Ableton Forum

http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid= ... 6332&hl=es
.... ... ... ...

the video is not bad.
and I think it carries quite some true cores..
but be critical. not only critical against instutions and "the leaders of the world", but everthing. this video uses a lot of psychological tricks, and it presents everything as given facts, just like the "leaders" would do.


anyway, I love the way how they connect astronomy/logy with religions.

Zeitgeist Part I is a load of bollocks and sadly representative of the hypocrisy of the current wave of neo-paganism/gnosticism. These are not new ideas at all, but mostly repackaging of ideas thoroughly discredited in the 19th century. The scholarship is utterly lame, psychological manipulation through media tricks abound, and the logic myopic and self-serving. If it is truth these people are after, why are they resorting to the very same trickery used by those in power? If it is unity they are preaching, why is the entire movie about evoking profound indignation and outrage towards those who have pulled the wool over our eyes, with very little in the way of solutions, and only a pathetic call for unity at the end?

Check out this very thorough response to Part I I strongly encourage everyone who has watched Zeitgeist to read this examination of its arguments, and consider for yourself. Before you get your panties all tied up over bias, bear in mind that everyone is biased, Zeitgeist itself more so than most.

To me, it is very sad the direction our world is heading, and profoundly tragic choices are being made right this very minute that will shape our lives and future generations for a very long time. IMO, there is no time or energy to waste with crap like Zeitgeist. We need real unity, real facts, and real research. We need hardcore information that will not let us down as we fight to make our world a better place. Try having an argument with someone who really knows what they are talking about, using the "information" in Zeitgeist, and you will quickly find out how useless it is.

ethios4 wrote:Zeitgeist Part I is a load of bollocks and sadly representative of the hypocrisy of the current wave of neo-paganism/gnosticism. These are not new ideas at all, but mostly repackaging of ideas thoroughly discredited in the 19th century. The scholarship is utterly lame, psychological manipulation through media tricks abound, and the logic myopic and self-serving. If it is truth these people are after, why are they resorting to the very same trickery used by those in power? If it is unity they are preaching, why is the entire movie about evoking profound indignation and outrage towards those who have pulled the wool over our eyes, with very little in the way of solutions, and only a pathetic call for unity at the end?

Check out this very thorough response to Part I I strongly encourage everyone who has watched Zeitgeist to read this examination of its arguments, and consider for yourself. Before you get your panties all tied up over bias, bear in mind that everyone is biased, Zeitgeist itself more so than most.

To me, it is very sad the direction our world is heading, and profoundly tragic choices are being made right this very minute that will shape our lives and future generations for a very long time. IMO, there is no time or energy to waste with crap like Zeitgeist. We need real unity, real facts, and real research. We need hardcore information that will not let us down as we fight to make our world a better place. Try having an argument with someone who really knows what they are talking about, using the "information" in Zeitgeist, and you will quickly find out how useless it is.

Haven't actually seen it yet, so I'll just take your word for that.

Even if it's inaccurate, crap, just plain wrong or whatever, judging by what makes up the vast majority of youtube, it can't be that bad this is number one. At least this kind of thing gets people thinking and talking.

Would you rather it was a clip of someone putting their cat in the washing machine?

Rather than watching Zeitgeist, I would strongly recommend watching these :
Money as Debt
The Story of Stuff
American Drug War

And don't take anyone's word for it.....do your own research if you are interested in this stuff. I've spent months researching the claims of Zeitgeist, Pharmacratic Inquisition, and Jordan Maxwell, and have corresponded with experts in Biblical translation, ancient languages and ancient history, and theology. Perhaps there are experts in these fields who can substantiate the claims presented. There is no fear in truth.

ethios4 wrote:Zeitgeist Part I is a load of bollocks and sadly representative of the hypocrisy of the current wave of neo-paganism/gnosticism. These are not new ideas at all, but mostly repackaging of ideas thoroughly discredited in the 19th century. The scholarship is utterly lame, psychological manipulation through media tricks abound, and the logic myopic and self-serving. If it is truth these people are after, why are they resorting to the very same trickery used by those in power? If it is unity they are preaching, why is the entire movie about evoking profound indignation and outrage towards those who have pulled the wool over our eyes, with very little in the way of solutions, and only a pathetic call for unity at the end?

