Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:00 pm
Found a person, Jason, trying to defend Zeitgeist (popular internet conspiracy movie) on Facebook. Copies of my responses are posted below. Since I respond to points directly quoted, I'm not going to bother to post his comments in their entirety as I usually do. I went from thinking he was rather innocently confused about the movie to thinking he is a full blown Zeitgeist Zombie.
Everything you need to know about this ridiculous movie is dealt with at this most excellent debunking site:
http://conspiracyscience.com/
***
DAR
I highly recommend against referring people to Zeitgeist as a source of information because for every sideways halfway fact they are getting nine completely upside down falsehoods. How this is not completely clear to a critical thinking skeptic type boggles me.
Each issue of the Watchtower magazine (JW) also contains many accurate "facts" but it is not a good source of information about the Bible or anything else. And The Watchtower has a far higher fact to falsehood ratio than Zeitgeist which is terribly, astonishingly, profoundly dishonest and just plain ignorant from start to finish. I don't think I have ever seen such a compilation of misinformation.
The 9/11 stuff is pinched from "Loose Change" another completely rubbish 9/11 truther piece of nonsense. It's hard to be all wrong all the time but they did it.
The "Jesus didn't exist" part is pinched from "The God who wasn't there" and the unscholarly works of "Acharya S."
The section about the Federal reserve is filled with the most pedestrian errors and falsehoods which undermine all of that part. As Jim Lippard put it:
"It's almost entirely garbage, dependent on crackpot sources."
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/06/zei ... movie.html
I think that's putting a lot of sugar on it. He gives a good summary of the problems at that link. Lot's of places are much more thorough.
How can anyone, under any circumstances, recommend something that is so palpably, ridiculously wrong? If this movie doesn't trigger the "too many falsehoods too much misinformation to be able to recommend" what, on, earth would it possibly take? The young greenhorns watching this typically won't know about these issues and rather than being well informed and accurately informed about these topics, they are being misinformed by a nicely packaged movie worthy of what a cult would produce. They are being groomed to be paranoid by a bullshit artist. And big surprise, this thing produces cult like followers.
Cults are my specialty, I've been dealing with them for 30 years. I know how they operate, how they work. This is a dumb little cult flick with an extra emphasis on paranoia and not getting their facts straight.
D.
***
JAS: The Invention of Lying for example, as we are all aware this move is NOT factual, but I would still recommend it to people.">>
DAR
Loved that movie. Considered it freethinker movie of the year.
100% of the people watching it know it is a fictional story with some interesting metaphors they are encouraged to read into it.
This is completely different than Zeitgeist which portrays itself to be a true documentary passing along hundreds of factual assertions. I have no idea where you got or get this notion that Z is intended to be anything other than a flick filled with claims, intended and understood by watchers, to be true. This is completely different than Ricky Gervais's comedy.
JAS: If a christian watches it and realizes the similarities and how silly religion seems from the outside and their perspective is changed, again, it is a win.>>
DAR
More likely they are going to do a little checking and not trust you to refer accurate movies to them. And they would be right.
JAS: for me recommending Zeitgeist is no different than recommending The Invention of Lying.">>
DAR
It's completely different. Is there a movement with a couple hundred thousand people defending and distributing The Invention of Lying as if it is true? No.
JAS: Why do you think that the Zeitgeist movie was intended to be non-fiction...">>
DAR
Jason, I have been watching these types for decades. This is an Alex Jones conspiracy variant. I consider Peter borderline insane (watch the youtube clip with him and Jones). Zeitgeist pretends to have the inside scoop. It makes hundreds and hundreds of claims. These are presented as factual. They even make lame attempts to reference a thing or two, here and there. Where on earth do you get the notion that there is any intent for this to be understood as fiction? There is no basis for this and the idea is completely bizarre to me.
How you are viewing this movie is not how the vast majority of people are viewing it.
JAS: "why would you not recommend a fictional movie if it was effective in its intent?">>
DAR
a) It's not intended to be understood as fictional and invariably it isn't taken that way
b) It's actual effect is to create a great number of people that are profoundly and serially misinformed on every issue the movie touches.
I have a 20 year old son, quite bright, second year at U of A. But he doesn't follow these issues much and wouldn't know much about what the movie covers. If he was to watch this, he would fill his head with it's first batch of information on these issues. And that information would be wrong, stupid, spun and paranoid. This is terribly counter productive. People should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources for information on such interesting questions. Zeitgeist the worst. It's a complete disgrace to the concept of imparting accurate and truthful information. I can think of no movie more counter to what I am interested in, which is, imparting and disseminating accurate and truthful information (and teaching others how to discern these things for themselves via critical thinking).
***
JAS: [quotes]"How can a movie so chock full and overflowing with misinformation be useful entertainment?",... well my guess would be because it is effective.">>
DAR
Effective at disseminating disinformation. Most cults are. Tens of millions of each bi-weekly issue of the Watchtower are printed and disseminated. Don't confuse good sales and distribution teams with quality of content. The content of Z, is rubbish. I don't care how many have watched it.
JAS: It has had millions of views. Effective in that it is reaching a large number of people.">>
DAR
Meaningless with regard to veracity.
JAS: I do not know 1 person that I have ever heard or know of that has every told someone... "By the way, everything in here is 100% factual".>>
DAR
You are equivocating between absolute true/false as if it means something. The movie makes hundreds of claims and is not passed along as a piece of fiction. What are the use of these claims if they are not true? Other than to misinform that is.
JAS: "...provide me with some similar documentaries (say 10-20 million views) that are 100% factual,">>
DAR
Number of views is entirely irrelevant. See the ad populum fallacy. 100% factual is not in question. False dichotomy. It's not black or white. If we were to grade a documentary on factual accuracy, most successful large mainstream ones should rank in the 85%-95% range. A couple of errors may occur. Zeitgeist would be in the single digits. It's either profoundly dishonest or doesn't give a flip about accuracy. Doesn't matter either way, it gets nearly everything wrong. That's an intellectual disgrace. No intellectually honest person, once informed of this, would want to be associated with it. You seem to understand it's full of errors but have some emotional attachment to it. Defending it as "entertaining" or intended as "fiction" is not relevant or persuasive.
