Zeitgeist debunked

[Sunofone]

Sunofone, throughout this entire discussion i have yet to see any evidence to oppose the evidence that i have presented from my father! Ignorance, you call it? I shall gladly admit that it was ignorance when i see some valid proof of what you are saying. If you have read the quote you just responded to, then surely you realize you will need some accurate Egyptian records to prove that there was a star from the East that guided the travelers to Horus. If you were referring to baby Jesus instead of baby Horus than your claims here would be more valid but we all have yet to take your claims seriously (because of lack of specific evidence), therefore I suggest you study up on this subject a bit more, maybe get some quotes from actual historical records? Then I will be glad to accept the claims that you have to say

the only records that are needed are the eternal symbols outlined in the heavans upon which all tales spring forth ...as above so below-- im not sure we're on the same page here...you are aware that there were no actual babies?...right? horus and jesus were personifications of the sun and religion is nothing more than the catalyst used to shift the "adoration of the sun" to a man

[The-Doctor]

the only records that are needed are the eternal symbols outlined in the heavans upon which all tales spring forth ...as above so below-- im not sure we're on the same page here...you are aware that there were no actual babies?...right? horus and jesus were personifications of the sun and religion is nothing more than the catalyst used to shift the "adoration of the sun" to a man

You never cease to amaze me, Sunofone. Just the mere fact that the movie states these things seem to convince you wholly. How can you even state that there were no babies at all of Jesus and Horus? You seem to get your information ONLY from Zeitgeist. Is that all the information you need?

EDIT: A question: so you are basically saying the mere presence of the stars is enough to prove the Zeitgeist's claims? Maybe I misunderstood you

Edited July 17, 2007 by Doctor_Who

[Sunofone]

You never cease to amaze me, Sunofone. Just the mere fact that the movie states these things seem to convince you wholly. How can you even state that there were no babies at all of Jesus and Horus? You seem to get your information ONLY from Zeitgeist. Is that all the information you need?

EDIT: A question: so you are basically saying the mere presence of the stars is enough to prove the Zeitgeist's claims? Maybe I misunderstood you

exactly...it is enough to convince me that the astrological symbols known as the zodiac and the movement of the sun through these "houses",ages,signs or whatever you want to call them was the basis for all known religion whose only goal is to shift the adoration of the sun to man-- i am only getting my information from the oldest book known to man... the zodiac-- you on the other hand seem pretty convinced that a man actually walked on water,rose people from the dead and then rose from the dead himself without having to substantiate any of it because of a book compiled a few hundred years ago and tacked on to the "epic of creation"-- also zeitgeist got their information from "astrotheology" which again originates from the sun and the zodiac and predates the bible by a few hundred years perhaps thousands so dont pretend they made it up

Edited July 17, 2007 by Sunofone

[Elgin]

when i watched the video imo it is quite clear that the reason given was to commemorate the "sun" which ceases its southward decent on the ecliptic on dec21 and reverses it direction towards a northerly heading signaling the end of winter and the assured return of "spring" when the "bounty" of the "sun" of GOD is the most generous-- to NOT perceive the obvious connection between the sun and its 2d calendar representation marking the solstices,equinoxes in combination with the 3 day death and ressurection scenarion is a most fatal flaw in your reasoning--

Hardly, that was the reason, given in the film, but that was not the reason the church choose December 25th. It was not to commemorate the Sun, but to replace the celebration that occurred at that time. (Which historically is just what happened). There is also the serious problem that whereas the movie portrays the death and resurrection as deriving from the solstices, as I pointed out, the Church did not set the birthday as the 25th of December until hundreds of years after the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus the movie has the problem that all the things is claims were derived from December 25, were already well established hundreds of years before any connection to Decembe 25th was even made. And when a connection was made it was to eliminate, not commemorate the previous reasons people celebrated on that date. That one now can find some parallel is exactly the problem with such parallels.

also i cant wait to see the other two parts of this rediculous rebuttal-- part 2-9/11 - lets get it on!

