To Zeitgeist "debunkers":

[Odin]

I assume many here have watched the "Zeitgeist" documentary. Part 1 deals with Christianity and how it copied from earlier myths. Many "debunkers" have tried to disprove the claims in Zeitgeist by introducing the myths of the other deities in their current form.

 

Well here's what the people, that made Zeitgeist have to say about that:

 

All Part 1 "debunkers" do one or more of the following:

 

(1) They attack / marginalize the messengers:

I have read countless posts where rather than reading any of the knowledge produced by a particular scholar, they simply dig up or invent some "flaw" in regard to that person and dismiss their work based on that association. For example, Thomas Paine, an American founding father, who was intimately aware of the Solar Nature of Jesus Christ and the fraud of Christianity, wrote about true Christian origins during his life. However, from the biased debunkers point of view, he was just a "Freemason" and therefore he must have some "Anti-Christian" bias and cannot be taken seriously. This is absurd. From another angle, people will marginalize certain scholars as "fringe" due to the fact that their information isn't "well known" and therefore not to be taken seriously. Little do they understand that the most important discoveries of our time always come from the minority. Historically, the majorities belief's have almost always been proven to be wrong over time.

 

(2) They do no real research:

Based on what I have seen, 95% of all "debunkers" who claim the information in Part 1 is unfounded have never opened anything other than the Bible and an Encyclopedia. 10,000 yrs of religious history is not going to be represented in any Encyclopedia beyond the most superficial assessments. (For instance, Horus had many permutations during the thousands of years he was portrayed, as opposed to the singular definitions one would find in an Encyclopedia) The other 5% have blindly read Establishment, Apologist literature on the Internet and nothing more. I have yet to be contacted by a single person who has, for example, read the total works of Egyptologist Gerald Massey or Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge on the subject and can argue any specific point. It must be understood, for example, that in regards to the Egyptian religion specifically, it wasn't until the late 1700s that the hieroglyphics where correctly interpreted to a high degree. This is important because for many centuries prior, this information was lost.

 

(3) They blindly ask "Where are the 'Primary Sources'?"

or ancient original texts. These individuals declare that 'If we cannot see it in the original texts, then it cannot be known as true'. Well, even though we do have many of the original texts from the Egyptian religion, many other religions have no available primary sources, and the information comes down through analysis of traditions that each religion practiced, as recorded by historians. The idea that the "original" must be available in order to prove truth is absurd and a double standard. Where are the original manuscripts of the Bible? And why are just four gospels used when it is well known that many dozens existed? Which does one believe? And what are the "primary sources" upon which the Bible stories were created? Who actually wrote them? Why isn't there any other historical documentation or supporting evidence? Is the whole species supposed to just believe one single book without any critical analysis or confirming evidence?

The bottom line is that analysis of religious ideas is not confined to what is "on paper" as all religions are slowly evolving structures where 'Tradition' is just as important as 'Scripture'. Many early religions did not have official texts but communicated their beliefs through traditional practice. The historians' documentation that account for these practices are all we have in certain instances. This should not be dismissed and should rather be taken in with everything else to reach a logical, cumulative understanding. Collectively, the primary sources that are available, coupled with the historian documentation, present an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the argument that Judaism, Islam and Christianity specifically, are manifestations of a gross misinterpretation of prior mythology. This mythology is rooted in the Solar and Stellar cults of the ancient world.

 

more info about it: http://zeitgeistmovie.com/q&a.htm

[Grandpa Harley]

But there is a zeitgeist for skeptics and debunkers... it's part of being human, it seems...

[Odin]

It's alright to be skeptical, but the "debunkers" go steps further and say, that there's absolute counter evidence against Zeitgeist.

[Grandpa Harley]

You've not had to tolerate JREF style skeptics(sic), who tell you there's evidence against 'whatever' then pull the Sagan card of 'Extrordiary Proofs' It's like a prayer card or the bones of saints...

[mwc]

I've not seen Zeitgeist. It seems a waste of time from what I know of it. What am I supposed to think from the OP? See it? Don't bother? It doesn't seem the argument for seeing it has gotten any stronger but maybe I'm mistaken?

 

mwc

[babysealclubber]

Okay, I kept hearing about this zeitgeist movie on this website, so I decided to watch it just now so I could comment on it.

 

After two hours of conspiracy theories, at 5:00 in the morning, I don't know what to think, and I'm not going to have time to go through and accept or debunk every one of it's claims, I can tell you that right now.

 

I was able to follow along with the first section on the origins of Jesus. It made sense, although I suppose I am going to have to "blindly ask for primary sources," like the mindless sheep that I am. Seriously, what kind of argument is that?

