Thoughts (and misgivings) about “Zeitgeist”

The authors of this film, in spite of their sophistication about many important issues, unfortunately seem to be totally clueless as to the nature and purpose of religion. If one were to take their argument in Part 1 and apply it to science, it would be like saying that science should be shunned because the scientific method is part of a conspiracy by scientists to create ways to blow things up and control people with fear. Should we ban science because it is used to make bombs? Science has done good things AND bad things. The same is true of religion.

They leap from their critique of organized religion to an attack on theism itself. This will turn off a lot of people and cause others (like myself) to be embarrassed by the know-it-all attitude of the narrator. Parts 2 and 3 include a lot of important material and I want to recommend this film, but Part 1 makes me cringe.

They also fail to reconcile Part 1 with the montage of images and commentary at the end of the film, which includes many highly theistic religious figures, including none other than Jimi Hendrix, a very religious man, whose statement about the “power of love” vs. the “love of power” is one of the most potent and concise of the entire sequence.

The authors appear to be completely unaware that religion is primarily about personal spiritual values, in the same way that science is about physical things, and philosophy is about the meaning of it all. Religion, in spite of its myths and abuses, functions as the conceptual repository for the VALUES of civilization. And what about PERSONAL religion, which is practiced completely apart from religious institutions?

The ability to appreciate love and to recognize what is good and true requires the development of a concept registry, just like an understanding of physics or an examination of the merits of Plato. Science, philosophy and religion ask different kinds of questions and look for different kinds of answers, but it takes all three to get a full picture of reality.

Philosophically, the film seems to advocate “being” over “becoming”, as if we should only do one and not the other. Why not BOTH? “Becoming” suggests direction, growth and being alive. From the perspective of personal growth, the notion of the sun as a metaphor for God seems quite apt and even artistic.

To the person who thinks independently about these things (apart from church dogma and doctrine) the idea of God usually suggests, at the very least, the idea of a “higher self”. We become what we worship.

If a person “worships” power and wealth, then that person’s life will become focused upon the acquisition of power and wealth above all else. If a person thinks of God as the personal inspiration for all they hold to be good, true and beautiful, then that person will grow spiritually in those directions.

Values — good or bad — are expressed personally, in personal relationships and by institutional constructs that are created and agreed upon by PERSONS, not by giraffes, artichokes, lamp posts, or moon rocks. Values are meaningless apart from their personal expression. As a matter of fact, it’s impossible even to think about values without imagining their personal implications and consequences. How can there be love if nobody’s home?

Is it surprising that God is thought of as a personal presence? Meeting someone that we respect and admire brings out the best in us. A list of virtues written on a piece of paper does not have the same kind of transformative effect. But where do we look to find someone who is truly worthy of worship? Do we abandon the idea because human company inevitably comes up short?

What would this film have us do? Give up our reach for higher spiritual values? Throw away our relationship to God? To be replaced by what? Where else can we look to find a living reality that has the power to inspire and transform the way we relate to each other?

If we are “all one”, as the film suggests, why is there so much fighting going on? How does this idea accommodate our difficult but meaningful personal relationships and an independent point of view? Without individual selfhood and personal relationships, how can we learn to love and grow?

The film does not bother to define the term “God” or explore the depths of its possible meaning. Instead it sadly attempts to discredit relatively advanced religious belief (that God has something to do with love) by associating it with primitive religious beliefs (hell and damnation). It also makes no effort to sort out and separate church dogma from useful religious concepts.

In the rush to make their case that Jesus never existed, they completely overlook his extraordinary and unprecedented teachings about the nature of God, as recorded by his early followers. The church legends ABOUT Jesus WERE plagiarized and added into Christian doctrine in order to win converts from the existing cults of the day. This is an old strategy that not surprisingly explains the historic repetition of mythological ideas. Jesus did not teach these things.

Our problem is not that theism is a fraud, although it HAS been abused in the ways that the film describes. Getting rid of religion is not the solution, what we need is BETTER religion, just like we need better science and better philosophy (and better government). Just as getting rid of science would throw us back into the arms of superstition and ignorance, ridiculing people’s sincere inner reach for higher values does NOT make the world a better place.

REAL religion (true spiritual values) may in fact be our most effective leverage for recapturing and restoring the “Zeitgeist”.

