Non-Biblical proof that Part 1 of Zeitgeist is false??

Question

I'm not trying to prove its false. I'm trying to see how people that say its false back up their opinions

Answer 1

First of all, a similarity between two concepts does not prove that one of the concepts derived from the other.  So no matter how alike astrology or whatever is to Christianity, all it demonstrates is that they are alike.  To draw any kind of scientific connection would require evidence of that connection.  And certainly a Christian might say that those other beliefs were just foreshadowing their own, so the coincidence is unsurprising.

Secondly, even if it were demonstrated that Christianity was entirely made-up at one point, it hardly means that everyone in all the eschelons of that religions' leadership was aware and cynically using that fact.  I would tend to expect the contrary, myself - those people who would be most motivated to take charge of the church would be those true believers.  And let's not forget that such a tightly-held supposed conspiracy would be prone to complete destruction by accident:  a poorly-timed disease or war could kill every person in-the-know; a misplaced note or comment could let the secret out for all time.

Let's not also forget that there are other accounts placing the origin and growth of Christianity, not the least of which are those made by other religions which would have been perfectly happy to discredit and destroy it if they could.  If all the historical placements were cooked up by Theodosius I and the Council, it would have required an unimaginable penetration into pretty much every document written in the previous three hundred years and disseminated throughout the globe.  In the waning end of the Roman Empire, this is difficult to imagine at best.

Lastly, anything you may say about Christianity really has no bearing on other theistic traditions.  Even if we grant that Christianity was an outgrowth of a desire to control the public, that doesn't mean that every other theistic belief is an equally malicious scheme.  We need look no further for evidence of this than the founding fathers of America, many of whom were strongly religious Deists, Quakers, and whatnot, but who nonetheless felt it critical to try and separate religion from authority.

Answer 2

The meaning or interpretation of Part 1 is more important than determining if parts of it are false.

Answer 3

Much of the stuff in Zeitgeist just defies plain logic.

This site did a great job of a point-by-point relatively objective analysis of part 1: http://www.conspiracyscience.com/article...

Here's another site that offers a prize to for proving anything in part 1 is true: http://www.zeitgeistchallenge.com. They also have an amusing video on Youtube that address some of the issues. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRaxf4ZC0... )

Regardlless, all religion is based on faith. So what's the point of trying to debunk it? Usually individuals that spend a lot of effort trying to 'disprove' a religion are on a anti-sect crusade. Zeitgeist is a prime example of that. The filmmakers true feelings and motives are revealed in the end of part one where he calls Christianity a 'fraud for the ages'.

Answer 4

This is just another perspective.

Answer 5

its all so seemingly rediculous in foresight. Zeitgeist does not promote athiesm! think a little more buddy, there's a bit (understatement!) more to it. zeitgeist is just scratching the surface. its been 6 months since i saw the film for the first time. it changed my life, really opened my eyes to relearn history and see that sooo many things are not as they seem. ive completely rethought everything i ever thought i knew since that film and learn and critically analysed everything 100 times over. zeitgeist is the greatest film one may ever see on these types of issues. in hindsight, everything in the film is plain obvious and in plain sight. In short, i havent disproved a single statement in it. and as you look into these areas more you can read between the lines to see what else they are saying, there's a lot to it and very professional and well put together. all critical sources say yes, it is true. a one world government on the other hand, hasnt been (at least formally) announced yet. egyptian and babylonian and roman and british history certainly informs, but you need to be critical and consider conspiratorial sources. the bloodlines have ruled these empires. dude, most conspiracies are true, though im sure the alternative media has also been influenced and that some are misleading. look into it a bit more, youll learn some interesting stuff! whatever (legit) conspiracy you follow you'll come back to the same culprits every time. what an interesting and challenging face this world has shown to me since this film. Yeah! If you think zeitgeist promotes athiest, watch the very end once more and then watch "what the bleep do we know"

"The world is round the world is round!!"

here's one for you. look into the egyptians and youll see all the proof you need. for eg. the sphinx points to the sunrise at winter equinox in the age of leo (10,000yrs ago) -but once again its been personified and is no longer lion-headed.

and yes i agree with ross on his comment, although i do agree with what they say about the political control of the vatican. and well the king james version of the bible was obviously written by european royalty too. and where did christianity blossom? Rome!