Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

reply to post by kallisti36



Quote by Kallisti36

The Romans never worshiped Isis or any god from the Egyptian pantheon. Also, there aren't really any similarities between Horus, Isis, and Ya'hshuah. Perhaps the depictions of Mary with her son look like Isis with Horus, but this is a much later tradition and could have been used to convert pagans.

I Have slight issue on that tho

Isis ON Authentic Roman Coins ? and Roman Statue of ISIS ?
Kindly please see the Source : www.forumancientcoins.com...

Roman Statue of ISIS ( British Museum)
Religion in ancient Rome
en.wikipedia.org...

Temple of Isis (Google sites)
sites.google.com...

UNRV History (Roman Empire)
The Cult of Isis
www.unrv.com...

Universal Religion Unlike Mithraism which was confined to a small percentage of "middle class" Roman males, the Isis cult was truly universal. Unlike Mithraism it could be practiced by both men and women, and it was women who perhaps took it up most enthusiastically. Unlike Mithraism it appealed to all classes; the lower classes and slaves were the mainstay of the cult, but as we have seen even those at the very top of the social strata were also adherents. Unlike Mithraism which was mostly confined to the Latin West, Isis was honored in both halves of the empire. Isis was long honored in the Greek East, and penetrated into the Latin West in even barely Romanized areas such as Britain or northwest Gaul. Isis was however a cult of city dwellers; we see little evidence of Isiac cults in rural areas outside of her native Egypt.

Religion in ancient Rome
en.wikipedia.org...

By late antiquity, numerous foreign cults had gained vast popularity in the farthest reaches of the Empire, including the mystery cult of the syncretized Egyptian goddess Isis, and deities of solar monism such as Mithras and Sol Invictus, found as far north as Roman Britain.

Sol Invictus = Constantine
en.wikipedia.org...

Sol Invictus and Christianity
en.wikipedia.org...

Look like a lot of other's are trying to solve this riddle !
THE CONSTELLATION VIRGO AS THE VIRGIN WHO GAVE BIRTH TO THE "SON" OF THE SUN
jesusastrotheology.netfirms.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

True.. To Convert Pagans the intention's of Constantine as he put forth the 25th day a Roman Holiday along with the Winter Solstice Pagan Holidays celebration the rebirth Renewed of the SUN Along with the Rebirth (Birthday) Renew of GODS SON


a book im going to check into is

The Horus myth in its relation to Christianity by Cooper, W. R. (William Ricketts), 1843-1878 (London: Hardwicke & Bogue, 1877)

Something way before Zeitgeist

Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
en.wikipedia.org...

Any thoughts about this ?
[Pyr. Text line 632]



well thank you for you info ...

reply to post by jdmjam


Call it an intense disgust of nihilism, but I will always believe there is a purpose; a will behind all. Maybe, this stems from me being a writer, but I see a plot in everything.

I'm assuming that you are an atheist, no? I would suggest you read Sagan for a more optimistic atheism than nihilistic atheism. Also, if you are willing to listen to the philosophy of a religious man, then I suggest you read Seraphim Rose's diagnosis of nihilism: www.columbia.edu...

reply to post by kallisti36


I checked the Zeitgeist website and there is 250 pages of referenced evidence for its claims. It goes through the movie line by line backing up each statement with proof. The government posts on this website to make us look and feel confused.

Originally posted by shagreen heart

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by shagreen heart
kallisti i'll just ask a simple question:

do you think that first segment of the first zeitgeist movie (which is something you need to be specific about because you keep generalizing all of the zeitgeist movies as bs which is not what we are talking about here and you should really stop that poison the well junk) meant to:

a) get the facts about religious myths wrong?

or

b) illustrate how the sun should be our only "belief" and "religion" because it is real and calculable and benefits us immensely by understanding it's behavior, and even if we don't understand it it is the veritable source of all life on this planet, whereas all the other myths about religions divide us from peace and prosperity?

please choose one and tell us (in your own words, lol) why you think a), or b), is what the first segment of the first zeitgeist movie intended.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care what Zeitgeist intended. Zeitgeist's message is stupid and they set it up with BS claims. I only care about ending the BS claims that Zeitgeist fans spew.