"They leap from their

"They leap from their critique of organized religion to an attack on theism itself. This will turn off a lot of people"

This is an Internet movie, and getting record setting hits second only to Loose Change.

The people watching it like the movie, or they wouldn't be downloading it.

It is also reaching a new audience for 9/11 Truth.

on the flipside

on the flipside, this could be a plot to turn off people from the athiest movement, after they see the crazy controlled demliton stuff....


Numbers over content?

The above comment gets at some of my own concerns about a "torches at the gates" approach, which is what some people seem to favor -- basically a 'who cares what it says or who it slams, it's "growing" the movement!' attitude. The underlying premise is that "it's okay to offend some people since those aren't me and I'm not offended," and often is associated with "evidence doesn't really matter" approaches.

So we end up with a lot of people who offend the very people necessary to be civil and sit down to do an investigation - academics, family members, activists, scientists, lawyers, etc.

It's a general rule that just as many people will be turned off when the movement is easily trashed in a handful of mainstream media articles linking us to offending material. Look at the stats on publications like the Washington Post.

Everyone who wakes up tells others.

The growing numbers makes it so much easier for the next one to grasp the truth. Anyone familiar with Rupert Sheldrake and Morphogenic Fields and Morphic Resonance?

Years ago it was nearly impossible to convince anyone. Now I'm doing it left and right....DVDs do help immensely as do a lot of other factors. The cumulative effort is working.

I am happy to see ZEITGEIST go Viral.


Anyone who is offended by the religious section of Zeitgeist will turn it off before they even get to the 9/11 section.

Frankly, with all the secular Christians, liberal Christians, non-Christians and agnostics we have in the USA, my guess is the 9/11 portion of Zeitgeist will offend far more people than the religious section.

Being afraid of Zeitgeist is kinda weird.


Barnes & Noble sells thousands of books about evolution, Charles Darwin, Galileo's trial, books by authors from the Enlightenment, books about crooked Popes, books on the historical Jesus, etc. The religious section of Barnes & Noble has more books critical of standard Chritianity than supporting it. Will all these insulted people that we are worried about boycott Barnes & Noble? I doubt it.

Time magazine and Newsweek often run cover stories on the historical Jesus. Are they going to stop printing these stories because they are afraid someone will be offended? No.

And the evangelical Christians, who are the only group that might be insulted, are the same people as the hard-core Bush supporters, the least likely people to join the 9/11 Truth movement.

Another thing. Just because someone does not agree with the religious section, does not mean they will say "I don't agree with the religious section, so the 9/11 Truth part must be wrong as well."

I've heard many people who agree or disagree with different parts of Losse Change and the History channel documentry, why would Zeitgeist be any different?

[I'm also betting that most people will not 'disagree' with the statements in the movie about Horus, as most people know virtually nothing about Horus. Most Bible-thumpers know nothing about Horus.]

Also, Zeitgeist is just movie, out of dozens of 9/11 Truth movies, books, websites. So a bible-thumping 9/11 Truther will quit the movement because someone made Zeitgeist?

Bottom line: Zeitgeist is a great movie, with excellent content. For every person it turns away from 9/11 Truth, it will recruit 1000s.


I thought it a good movie for people who don't know anything about religion
and symbolism.. Who cares if you offend somebody's "religious feelings" ?
Should people stop saying the Earth is roundish because it "offends the feelings" of flat-earther's ?
Religion has done nothing good.. religious people HAVE, sometimes even being killed for it by organized religion .
The sooner people stop believing in all that crap the better ..
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

Zeigeist does worry me somewhat . . .

In my area there's going to be a 9/11 truth film festival on 9/09 and Zeitgeist is the last of three films that are going to be shown.

While I think it's a good production, I have to say that it's almost certainly going to offend a lot of people that watch it. Just for the sake of clarity, throughout the RGV (Rio Grande Valley; predominantly Hispanic) there are a lot of powerfully religious people who believe in Jesus Christ.

Regardless of whether or not the film is accurate with respect to its claims about religion, I have to say that I don't really think it's all that much of a boon for 9/11 truth.