Actually, my three part rebuttal deals only with part I. While I consider the other two part just as flawed (but then as a teacher of critical thinking, i consider all such grand conspiracy theories flawed, or at least all I have looked into) I will leave it for others to deal with.

Elgin

[The-Doctor]

exactly...it is enough to convince me that the astrological symbols known as the zodiac and the movement of the sun through these "houses",ages,signs or whatever you want to call them was the basis for all known religion whose only goal is to shift the adoration of the sun to man-- i am only getting my information from the oldest book known to man... the zodiac-- you on the other hand seem pretty convinced that a man actually walked on water,rose people from the dead and then rose from the dead himself without having to substantiate any of it because of a book compiled a few hundred years ago and tacked on to the "epic of creation"-- also zeitgeist got their information from "astrotheology" which again originates from the sun and the zodiac and predates the bible by a few hundred years perhaps thousands so dont pretend they made it up

You may believe what you want, but my point is that much of the information presented in this movie is either a misconception or completely untrue. If you had done some more research you would have known this. I do agree that the Zodiac is very old , much older than the bible or any contemporary belief systems. Yes it is true that the signs in the stars and the story of jesus have much in common, but this does not prove anything. Similarities do not prove anything. We simply do not know all the answers. Parts of the bible may have been exaggerated but this does not make it completely untrue. I have found that believing in your heart is more wise than believing in your religious organization. And my main point was discussing the historical accuracy of the things other than the zodiac and "astrotheology." (Since I am not an expert in that subject and neither is my father). But I would look to the parts where it compared Jesus to other religious figures...many of those claims were untrue.

[Sunofone]

I do agree that the Zodiac is very old , much older than the bible or any contemporary belief systems. Yes it is true that the signs in the stars and the story of jesus have much in common, We simply do not know all the answers. Parts of the bible may have been exaggerated . And my main point was discussing the historical accuracy of the things other than the zodiac and "astrotheology." (Since I am not an expert in that subject and neither is my father).

the funny thing is you and your father are more knowledgable in astrotheology than you think you just dont know it-- imo believing the perspective of "astrotheology"(the sun being the source for all religion) is much more rational than believing that a "man" walked on water,rose people from the dead and then rose from the dead himself-- which has more evidence to back it up?? you have already admitted they have "much" in common which can be classified as evidence "for" astrotheology ...now what evidence do you have that supports the tales told in the new testament? and for the record you cannot use the new testament as evidence of itself

[The-Doctor]

the funny thing is you and your father are more knowledgable in astrotheology than you think you just dont know it-- imo believing the perspective of "astrotheology"(the sun being the source for all religion) is much more rational than believing that a "man" walked on water,rose people from the dead and then rose from the dead himself-- which has more evidence to back it up?? you have already admitted they have "much" in common which can be classified as evidence "for" astrotheology ...now what evidence do you have that supports the tales told in the new testament? and for the record you cannot use the new testament as evidence of itself

Sunofone, You are STILL not understanding my point here. I am not trying to prove the tales told in the new testament or in any belief system. I am trying to prove that the evidence presented in Zeitgeist is largely INVALID. Now do you understand what I am trying to show you here? I CANNOT prove the stories of the Bible. But I CAN prove the invalidity of the historical claims made in Zeitgeist. If you need more assistance with that, then remember post #20!

[Sunofone]

Sunofone, You are STILL not understanding my point here. I am not trying to prove the tales told in the new testament or in any belief system. I am trying to prove that the evidence presented in Zeitgeist is largely INVALID. Now do you understand what I am trying to show you here? I CANNOT prove the stories of the Bible. But I CAN prove the invalidity of the historical claims made in Zeitgeist. If you need more assistance with that, then remember post #20!

you cannot prove the invalidity of the historical claims made in zeitgeist without first proving the tales told in the new testament or in any belief system-- how can your father claim to disprove anything by claiming "ignorance" like he did in post #20? --there absolutely no evidence of anything in post #20-- the only thing you have demonstrated in post #20 is exactly how unfamiliar you are with the relationship between the sun and ancient gods-- i dont understand how you plan on proving the invalidity of zeitgeist which is making the claim that the new testament is an allegorical tale of the sun without first proving the tale in the bible????