If you don't think the "bad information" was a big deal and that I "missed the point", then leave the thread. That's not the subject of the thread and I don't care about Zeitgeist's philosophy.

it's a really simple question i asked. just pick a or b and explain. if you want to have a REAL conversation then entertain the question so we can proceed to examine at this subject without prejudice or egos, mk? because the issue isn't relgions, and never was, sorry to break it to ya.

as for the rest of your post that evaded the simple answer, let's break down your response:

-"i wittingly ignored the intent of the movie and decided to discredit it entirely based on accidental, unintended, unrelated mix-ups when presenting the religious myths during the first segment of the first zeitgeist movie."

-"zeitgeist's message is stupid". we are now 6 years old. "set it up with bs claims" as if you somehow knew they intentionally got the info wrong.
so what is stupid about not believing in these love-dividing myths that cause us to hurt and kill and hate eachother, and not just believe in nature and reality? and you think they set it up with fake info to drive this point? they didn't even need to mention any religions specifically to talk about this, so no, i don't think they meant to do it on purpose amigo. also let's grow up and drop the name calling, mr. christian.

-get over it? even if the info is wrong, how is it a bad thing? it's their own ignorance, and they didn't ask for your guidance or correction, they can believe whatever they want to believe without you judging them. and i'm gonna ask you one more time to stop generalizing the entire movie/s. you admitted early on in the thread that this thread is only aimed at specific segments of the first movie, but now you just want all of zeitgeist to dissapear. you need to grow up, stop making generalizations, stop the name calling, and have a real conversation with the people who are trying to come to YOUR thread and tell you what's up.

i will not leave the thread, hahaha, i'm being on topic and you're ignoring what i'm bringing to your thread because it's threatening to it. just like you can't tell us to "never post zeitgeist bs ever again omg it is stealing the chrishuns and getting myths wrong!!!!1 people might wake up!!!!"

you are knowingly ignoring facts by witholding discourse from the message o that segment, which is, in fact, and let me state this extremely explicitly for the sake of anyone who is coming to this thread and tryin to understand your ramblings, *THE POINT OF THAT FIRST SEGMENT OF THE FIRST MOVIE OF ZEITGEIST WAS TO TAKE HUMANITY BACK TO IT'S ROOTS AND RESPECT AND BELIEVE IN NATURE BECAUSE IT IS RELIABLE AND IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN UNDERSTAND TO ADVANCE TOGETHER AS ONE".

like i said, the movie DIDN'T EVEN NEED to mention any religions to make this point. they did, they got some things wrong, but that is soooo far from being relevant that it doesn't even matter, because the point of that segment that you are intellectually getting off to by stomping on it, has in fact, nothing to do with religions in essence, and to try and execute the character of this thing with appeals to authority, popularity, and all these other logical fallacies you're oozing, don't matter in any way shape or form. the religions ARE the problem, not zeitgeist. people like YOU are the problem, bickering and keeping the hate raging. religious MYTHS have nothing to do with reality and our world and our livelihood and our advancement together with nature into the future.

i know you understand what i'm saying, i know you understand what you're reading. i know you're upset zeitgeist got information about religious myths incorrect, but that is not the point of zeitgeist, and by willingly ignoring that message, you are just makin an ass out of yourself and are obliviously shining the light on yourself as the kind of people the movie is warning us about.

let's pretend for a second that you could change zeitgeist to say everything correctly and factually. hahaha, guess what? the message is the same: drop the nonsense, love one another as one, learn from nature to thrive together and take care of eachother unconditionally for the betterment and future of our species and the world itself.

woops, i guess you missed my post!

reply to post by Wolfenz


just some food for thought. according to geologists, the mediterranean has been a valley more than once in the past, and filled up with water more than once. at one point, the nile would've been a waterfall down into the mediterranean valley. i bet there's some very interesting things under the sea floor

the reason i mention this is, rome, and therefore the rest of europe, may have formed a continguous civilization between the coast of egypt and italy/ crete would've been a high mountain peak in the original valley

So, in this thread, I have seen various sources referenced and much evidence presented to support, as far as I can tell, ALL of the claims made in Zeitgeist regarding Christianity and its origins. So, Id say this thread is totally debunked. Bear in mind though I'm not saying that Zeitgeist has been categorically proven to be 'fact', just that its theory has not been refuted, as the OP claims. It remains a valid theory and a valid interpretation of the evidence.