To me, 9/11 truth stands strong with things like the theory of controlled demolition and the ways one can prove it was used on 9/11 -- such as through conservation of momentum and angular momentum. These are LAWS of physics that can be applied to 9/11 truth now to fortify, if not altogether prove, our viewpoint.

This business about disproving the existence of Jesus Christ should have no central bearing on 9/11 truth -- and it definitely should not introduce it. Without it, 9/11 truth still stands tall. However without, for example, the stand down of NORAD, or the collapse of WTC 7, 9/11 truth doesn't really hold a lot of water. These things should be the focus of our attention: what happened on 9/11 -- not what happened hundreds or thousands of years ago.

While I can appreciate the point the film is trying to make -- namely, that the powers-that-be throughout history have been lying to the people in the name of acquiring absolute power -- I don't think we should make this argument a central 9/11 truth theme at the expense of alienating Christians everywhere (especially since we can't PROVE it the way 9/11 truth can be proven!).

You can't get people on your side by appealing to their sense of morality if you attack what makes them moral to begin with.

(No hard feelings to those who love this film. I personally love Parts 2 & 3, and simply appreciate and respect Part 1.)

People with deep religious

People with deep religious views/beliefs are able to see beyond religious symbols, so I doubt this movie will be offensive to that type.

People with shallower religious views who are attached to the symbols of their religion may be offended, but it may also be good for them as the shock may cause them to examine their convictions more deeply.

People who have no religious belief may feel a sort of pride in thinking that they are "right," but this sort of response usually goes with being young and does not last long. Some people, though, will turn this pride into a dogmatic, "fundamentalist" pseudo-scientific view and spend many years trapped in a logical box that logically can never be closed, or opened, depending on how you look at it (see Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems for more on this). This is the fashion today, and so we hear a lot of comments like "religions have never done anyone any good." Firstly, there are many religions in the world, not just the Abrahamic ones (which have done a lot of people plenty of good). And secondly, look what atheists have done (all of the communist regimes of recent history were diabolical in their atheistic fervor, slaughtering many millions).

As for the effect of this film on 9/11 Truth, I think it is hard to say. It sure generates a lot of discussion. My feeling is that this particular film has risen to the level of fine art and so is sort of exempt from "mere" political judgments. I think very highly of Zeitgeist because it is presented with great clarity and has the capacity to shock and transform the viewer. I have recommended it to many people and gotten favorable response, so far, from every one of them. That's my two cents.

JFK on secrecy and the press


unfortunately seem to be totally clueless as to the nature and purpose of religion
Like what? All they did was give factual information about the origin of Christianity.

In the rush to make their case that Jesus never existed, they completely overlook his extraordinary and unprecedented teachings about the nature of God
ROTFL this is like saying "In your rush to make the case that Leprechauns do not exist, they completely overlook their extraordinary teaching about pots of gold..LOL
They made the case that Jesus never existed because HE DOESN'T, there is zero evidence that he did.

What would this film have us do? Give up our reach for higher spiritual values? Throw away our relationship to God? To be replaced by what?
Umm yeah, how about replacing it with FACTUAL REALITY?

All Zeitgeist does is show how seemingly intelligent people can be so easy fooled by pure BS, whether that BS is Religion, lies told by governments & media etc.

All you religious zealots just need to get over part 1 and live with it, the information is well documented archaeological fact.

Kinda funny also that someone with the name "truememes" cant seem to realise the meme he is being fooled by.

Common decency

>>Throw away our relationship to God? To be replaced by what?
Umm yeah, how about replacing it with FACTUAL REALITY?

The issue here is not the debate the idea of religion itself -- look around you, the US is packed solid with religious people, as is the "truth" movement itself. The issue is whether you care that some segment of the population will be offended by this and that it is mixed with 9/11.

>>All Zeitgeist does is show how seemingly intelligent people can be so easy fooled by pure BS, whether that BS is Religion

Is that what you'd tell that to Steve Jones and David Ray Griffin? Religion is a deep part of their lives, yet they are also able to see though the lies of 9/11. People come to religion for all different reasons. To assume you have all the answers to an area that has a profound importance for many people is extremely self-centered.

We can each have our own beliefs and ALSO respect the rights of others to have theirs.

Foisting your version of life onto others is no better than them doing it to you, so don't do it, just treat people with common decency.

