Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Social Engineering
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-15-2009, 11:01 PM
Leonardo Leonardo is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 498
Default Zeitgeist Movie Refuted



For we have not received the Zeitgeist but the Theogeist that we may know the things freely given to us by God - 1 Cor. 2:12


Zeitgeist Refuted Part 1



Zeigeist Refuted Part 2



Zeitgeist Refuted Part 3



Zeitgeist Refuted Part 4



Zeitgeist Refuted Part 5



Zeitgeist Refuted Part 6



Zeitgeist Refuted Part 7



Zeitgeist Refuted Part 8



Zeitgeist Refuted Part 9



Zeitgeist Refuted Part 10




Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-20-2009, 02:29 PM
Milly Milly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 68
Default Re: Zeitgeist Movie Refuted

Thanks for posting this.

I don't have time to watch them right now.. on my way to work, but I'll watch them later!
__________________
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-21-2009, 10:34 AM
RoqEL22's Avatar
RoqEL22 RoqEL22 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 28
Default Re: Zeitgeist Movie Refuted

This was a very good movie, with foundational knowledge for truth seekers to launch off.
__________________
We offer information on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Thank you, and may peace be with you.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-06-2009, 01:08 PM
Laokin Laokin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 45
Default Re: Zeitgeist Movie Refuted

Am I the only person that realizes this "refutes" nothing?

How do they justify the fact that jesus is a clones from religions predating the bible?

The bible is the oldest book, not the oldest slab of tablet. Before there were books... there was stone carvings.

The lack of empirical evidence still stands. It doesn't matter how you interpret anything said in this movie, there is still no empirical evidence to support the claim.

There is however, empirical evidence that disproves "the son of god."

K, thanks.

BTW, I was raised in catholic school and went to church every Sunday for 13 years. Since I was about 5 years old, I could tell that the entire argument for why god exists boiled down to "because I said so." At this time I realized my parents would tell me no to things I would ask to do. Like sleep over at a friends house. I'd ask why, and they would tell me the same thing "Because I said so."

At this point in time I realized that there was no reason they were saying no. They just didn't want to drive me somewhere. The lack of empirical evidence proved my theory correct.

Same logic applies to every other aspect of life. You don't believe something unless you can prove it. You can't prove god, but you can disprove the bible. The bible is the "word of god" so by disproving the bible you are thereby disproving god.

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.

Last edited by Laokin : 10-06-2009 at 01:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-07-2009, 08:24 AM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: Zeitgeist Movie Refuted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laokin View Post
Am I the only person that realizes this "refutes" nothing?

How do they justify the fact that jesus is a clones from religions predating the bible?

The bible is the oldest book, not the oldest slab of tablet. Before there were books... there was stone carvings.

The lack of empirical evidence still stands. It doesn't matter how you interpret anything said in this movie, there is still no empirical evidence to support the claim.

There is however, empirical evidence that disproves "the son of god."

K, thanks.

BTW, I was raised in catholic school and went to church every Sunday for 13 years. Since I was about 5 years old, I could tell that the entire argument for why god exists boiled down to "because I said so." At this time I realized my parents would tell me no to things I would ask to do. Like sleep over at a friends house. I'd ask why, and they would tell me the same thing "Because I said so."

At this point in time I realized that there was no reason they were saying no. They just didn't want to drive me somewhere. The lack of empirical evidence proved my theory correct.

Same logic applies to every other aspect of life. You don't believe something unless you can prove it. You can't prove god, but you can disprove the bible. The bible is the "word of god" so by disproving the bible you are thereby disproving god.

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.
You're not the only one who has realized what you say you have realized, it's just that most of us don't read and/or respond to posts by Leonardo and/or Darth.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-08-2009, 02:56 PM
Leonardo Leonardo is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 498
Default Re: Zeitgeist Movie Refuted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laokin View Post
Am I the only person that realizes this "refutes" nothing?

How do they justify the fact that jesus is a clones from religions predating the bible?

The bible is the oldest book, not the oldest slab of tablet. Before there were books... there was stone carvings.

The lack of empirical evidence still stands. It doesn't matter how you interpret anything said in this movie, there is still no empirical evidence to support the claim.

There is however, empirical evidence that disproves "the son of god."

K, thanks.