Now, the OP may argue that the evidence needs to be interpreted differently, and 'doesnt mean' what it appears to mean. Well, they would, wouldn't they? But of course interpretations are subjective and people often interpret according to, and in order to protect, their cherished belief systems - such as Christianity.

The OP may choose to interpret the evidence differently, or attempt to dismiss it, but it has to be admitted that the evidence to support Zeitgeists claims certainly exists and its conclusion is reasonable, even if Christians choose to reject it as is their right.

Therefore, I don't think the OP has a sound case at all for claiming there is no evidence, that Zeitgeist has been
successfully refuted, or that no one should ever reference Zeitgeist again.

reply to post by Malcram


it's actually pretty easy to prove some of the claims are absolutely, undeniably, invalid. you can even do so yourself. in fact, i encourage you to do so. it's what ATS is all about.

here's an egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, letter S.
look up "son" and then "sun"
note the spelling of son is "s3" and the spelling of sun is "itn".
note the hieroglyph for son is a goose and the hieroglyph for sun is several symbols, none of which is a goose.

this is in the face of the idea that son of god is sun god. it only sounds alike in english.

www.jimloy.com...

The sources that people are posting to support zeitgeist admit that 'traditional' additions are placed later upon many stories....example is they say that the Dec. 25th was placed with Jesus due to 'tradition' of the sun being known to 'be born' after the winter solstice...but they admit there is no evidence in the root story of Jesus for Dec 25th.

For Horus...many stories of 'other gods' like Ra and Osiris are tied to Horus...even though there is no evidence in Egypt of Horus doing many of the things that are acclaimed to him that the Zeitgeist says.

They often say...since its know that the sun moves through 12 signs, since we know the Sun seems to be reborn every year in Dec., since we know that the zodiacs directions of north south east and west can be imagined in a 'cross image'....we can then assume that all of these 'gods' can 'traditionally' be associated to Dec 25, 12 disciples, and a crucifixion on a 'cross'.


The entire Dec 25th thing is a fail...for Jesus has no ties to this date until much later. Same with Horus...it was much later, in Babylon, that Horus was linked to Dec. 25th.

Zeitgeist pretty much says that any 'death of a god' can be a crucifixion, no matter how they were supposed to die.

Im not saying that there are not any links between beliefs of cultures and people...for there surely are and alot of them in fact. So I dont understand why a group or person would need to stretch the truth for such a case to be made. So in that stretching of the truth and grabbing at straws....it just shows poor form.

Does that make the whole of zeitgeist 'bunk'? No, surely not. But there is nothing wrong with admittance to its stretching of facts and its not good for people to just believe something that they have been handed without knowing what really was.

The suggestion of images of people/gods with outstretched arms suggests crucifixion- is a part of the zeitgeist argument.

Egypt did have a cosmic foundation for their beliefs. And Im not suggesting that this did not overlap into other beliefs for it truly seems to have done so to some degree. But there is not need to 'make stuff up' or stretch facts...to make this 'known'.

I really wish someone would post something other than their religions argument with truth. YOUR RELIGION IS A LIE.

I know its hard to accept, kind of like when you found out Santa wasn't real either.

Looks like you are going to have to take responsibility for you actions now and not blame some invisible man in the sky or boogie man below you. Looks like you will have to accept that your actions have consequence and that in order to change anything ITS UP TO YOU, when you see something wrong in the world don't pray for it, DO SOMETHING! Pray while you are doing something real. I will take 8 hands helping over 1 million praying ANY DAY!

it cracks me up all you Z haters sing the same lame tune.

Originally posted by Loki Lyesmyth
I really wish someone would post something other than their religions argument with truth. YOUR RELIGION IS A LIE.

I know its hard to accept, kind of like when you found out Santa wasn't real either.

Looks like you are going to have to take responsibility for you actions now and not blame some invisible man in the sky or boogie man below you. Looks like you will have to accept that your actions have consequence and that in order to change anything ITS UP TO YOU, when you see something wrong in the world don't pray for it, DO SOMETHING! Pray while you are doing something real. I will take 8 hands helping over 1 million praying ANY DAY!

it cracks me up all you Z haters sing the same lame tune.