I have no sympathy

for those that I feel are deluding themselves no.
I'm not "foisting" anything I just wish they would shut the hell up about it because its ridiculous.
There is overwhelming evidence abound that what they "believe" is nothing but a fairytale so I have no more respect for this delusion than I do for the Heavens Gate bunch, or Flat Earthers, or young earth Creationist.
They are all delusional and brainwashing themselves into believing something that can be proven well beyond any reasonable doubt to be false.

Exactly the same as those that fall for the OCT.

Common Decency would be to have a mass intervention.

You wouldn't know "FACTUAL REALITY" If it jumped up and

Your constant parroting of sophomoric, reductionistic materialist, decades-out-of-date "empiricist" cliches is so over the top that it would be an embarassment to any half-way knowledgeable atheist or agnostic. Yours is the same ignorant mind-set as that of the far-right fundies.

9/11 Truth Ends War


says the person that believes the virgin Mary is seen daily . LOL
I can prove everything I say, unlike you.


[From THE MIRACLE DETECTIVE by Randall Sullivan, contributing editor to Rolling Stone]

....a team of physicians from the University of Montpelier ... were about to conduct the most complete scientific study of an alleged supernatural event in the history of Catholicism. The leader of the French doctors ... Dr. Henri Joyeux had come to Medjugorje on his first trip to the village accompanied by only an electronics engineer. The two men had made video- and audio tapes of the visionaries during thirty-five apparitions, hoping to determine whether the "synchronizations" of the seers might have been orchestrated. Back in France, after several weeks of studying the tapes at the slowest speeds possible, Dr. Joyeux became convinced that "definitive" tests were warranted and organized a team of other doctors from the university. He could not, of course, prove that these six children were actually seeing the Virgin Mary, Dr. Joyeux told Father Laurentin. However, the doctor felt certain that he would be able to confirm or eliminate an entire range of medical and psychological explanations.

The problem was that the seers refused to cooperate, citing the Virgin's statement to Ivan during the tests by the Italian doctors nearly a year earlier: "It is not necessary." Only after days' delay and a series of strenuous arguments were Dr. Joyeux and Father Laurentin able to convince young Jakov that the children should ask the Virgin for permission to be tested during their next apparition. This they had done, the six reported that evening, and the Madonna's reply was succinct: "You are free." After another day of discussion, all six visionaries agreed to be tested.

The most eminent of the physicians on Dr. Joyeux's team was the ear, nose, and throat specialist Dr. Francois Rouquerol. He had been able to demonstrate a clear "disconnection of the auditory pathways during the ecstasy" of each visionary, Dr. Rouquerol reported. He had proven that most convincingly, the doctor explained, by blaring ninety decibels of engine noise into the ears of the seers during their apparitions; none had reacted. He also reported that, while his instruments showed the visionaries' voices had become completely silent during the apparitions, their lips, tongues, and facial muscles had continued to function exactly as when speech was audible. Somehow, completely separate from the rest of their physical faculties, the larynx of each seer had ceased to operate during the period of silence. This anomaly was singular in his experience and could not be accounted for by any condition known to medical science, Dr. Roquerol concluded.

The opthalmologist on the French team, Dr. Jacques Philippot, not only confirmed the profoundly inhibited eyelid reflex to dazzling light observed earlier by the Italian doctors, but also demonstrated that from the beginning to the end of their apparitions, the gaze of all the children remained fixed on exactly the same point several feet above their heads. Even when he tried to block their vision with an opaque screen, Philippot noted, the seers' eyes had not reacted. What Philippot considered most compelling was that he had measured a simultaneity of eyeball movement among the visionaries of less than one-fifth of a second at both the beginning and the end of their apparitions; this was so far beyond the capacity of normal human functioning that no form of collusion or manipulation could account for it.

Heart specialist Dr. Bernard Hoarau reported that his electrocardiogram, blood pressure, and heart rhythm examinations of the seers during their ecstasies "allow us to exclude totally the existence of the phenomena of dreams, sleep or epilepsy." Neurologist Dr. Jean Cadhilac added that the tests he had conducted on the visionaries "eliminate formally all clinical signs comparable to those observed during individual or collective hallucination, hysteria, neurosis or pathological ecstasy."