 

I can say that I was thoroughly disappointed that they didn't try to deny the holocaust, talk about a second shooter on the grassy knoll, or tell me that my mind is controlled by aliens. Whether every claim is true or not, the movie provides a strong argument for supporting things like open source software, wikipedia, open access science journals, and net neutrality. That way content is controlled mostly from the bottom up, although even then there would be no guarantee of this. Doing things like turning off the T.V., getting a college education, not going to church are probably not a bad idea either. Oh, and somehow reforming the constitution would be useful, such as introducing referendums, and term limits etc. This is something that I don't think would happen in my lifetime, barring a revolution from the proletariat (remind you of something?)

 

One good thing about christianity (among many, many bad things) is that people have an 'irrational' fear of many of the dystopian ideas presented in the movie. RFID badges and new world orders could be interpreted as fulfillment's of prophecies made in Revelation. Just a thought.

 

All that being said, I consider myself a 'man of science' first and foremost. (not an actual scientist, at least not yet.) This movie doesn't fit my standards of rigor. It's guilty of many of the crimes that intelligent design proponents commit, such as presenting untestable theories backed up by a mountain of questionable statements. It's also absurd on it's surface. Sorry if I've offended anyone.

 

Regarding the OP, you may have noticed that all three claims are at their core a single ad hominem argument, and while this may be useful as a supplemental argument, I would like to see them go through and directly address the actual claims of the dissenting opinions first.

 

@Grandpa Harley: What's wrong with asking for hard proof? I feel that it's appropriate for them to shoulder the burden, since they are the ones presenting the claims.

 

@ MWC, I can't recommend you watch it. I wouldn't say it was necessarily a bad experience, just sort of a waste of time.

 

-BSC-

[babysealclubber]

Oh and please excuse typos and and some of my minor mistakes, I'm not exactly awake right now, and don't have an edit button

[SWIM]

I got excited by this movie when I first saw it, even started a couple of threads here that pertained to various subjects within it. And read much of the supporting/debunking material out there on it.

 

I came to the conclusion that they went "too far". It is a noble thing to want to cast light on delusion, but it is a far different thing to exaggerate to the extent that it makes atheists look like zealots. It really didn't help the atheist/rationalist camp, on the contrary, it went too far.

 

I wish there was a movie like this that was better researched, and better explained. Perhaps there will be someday, but for now, that movie just does not deliver what it promises.

[Neon Genesis]

Does anyone know how better researched the film The God Who Wasn't There is in comparison to Zeitgeist? And what happened to Brian Flemming's film, The Beast? The ending credits for The God Who Wasn't There said it was supposed to be released in 6-6-06 but it never happened though IMDB has it listed for a 2008 release. Is this movie still in production or has it been canned already?

[Grandpa Harley]

@Grandpa Harley: What's wrong with asking for hard proof? I feel that it's appropriate for them to shoulder the burden, since they are the ones presenting the claims.

 

Actually nothing... however, one should have to hand the 'contra' when one makes the claim... and when it's pulled its usually some pap sponsored by Nova that has protocols that no legit scientist would accept but is handy for getting the running dogs of TPTB to do their dirty work... you say there's good science to illustrate the contra, then pull the Sagan card, I'll cry bullshit at least and dishonest toad at best. Nice to see them all weasel round in the same way... there is a lot of self defending mechanisms in common with hard core skeptics and the Chrsitian apologist.... just because the turd is polished don't make it any less shit In a world where the 'independent' is marginalised by pharma sponsored 'science' I tend to find the apostles of skepticism (sic) loud mouthed know nothings, who bask in the reflected glories of true scientists like Sagan, who HAD examined the issues and found them wanting, not simply mouthed emptily the misunderstood findings of others... like some stage magicians I could mention....

[babysealclubber]

Actually nothing... however, one should have to hand the 'contra' when one makes the claim... and when it's pulled its usually some pap sponsored by Nova that has protocols that no legit scientist would accept but is handy for getting the running dogs of TPTB to do their dirty work... you say there's good science to illustrate the contra, then pull the Sagan card, I'll cry bullshit at least and dishonest toad at best. Nice to see them all weasel round in the same way... there is a lot of self defending mechanisms in common with hard core skeptics and the Chrsitian apologist.... just because the turd is polished don't make it any less shit In a world where the 'independent' is marginalized by pharma sponsored 'science' I tend to find the apostles of skepticism (sic) loud mouthed know nothings, who bask in the reflected glories of true scientists like Sagan, who HAD examined the issues and found them wanting, not simply mouthed emptily the misunderstood findings of others... like some stage magicians I could mention....

 

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying. Maybe it's a generational/cultural translation issue? Or maybe I'm a damned fool, but regardless, could you please explain the terms "contra, nova, running dog, and TPTB?" I haven't heard of these words and abbreviations in this context before. Also, why do you have science which is sponsored by pharmaceutical's in quotes?

 

I assume you are making a comparison between James Randi and Carl Sagen. I honestly don't have a strong opinion on either one. I've never been all that into popular science. (Yes, I realize that Sagen was an actual scientist, but he is best known for his non-academic work.)

 

I think the idea of requiring extraordinary proof doesn't make much logical sense. What exactly makes proof extraordinary I wonder?