JAS: "The Invention of Lying is filled with erroneous material,">>
DAR
The Invention of Lying is a *fictional comedy.* It makes no factual claims about the world. Not one. Zeit, is not fictional (by intent) or a comedy. It makes hundreds of claims about the world. No comparison, whatsoever.
JAS: "(I have faith) that people are intelligent enough to know that this movie is not 100% factual and therefore they shouldn't be "entertaining false information",">>
DAR
You are completely, utterly, exactly, wrong. And again with the 100%/0% dichotomy. If we rate documentaries on their truth content and error ratio, Z scores incredibly low. Avoid documentaries that score low on truth content and high on error content. Z is a worst case example. And absolute intellectual car wreck.
JAS: interview with Peter Joseph, pay special attention to the 7 minute mark.">>
DAR
Not really interested in anything a serial misinformer like this fellow has to say but, watched it anyway (and had seen it before when doing research for a lecture on Zeit).
JAS: [quotes] "That is not a good argument for using lies and very poorly sourced information to misinform people." See [link] above.
DAR
I don't see how that video bit changes the fact that there are no good arguments for using lies and very poorly sourced information to misinform people. Peter has very poor critical thinking skills and his movie appeals to the multitudes that also do not. Philosophy is about the pursuit of wisdom and love of truth. And movie like this makes a philosophy want to puke because it stands in contrast to both.
JAS: "There is no proof Jesus did not exist and there never will be." Lol, I was, of course, referring to the biblical Jesus, the son of God,">>
DAR
Of course. This doesn't change the fact that "there is no proof Jesus did not exist and there never will be." You can't prove a universal negative such as this.
JAS: I believe it is completely save to say that THAT Jesus did not exist.">>
DAR
Safe, but you can't prove it. Nor should you have to. I am suggesting you be precise with language. This is another problem with movies like Z, while they are terribly sloppy with facts, they are also just as sloppy with language and thinking and reasoning (i.e. the area of philosophy). It's really quite a disgusting display to those who know what's going on in the movie.
JAS: "I wonder if how America and, more importantly, people who view you as a leader in the local skeptic community would feel knowing how little you think of their critical thinking skills.">>
DAR
Don't give a flip.
"The vast majority of the populace does not have good skeptical and critical thinking skills." ~Darrel Henschell
If you don't agree with that statement, you haven't been paying attention.
About 1/3 of the populace believes in astrology.
About 1/3 believe the Bible, a book with talking animals in it, is inerrant
Nearly 1/2 believe the Adam & Eve story and that the earth is about 10,000 years old.
My claim is a profound understatement. What people may think of it, is irrelevant to whether it is true.
JAS: ..is very demeaning.">>
DAR
Don't care. I'm long past putting sugar on the medicine.
JAS: This makes you sound like you are "not" part of the vast majority and makes you sound like an ignorant elitist.">>
DAR
Ignorant and elitist are not related. I am not part of that vast majority but regularly take occasion, in public lectures, to point out that I used to be. Having spent the last ten years subscribing to about four different skeptical magazines, reading, studying, lecturing, doing TV and radio shows, debates, 5,800 posts in our forum etc, my position (while irrelevant) is unique when compared to the regular public. That's just the way it is.
The vast majority of the populace have *astonishingly* horrible skeptical and critical thinking skills. I say this having studied the issue for decades.
JAS: I believe the vast majority of people have the very same critical thinking skills as you do,">>
DAR
Then you don't know me, or the populace very well.
JAS: if they choose to ignore those skills that is their choice, but it does not mean they do not have them.">>
DAR
Actually it does. Critical, skeptical thinking, is a learned, trained, acquired, skill. It doesn't mean you are smarter (but it can have that appearance). Most people are taught to be gullible, in church or by society. Most people simply don't have the skills of critical thinking, the ability/knowledge to point out a fallacy etc.
***
JAS: "Where do you get such a notion that everything in the movie was fact?">>
DAR
Again you equivocate between must be all true or not true. It's a range, and Zeit scores very very very poorly by any measurement. And it doesn't matter what Peter intended. All we need to know is that he has very poor research skills and critical thinking skills. His movie shows this in spades from beginning to end.
JAS: Point out the voice or text or print somewhere before the movie that states: "everything in this movie is a verified fact".>>
DAR
100% irrelevant. When you make a movie that makes factual claims about the objective measurable world (unlike a fictionalized comedy), it is implied that the claim is true.
Otherwise what is the point?!
The person making the false claim is either mistaken, lying or deluded. This Peter fellow is probably all three but it doesn't matter. The result of his efforts has been an extraordinarily wrong movie only embraced by the conspiracy crowd who also don't know truth from fiction. When someone knowledgeable and interested in truth and accuracy watches this movie, they want to scream.
JAS: In fact, if you watched the interview I posted you will understand the writer/directors intent.">>
DAR
The intent of the Mormons, JW's, Scientologists and Zeitgeisters is all quite irrelevant to the question of whether their claims are based upon good evidence. They aren't. I am not interested in Peter's excuses any more than any of the others.
JAS: He was just getting started, angry, passionate, and wanted to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, so he did what he felt was right.">>
DAR
And he pooped the bed. The fact that such an intellectual abortion took off is an excellent example of just how gullible and intellectually lazy the populace is. However, his material is so bad it only fools the more paranoid conspiracy types. He doesn't get much traction outside of that circle. And he never will, regardless of his "intent."
JAS: "So Zeitgeist never says "factual claim X".>>
DAR
Of course it does. I can easily give you a hundred examples. Let me know if you would like a hundred examples.
JAS: "It is ONE mans opinion, view, and explanation for the three events.">>
DAR
And that is supposed to be some kind of excuse? It's almost entirely pinched from other stupid conspiracy sources so it's not even original crapola. That he would pass it along shows he is at best profoundly gullible. Don't get your information from people who are profoundly gullible.
JAS: "Are all your opinions fact?">>
DAR
You'll find that I am quite careful to not make claims that I can't back up. This is quite in contrast to Peter.
JAS: The Zeitgeist movement has nothing to do with the accuracy of the first movie.">>
DAR
That's the claim, I don't believe it, and don't really care. If it is separate, it's to it's credit. They should have picked a new name. This one has been soiled beyond repair for those who love truth and are interested in acquiring accurate knowledge.