Like nearly everyone else who studied the results obtained by the French team, Dr. Joyeux was most impressed by the electroencephalogram tests that had measured activity in eight distinct areas of the seers' brains during their ecstasies. All states of consciousness known to neuroscience involved some admixture of alpha (receptive) and beta (reactive) impulses. Dr. Joyeux observed that the ratio of activity in the seers' brains prior to an apparition was exactly normal: ten alpha cycles to twenty beta cycles each second. Falling asleep or into a trance state would have increased the beta cycles while reducing the number of alpha cycles. During their apparitions, exactly the opposite occurred: Their beta impulses stopped completely. The six young people were not simply awake during their apparitions, but hyper-awake, in a state of pure meditation that previously had been observed in just a handful of Trappist or Buddhist monks while deeply in prayer. And those monks had achieved this "generalized alpha rhythm," Dr. Joyeux noted, only when their eyes were closed, whereas the Medjugorje visionaries had kept their eyes wide open during the entire time of their apparitions.

In the spring of 1985, Dr. Joyeux submitted a report that concluded: "The ecstasies are not pathological, nor is there any element of deceit. No scientific discipline seems able to describe these phenomena." Concurrent with the publication of his work, Dr. Joyeux agreed to an interview with Paris Match. "The phenomena of the apparitions at Medjugorje cannot be explained scientifically," the doctor told the magazine's interviewer. "In one word, these young people are healthy and there is no sign of epilepsy, nor is it a sleep or dream state. It is neither a case of pathological hallucination nor hallucination in the hearing or sight faculies ... It cannot be a cataleptic state, for during the ecstasy the facial muscles are operating in a normal way." The ecstasies of the seers at Medjugorje "do not belong to any scientific determinations," the doctor added. "It is more like a state of deep, active prayer, in which they are partially disconnected from the physical world, in a state of contemplation and sane encounter with a person whom they alone can see, hear and touch. We cannot reach the transmitter, but we can ascertain that the receivers are in a state of sane and good working order."

In September 1985, shortly after Dr. Joyeux left Medjugorje for the last time, the Italians dispatched their own all-star team of doctors from Milan's mangiagalli Clinic to the village. The most intriguing results obtained by the Italian team were reported by Dr. Michael Sabatini, a psychopharmocologist fresh from the faculty of Columbia University, where he had spent years studying "the problem of pain." At Columbia, Dr. Sabatini had developed an instrument he called the algometer, designed to measure the intensity of pain created by applying pressure to particularly sensitive areas of the body. He had used his algometer on each of the Medjugorje seers, and the results showed that the six entered a state of "complete analgesis" during their ecstasies; that is, they were unable to feel pain. This proved beyond any doubt, Dr. Sabatini wrote, that the seers "do not fake and do not deceive." The doctor who supervised the Mangiagalli Clinic team, Dr. Luigi Frigerio, stated that the results obtained by Dr. Sabatini and the neurological tests that demonstrated the seers were not simply awake but hyper-awake during their ecstasies had created a contradiction that "cannot be explained naturally, and thus can be only preternatural or supernatural."

Over the next several years, this claim would be tested by fresh teams of Italian, Polish, Austrian, English, and American scientists, but for many Catholics, Medjugorje already had been validated. While it was correct to report that the state of consciousness observed in the children during their apparitions existed outside any scientific category, Rene Laurentin would write, "the best explanation is that the visionaries are in living, personal, normal contact with a person from another world."...

....[Bishop Zanic] stepped up his media campaign against Medjugorje: "What is behind all this are charismatics and Pentecostals," he told a German reporter, "and above all a large group of fanatical Franciscans who wish to justify their disobedience to their bishop and to Rome."...

....The physician who spoke to me most personally, however, was Dr. Marco Margnelli, a neurophysiologist who came to Yugoslavia during the summer of 1988 convinced that previous charts of the seers' brain functions during their visions had been faulty. A specialist in altered states of consciousness and an avowed atheist, Dr. Margnelli arrived in Medjugorje, he admitted, looking for "any evidence that would contradict it or expose it as a fake." The doctor conducted an array of medical tests on the visionaries, but seemed almost uninterested in the results by the time he returned home and granted an interview in which he described the seers' visions as "a genuine state of ecstasy."