BTW, I was raised in catholic school and went to church every Sunday for 13 years. Since I was about 5 years old, I could tell that the entire argument for why god exists boiled down to "because I said so." At this time I realized my parents would tell me no to things I would ask to do. Like sleep over at a friends house. I'd ask why, and they would tell me the same thing "Because I said so."

At this point in time I realized that there was no reason they were saying no. They just didn't want to drive me somewhere. The lack of empirical evidence proved my theory correct.

Same logic applies to every other aspect of life. You don't believe something unless you can prove it. You can't prove god, but you can disprove the bible. The bible is the "word of god" so by disproving the bible you are thereby disproving god.

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.
You are not the only one who has not realized this realization that you think you have realized and have not realized.

It's just that most of us don't reply to posts by BlueAngel or Sanjay.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-13-2009, 10:16 AM
commonsense commonsense is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 20
Default Re: Zeitgeist Movie Refuted

Leonardo - hi im new to this, i hope your well?

I watched the first 10min video there and decided not to watch the rest due to time constraints and the fact that the first part seems to have flaws. The initial question asked, 'Was christianity created for social control?' I waited patiently for the answer only to be disappointed to fine the video purely skirted around point at hand. Or was the answer- listen to the word of god, not the word of man? Surely that means there never ever can be a logical arguement made against god - by man! So before I even waste my time watching the further videos I know this isn't an open-minded debate but more of a, 'god is almighty - get used to it' brainwashing video.

I'll just lay my cards down here, I'm an atheist. I was brought up catholic but around the time I realised santa claus didn't exist, god soon followed. My main point to you (and other theists I debate with) is how can there be so many faiths, with each believing they are the 1 truth faith yet only 1 can be right logically (if any)? That was probably the main reason I stopped believing. How do you explain this?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-03-2009, 06:24 PM
makaveli makaveli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 80
Default Re: Zeitgeist Movie Refuted

The entire movie can be rediculed by the simple fact that there is no mention of Horus being crucified and ressurected three days later. It just garbage. If anything, jesus is based on bachus, who is based on dionysus who is based on OSIRIS who was killed by seth tossed in the river and ressurected by ISIS minus his penus so reflect the wintersolistace. It strange that the movie seems to be so much in the rite direction but completly bring up wrong facts. Another great example is the krishna hoax i;m not even going to discuss it. Just google some stuff and you see it's complete wrong like someone claiming black is purple! Also to those studieing mithraism its obvious that it borrows elements from the veda's and combines these with the solar cult of achenaton (check out the similarity in the logos). This however doesn't mean anything and doesn't implicate illuminati in india at all. Complete nonsense to discredit India's religion. If anything you can find many similarities such as sethh slaying dragon who absorbd the sun Amenra and the deity Indra slaying the dragon absorbing all the water in the world. India also has piramides (different thought) and spinx aspects. Also both polethistic versions of egyptian religion and vedic religion have many many similiratires. So they should have used that as a argument that all religions are from one source instead they tried to make jesus, krisna representations of the sun. Notice that this is EXACTLY what Achenaton tried to do and what Elagabus (the roman emperor) tried to do and what in my opinion Tibetian Budism is all about (the main reason why itis the news today to indroduce it to the people). The Illuminati wants us to have a Solar religion in my opinion and this is what Zeitgeist is about indoctrinating us believing that people like jesus could have never existed (I believe he existed but rather was quite a harsh warrior like person nothing like the orthodox version).

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.[/quote]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-04-2009, 03:34 AM
commonsense commonsense is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 20
Default Re: Zeitgeist Movie Refuted

makaveli - your an idiot - only people like you are so unintelligent
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-04-2009, 07:41 AM
makaveli makaveli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 80
Default Re: Zeitgeist Movie Refuted

So common sense please tell me what about my post makes me seem like a idiot.

The entire movie can be rediculed by the simple fact that there is no mention of Horus being crucified and ressurected three days later. It just garbage. If anything, jesus is based on bachus, who is based on dionysus who is based on OSIRIS who was killed by seth tossed in the river and ressurected by ISIS minus his penus so reflect the wintersolistace.