Check out this very thorough response to Part I I strongly encourage everyone who has watched Zeitgeist to read this examination of its arguments, and consider for yourself. Before you get your panties all tied up over bias, bear in mind that everyone is biased, Zeitgeist itself more so than most.

To me, it is very sad the direction our world is heading, and profoundly tragic choices are being made right this very minute that will shape our lives and future generations for a very long time. IMO, there is no time or energy to waste with crap like Zeitgeist. We need real unity, real facts, and real research. We need hardcore information that will not let us down as we fight to make our world a better place. Try having an argument with someone who really knows what they are talking about, using the "information" in Zeitgeist, and you will quickly find out how useless it is.

Wow? I thought you were a moderate christian??
That guy in the link disavows evolution, claims the sun was not the origional object of religious worship, and denies the scientific method.

Zeitgiest has some holes for sure, but this guy is so virulent that he attacks even things that aren't really that arguable.

ethios4 wrote:Rather than watching Zeitgeist, I would strongly recommend watching these :
Money as Debt
The Story of Stuff
American Drug War

And don't take anyone's word for it.....do your own research if you are interested in this stuff. I've spent months researching the claims of Zeitgeist, Pharmacratic Inquisition, and Jordan Maxwell, and have corresponded with experts in Biblical translation, ancient languages and ancient history, and theology. Perhaps there are experts in these fields who can substantiate the claims presented. There is no fear in truth.

Well as someone with a passing interest in this kind of thing, spending months researching, is pretty unlikely. I'll just watch the program (and the ones you've suggested) and take it all with a pinch of salt, as with everything else. Gave up on the idea of taking anyone's word for anything whilst sitting in church aged about 10.

Machinesworking wrote: Wow? I thought you were a moderate christian??
That guy in the link disavows evolution, claims the sun was not the origional object of religious worship, and denies the scientific method.

Whoa there! Was going to read this til I'd seen the film, but his conclusions have the most incredible holes in logic. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with believing in God, but to try and justify God existance with arguments like this is just nuts:

Evolution v. Creationism: We were either created or we evolved. There are no other options. The problem with evolution is that it is a dead end. Evolution only attempts to address the origin of the species—not the origin of the cosmos. Hence, evolution leaves us asking the deeper question still: "How did the earth, the universe, get here in order for us to evolve—if that was indeed the mechanism?" Evolution has no answer. Science posits the Big Bang as the answer but the same question lingers: “From whence did the Big Bang occur?” Creation is the only option answering the ultimate, non-created Creator question. And, as Mr. Ockham stated, it is much more reasonable to accept the less complex than the opaque.

So the problem with evolution is that it doesn't explain the existance of the universe? No, because it's an attempt to explain biological life. Why the hell should it explain the existance of the universe? It's a scientific theory not a religion.

For what it's worth, I have added to Anselm's hypothesis. It is my contention that one cannot conceptually envision God unless God truly exists, at least in part. For we cannot envision something that does not exist, at least in part. If God exists in part, then by literal definition, He must exist, necessarily.

Well, that's just bonkers.

Oh, fuck me blue. Again with the Zeitgeist?

Honestly. Where's the fucking Chariots of The Gods when you need them?

Machinesworking wrote: Wow? I thought you were a moderate christian??
That guy in the link disavows evolution, claims the sun was not the origional object of religious worship, and denies the scientific method.

Yes, I acknowledge he is heavily biased, and I don't agree with everything he says. I was impressed with his rebuttal of Zeitgeist, not his theological claims.

andydes wrote:

For what it's worth, I have added to Anselm's hypothesis. It is my contention that one cannot conceptually envision God unless God truly exists, at least in part. For we cannot envision something that does not exist, at least in part. If God exists in part, then by literal definition, He must exist, necessarily.