"As a scientist, I can only declare that the children really pass into another state of consciousness -- a condition that one can also reach through meditation techniques, such as auto-training, though not as profoundly," Dr. Margnelli explained. He would not presume to describe this state the seers entered, "but we were certainly in the presence of an extraordinary phenomenon. Whether we are dealing with an authentic apparition or something else we cannot explain and I cannot say. It is a question I prefer not to put to myself."

Only a moment later, though, Margnelli added a statement that would startle his colleagues: "Since returning from Yugoslavia, I have been thinking about it continually and I confess, I also ask myself NONSCIENTIFIC questions, such as what the meaning of the whole thing can be." Dr. Margnelli then described a series of events to which he had been witness, from the "synchronous movements" of the visionaries to the apparently miraculous healing of a woman with leukemia. What had affected him most deeply were the birds: during the late afternoon, they would gather in the trees outside the rectory where the seers shared their apparitions, chirping and cooing and calling by the hundreds, at times deafeningly loud, until "they suddenly and simultaneously all go silent as soon as the apparition begins. This "absolute silence of the birds" haunted him, the doctor admitted.

A few months after returning to Milan, Dr. Margnelli became a practicing Catholic.

You keep on proving my point for me

Thank you.

Medjugorje is a classic scam to take advantage of the simple minded.

""Medjugorje is nothing more than a cult operated by con-artists and thieves!"
..the money is going to the Croatian army for weapons, grenades and bomb factories, concentration camps, and ethnic cleansing, as well as to the Croatian mafia and a clique of renegade Franciscans, who intend to set up their own independent Croatian church."

What I find hilarious is that this hoax that you keep on posting is actually pissing off A LOT more Catholics & religious zealots than Zeitgeist ever could in a million years.

The vast majority of Catholics believe this hoax was designed to divide and destroy the Vatican, so please keep on posting this as much as possible.

Now you are telling us Medjugorje is a "Satanic Cult"?

You claim to have faith only in science and "factual reality," but when you are confronted with a battery of extensive scientific studies which demolish your case, you send people to a website which doesn't work, and a second site which claims Medjugorje is a "satanic cult." (The 9/11 Truth movement has generated many similar "debunking" sites.)

The point isn't whether Medjugorje, or any other spiritual phenomena, are CLAIMED to be true or not true by political factions. The point is to scientifically investigate them, report the results and then let people form their own opinions.

By the way, I disagree with the poster here who believes that science and religion should "leave each other alone." I believe just the opposite: they are two different methods of relating to the universe, and that they have a lot to offer each other. Recent decades have produced astonishingly fruitful mutual advances in both.

"I" am not telling you anything

Your battery of scientific studies is a hoax
No idea why that link doesn't work, worked fine yesterday.

Your irrational ad hominem diatribes are

exactly what the 9/11 Truth movement is up against every day. You would fit in very well some place like Screw Loose Change.

The Vatican has not condemned the Medjugorge events, as you are falsely stating. But even if it did: why would you cite the Vatican - who to you are, like all religious people, "delusional psychotics" - as supporting your argument?

When scientific studies go against your claims, you don't counter with more science, you cry "HOAX" and present a site claiming "Satanic Cult" as your evidence.

I cited the Vatican because I thought maybe

you might believe them, guess not. Your delusions are so set in you refuse anything that goes against it.

Again your "Scientific claims" are utter bullshit without a shred of factual data or peer review that are being used to fool millions of simple minded to come there and spend millions.
I don't counter with more Science because there isn't any, LOL.
No need to bother with anymore links as you wont accept anything said by anybody from anywhere.

I'm done wasting time responding to you, you clearly need help.

I would suggest taking a stroll to your nearest Sanitarium, as you are walking up to the front desk tilt your head back and close your eyes while waving your arms back N forth shouting "praise him" and spew any verse of your choosing.

When you feel the net drop over you just keep your eyes closed, you will feel a sharp sting of the needle but don't fight it, they are there to help you.

facts vs values

Science doing religion is just as bad as religion doing science. They should each mind their own business and stay out of each other's territory.

Bad science is just as dangerous as bad religion. The false science being propagated by NIST to enable the continuing murder and mayhem in the Middle East is not so different from the historic exploitation of false religion to do the same kind of thing.

