hebrew to “House of Bread”. However, these two things were independently named in different languages. The Zeitgeist implies Bethlehem took it’s name from the Constellation…the people that still live there might tell the writers it’s the opposite. Point: two places with a common name =/= direct associations.
48. “The sun died on a cross (the “Southern Cross Contellation”), was dead for three days (December 22-24 the sun is at its lowest), only to be born again on December 25th…” 9:10. That’s fine and dandy, but this is a combination of two inaccuracies already pointed out; the “sun” and “son” were not word-playable words back then, and Jesus WAS NOT born on December 25th. All of this astrology explaining this cycle is meaningless and implies something that is wholly inaccurate; see fact error 42. 
49-51. “…this is why Jesus and other sun gods share the crucifixion, three day death, and resurrection…” 9:18. None of the gods pictured or previously talked about were crucified, dead for three days, or resurrected. This is redundant, yes, but it’s pissing me off and if they want to use bad information more than once, I’ll write it down more than once.
52. “…it is a Pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac…” 10:47. The Pagan Zodiac is balanced, with all four parts of the “cross” equal in length. The Christian cross is not balanced, but resembles the letter “t”. Forget that crucifixion on a cross was the method of execution by the Romans too…
53. “crown of thorns, or sunrays…” 11:32. I need something behind this. It’s a matter of conjecture, but not one I can find supported anywhere outside of the Zeitgeist.
Code:
It's worth pointing out that the link I provided and used for this is actually an edited version. Information pointed out as false in the original release has been edited out in three steps, and this version is a first round edit; the original contained the imfamous:

"The word 'hours' comes from the letters of the name of 'Horus'"..

(the English word "hour" is actually derived from the Greek "hora", meaning "season" or "time span".)

It also said "sunset" came from the god Set...

I just wonder how many errors there actually were in the original...we know it's a minimum of 55...and keep in mind, I've only looked at the first half of Part I (religion..."The Greatest Story Ever Told").
Code:
These are most of the sites I specifically used:

1. http://www.spirithistory.com/kgraves.html
2. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe19/sbe1903.htm
3. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg98.htm
4. http://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/life_10.htm
5. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/tut/tut05.htm
6. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hathor.html
7. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg08.htm
8. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/eml/eml05.htm
9. http://www.bartleby.com/65/zo/Zoroaste.html
10. http://www.avesta.org/znames.htm
11. http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/zoroaster_name.htm
12. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/haoma.html
13. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Mithraism
14. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Mithras
15. http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Attis
16. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/great_mother.html
17. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dionysus.html
18. http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Semele
19. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dionysus.html
20. http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Quetzalc

I will do bibliographies on my world religion textbooks if you want (I used 4 of them). In addition, I always checked yahoo and/or google searches to see if my base information was backed up, which it was. I also checked Wikipedia to verify most of my information...I always double check the wiki, of course, but it too always matched my textbooks and reputable websites.


edit:
For the record, I don't think Jesus was ressurected, recognize his story probably borrowed a lot of details from others, and of course know the real reason Dec 25 was chosen for his birthday. But my first loyalty is to the truth, and when people bend the facts to make their point like zeitgeist does, they should get flamed for it.
 
Last edited:
if you are trying to prove a point you should provide some names and examples other than a hasty generalization of things you may of not of liked to of heard/believe.

Well for starters, zeitgeist claims all of the mentioned dietys were born on Dec 25, we know that to be false in the case of Jesus. while Dec 25 - christmas is when the christian religion celebrates his birth, its be proven to have actually been in March.

This same claim was made about Horus, which turns out to be false as well. In Egyptology, Horus was born on the second epagomenal day, August 25

Krishna was born in July

Buddha's bithday or Vesak is in May and he not was crucified

The point that I am trying to make is, that if this information is false, what else in the movie did he make up?
I'm sure there is some truth in it somewhere but if you are going to lie about some of it, it calls into question the validity of everything else
 
I think it is good because it reveals just how easily people can spin facts. You can start with the message you want to send and pick and choose facts that support the message, disregarding all facts that do not support the message. This practice is done every day in mainstream news and conspiracy-theorist outlets.

I don't think people are nearly skeptical enough of the information they receive. Any belief you hold in excess of the available evidence is supported by faith. Faith is found in more than just religious beliefs.
 
My take is that it's a load of shit, and if you enjoy shit then it's the "film" for you.

Enjoy your shit.
 
I think the current economic crisis has torpedo'd the film's belief that the Fed Reserve controls everything.


Seems like a bunch of conspiracy theory junk. There isnt a man behind the fucking curtain because the world is too fucking big and there's too many god damned ego's for a handful of men to control it.
 
I think the current economic crisis has torpedo'd the film's belief that the Fed Reserve controls everything.


Seems like a bunch of conspiracy theory junk. There isnt a man behind the fucking curtain because the world is too fucking big and there's too many god damned ego's for a handful of men to control it.

This seems right.
 
I think the current economic crisis has torpedo'd the film's belief that the Fed Reserve controls everything.


Seems like a bunch of conspiracy theory junk. There isnt a man behind the fucking curtain because the world is too fucking big and there's too many god damned ego's for a handful of men to control it.

sure makes it handy to buy up companies for nothing when the economy tanks.
 
There isnt a man behind the fucking curtain because the world is too fucking big and there's too many god damned ego's for a handful of men to control it.

I tend to think big, this being the case I have a strong belief in the power strong minds and tons of money can attain. The idea that there is a man/men behind the curtain is not far fetched to me at all. Perhaps it is in your mind and in your experiences where an ego gets in the way. Well should these people exist, they did not get to where they are by being idiots and for something as petty as an ego or emotion to get the better of them would be far below the caliber of these select few.
 
It makes some good points. It also goes a bit nuts at points. I think it can open your mind/eyes to a few obvious things so overall its good as long as you don't go off believing everything in it.
 
Yes yes. It's been proven that Jesus was actually born in March. . . dot dot dot

Anyway,

I think that we have to be mindful of how things are presented. Anything can be very believable if presented the right way. I remember thinking that those guys put up a good argument about the moon. Then I saw an episode of Mythbusters and they totally debunked everything in such a thorough and awesome way.

That opened my eyes towards some things about where and how I learn. Now I take my facts presented to me in a specific, unbiased way so I can make an accurate judgment without emotions or drama getting in the way.
 
Back
Top