I try to contact ‘Peter Joseph’, which is a pseudonym, to make him aware of this important topic, if he is not already.

Maybe he was/is unaware of this, namely he challenges the skeptic community with a wholly different paradigm.

Promoting the ‘good fight’, in which the skeptics should join,

Which they do not unto now.
They promote a quite simplistic view of the world, as self-contained and -well- ‘perfect’ one.

Nobel-price winner Laughlin asked the intersting question on:
“why are there laws?”

…
The problem with reductionism, Laughlin says, is that it’s susceptible to “Dark Corollaries”, which obscure the inconclusive nature of many experiments. One of these corollaries he has dubbed ‘the Deceitful Turkey’, to describe the phantom breakthrough that feels so tantalisingly close but will always be beyond one’s grasp,
no matter what computer power or technology is at hand.
…
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1437

Laughlin is one of the more insightful Physicits questioning our worldview from the bottom up.

A similar question coulld be asked from the ‘top’, where I am unsure, whether this is the ‘top’.

But here we know next to nothing, as You hopefully acknowledge.
The top-down- factoids (or ideologies) do not explain themselves easily from the bottom up.
In fact, the bottom-up ‘explanation’ of the whole universe seems insufficient to ‘explain’, what minds can make up from the top-down.

this is what skeptics, self-trained to make things up from the bottom, seem to faill to grasp:
That there is a whole different approach.
Which does not mean that it is correct in the first place, but that it is, even w.r,t. Occam, the simplest assumption to follow.

So we have a clash of conceptions, so to say:
Bottom-up — top-down.
Here I am completely with Laughlin, who is a decent, unideological Physicist/Nobel Price-Winner, if You like the glitter.

Skeptics do not seem to recognize this second option, and fail to grasp ‘its reality’, which is, embarrassingly enough, an ‘invention’ of the mind, which I tend, in order not to go completely insane, a REAL dimension of its own.

(the reason I read only part of Tim Callahans entry, is, that w.r.t. my background it was quite redundant, factually too many times dubious, and in its intentions too obvious: preaching to the skeptic choir. This could equally be said of the ‘other side’, ofcourse.)

With such a contended topic for literally centuries it seems natural to me, that in every position one takes, there are errors.

Every skeptic should know about this.
(I call this ‘semantic net’, with core nodes and not-so core nodes, where one can err in the not-so core-ones, but NOT in the core-ones.)

My own position is that of an agnostic.
Why? Because I did not manage to disprove the existence of GOD as such.

What I managed to do is, that all conceptions, frozen into religion, serves some very worldly purpose, and as such has to be rejected on intellectual and moral grounds.

The catholic church, to take the most prominent ‘Christian’ institution. rests on a fabrication of pious lies, for the purpose of acquiring power land, and feeding its hierarchy.
Because this is purposefully hidden, it is an example of a top-down ‘conspiracy’.

No further debunking necessary, and also no Dawkins, who, like many of the skeptics camp, to invent another ‘GOD’, which is the ‘wonderful awe-inspiring, beautiful order’ of the universe.

No. It isnt.
The universe looks quite clumsy to me and is not the best of all worlds.
I at least can think of better ones, which, btw, everybody should.

Skeptics tend to get quite nervous about that, because their materialist worldview tends to require that ‘godliness’ of nature.

What ‘Zeitgeist’ obviously (to me at least) tries to show –not prove!- is, that there are not one, but several ‘conspiracies’, which have as their common denominator an elite interest in producing and exploiting these fabrications, to the detriment of the rest of us.

There have been conspiracies galore through history, and as it goes also halluzinated fabrications of conspiracies.
To say that there are none, would be foolish.

This is how this clumsy world seems to work.

Now the question is about the big ones, and ‘Zeitgeist’ addresses these.
Or how it is called by another name: “The big lie.”

Christian religion definitely qualifies as one.
Has been debunked numerous times, but lives on, because of its attractive features to a lot of fellows, who seemingly are too lazy to make sense of the world and the moral stature of any decent human being in that world.

Skeptizism, well applied, should be skeptic of its own fundamentals, which are, among others:
a) overreliance on Aristotelian Logic
b) a blindness to ‘morals’, because this tends to transcend materialism, e.g. by hypothesizing at least a ‘moral dimension’, which arises through consciousness, self-reflection, free-will, which, surprise, surprise, the skeptics tend to fight against, with teeth and claw.