***
JAS: I believe the problem exists in your false premises that the Zeitgeist movie is 100% fact.">>
DAR
This is your strawman. I don't require documentaries to be inerrant. But when they reach a certain threshold of error, I dismiss them as poorly constructed, worthless. If I was to create a grading scale it might be like the school system. I would require an A grade. Lot's of stuff on the history channel wouldn't make it. Zeit would receive, as I said, something in the single digits. This is far far far below a fail.
JAS: Even reputable documentaries are not 100% fact,">>
DAR
This is indeed a bizarre defense of an indefensible movie.
JAS: " if you are so inclined, develop a “documentary rating scale” and be very through and scientific and grade all the documentaries throughout history.">>
DAR
I don't need to grade all of the documentaries throughout history to know this flick is crap on stilts.
JAS: if there is a scale from 1 to 10 and Zeitgeist scored a 2">>
DAR
The part ripped from Loose Change I give zero. The Jesus part I give a three, but it's nullified and nearly useless because it only appeals to unpeer reviewed, unscholarly material. Don't want to set a bad example. The Fed Reserve stuff borrowed from John Birch Society conspiracy junk I give a zero out of ten. Overall this is less than one out of ten and that's probably too high.
JAS: give people some freaking credit and understand that not everyone needs you to hold their hand and teach them how to think">>
DAR
I'll distribute my opinion as I wish, thanks.
JAS: "while not everything in the movie is factual, its intent is to entertain and give people a new perspective.">>
DAR
The result is to vastly misinform and peddle falsehoods. All of it's main premises (except to some extent the Jesus part) are false and for very well understood reasons. Once people are given false information, it is much harder to remove than if they hadn't learned it in the first place. This is why in good conscience I could never encourage anyone to watch something so ridiculously false and dishonest.
JAS: I do not know anyone that is part of the Zeitgeist movement that defends the fact that the movie is 100% accurate.">>
DAR
Irrelevant to the vast scope of it's problems.
JAS: The movie and the movement are not synonymous, they are separate events with separate goals and objectives.">>
DAR
Sure they are.
JAS: Your opinion of Peter Joseph does little to help prove your argument,>>
DAR
I didn't use that to prove an argument. I don't like when people are intellectually lazy and don't care about the difference between truth and lies.
JAS: Zeitgeist... is one mans view and opinion on three events, that’s it.">>
DAR
You keep giving this excuse as if it accomplishes something. It doesn't. None of his stuff was original, it was all warmed over poop he stole from others. If he had good good critical thinking skills he would have known better. Those that are in some sense persuaded by it and go off and make a movement connected with it, should have known better.
JAS: I somehow doubt you know how the “vast majority of people are viewing (Zeitgeist)",>>
DAR
It makes factual claims about the objective world. These claims are plainly false (even you won't defend them). What is the utility of piles of false assertions? Humor? No, not funny. Entertaining? Not to people who love truth and accurate information. It is a colossal waste of time. It peddles warmed over conspiracy crap. Zeit, is going no where.
JAS: I think your son would make an excellent test subject for your argument then.">>
DAR
I just called him, here's the scoop. He watched it, thought it was crap. But he had several friends that thought it was "amazing." And it was starting to spread to some of his other friends, some friends that he had already helped to think more critically on religious issues. That's when he came to me and wanted help debunking for his friends. That's when I finally got around to looking at it and doing a proper debunk for the freethinker meeting. He brought several to the meeting and apparently it successfully deprogrammed them and it died out.
The idea that people (typically the teenagers and gullible types watching this) understand this thing to be fiction and aren't taking it's claims seriously, is ludicrous on its face.
My son's a bit of a sharp cookie on skeptical issues so, unlike his friends, it didn't work on him.
JAS: "sit down with him and after the movie, ask him what he thought.">>
DAR
He watched it and saw through it all on his own. Many of his friends didn't until they received a little training in how to debunk, which I guess I provided.
JAS: If he says, “yeah, I totally believe 100% of that as fact”>>
DAR
You can drop the "100% fact" canard at any time. More factual = better. Less factual = worse. Zeit = horrible.
Dar said earlier: “People should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources for information on such interesting questions.”
JAS: Man, you have very little faith in the human race… “People should be told…” Wow, prior to this conversation, I held you in a pretty decent regard,>>
DAR
I don't care what think about me.
JAS: but now, I have to admit, it has gone down some. Maybe I am just reading it wrong, but that sounds really bad to me.">>
DAR
You're reading it wrong. Try this:
With regard to the question of Global warming, people should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources of information."
Still have a problem? Try this:
"With regard to questions about the Bible, people should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources of information."
Are you really having trouble with this?
JAS: People already know how to critically think, some just choose to ignore that on certain subjects.">>
DAR
Yes, it's called compartmentalization.
JAS: It is a choice, not a lack of an ability.">>
DAR
With many it is a lack of ability, but it really doesn't matter what is causing it.
JAS: you are going to have to do better to prove your argument than that.">>
DAR
You conceded my argument from the beginning. Zeit isn't accurate. Now you are just trying to make excuses for why that doesn't matter that it's inaccurate. None of them are any good.
JAS: "we could host a viewing for random people and conduct a survey afterward to gauge peoples reactions.">>
DAR
That's what an Amway salesman would suggest for their product too. I could not in good conscience participate in more innocent victims being exposed to this intellectual travesty and pile of disinfo. I am only interested in exposing and debunking Zeitgeist for what it is. Warmed over conspiracy nonsense based upon rubbish.
***
COMMENT by Aaron:
As for Zeitgeist, it is /information poison/. Noone's claiming that it's bad because people think it's 100% true, noone's even asserting that people think that. What I will claim though is that it is bad because it is 90% untrue and the true portions are backed up with -incorrect- data. Anyone that Zeitgeist encourages to look at Christianity skeptically, if they look for evidence to back up or discredit the information presented in Zeitgeist (specifically about Christianity) will find a disproportionate amount of it at best heavily twisted and mostly outright indefensible.
Zeitgeist does not turn people into skeptics, and well, you've already said Zeitgeist isn't aimed at people who are already skeptics. Zeitgeist most assuredly changes people's ideas, but that -is- not always a Good Thing.