Edited July 18, 2007 by Sunofone

[The-Doctor]

you cannot prove the invalidity of the historical claims made in zeitgeist without first proving the tales told in the new testament or in any belief system-- how can your father claim to disprove anything by claiming "ignorance" like he did in post #20? --there absolutely no evidence of anything in post #20-- the only thing you have demonstrated in post #20 is exactly how unfamiliar you are with the relationship between the sun and ancient gods-- i dont understand how you plan on proving the invalidity of zeitgeist which is making the claim that the new testament is an allegorical tale of the sun without first proving the tale in the bible????

The author in Zeitgeist makes historical references that are off or completely untrue. You can verify it with a historian if you wish. I already have. There is no need to prove the stories of the bible first. In fact I have utterly no idea why I would need to. If the historical references in Zeitgeist are untrue, they are untrue!! It has nothing to do with the Bible! For instance, Horus is not mentioned in the bible. So why would I need to prove the bible stories right first to prove that what they say in Zeitgeist about Horus is wrong? You don't seem to understand. Yes, you may believe that astrotheology is the basis of today's religion, but whether you like it or not, Zeitgeist is historically inaccurate! So will you believe something that doesn't even use valid evidence???

[Sunofone]

So why would I need to prove the bible stories right first to prove that what they say in Zeitgeist about Horus is wrong?

so now you are claiming authority on the only interpretation of the epyptian tales of their gods-- are you asserting that the story of ra or osirus has nothing to do with the sun?

Edited July 18, 2007 by Sunofone

[Elgin]

you cannot prove the invalidity of the historical claims made in zeitgeist without first proving the tales told in the new testament or in any belief system

This is an irrational statement. While I do not believe it, what if for sake of argument both Zeitgiest and the NT were wrong? By your logic, one could just as easily, and in fact given the actual evidence, more easily, claim that one could not prove the invalidity of the historical claims made in the NT without first proving the claims in Zeitgeist, which given the errors (and as I will show in part II of my review the dishonesty) in the movie, this would be impossible. Thus you have set up a false choice. While I believe the claims in the NT are historically accurate, I would never make such an argument, because is it irrational on its face.

However, there is a deeper problem here and it deals with the whole concept of proof. Proof is simply the level of evidence required to conclude something is true. However the level of evidence required varies from situation to situation (e.g. civil vs criminal trials) and within a given situation from person to person. In addition, how we evaluate evidence varies depending on our world view. Thus proof is in reality a very subjective concept. In such discussions, I find that demands for proof are often used more as a defense mechanism than anything else. (i.e. 'you can't reach my subjective requirement for "proof" so I can ignore all your evidence'). This is why I personally avoid discussions of proof, and instead focus on what the evidence supports and points to.

As I have shown the movies claims based on parallels centering around Dec 25 simply do not stand up to critical evaluation, but fall apart once it is realize that the thing that were supposed to derive from this date were already well established long before there was any connection to this date, and when the connection was made is was made for different reasons.

Elgin

Edited July 18, 2007 by Elgin

[Sunofone]

As I have shown the movies claims based on parallels centering around Dec 25 simply do not stand up to critical evaluation, but fall apart once it is realize that the thing that were supposed to derive from this date were already well established long before there was any connection to this date, and when the connection was made is was made for different reasons.

Elgin

as you have shown where?? here in this post #22 i clearly demonstrated your complete contradiction-- you just stated above that it was made for different reasons-- i went to your bogus site and pulled the direct quote where you give your "reason" which as demonstrated in post #22 you claimed it was for the "winter solstice celebrations" which is a bold faced contradiction-- the winter solstice celebrations are exactlty that "SOLSTICE" celebrations and clearly stand up to the most critical of evaluations-- i will not let you slander the absolutely best single video to speak truth to power ever to grace computer monitors and tvs the world over-- so in conclusion anyone interested in seeing what all the hype is about the only remedy is to view it yourself!!