Yea, I don't know about that one. "...in part" is the operative phrase there. For instance, we can imagine a unicorn, which does not exist entirely, but does in part - the horse. I don't know that I could imagine something for which there is no reference at all in this universe. I don't see how that can lead to a proof of God though.

andydes wrote:

Evolution v. Creationism: We were either created or we evolved. There are no other options. The problem with evolution is that it is a dead end. Evolution only attempts to address the origin of the species—not the origin of the cosmos. Hence, evolution leaves us asking the deeper question still: "How did the earth, the universe, get here in order for us to evolve—if that was indeed the mechanism?" Evolution has no answer. Science posits the Big Bang as the answer but the same question lingers: “From whence did the Big Bang occur?” Creation is the only option answering the ultimate, non-created Creator question. And, as Mr. Ockham stated, it is much more reasonable to accept the less complex than the opaque.

Well, that's a false dilemma, IMO, but his basic point is that science by definition seeks to explain the origin of the universe from within the universe (even if that universe is really a multiverse), but there are basic logical problems with a self-existent spatiotemporal universe, and also with a philosophy of complete understanding of a system from within that system, which would be required to successfully prove the origin of the universe.

ethios4 wrote:

andydes wrote:

For what it's worth, I have added to Anselm's hypothesis. It is my contention that one cannot conceptually envision God unless God truly exists, at least in part. For we cannot envision something that does not exist, at least in part. If God exists in part, then by literal definition, He must exist, necessarily.

Yea, I don't know about that one. "...in part" is the operative phrase there. For instance, we can imagine a unicorn, which does not exist entirely, but does in part - the horse. I don't know that I could imagine something for which there is no reference at all in this universe. I don't see how that can lead to a proof of God though.

I thought it came from a rhino. Whatever, it's a silly argument.

Of course, if you wanted to actually take this seriously, you could say perhaps that's an explaination of why in (traditional) Judo-Christian belief God basically looked like a man. They couldn't envisage Him without some kind of frame of reference.

[quote="ethios4"][quote="andydes"][quote]Evolution v. Creationism: We were either created or we evolved. There are no other options. The problem with evolution is that it is a dead end. Evolution only attempts to address the origin of the species—not the origin of the cosmos. Hence, evolution leaves us asking the deeper question still: "How did the earth, the universe, get here in order for us to evolve—if that was indeed the mechanism?" Evolution has no answer. Science posits the Big Bang as the answer but the same question lingers: “From whence did the Big Bang occur?” Creation is the only option answering the ultimate, non-created Creator question. And, as Mr. Ockham stated, it is much more reasonable to accept the less complex than the opaque.[/quote] [/quote]Well, that's a false dilemma, IMO, but his basic point is that science by definition seeks to explain the origin of the universe from within the universe (even if that universe is really a multiverse), but there are basic logical problems with a self-existent spatiotemporal universe, and also with a philosophy of complete understanding of a system from within that system, which would be required to successfully prove the origin of the universe.[/quote]

andydes wrote:Of course, if you wanted to actually take this seriously, you could say perhaps that's an explaination of why in (traditional) Judo-Christian belief God basically looked like a man. They couldn't envisage Him without some kind of frame of reference.

Perhaps true, but then also the reason Jews and Christians are told to make no graven image of God. Any image of God by definition limits our conception of God. That has not stopped the vast majority of churches from adopting anthropomorphisms in place of truth. Because he is so far outside of our conception, the only things we can know are what he has revealed.

It is my belief that all religions are man's attempt to understand and formulate God, who is fundamentally beyond our conception. The theoretical deviations from his actual being are the source of the varieties of religion, and also accounts for the degree of truth in each. It is also my belief that God has chosen to reveal himself progressively throughout history via the prophets of ancient Israel and through the life of Jesus Christ.

...just thought I should clarify my position, not trying to preach here...