"more effective movie than Zeitgeist that is 100% accurate."
It is precisley that it is both highly effective and highly inaccurate that makes it information poison. It takes people that are willing to question religion (and many who have a tendency to question things still arrive at a horribly bad conclusions. This is not good in and of itself.) and associates their doubts about religion to many other ideas. If they were people inclined to do proper research about it then well.. Zeitgeist wouldn't be targeted at them anyway.
***
Now that we've seen the nature of the beast, let's continue...
JAS: If you do not require that documentaries be 100% fact then the rest is just subjective and your opinion.">>
DAR
No, that doesn't follow (non sequiter fallacy). Example:
If I am shopping for a used car and I tell the salesman I don't mind if it has a ding in the door and a scratch or two, this doesn't suggest he should bring me a car that has no wheels, has all panels full of punctures from an axe, all the windows are smashed, it's been rolled eight times, engine is missing and it's been torched.
That's the condition of your Zeitgeist movie, intellectually speaking, described as a car.
JAS: Someone does not need to be part of a cult to watch this movie.">>
DAR
No, but it helps. This is a ready made just add water and stir cult movie. It makes little cult members that don't know what to do. They're angry and frustrated so they go off and start a "movement" but since all of the main reasons for frustration are based upon a movie filled with nonsense, they don't know what to do. So they go around telling people, "the movement isn't the movie, but let's watch the movie and talk about it."
JAS: I have known several people that see it and were not aware of a lot of the information in there.">>
DAR
Typically this appeals to the more uninformed of the 18-25 crowd. Poor discernment, very little experience or wisdom. Conspiracy crank theories 101. Hits all of the emotional buttons and gives quite a ride. Spooky, ooky and woo woo too. Unfortunately...
JAS: "...while it might not be accurate,...">>
DAR
That's the problem. It's not at all accurate. And at this point, not knowing it is inaccurate, or in your case, not caring it is inaccurate, is inexcusable.
JAS: If they realize that Zeitgeist was not 100% accurate but still retain the knowledge that there were other gods before theirs...">>
DAR
If you want to show people a decent case against Jesus existence, show "The God Who Wasn't There." It has none of the conspiracy baggage. No person in good conscience can refer Zeitgeist to someone else.
JAS: "People should not go into a movie and come out of it believing that it is factual,...">>
DAR
Your comment is ridiculous. When people go to a documentary they don't have either the skills or the time to check every point made. This is why there should be some modicum of peer review, grading, oversight, responsibility. Peter took a bunch of conspiracy crank material from the usual sources and threw it in a pile. Now his defenders must run from it as they attempt to build a cult upon it's foundation. Most if not all religions/cults have ridiculous foundations. I don't know why. Looks like this one has already fizzled.
JAS: "For some maybe the threshold is higher or lower, for some (like me) effectiveness is more important.">>
DAR
It's only effective at promoting poisonous, inaccurate conspiracy crank information. Anyone who shows or promotes this, knowing this, is not an honest person.
JAS: I am smart enough to research the material and form my own opinion and I believe everyone else is also.">>
DAR
Obviously you aren't. You are the "public" I was referring to. Anyone who watches this and doesn't run screaming from it has a problem in the discernment department. Teenagers can be excused because they don't know much. For an adult, once they have had the truth exposed, to continue to promote this piece of junk, it's completely inexcusable. You have succumbed. You are a member of the cult, you should be deprogrammed. Or you can wait for it to wear off or you tire of getting mad fun of.
JAS: I do not feel this movie is a documentary.">>
DAR
That's absurd but it really doesn't matter what genre/box it goes in. It's poisonous misinformation. Of course it is a documentary and intended as a documentary. You are simply trying to defend the indefensible because you have an emotional investment in it.
JAS: I have always felt the movie was just a fictional story of one mans opinion on three events told in a dramatic way.">>
DAR
It's all warmed over crap that he is regurgitating. There is nothing original in this movie so you stop saying it's "one mans opinion."
I'll add my comments to the Conspiracy Science conclusion:
Part I Anti-Jesus stuff, poorly sourced all based upon one non-scholar.
Part II is the same stuff that has been debunked by hundreds of other people, and is essentially a copy from movies such as Loose Change.
Part III Everything in this part is out of context, a lie, misquoted, made up, or taken from anti-Semites who have made the same claims for years. I heard about these claims many times, and many people have made them. What is most interesting, there was a movie from the late 1980s about how the UN is going to take over the world, and it made nearly all the same claims. Why didn't that come true?
Overall there are absolutely no connections between Part I and any other part of the movie, Part II is a complete lie because 9/11 was an Outside Job, and Part III is the same things that have been said for decades, just replace "Banking Interests" with "Jews", "Illuminati", "Aliens", and many others, and you will automatically create the scripts for many other similar movies.
So, the conclusion is, the film is 99.999% a complete lie, complete farce, made up garbage."
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/z ... onclusion/
That guy goes through every line and roasts the movie to a crisp, top to bottom. I had forgotten how bad it was.
And another thing, I forgot that saying "the movement isn't the movie" is another standard knee jerk defense. Here are six reasons why that isn't true.
***
"Movies Aren't the Movement
Something that I never stop hearing is the phrase the movies aren't the movement. This referring to the fact that the movies promote conspiracy theories, but TZM is something else entirely, and exists separately from the movement. I would believe that if not for the following issues:
1) The movement originated out of the movies, and has the same name. Whether or not you desire for people to equate them, they always will.
2) Peter Joseph uses the movement to attack people, such as myself and others, who disagree with his films -- if they were truly separate, he wouldn't do this.
3) Members at meetings still show the films, the films are passed out to promote the movement, and even Peter Joseph himself says that the movies are the primary way they recruit new members.
4) The Zeitgeist movie web site links to The Zeitgeist Movement on the Activism page.
5) Most hardcore members are conspiracy theorists, a search on the forums alone shows hundreds of references to the earthquake in Haiti being "man made."
6) Once you have to start explaining to people that the movies and movement aren't the same, the battle is lost, you're already a laughing stock. Just like how the Communist Party has to explain how the Soviet Union/China/etc isn't what they had in mind either.