ZEITGEIST, The Movie - Official Release - Full Film

an absolute MUST SEE!!

[jaylemurph]

This is an irrational statement. While I do not believe it, what if for sake of argument both Zeitgiest and the NT were wrong? By your logic, one could just as easily, and in fact given the actual evidence, more easily, claim that one could not prove the invalidity of the historical claims made in the NT without first proving the claims in Zeitgeist, which given the errors (and as I will show in part II of my review the dishonesty) in the movie, this would be impossible. Thus you have set up a false choice. While I believe the claims in the NT are historically accurate, I would never make such an argument, because is it irrational on its face.

However, there is a deeper problem here and it deals with the whole concept of proof. Proof is simply the level of evidence required to conclude something is true. However the level of evidence required varies from situation to situation (e.g. civil vs criminal trials) and within a given situation from person to person. In addition, how we evaluate evidence varies depending on our world view. Thus proof is in reality a very subjective concept. In such discussions, I find that demands for proof are often used more as a defense mechanism than anything else. (i.e. 'you can't reach my subjective requirement for "proof" so I can ignore all your evidence'). This is why I personally avoid discussions of proof, and instead focus on what the evidence supports and points to.

As I have shown the movies claims based on parallels centering around Dec 25 simply do not stand up to critical evaluation, but fall apart once it is realize that the thing that were supposed to derive from this date were already well established long before there was any connection to this date, and when the connection was made is was made for different reasons.

Elgin

Very nice post, Elgin.

--Jaylemurph

[FiascoMo]

Ok, maybe some claims in the movie Zietgiest are false, but almost 100% of the claims in the bible are false. Is it that much harder to believe that a major religion is based on nothing more than the stars, than what you are actually told to believe. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is much better than no evidence at all. Dr_who said it best, "There are similarities."

[el midgetron]

Very interesting movie. I think its just to big for most people to digest. Its something they wont be able to ignor forever though. The war on terrorism is designed to destroy the US. Thats the cold hard truth. When the economy collapses and our country is plunged into chaos, perhaps some of these happy citizens will remember what they saw here.

[Llucid]

The three kings that visited Jesus were the stars on Orion's belt... the death and resurrection of Jesus are personified interpretations of the winter solstice...

Interesting. I had not heard this view before. One thing that I would like to point out is the needed connection to December 25th and the complete LACK of this connection to Jesus' life. Though the issue of Jesus' actual birthdate is under debate, most agree that he was not born on Christmas.

December 25th does have very strong ties to early religion (as shown in the movie) and it was this very reason that the celebration of Jesus' birthday was placed on this date. This was one of the many steps taken to merge Christianity with paganism (another being the moving of the Sabbath to Sunday).

Doctor_Who said it best when he said that there were similarities. No matter what Jesus would have done someone would have been able to show similarities to someone else. I fail to see how showing these similarities proves anything.

One thing I found amusing that I would like to point out is their complete dismissal of the Bible and yet part 3 of Zeitgeist aligns so much with modern day end-times Biblical prophecy interpretations that it's chilling.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Llucid

[Elgin]

as you have shown where?? here in this post #22 i clearly demonstrated your complete contradiction

No, you claimed a contradiction, which is not quite the same thing. As I pointed out in my reply to your post you were confusing commemorating with replacing, and that in any event, the replacement did not occur until hundreds of years later. Thus there was no contradiction at all in my statement, merely a complete refutation of the claims of the movie, for the movies claims that these beliefs derived from the December 25th date, and thus the movies claims are completely unsupported and unsupportable. Since you ignored my post, the arguments I presented showing the error in your claim have yet to have been refuted, and thus there is no reason to take your repeat of the claim as anything other than the repeating of a claim that has already been shown to be false.