Consider me a meta-skeptic.

A last word regarding ‘Zeitgeist’ and Joseph:
As I understood, he considers his work as basically a work of art, grounded in reality, open to revision and refinement, not a definite answer –a closed conspiracy–

As such, it definitely presents a challenge to the skeptic community, which tends to project ont the world their own view:
Aristotelian Logic, Occam, some basic physical laws, the scientific method amongst maybe some others.

Whether this is sufficient to explain traits of some humans like ‘planned deception’, to name just one, remains to be seen.

Maybe we know this after the fact, it when the human species is extinct.
Then they say: well, we erred on the wrong side. Lets start the game again.
In what round of the game are we, exactly?
This would be some Buddhist question.
Embarrassing.

Cannot we see the positive side of Zeitgeist. Why do you keep discussing the same crap called religion time and again. It kills people and it does nothing.

And what might your credentials be to so gratuitously dismiss Dr Carrier? I’m not a historian, but the bible has always seemed like a collection of myths to me, and really what difference does it make if jesus was an historical figure or not? I mean really, how many dead people have you seen come back to life? Virgins giving birth? Demons expelled? The water to wine gambit would be fun at parties, but again any reliable evidence? Of course you don’t, so whether or not the physical person existed or not does nothing to dispel the idea that the story is a myth.

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/skeptic-zeitgeist.html

Does it have merit?

I think that most religions are born out of man’s need to feel immortal. Whether there is an afterlife or not, I do not know (I live my life as if it is the only one I have haha). But it seems to be a unique thread with many, if not all religions. The idea that Christianity holds more weight than others I find biased simply because of where I was born; the U.S. If I were in the Arab world, born of Hindu parents, or a tribe in South America, I probably would have a different perspective on this. It seems Christians are going to great lengths to show that their religion is unique from the others. Just like any person with a belief in theirs would do the same. It’s like a Baptist saying we aren’t Protestant or a Mormon saying we aren’t Catholic even though all are Christian. I find similar traces within the ZG versus Christianity thread because “I” believe that there are enough elements to show that the Old and New Testament aren’t wholly original.

Why can’t ZG be an acceptable version of events that happened regardless of Christianity. If you took Christianity out of the mix—no reference to the New or Old Testament, what would you have? After reading the link that was provided refuting the Skeptic Article, I can say there is evidence for Horus having 12 disciples, and those disciples having relations to the Zodiac, reasons for resurrection, the celebration of Easter, the significance of December 25, that there are stars referred to as the the Three Kings, and so on. After reading those tidbits, I probably would come to the conclusion that I’ve heard this story before. And more importantly, would those tidbits be based on facts and not pulled from thin air?

I find the ZG religious portions as credible as the Bible. Dare I say that the ZG portion has more of a foundation and that foundation being multiple sources and multiple regions to make their claims that there is evidence of Christianity borrowing previous renditions of a numerous deities to make a whole story. That is to say that maybe it was the Zodiac that gave claims for part x, and maybe the Epic of Gilgamesh gave claims for the flood. Maybe the crucifixion was common place (and it was, since Jesus was crucified along with two others) and if the Romans tell of stories of the sons of Jupiter being crucified, there just might be something to the assertion that “the cross” may have had significance before Jesus Christ. And with the Bible, you have to go on faith, just like with ZG. Supporting evidence to ZG’s claims appear to be in ancient texts. I think that Christians just don’t want anything that would appear to tarnish the uniqueness of Christianity, and understandably so. Because it would diminish the Divinity nature of Jesus and corrupt the message.

I could take it a step further and say both ZG, and much of the Bible are completely false with respect to their miracles and their respective divinity. I’ve come to know evolution as providing a much stronger foundation for the origins of man and that an eclipse is not an omen of an upset deity. Nor is an earthquake, tornado, hurricane, etc. But man, throughout history, has added personification to these events. I no longer believe in Adam and Eve as being actual people.

These are mysteries and a lot have to do with your faith. And faith can be powerful. The Egyptians built pyramids because of theirs. The Romans built their society on their gods as did the Greeks, the Celts, and the Norse. The Mayans and Incas were doing the same. To the conquerors go the spoils and the history writers…..