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/t ... -movement/
I am going to cross post this on our forum so others can see it.
***
Jason didn't respond.
Facebook thread:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s ... 1579635711
Everything you need to know about this ridiculous movie is dealt with at this most excellent debunking site:
http://conspiracyscience.com/
***
DAR
I highly recommend against referring people to Zeitgeist as a source of information because for every sideways halfway fact they are getting nine completely upside down falsehoods. How this is not completely clear to a critical thinking skeptic type boggles me.
Each issue of the Watchtower magazine (JW) also contains many accurate "facts" but it is not a good source of information about the Bible or anything else. And The Watchtower has a far higher fact to falsehood ratio than Zeitgeist which is terribly, astonishingly, profoundly dishonest and just plain ignorant from start to finish. I don't think I have ever seen such a compilation of misinformation.
The 9/11 stuff is pinched from "Loose Change" another completely rubbish 9/11 truther piece of nonsense. It's hard to be all wrong all the time but they did it.
The "Jesus didn't exist" part is pinched from "The God who wasn't there" and the unscholarly works of "Acharya S."
The section about the Federal reserve is filled with the most pedestrian errors and falsehoods which undermine all of that part. As Jim Lippard put it:
"It's almost entirely garbage, dependent on crackpot sources."
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/06/zei ... movie.html
I think that's putting a lot of sugar on it. He gives a good summary of the problems at that link. Lot's of places are much more thorough.
How can anyone, under any circumstances, recommend something that is so palpably, ridiculously wrong? If this movie doesn't trigger the "too many falsehoods too much misinformation to be able to recommend" what, on, earth would it possibly take? The young greenhorns watching this typically won't know about these issues and rather than being well informed and accurately informed about these topics, they are being misinformed by a nicely packaged movie worthy of what a cult would produce. They are being groomed to be paranoid by a bullshit artist. And big surprise, this thing produces cult like followers.
Cults are my specialty, I've been dealing with them for 30 years. I know how they operate, how they work. This is a dumb little cult flick with an extra emphasis on paranoia and not getting their facts straight.
D.
***
JAS: The Invention of Lying for example, as we are all aware this move is NOT factual, but I would still recommend it to people.">>
DAR
Loved that movie. Considered it freethinker movie of the year.
100% of the people watching it know it is a fictional story with some interesting metaphors they are encouraged to read into it.
This is completely different than Zeitgeist which portrays itself to be a true documentary passing along hundreds of factual assertions. I have no idea where you got or get this notion that Z is intended to be anything other than a flick filled with claims, intended and understood by watchers, to be true. This is completely different than Ricky Gervais's comedy.
JAS: If a christian watches it and realizes the similarities and how silly religion seems from the outside and their perspective is changed, again, it is a win.>>
DAR
More likely they are going to do a little checking and not trust you to refer accurate movies to them. And they would be right.
JAS: for me recommending Zeitgeist is no different than recommending The Invention of Lying.">>
DAR
It's completely different. Is there a movement with a couple hundred thousand people defending and distributing The Invention of Lying as if it is true? No.
JAS: Why do you think that the Zeitgeist movie was intended to be non-fiction...">>
DAR
Jason, I have been watching these types for decades. This is an Alex Jones conspiracy variant. I consider Peter borderline insane (watch the youtube clip with him and Jones). Zeitgeist pretends to have the inside scoop. It makes hundreds and hundreds of claims. These are presented as factual. They even make lame attempts to reference a thing or two, here and there. Where on earth do you get the notion that there is any intent for this to be understood as fiction? There is no basis for this and the idea is completely bizarre to me.
How you are viewing this movie is not how the vast majority of people are viewing it.
JAS: "why would you not recommend a fictional movie if it was effective in its intent?">>
DAR
a) It's not intended to be understood as fictional and invariably it isn't taken that way
b) It's actual effect is to create a great number of people that are profoundly and serially misinformed on every issue the movie touches.
I have a 20 year old son, quite bright, second year at U of A. But he doesn't follow these issues much and wouldn't know much about what the movie covers. If he was to watch this, he would fill his head with it's first batch of information on these issues. And that information would be wrong, stupid, spun and paranoid. This is terribly counter productive. People should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources for information on such interesting questions. Zeitgeist the worst. It's a complete disgrace to the concept of imparting accurate and truthful information. I can think of no movie more counter to what I am interested in, which is, imparting and disseminating accurate and truthful information (and teaching others how to discern these things for themselves via critical thinking).
***
JAS: [quotes]"How can a movie so chock full and overflowing with misinformation be useful entertainment?",... well my guess would be because it is effective.">>
DAR
Effective at disseminating disinformation. Most cults are. Tens of millions of each bi-weekly issue of the Watchtower are printed and disseminated. Don't confuse good sales and distribution teams with quality of content. The content of Z, is rubbish. I don't care how many have watched it.
JAS: It has had millions of views. Effective in that it is reaching a large number of people.">>
DAR
Meaningless with regard to veracity.
JAS: I do not know 1 person that I have ever heard or know of that has every told someone... "By the way, everything in here is 100% factual".>>
DAR
You are equivocating between absolute true/false as if it means something. The movie makes hundreds of claims and is not passed along as a piece of fiction. What are the use of these claims if they are not true? Other than to misinform that is.
JAS: "...provide me with some similar documentaries (say 10-20 million views) that are 100% factual,">>
DAR
Number of views is entirely irrelevant. See the ad populum fallacy. 100% factual is not in question. False dichotomy. It's not black or white. If we were to grade a documentary on factual accuracy, most successful large mainstream ones should rank in the 85%-95% range. A couple of errors may occur. Zeitgeist would be in the single digits. It's either profoundly dishonest or doesn't give a flip about accuracy. Doesn't matter either way, it gets nearly everything wrong. That's an intellectual disgrace. No intellectually honest person, once informed of this, would want to be associated with it. You seem to understand it's full of errors but have some emotional attachment to it. Defending it as "entertaining" or intended as "fiction" is not relevant or persuasive.
JAS: "The Invention of Lying is filled with erroneous material,">>
DAR
The Invention of Lying is a *fictional comedy.* It makes no factual claims about the world. Not one. Zeit, is not fictional (by intent) or a comedy. It makes hundreds of claims about the world. No comparison, whatsoever.