However let me see if I can make it even clearer for you. This part of the movie claims that the historical basis for the death and resurrection (among other beliefs) were false for these beliefs actually were taken from early beliefs centered around the winter solstice and the date of Dec 25th. The claim is simply that because there is a parallel between Dec 25th and the solstice, and the beliefs about Christ, therefore the beliefs about Christ are false and instead derived from Dec 25th and the solstice. Now this is fallacious reasoning to begin with, and has long been recognized as such. But even if it were not, the movie still has the fatal problem that the beliefs about Christ preceded any connection to Dec 25th and the solstice by hundreds of years and even when a connection was made, it was made to replace and do away with the celebrations centered around the winter solstice, not to commemorate them as the movie implies. As such there is simply no way to rationally hold that the claims made in the movie are correct as it requires an effect hundreds of years before there was a cause. It would be like saying that something that was not to happen for another 100 years caused our beliefs about George Washington, and that he never really existed.

I would also point out that not only did you ignore the arguments in my earlier reply, likewise you did not attempt to refute any of the problems I pointed in my last note. Rather you, like the movie, simply rehash old claims that have already been refuted as if they are still valid.

BTW, I recorded the second part of my rebuttal last night and it will be posted tomorrow on my site. I will be interested to see how you get around the problems, and in one case lie, that the movie puts forth to try and make its claim.

Elgin

[Sunofone]

The claim is simply that because there is a parallel between Dec 25th and the solstice, and the beliefs about Christ, therefore the beliefs about Christ are false and instead derived from Dec 25th and the solstice. Now this is fallacious reasoning to begin with, and has long been recognized as such. But even if it were not, the movie still has the fatal problem that the beliefs about Christ preceded any connection to Dec 25th and the solstice by hundreds of years and even when a connection was made, it was made to replace and do away with the celebrations centered around the winter solstice, not to commemorate them as the movie implies.

saying that the "belief in christ" proceded the "connection" to the solstice is one thing and proving it is quite another-- especially when there was never a seperation from the solstice to begin with--your insinuation makes no sense what so ever-- if you really wanted to "replace" celebrations centered around the solstice wouldnt it be good idea to actually "change the date" and distance your self from it?? you argument is juevenile and unfounded and "pronouncing" that scholars are in agreement concerning something and that it has been long regaurded as such without demonstrating examples is biased propaganda and in your response you repeated everything twice just in a different way to expand the body of nonsense which is somewhat annoying

[Elgin]

Ok, maybe some claims in the movie Zietgiest are false, but almost 100% of the claims in the bible are false. Is it that much harder to believe that a major religion is based on nothing more than the stars, than what you are actually told to believe. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is much better than no evidence at all. Dr_who said it best, "There are similarities."

It would all depend on your world view. There is considerable evidence for claims made in the Bible. Personally I think the weight of the evidence supports the claims made in the Bible. However, to follow this evidence to the conclusions it points to does require one to at least allow for the possibility of a supernatural. It does not require the a priori acceptance, but it does require the acceptance of the possibility. Most atheists, agnostics, skeptics, or whatever label they choose to go by, I have discussed with over the past couple of decades, have a world view that precludes the possibility of the existence of the supernatural. Even when they claim to be simply agnostic on the matter, it is clear that they do not view the issue in a neutral manner, but are strongly biased against such a belief and refuse to follow the evidence to conclusion that would require it. So if one goes simply where the evidence points, it is far easier to believe the Bible than the clearly false claims made in the movie.

As for the similarities, as scholars realized long ago, if you look hard enough you can find parallels between most things. As I pointed out in my review, just look at all the parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln. But while there are parallels, they are hardly meaningful. Thought if one wanted to use the “logic” of the movie, I guess one would argue that given the parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln, Lincoln never existed, but the beliefs about him were derived from Kennedy, for the movie claims that Jesus never existed but the beliefs about him derived from a parallel with the winter solstice that was not made until hundreds of years later.