Can science prove that truth is better than deception? That love is better than hate? Especially when hate and deception sometimes appear to be "winning"?

not quite

NIST is not "bad science" it is just outright bald faced lies & propaganda. Has nothing to do with science.

Real "bad science" will always be found out and discarded by the scientific community as that is what the scientific method is all about. Bad theories & hypothesis may last a short time here & there but they are always found out and shown the door.

"bad religion" however will never be thrown out because no such mechanism exist within religion to police itself, as a matter of fact exactly the opposite because anyone that goes against whatever dogma is merely deemed a heretic or whatever and it is the truth teller that is shown the door.
Religion avoids scientific scrutiny like the plague because it will always be shown to be false when the light of reality shines on it.

Common sense proves that truth is better than deception, love better than hate.

If ones "values" are based on mythology & fairy tales then those values are not worth much.

common sense

Interesting. It sounds like "common sense" is your religion. That's cool. It certainly is preferable to myths and dogma, in my opinion. If we could elevate "common sense" (and the "common good") to the level of public policy it would solve a lot of our problems.

By the way, spiritually-minded people reject false religion, just like true science will (soon, hopefully) reject lies masquerading as science, as you point out.


common sense would be a welcome change

Common Sense Is The Collection of Prejudices Acquires by

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

War brings out thieves and peace hangs them.

Zeitgeist is a great counter

to some of the loony Christian perspectives that taint the 9/11 Truth Movement. For example, while I appreciate some of the work that Alex Jones has produced, his ranting about the evil pagan environmental movement is ridiculous. Religion, war, and money are the three biggest illusions used to control the masses, and Zeitgeist shreds all three quite deftly.

The answer to 1984 is 1776!
(Gold, Oil, and Drugs)

Totally agree

Sadly those messed up on Religion are incapable of making the correlation because they cant get pass their delusions.
Zeitgeist does a great job showing how all 3 tie together and how they are all hoaxes that people either WANT to believe or are so misinformed & lied to by the media that they end up believing it.
Once that seed is planted it is hard or even impossible to get that person to accept reality no matter how irrefutable or overwhelming the evidence is.

Classic example is a Young Earth Creationist, it does matter to them at all what irrefutable evidence there is, they just flatly refuse to accept it. There is no rational discussion you can have with these people as they are so delusional that positively proven reality can not even enter the conversation.
Those that fall for the OCT are about the same as a YEC its really the same phenomenon combined with Cognitive Dissonance that makes these severely deluded individuals unreachable.

The only thing that I think would have made Zeitgeist more complete would have been a Part 4 about the complicity & cover ups of the Media.

I also agree, but please don't go too hard on folks...

who believe in religion.

Many folks are indoctrinated from an early age (I was too as a Jehovah's Witness), it takes time and a lot of soul searching to realize it was just another method of control.

Spirituality can get mixed up with various human senses, emotions and thoughts.

Patience is a virtue, not everyone is born all knowing.

Best wishes

science creates illusions too

"Religion, war, and money are the three biggest illusions used to control the masses."

What about corporate media? What about science? What about the "scientific" illusions created by NOVA, NIST and the Discovery Channel that have people convinced that steel frame buildings can simply fall apart and/or explode all by themselves? The success of Bush's hate mongering is based on a SCIENTIFIC illusion. Science has become the "religion" of the secular age.

Gold, oil, drugs, money, science and religion can ALL be used for both good purposes AND destructive purposes. How do we tell a good purpose from a bad purpose?

again you mistake Lies & Propaganda

for "Science" nothing that NIST/NOVA DC etc have put out is scientific.
But you hit the nail on the head as far as "Media" goes.

There is a Buddhist metaphor

There is a Buddhist metaphor that may have something to offer this discussion.

Someone points a finger to indicate where the moon is. Once we see the moon, we no longer need to look at the finger.

Some religions show us the moon. Some just give us the finger. Some people love the moon. Some hate the finger. It's up to you where you look and what you see or don't see.

JFK on secrecy and the press

I believe the gist behind that saying

is this. when someone points to the moon with their finger and says, “Look how beautiful the moon is.” those deluded by religious text look at the finger and forget about the moon.
Religion (the messenger/finger) try to make themselves more important than the message.
I believe it is usually worded as . . "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger... ... " although there are many variations .