JAS: "(I have faith) that people are intelligent enough to know that this movie is not 100% factual and therefore they shouldn't be "entertaining false information",">>
DAR
You are completely, utterly, exactly, wrong. And again with the 100%/0% dichotomy. If we rate documentaries on their truth content and error ratio, Z scores incredibly low. Avoid documentaries that score low on truth content and high on error content. Z is a worst case example. And absolute intellectual car wreck.
JAS: interview with Peter Joseph, pay special attention to the 7 minute mark.">>
DAR
Not really interested in anything a serial misinformer like this fellow has to say but, watched it anyway (and had seen it before when doing research for a lecture on Zeit).
JAS: [quotes] "That is not a good argument for using lies and very poorly sourced information to misinform people." See [link] above.
DAR
I don't see how that video bit changes the fact that there are no good arguments for using lies and very poorly sourced information to misinform people. Peter has very poor critical thinking skills and his movie appeals to the multitudes that also do not. Philosophy is about the pursuit of wisdom and love of truth. And movie like this makes a philosophy want to puke because it stands in contrast to both.
JAS: "There is no proof Jesus did not exist and there never will be." Lol, I was, of course, referring to the biblical Jesus, the son of God,">>
DAR
Of course. This doesn't change the fact that "there is no proof Jesus did not exist and there never will be." You can't prove a universal negative such as this.
JAS: I believe it is completely save to say that THAT Jesus did not exist.">>
DAR
Safe, but you can't prove it. Nor should you have to. I am suggesting you be precise with language. This is another problem with movies like Z, while they are terribly sloppy with facts, they are also just as sloppy with language and thinking and reasoning (i.e. the area of philosophy). It's really quite a disgusting display to those who know what's going on in the movie.
JAS: "I wonder if how America and, more importantly, people who view you as a leader in the local skeptic community would feel knowing how little you think of their critical thinking skills.">>
DAR
Don't give a flip.
"The vast majority of the populace does not have good skeptical and critical thinking skills." ~Darrel Henschell
If you don't agree with that statement, you haven't been paying attention.
About 1/3 of the populace believes in astrology.
About 1/3 believe the Bible, a book with talking animals in it, is inerrant
Nearly 1/2 believe the Adam & Eve story and that the earth is about 10,000 years old.
My claim is a profound understatement. What people may think of it, is irrelevant to whether it is true.
JAS: ..is very demeaning.">>
DAR
Don't care. I'm long past putting sugar on the medicine.
JAS: This makes you sound like you are "not" part of the vast majority and makes you sound like an ignorant elitist.">>
DAR
Ignorant and elitist are not related. I am not part of that vast majority but regularly take occasion, in public lectures, to point out that I used to be. Having spent the last ten years subscribing to about four different skeptical magazines, reading, studying, lecturing, doing TV and radio shows, debates, 5,800 posts in our forum etc, my position (while irrelevant) is unique when compared to the regular public. That's just the way it is.
The vast majority of the populace have *astonishingly* horrible skeptical and critical thinking skills. I say this having studied the issue for decades.
JAS: I believe the vast majority of people have the very same critical thinking skills as you do,">>
DAR
Then you don't know me, or the populace very well.
JAS: if they choose to ignore those skills that is their choice, but it does not mean they do not have them.">>
DAR
Actually it does. Critical, skeptical thinking, is a learned, trained, acquired, skill. It doesn't mean you are smarter (but it can have that appearance). Most people are taught to be gullible, in church or by society. Most people simply don't have the skills of critical thinking, the ability/knowledge to point out a fallacy etc.
***
JAS: "Where do you get such a notion that everything in the movie was fact?">>
DAR
Again you equivocate between must be all true or not true. It's a range, and Zeit scores very very very poorly by any measurement. And it doesn't matter what Peter intended. All we need to know is that he has very poor research skills and critical thinking skills. His movie shows this in spades from beginning to end.
JAS: Point out the voice or text or print somewhere before the movie that states: "everything in this movie is a verified fact".>>
DAR
100% irrelevant. When you make a movie that makes factual claims about the objective measurable world (unlike a fictionalized comedy), it is implied that the claim is true.
Otherwise what is the point?!
The person making the false claim is either mistaken, lying or deluded. This Peter fellow is probably all three but it doesn't matter. The result of his efforts has been an extraordinarily wrong movie only embraced by the conspiracy crowd who also don't know truth from fiction. When someone knowledgeable and interested in truth and accuracy watches this movie, they want to scream.
JAS: In fact, if you watched the interview I posted you will understand the writer/directors intent.">>
DAR
The intent of the Mormons, JW's, Scientologists and Zeitgeisters is all quite irrelevant to the question of whether their claims are based upon good evidence. They aren't. I am not interested in Peter's excuses any more than any of the others.
JAS: He was just getting started, angry, passionate, and wanted to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, so he did what he felt was right.">>
DAR
And he pooped the bed. The fact that such an intellectual abortion took off is an excellent example of just how gullible and intellectually lazy the populace is. However, his material is so bad it only fools the more paranoid conspiracy types. He doesn't get much traction outside of that circle. And he never will, regardless of his "intent."
JAS: "So Zeitgeist never says "factual claim X".>>
DAR
Of course it does. I can easily give you a hundred examples. Let me know if you would like a hundred examples.
JAS: "It is ONE mans opinion, view, and explanation for the three events.">>
DAR
And that is supposed to be some kind of excuse? It's almost entirely pinched from other stupid conspiracy sources so it's not even original crapola. That he would pass it along shows he is at best profoundly gullible. Don't get your information from people who are profoundly gullible.
JAS: "Are all your opinions fact?">>
DAR
You'll find that I am quite careful to not make claims that I can't back up. This is quite in contrast to Peter.
JAS: The Zeitgeist movement has nothing to do with the accuracy of the first movie.">>
DAR
That's the claim, I don't believe it, and don't really care. If it is separate, it's to it's credit. They should have picked a new name. This one has been soiled beyond repair for those who love truth and are interested in acquiring accurate knowledge.