Elgin

[Elgin]

saying that the "belief in christ" proceded the "connection" to the solstice is one thing and proving it is quite another-- especially when there was never a seperation from the solstice to begin with--your insinuation makes no sense what so ever--

Except that the book of Luke, which pretty clearly does talk of Jesus, and is one of the earliest references, also pretty clearly eliminates Dec 25 as the birth date and points to a time in the spring. Now unless you can present evidence of an earlier association with Dec 25 as the birth date, (which you can't unless you know of some newly discovered documents) the evidence clearly points to a belief about Jesus before any connection to Dec 25 was made.

if you really wanted to "replace" celebrations centered around the solstice wouldnt it be good idea to actually "change the date" and distance your self from it?? you argument is juevenile and unfounded

How could you change the date of the solstice? One the othe hand, if one established a competing celebration on a different day, you would simply end up with two celebrations, not the elimination of the one. The only way to eliminate the celebration of the winter solstice was to give people something else to celebrate on that day instead of the solstice. You may consider this a juvenile and unfounded arguement, but it does have the benefit that historically it is exactly what happened, for the celebration of the winter solstice was replaced by the celebration of Christmas.

Elgin

[311transistor311]

saying that the "belief in christ" proceded the "connection" to the solstice is one thing and proving it is quite another-- especially when there was never a seperation from the solstice to begin with--your insinuation makes no sense what so ever-- if you really wanted to "replace" celebrations centered around the solstice wouldnt it be good idea to actually "change the date" and distance your self from it?? you argument is juevenile and unfounded and "pronouncing" that scholars are in agreement concerning something and that it has been long regaurded as such without demonstrating examples is biased propaganda and in your response you repeated everything twice just in a different way to expand the body of nonsense which is somewhat annoying

Hello everyone! Am I glad I found this site.

First, although Zeitgeist contains MANY inaccuracies (I was hoping that it wouldn't) it does correctly state identify the origins of all religious practices as celestial. Arguing about the dates, wording, historical events, parallels, etc....is useless.

If a guy named Jesus was on the news today claiming; to be the son of god, able to walk on water, heal the sick, turn water into wine....would you believe him? Probably not. So why believe it happened "way back when"?

What would happen to Jesus (might be he's mexican and his name's pronounced hey-zeus)? He would be arrested, thrown in jail, transferred to a mental ward, given the "medicine of the month", and made to believe he's just a delusional mess. When he was "cured", he would be forced to work and pay 40% of his income to support our government(or pay interest to a private bank) and told he was lucky to live in a "FREE" society.

[jaylemurph]

Hello everyone! Am I glad I found this site.

First, although Zeitgeist contains MANY inaccuracies (I was hoping that it wouldn't) it does correctly state identify the origins of all religious practices as celestial. Arguing about the dates, wording, historical events, parallels, etc....is useless.

If a guy named Jesus was on the news today claiming; to be the son of god, able to walk on water, heal the sick, turn water into wine....would you believe him? Probably not. So why believe it happened "way back when"?

What would happen to Jesus (might be he's mexican and his name's pronounced hey-zeus)? He would be arrested, thrown in jail, transferred to a mental ward, given the "medicine of the month", and made to believe he's just a delusional mess. When he was "cured", he would be forced to work and pay 40% of his income to support our government(or pay interest to a private bank) and told he was lucky to live in a "FREE" society.

Well, there are some of us who think if he claimed to do/be those things, he would be legitimately a delusional mess and need some meds, and that he should be glad there's a system in place to treat him before he gets angry we don't believe him and starts hurting people.

--Jaylemurph

[311transistor311]

Well, there are some of us who think if he claimed to do/be those things, he would be legitimately a delusional mess and need some meds, and that he should be glad there's a system in place to treat him before he gets angry we don't believe him and starts hurting people.

--Jaylemurph

Right. Unfortunately there was no system in place at the time. So people had to deal with the crusades, being burned at the stake, getting thrown into a lake and drowning after being accused of withcraft, etc.................

[jaylemurph]

Ahh, organized religion: has there ever been a greater bringer of peace, love and understanding?

--Jaylemurph

[Elgin]

All,

The second part of my three part review has been posted, again there is an MP3 available.

Elgin