Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja Jessiinah:
Edes sitä, mikä miellyttää omaa korvaa/mieltä eniten.. Kritiikkiä wikipediasta lainattuna lähteiden kera. Siinä on faktaa Zeitgeistin "totuuden"mukaisuudesta 
Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja huoh senkin idiootti:Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja Jessiinah:
Niin, onhan toki faktaa se, että samoilla todisteilla voidaan todistaa monta toisistaan täysin poikkeavaa asiaa
Ja Zeitgeistin faktat.. Joo hohhoijjaa. Onkos siulla jokin trauma, kun noin pitää jankata? Kukaan ei mitään pakota mihinkään uskomaan, eiköhän jokainen itse päätä mitä uskomisillaan tai uskomattomuuksillaan tekee. Mitä väliä?
Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja Jessiinah:
Mikään tässä maailmassa ei ole täysin varmaa, paitsi kuolema. Kyllähän jokainen voi etsiä itselleen sen itseä eniten miellyttävimmän vaihtoehdon ja selityksen kaikelle, niinkuin sinäkin näköjään olet löytänyt sen faktaa ja fiktiota sekavasti sotkevasta anti-info-dokkarista :''''DAlkuperäinen kirjoittaja Kritiikkiä:Ap, pienenä vinkkinä: ei kannata uskoa ihan kaikkea sontaa mitä silmien eteen sattuu
Criticisms
References to Zeitgeist in the mainstream media are relatively few and mostly negative. Commonly the film's factual accuracy was challenged. A review in the Irish Times entitled "Zeitgeist: the Nonsense" wrote that "these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization-there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."[22] Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan criticizes the first part of the film on the origins of Christianity:
Some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally-and sloppily-mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. [.] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids.[23]
Other reviews assert that it is "conspiracy crap",[24], "based solely on anecdotal evidence" and "fiction couched in a few facts",[25] or disparaging reference is made to its part in "the 9/11 truth movement.[14] However, along with the criticism there has been some praise for the discussion of the origins of Christianity.[25]
Academic coverage of Zeitgeist has also been sparse, mainly lumping the movie in with other conspiracy movies, although at least one academic has made a more detailed (and highly critical) analysis of the scholarship (see below). Again, the coverage has been largely negative, and typically treated as part of a contemporary phenomenon of "truth" movies. According to Scientific American
"The postmodernist belief in the relativism of truth, coupled to the clicker culture of mass media where attention spans are measured in New York minutes, leaves us with a bewildering array of truth claims packaged in infotainment units. It must be true-I saw it on television, at the movies, on the Internet, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, That's Incredible, The Sixth Sense, Poltergeist, Loose Change, Zeitgeist the Movie."[26]
A more severe overall treatment is given by Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, who analyzes Zeitgeist ("A fast-paced assemblage of agitprop") as an example of unethical film-making.[27] She accuses Joseph of deceit through the use of unsourced and unreferenced assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, "comically" self-defeating, the nature of "twisted evidence" and the false attribution of Madrid bomb footage as being in London (which she calls a "lie") amount to ethical abuse in sourcing. She finishes her analysis with the comment:
Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film's determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.
Senior lecturer in Ancient History Chris Forbes of Macquarie University has severely criticized Part I of the movie as having no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, relying on amateur sources that "borrow ideas from each other, and who recycle the same silly stuff" and "not a single serious source" can be found in official reference lists attached to the movie.[28] Of the film he says "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[28]
He notes that Ra, not Horus, is the Egyptian sun god, and that there is no evidence in Egyptian sources saying that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin. Similarly, neither Krishna (the eighth son), Dionysus (whose mother had slept with Zeus) nor Attis were ever supposed born of virgins. He points out that the pun between "son" and "sun" does not work in either Latin, Ancient Egyptian, or Greek, and therefore no such misunderstanding would occur; that the December 25 birth is not part of any of the myths-including that of Jesus, for whom Christmas Day was appointed as a festival day in open knowledge that the real date was not known.