 

@Neon Genesis, their website says that you can order The God Who Wasn't There on DVD.

[Grandpa Harley]

Nova - PBS Science programme that was once very good and now is a dog an pony show

 

contra - means 'against' or 'opposite'. As far as I'm aware it's accepted English usage

 

running dog - like an attack dog but works by weight of numbers rather than skill... an insult from the 1940s or 50s Soviet era 'Capitalist running dog'

 

TPTB - The Powers That Be

 

and the science is in quotes against pharma sponsored because it's not science... it looks like science as long as you don't look too close. I'd refer the interested to the Vioxx case and the handling of statins....

[upstarter]

I've watched bits of Zeitgeist on youtube and frankly I wonder what all the fuss is about? Is there not enough bullshit about xtianity to make people wake up and smell the coffee, without all this Christ origin stuff? Honestly, when I was a xtian I would have just said all that was Satan trying to lead me astray. Does that stuff really deconvert anyone? Is that the point? Or is the point just to point fingers and xtians and wonder why they are stupid enough to believe it?

 

Frankly I simply don't care if the 12 apostles are based on the signs of the zodiac, or if Christ was based on Mithra. It's all bullshit to begin with. So if one bullshit story is based on some other older bullshit stories, does that make it greater bullshit?

 

Heather

[Grandpa Harley]

It's handy for two reasons...

 

1) preventing people from backsliding into the cult

2) hitting fundies with until they take a big, steaming cup of STFU and go plague someone else...

[MathGeek]

To me, Zeitgeist was nothing more than one of the best propaganda pieces ever made. It is nothing more than a coalescing of Loose Change and The Pharmacratic Inquisition and other such conspiracy theories. Zeitgeist was worth my effort once, but never again.

 

I really recommend the "Pharmacratic Inquisition" if you want a different take on the Christ theory.

[Grandpa Harley]

for the people who can't use Google (since the previous poster seems unable to link )

 

http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/

[MathGeek]

for the people who can't use Google (since the previous poster seems unable to link )

 

http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/

 

I'm lazy occasionally, what can I say?

[Ouroboros]

By Gnostic Media: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/?&MMN_position=4:4

[Grandpa Harley]

for the people who can't use Google (since the previous poster seems unable to link )

 

http://www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com/

 

I'm lazy occasionally, what can I say?

 

Idleness is nothing if not carried through

[Ouroboros]

Idleness is nothing if not carried through

 

Be diligent in your laziness, or it goes to waste...

[Hrothwulf]

The reason why all debunkers do is grab a Bible and an encyclopedia is that that's ALL YOU NEED TO DO TO DEBUNK IT. Zeitgeist is full of lies and misunderstandings, and only those who refuse to do their own research can be convinced that it's true.

 

Do your own research, folks, I beg you. Zeitgeist is like the Bible: it claims to offer the only true answers, when in fact any remotely committed effort to find facts to back it up results in Zeitgeist being proven a hoax.

[Grandpa Harley]

Care to save us the effort and tell us where it's bullshit?

[Hrothwulf]

Care to save us the effort and tell us where it's bullshit?

 

Well here's a few I can tell you off the top of my head:

 

- "Sunset" has nothing to do with the Egyptian "Set"; "set" comes from from the common Germanic word for "to drop down"

 

- I've never read anything saying that Horus was sacrificed for anyone's sake, and I've been reading about Egyptology since I was a child. There IS a story about how Osiris was chopped into pieces and stuffed into a sort of coffin and floated down a river, but that was no atoning sacrifice at all.

 

- Krishna was never crucified. He was shot in the foot by accident as he was walking in a forest.

 

- Mithras had 2 disciples, actually, and as of now there's no reason to believe that he was sacrificed and risen from the dead. Apparently he was born fully formed out of a rock (not of a virgin), and he himself sacrificed a -bull-. He himself wasn't sacrificed.

 

- In the video, there's a list that scrolls up the screen, which features other supposed "gods" who were exactly like Jesus. Some of these included Zoroaster (who was a prophet whose life had almost nothing to do with Jesus: the only real similarity is that as a baby he was threatened with death but survived), Thor (whose legends again had no similarity to Jesus), and Odin (who did crucify himSELF on the World Tree in order to gain knowledge of the runes; but if you want to see a similarity there you really have to be stretching things)

 

There are a host of other "facts" that are debunked on this website (which, unlike the film, actually contains references you can look up yourself):

 

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/...geist/part-one/

 

Just don't let Zeitgeist become a replacement for the Bible. It's just as untrustworthy and unscholarly.

[mwc]

Apparently he was born fully formed out of a rock (not of a virgin)

Gotcha! How many rocks aren't virgins? Hmmm?

 

mwc

[Hrothwulf]

Apparently he was born fully formed out of a rock (not of a virgin)

Gotcha! How many rocks aren't virgins? Hmmm?

 

mwc

 

Hah, you got me.

 

But seriously, though, that logic actually flies in the Jesus-Conspiracy community. Which is the sad part.