***
JAS: I believe the problem exists in your false premises that the Zeitgeist movie is 100% fact.">>
DAR
This is your strawman. I don't require documentaries to be inerrant. But when they reach a certain threshold of error, I dismiss them as poorly constructed, worthless. If I was to create a grading scale it might be like the school system. I would require an A grade. Lot's of stuff on the history channel wouldn't make it. Zeit would receive, as I said, something in the single digits. This is far far far below a fail.
JAS: Even reputable documentaries are not 100% fact,">>
DAR
This is indeed a bizarre defense of an indefensible movie.
JAS: " if you are so inclined, develop a “documentary rating scale” and be very through and scientific and grade all the documentaries throughout history.">>
DAR
I don't need to grade all of the documentaries throughout history to know this flick is crap on stilts.
JAS: if there is a scale from 1 to 10 and Zeitgeist scored a 2">>
DAR
The part ripped from Loose Change I give zero. The Jesus part I give a three, but it's nullified and nearly useless because it only appeals to unpeer reviewed, unscholarly material. Don't want to set a bad example. The Fed Reserve stuff borrowed from John Birch Society conspiracy junk I give a zero out of ten. Overall this is less than one out of ten and that's probably too high.
JAS: give people some freaking credit and understand that not everyone needs you to hold their hand and teach them how to think">>
DAR
I'll distribute my opinion as I wish, thanks.
JAS: "while not everything in the movie is factual, its intent is to entertain and give people a new perspective.">>
DAR
The result is to vastly misinform and peddle falsehoods. All of it's main premises (except to some extent the Jesus part) are false and for very well understood reasons. Once people are given false information, it is much harder to remove than if they hadn't learned it in the first place. This is why in good conscience I could never encourage anyone to watch something so ridiculously false and dishonest.
JAS: I do not know anyone that is part of the Zeitgeist movement that defends the fact that the movie is 100% accurate.">>
DAR
Irrelevant to the vast scope of it's problems.
JAS: The movie and the movement are not synonymous, they are separate events with separate goals and objectives.">>
DAR
Sure they are.
JAS: Your opinion of Peter Joseph does little to help prove your argument,>>
DAR
I didn't use that to prove an argument. I don't like when people are intellectually lazy and don't care about the difference between truth and lies.
JAS: Zeitgeist... is one mans view and opinion on three events, that’s it.">>
DAR
You keep giving this excuse as if it accomplishes something. It doesn't. None of his stuff was original, it was all warmed over poop he stole from others. If he had good good critical thinking skills he would have known better. Those that are in some sense persuaded by it and go off and make a movement connected with it, should have known better.
JAS: I somehow doubt you know how the “vast majority of people are viewing (Zeitgeist)",>>
DAR
It makes factual claims about the objective world. These claims are plainly false (even you won't defend them). What is the utility of piles of false assertions? Humor? No, not funny. Entertaining? Not to people who love truth and accurate information. It is a colossal waste of time. It peddles warmed over conspiracy crap. Zeit, is going no where.
JAS: I think your son would make an excellent test subject for your argument then.">>
DAR
I just called him, here's the scoop. He watched it, thought it was crap. But he had several friends that thought it was "amazing." And it was starting to spread to some of his other friends, some friends that he had already helped to think more critically on religious issues. That's when he came to me and wanted help debunking for his friends. That's when I finally got around to looking at it and doing a proper debunk for the freethinker meeting. He brought several to the meeting and apparently it successfully deprogrammed them and it died out.
The idea that people (typically the teenagers and gullible types watching this) understand this thing to be fiction and aren't taking it's claims seriously, is ludicrous on its face.
My son's a bit of a sharp cookie on skeptical issues so, unlike his friends, it didn't work on him.
JAS: "sit down with him and after the movie, ask him what he thought.">>
DAR
He watched it and saw through it all on his own. Many of his friends didn't until they received a little training in how to debunk, which I guess I provided.
JAS: If he says, “yeah, I totally believe 100% of that as fact”>>
DAR
You can drop the "100% fact" canard at any time. More factual = better. Less factual = worse. Zeit = horrible.
Dar said earlier: “People should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources for information on such interesting questions.”
JAS: Man, you have very little faith in the human race… “People should be told…” Wow, prior to this conversation, I held you in a pretty decent regard,>>
DAR
I don't care what think about me.
JAS: but now, I have to admit, it has gone down some. Maybe I am just reading it wrong, but that sounds really bad to me.">>
DAR
You're reading it wrong. Try this:
With regard to the question of Global warming, people should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources of information."
Still have a problem? Try this:
"With regard to questions about the Bible, people should be told/trained to look to the best, most reputable, most scholarly sources of information."
Are you really having trouble with this?
JAS: People already know how to critically think, some just choose to ignore that on certain subjects.">>
DAR
Yes, it's called compartmentalization.
JAS: It is a choice, not a lack of an ability.">>
DAR
With many it is a lack of ability, but it really doesn't matter what is causing it.
JAS: you are going to have to do better to prove your argument than that.">>
DAR
You conceded my argument from the beginning. Zeit isn't accurate. Now you are just trying to make excuses for why that doesn't matter that it's inaccurate. None of them are any good.
JAS: "we could host a viewing for random people and conduct a survey afterward to gauge peoples reactions.">>
DAR
That's what an Amway salesman would suggest for their product too. I could not in good conscience participate in more innocent victims being exposed to this intellectual travesty and pile of disinfo. I am only interested in exposing and debunking Zeitgeist for what it is. Warmed over conspiracy nonsense based upon rubbish.
***
COMMENT by Aaron:
As for Zeitgeist, it is /information poison/. Noone's claiming that it's bad because people think it's 100% true, noone's even asserting that people think that. What I will claim though is that it is bad because it is 90% untrue and the true portions are backed up with -incorrect- data. Anyone that Zeitgeist encourages to look at Christianity skeptically, if they look for evidence to back up or discredit the information presented in Zeitgeist (specifically about Christianity) will find a disproportionate amount of it at best heavily twisted and mostly outright indefensible.
Zeitgeist does not turn people into skeptics, and well, you've already said Zeitgeist isn't aimed at people who are already skeptics. Zeitgeist most assuredly changes people's ideas, but that -is- not always a Good Thing.
"more effective movie than Zeitgeist that is 100% accurate."