He also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, noting that a long list flashed across the screen of supposed contemporary historians that did not mention Jesus is actually comprised of geographers, gardening writers, poets and philosophers, who should not be expected to mention him. The allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was added later is criticized as misleading. Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, with only one reference believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages but to change an already existing mention of him. He also argues that the film misrepresents Constantine when it presents him as making Christianity compulsory (when he only legalized it) and inventing the historical Jesus (when early church records show that the historicity of Jesus had been a key element of faith from early on).
:snotty:Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja Jessiinah:Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja huoh senkin idiootti:Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja Jessiinah:
Niin, onhan toki faktaa se, että samoilla todisteilla voidaan todistaa monta toisistaan täysin poikkeavaa asiaa
Ja Zeitgeistin faktat.. Joo hohhoijjaa. Onkos siulla jokin trauma, kun noin pitää jankata? Kukaan ei mitään pakota mihinkään uskomaan, eiköhän jokainen itse päätä mitä uskomisillaan tai uskomattomuuksillaan tekee. Mitä väliä?
Mutta tiedätkö kuinka paljon ihmisiä manipuloidaan nykypäivänä? MOnet ihmiset "uskovat" tyhjään, johonkin mitä ei ole ja vain sen takia että heidät on uskoteltu siihen että se jokin on olemassa
Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja Jessiinah:Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja Kritiikkiä:Ap, pienenä vinkkinä: ei kannata uskoa ihan kaikkea sontaa mitä silmien eteen sattuu
Criticisms
References to Zeitgeist in the mainstream media are relatively few and mostly negative. Commonly the film's factual accuracy was challenged. A review in the Irish Times entitled "Zeitgeist: the Nonsense" wrote that "these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization-there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."[22] Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan criticizes the first part of the film on the origins of Christianity:
Some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally-and sloppily-mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. [.] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids.[23]
Other reviews assert that it is "conspiracy crap",[24], "based solely on anecdotal evidence" and "fiction couched in a few facts",[25] or disparaging reference is made to its part in "the 9/11 truth movement.[14] However, along with the criticism there has been some praise for the discussion of the origins of Christianity.[25]
Academic coverage of Zeitgeist has also been sparse, mainly lumping the movie in with other conspiracy movies, although at least one academic has made a more detailed (and highly critical) analysis of the scholarship (see below). Again, the coverage has been largely negative, and typically treated as part of a contemporary phenomenon of "truth" movies. According to Scientific American
"The postmodernist belief in the relativism of truth, coupled to the clicker culture of mass media where attention spans are measured in New York minutes, leaves us with a bewildering array of truth claims packaged in infotainment units. It must be true-I saw it on television, at the movies, on the Internet, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, That's Incredible, The Sixth Sense, Poltergeist, Loose Change, Zeitgeist the Movie."[26]
A more severe overall treatment is given by Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, who analyzes Zeitgeist ("A fast-paced assemblage of agitprop") as an example of unethical film-making.[27] She accuses Joseph of deceit through the use of unsourced and unreferenced assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, "comically" self-defeating, the nature of "twisted evidence" and the false attribution of Madrid bomb footage as being in London (which she calls a "lie") amount to ethical abuse in sourcing. She finishes her analysis with the comment:
Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film's determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.
Senior lecturer in Ancient History Chris Forbes of Macquarie University has severely criticized Part I of the movie as having no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, relying on amateur sources that "borrow ideas from each other, and who recycle the same silly stuff" and "not a single serious source" can be found in official reference lists attached to the movie.[28] Of the film he says "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[28]
He notes that Ra, not Horus, is the Egyptian sun god, and that there is no evidence in Egyptian sources saying that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin. Similarly, neither Krishna (the eighth son), Dionysus (whose mother had slept with Zeus) nor Attis were ever supposed born of virgins. He points out that the pun between "son" and "sun" does not work in either Latin, Ancient Egyptian, or Greek, and therefore no such misunderstanding would occur; that the December 25 birth is not part of any of the myths-including that of Jesus, for whom Christmas Day was appointed as a festival day in open knowledge that the real date was not known.