Please provide me any evidence that Horus was killed and ressurected three days later. I've found no evidence from this. Yet I've found much evidence that it was Osiris who was killed by his brother Seth and tossed in the river. His wife Osiris collected his different bodypieces minus the penis and ressurected him. No I didn;t neccecarily say that it's a fact that the greek equelevant is dionysus and the roman is bachus, so jesus must be the christian version. I said "if anything" its this story and not the horus version. So this can only make me an idiot if everything is completly false which I have stated. But since it isn't and these gods have been known for dieing and coming back I don't see how I am an idiot.

It strange that the movie seems to be so much in the rite direction but completly bring up wrong facts. Another great example is the krishna hoax i;m not even going to discuss it. Just google some stuff and you see it's complete wrong like someone claiming black is purple!

There is no evidence of Krisna's existince. Altough some have agrued that the ancient city of Dwarka as been found this is merely circumstancial evidence that seem to point out to a certain aspect of the story being truth. I'm not saying that he never existed, I'm saying there is no evidence except for the indian scriptures. And since those scriptures are the only evidence of his existince they should be regarded as the highest authority available to us regarding a possible existence of Krishna. And none of the scriptures mention Krishna dieing, being ressurected, being born of a virign (if I remember correct its even stated that his mother in which the child was grown had sex during incarceration + had chidren before) of being crucified. If you can even find any scripture tablet or whatever that indicates this did happen that please inform us about it. Still don't see how I am unintiligent or idiot.

Also to those studieing mithraism its obvious that it borrows elements from the veda's and combines these with the solar cult of achenaton (check out the similarity in the logos). This however doesn't mean anything and doesn't implicate illuminati in india at all.

This is a common exepted fact. Mithraism came in existence at least after 1500 BC (much later) and 1500BC is the common exepted date for the vedas (by western scolars but many disagree). The cult of achenaton portrays the soul as a winged sundisk, the logo of zorastrism that rose at the same time in persia is also a winged sundisk but now with the image of zoraster in it. Plus the persian shahs being converted to zorastrism where of an egyptian background:


"According to A. T. Olmsteadís book History of the Persian Empire, Darius the Greatís father Vishtaspa (Hystaspes) and mother Hutaosa (Atossa) knew the prophet Zarathustra (Zoroaster) personally and were converted by him to the new religion he preached, Zoroastrianism."

Plus the mother of Atossa was the Egyptian princess Neithiyti. So how does this make me stupid please tell me cause I really don't understand./

Complete nonsense to discredit India's religion. If anything you can find many similarities such as sethh slaying dragon who absorbd the sun Amenra and the deity Indra slaying the dragon absorbing all the water in the world. India also has piramides (different thought) and spinx aspects. Also both polethistic versions of egyptian religion and vedic religion have many many similiratires. So they should have used that as a argument that all religions are from one source instead they tried to make jesus, krisna representations of the sun. Notice that this is EXACTLY what Achenaton tried to do and what Elagabus (the roman emperor) tried to do and what in my opinion Tibetian Budism is all about (the main reason why itis the news today to indroduce it to the people).

The slaying of the dragon by both Seth and Indra are actually just facts as they are written in both religious scriptures. So how does citing this make me stupid? Or how does using these facts as an argument for common origin or atleast interaction make me stupid?

Achenaton did indeed try to ban all gods and create on single sun god. I'm just citing common maintstream egyptian knowledge if it isn't truth and based on lies please step forward and explain. Elagabus belonged to the Sol invictus religion so again how does this make me stupid?

I stated that in MY OPINION this is exactly what the current tibetian budism is about without argumentation because it wasn't worth putting it here on this forum I just though I drop that piece of information in to clarify my vission of the pattern of solar cults around the world. Is this the reason you think I'm stupid?

The Illuminati wants us to have a Solar religion in my opinion and this is what Zeitgeist is about indoctrinating us believing that people like jesus could have never existed (I believe he existed but rather was quite a harsh warrior like person nothing like the orthodox version).

Again my opinion and I never explained it I just mentioned it for those interested as an extra again how does this make me stupid? If you don't know my arguments for these thoughts that how can you go around say I'm stupid based on partial information? That's actually just plain stupid if you ask me

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.[/quote][/quote]

This last isn't mine I accidently quoted it from another guy and the previous page.

So please be so kind to explain how and why I am stupid.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.