It is precisley that it is both highly effective and highly inaccurate that makes it information poison. It takes people that are willing to question religion (and many who have a tendency to question things still arrive at a horribly bad conclusions. This is not good in and of itself.) and associates their doubts about religion to many other ideas. If they were people inclined to do proper research about it then well.. Zeitgeist wouldn't be targeted at them anyway.
***
Now that we've seen the nature of the beast, let's continue...
JAS: If you do not require that documentaries be 100% fact then the rest is just subjective and your opinion.">>
DAR
No, that doesn't follow (non sequiter fallacy). Example:
If I am shopping for a used car and I tell the salesman I don't mind if it has a ding in the door and a scratch or two, this doesn't suggest he should bring me a car that has no wheels, has all panels full of punctures from an axe, all the windows are smashed, it's been rolled eight times, engine is missing and it's been torched.
That's the condition of your Zeitgeist movie, intellectually speaking, described as a car.
JAS: Someone does not need to be part of a cult to watch this movie.">>
DAR
No, but it helps. This is a ready made just add water and stir cult movie. It makes little cult members that don't know what to do. They're angry and frustrated so they go off and start a "movement" but since all of the main reasons for frustration are based upon a movie filled with nonsense, they don't know what to do. So they go around telling people, "the movement isn't the movie, but let's watch the movie and talk about it."
JAS: I have known several people that see it and were not aware of a lot of the information in there.">>
DAR
Typically this appeals to the more uninformed of the 18-25 crowd. Poor discernment, very little experience or wisdom. Conspiracy crank theories 101. Hits all of the emotional buttons and gives quite a ride. Spooky, ooky and woo woo too. Unfortunately...
JAS: "...while it might not be accurate,...">>
DAR
That's the problem. It's not at all accurate. And at this point, not knowing it is inaccurate, or in your case, not caring it is inaccurate, is inexcusable.
JAS: If they realize that Zeitgeist was not 100% accurate but still retain the knowledge that there were other gods before theirs...">>
DAR
If you want to show people a decent case against Jesus existence, show "The God Who Wasn't There." It has none of the conspiracy baggage. No person in good conscience can refer Zeitgeist to someone else.
JAS: "People should not go into a movie and come out of it believing that it is factual,...">>
DAR
Your comment is ridiculous. When people go to a documentary they don't have either the skills or the time to check every point made. This is why there should be some modicum of peer review, grading, oversight, responsibility. Peter took a bunch of conspiracy crank material from the usual sources and threw it in a pile. Now his defenders must run from it as they attempt to build a cult upon it's foundation. Most if not all religions/cults have ridiculous foundations. I don't know why. Looks like this one has already fizzled.
JAS: "For some maybe the threshold is higher or lower, for some (like me) effectiveness is more important.">>
DAR
It's only effective at promoting poisonous, inaccurate conspiracy crank information. Anyone who shows or promotes this, knowing this, is not an honest person.
JAS: I am smart enough to research the material and form my own opinion and I believe everyone else is also.">>
DAR
Obviously you aren't. You are the "public" I was referring to. Anyone who watches this and doesn't run screaming from it has a problem in the discernment department. Teenagers can be excused because they don't know much. For an adult, once they have had the truth exposed, to continue to promote this piece of junk, it's completely inexcusable. You have succumbed. You are a member of the cult, you should be deprogrammed. Or you can wait for it to wear off or you tire of getting mad fun of.
JAS: I do not feel this movie is a documentary.">>
DAR
That's absurd but it really doesn't matter what genre/box it goes in. It's poisonous misinformation. Of course it is a documentary and intended as a documentary. You are simply trying to defend the indefensible because you have an emotional investment in it.
JAS: I have always felt the movie was just a fictional story of one mans opinion on three events told in a dramatic way.">>
DAR
It's all warmed over crap that he is regurgitating. There is nothing original in this movie so you stop saying it's "one mans opinion."
I'll add my comments to the Conspiracy Science conclusion:
Part I Anti-Jesus stuff, poorly sourced all based upon one non-scholar.
Part II is the same stuff that has been debunked by hundreds of other people, and is essentially a copy from movies such as Loose Change.
Part III Everything in this part is out of context, a lie, misquoted, made up, or taken from anti-Semites who have made the same claims for years. I heard about these claims many times, and many people have made them. What is most interesting, there was a movie from the late 1980s about how the UN is going to take over the world, and it made nearly all the same claims. Why didn't that come true?
Overall there are absolutely no connections between Part I and any other part of the movie, Part II is a complete lie because 9/11 was an Outside Job, and Part III is the same things that have been said for decades, just replace "Banking Interests" with "Jews", "Illuminati", "Aliens", and many others, and you will automatically create the scripts for many other similar movies.
So, the conclusion is, the film is 99.999% a complete lie, complete farce, made up garbage."
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/z ... onclusion/
That guy goes through every line and roasts the movie to a crisp, top to bottom. I had forgotten how bad it was.
And another thing, I forgot that saying "the movement isn't the movie" is another standard knee jerk defense. Here are six reasons why that isn't true.
***
"Movies Aren't the Movement
Something that I never stop hearing is the phrase the movies aren't the movement. This referring to the fact that the movies promote conspiracy theories, but TZM is something else entirely, and exists separately from the movement. I would believe that if not for the following issues:
1) The movement originated out of the movies, and has the same name. Whether or not you desire for people to equate them, they always will.
2) Peter Joseph uses the movement to attack people, such as myself and others, who disagree with his films -- if they were truly separate, he wouldn't do this.
3) Members at meetings still show the films, the films are passed out to promote the movement, and even Peter Joseph himself says that the movies are the primary way they recruit new members.
4) The Zeitgeist movie web site links to The Zeitgeist Movement on the Activism page.
5) Most hardcore members are conspiracy theorists, a search on the forums alone shows hundreds of references to the earthquake in Haiti being "man made."
6) Once you have to start explaining to people that the movies and movement aren't the same, the battle is lost, you're already a laughing stock. Just like how the Communist Party has to explain how the Soviet Union/China/etc isn't what they had in mind either.
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/t ... -movement/
I am going to cross post this on our forum so others can see it.
***
Jason didn't respond.
Facebook thread:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s ... 1579635711