He also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, noting that a long list flashed across the screen of supposed contemporary historians that did not mention Jesus is actually comprised of geographers, gardening writers, poets and philosophers, who should not be expected to mention him. The allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was added later is criticized as misleading. Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, with only one reference believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages but to change an already existing mention of him. He also argues that the film misrepresents Constantine when it presents him as making Christianity compulsory (when he only legalized it) and inventing the historical Jesus (when early church records show that the historicity of Jesus had been a key element of faith from early on).
Suomenna tä mulle ni ehkä jaksankin lukea
Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja Jessiinah:
Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja kyynel:Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja Jessiinah:Alkuperäinen kirjoittaja Kritiikkiä:Ap, pienenä vinkkinä: ei kannata uskoa ihan kaikkea sontaa mitä silmien eteen sattuu
Criticisms
References to Zeitgeist in the mainstream media are relatively few and mostly negative. Commonly the film's factual accuracy was challenged. A review in the Irish Times entitled "Zeitgeist: the Nonsense" wrote that "these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization-there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."[22] Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan criticizes the first part of the film on the origins of Christianity:
Some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally-and sloppily-mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. [.] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids.[23]
Other reviews assert that it is "conspiracy crap",[24], "based solely on anecdotal evidence" and "fiction couched in a few facts",[25] or disparaging reference is made to its part in "the 9/11 truth movement.[14] However, along with the criticism there has been some praise for the discussion of the origins of Christianity.[25]
Academic coverage of Zeitgeist has also been sparse, mainly lumping the movie in with other conspiracy movies, although at least one academic has made a more detailed (and highly critical) analysis of the scholarship (see below). Again, the coverage has been largely negative, and typically treated as part of a contemporary phenomenon of "truth" movies. According to Scientific American
"The postmodernist belief in the relativism of truth, coupled to the clicker culture of mass media where attention spans are measured in New York minutes, leaves us with a bewildering array of truth claims packaged in infotainment units. It must be true-I saw it on television, at the movies, on the Internet, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, That's Incredible, The Sixth Sense, Poltergeist, Loose Change, Zeitgeist the Movie."[26]
A more severe overall treatment is given by Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, who analyzes Zeitgeist ("A fast-paced assemblage of agitprop") as an example of unethical film-making.[27] She accuses Joseph of deceit through the use of unsourced and unreferenced assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, "comically" self-defeating, the nature of "twisted evidence" and the false attribution of Madrid bomb footage as being in London (which she calls a "lie") amount to ethical abuse in sourcing. She finishes her analysis with the comment:
Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film's determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.
Senior lecturer in Ancient History Chris Forbes of Macquarie University has severely criticized Part I of the movie as having no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, relying on amateur sources that "borrow ideas from each other, and who recycle the same silly stuff" and "not a single serious source" can be found in official reference lists attached to the movie.[28] Of the film he says "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[28]
He notes that Ra, not Horus, is the Egyptian sun god, and that there is no evidence in Egyptian sources saying that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin. Similarly, neither Krishna (the eighth son), Dionysus (whose mother had slept with Zeus) nor Attis were ever supposed born of virgins. He points out that the pun between "son" and "sun" does not work in either Latin, Ancient Egyptian, or Greek, and therefore no such misunderstanding would occur; that the December 25 birth is not part of any of the myths-including that of Jesus, for whom Christmas Day was appointed as a festival day in open knowledge that the real date was not known.
He also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, noting that a long list flashed across the screen of supposed contemporary historians that did not mention Jesus is actually comprised of geographers, gardening writers, poets and philosophers, who should not be expected to mention him. The allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was added later is criticized as misleading. Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, with only one reference believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages but to change an already existing mention of him. He also argues that the film misrepresents Constantine when it presents him as making Christianity compulsory (when he only legalized it) and inventing the historical Jesus (when early church records show that the historicity of Jesus had been a key element of faith from early on).
Suomenna tä mulle ni ehkä jaksankin lukea
No jaa, jos ihmisellä ei ole edes alkeellista englanninkielentaitoa, ja sitten yritetään tuputtaa jotain videota, jonka alkuperäistä kieltä ei osaa niin.. Joo, en taida viitsiä