Im not religious....so whats your problem then?

reply to post by LeoVirgo


Thread title: Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

This thread was raised by a butthurt religion fan. That's the issue here, to easily refute his "refutation"

Not to discuss whether black holes are mystical or linked to the bible.

Originally posted by Loki Lyesmyth
I really wish someone would post something other than their religions argument with truth. YOUR RELIGION IS A LIE.

I know its hard to accept, kind of like when you found out Santa wasn't real either.

Looks like you are going to have to take responsibility for you actions now and not blame some invisible man in the sky or boogie man below you. Looks like you will have to accept that your actions have consequence and that in order to change anything ITS UP TO YOU, when you see something wrong in the world don't pray for it, DO SOMETHING! Pray while you are doing something real. I will take 8 hands helping over 1 million praying ANY DAY!
.

don't ruin your argument by punishing people who actually do take the time to look into all this. otherwise, you're just asking for people to accept new material that has just as many holes in it as you claim the old material does.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by LeoVirgo

 

Thread title: Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

This thread was raised by a butthurt religion fan. That's the issue here, to easily refute his "refutation"

Not to discuss whether black holes are mystical or linked to the bible.

you direct that critique at the wrong person?
i'm a christian. leovirgo is not.

reply to post by undo


Just to whoever it may concern.

I'm interested in hearing this "refutation" the OP talks about - so far - nothing.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Just to whoever it may concern.

I'm interested in hearing this "refutation" the OP talks about - so far - nothing.

There are plenty of sources online that show refutation of the claims of Zeitgeist Part One. If you are so inclined, here is a link for you: Let me google that for you Interesting that the number one site returned there isn't even Christian, but a general "skeptic" site.

If one is too lazy to do that, here is a summation -- the crazy claims of Zeitgeist Part One all pretty much point back to a single source, D.M. Murdock, and her sources all pretty much point back to 19th Century amateur speculators like Kersey Graves and Gerald Massey, whom even devoted "Jesus Myth" proponents denounce as entirely baseless.

The question becomes "if the claims are so transparently vacant, such that even the most simple minded Christian can refute them, why make them at all?" The answer is the fairly obvious "because the claims are not directed at Christians."

reply to post by kallisti36


Or we can take our morals from the Bible which runs amock with murder, torture and incest.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't

im still confused ,

is this debunking of the "part 1" zeitgeist video
or that the jesus myth a ripped off mono myth and spun into a kinda readers digest of religious figure ?

Originally posted by undo
here's an egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, letter S.
look up "son" and then "sun"
note the spelling of son is "s3" and the spelling of sun is "itn".
note the hieroglyph for son is a goose and the hieroglyph for sun is several symbols, none of which is a goose.

this is in the face of the idea that son of god is sun god. it only sounds alike in english.

www.jimloy.com...

edit on 21-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

I have already posted a response to that straw man argument. Acharya responded to that issue in her FAQ's long ago:

The Son of God is the Sun of God
freethoughtnation.com...

Still, you're sooooo obsessed with disproving Zeitgeist part 1 that you failed to take note of the part on your own source/link that says:

"Son of Ra (King of Egypt)"

Which also says "S3" while "son" also contains that symbol of a circle with a dot in the center.

Like the OP and so many other anti-Zeitgeisters and anti-Acharya fanatics, thou doth protest way, way to much.

Originally posted by GoldenKnight

Originally posted by undo
here's an egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary, letter S.
look up "son" and then "sun"
note the spelling of son is "s3" and the spelling of sun is "itn".
note the hieroglyph for son is a goose and the hieroglyph for sun is several symbols, none of which is a goose.

this is in the face of the idea that son of god is sun god. it only sounds alike in english.

www.jimloy.com...

edit on 21-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

I have already posted a response to that straw man argument. Acharya responded to that issue in her FAQ's long ago:

The Son of God is the Sun of God
freethoughtnation.com...

Still, you're sooooo obsessed with disproving Zeitgeist part 1 that you failed to take note of the part on your own source/link that says:

"Son of Ra (King of Egypt)"

Which also says "S3" while "son" also contains that symbol of a circle with a dot in the center.

Like the OP and so many other anti-Zeitgeisters and anti-Acharya fanatics, thou doth protest way, way to much.

edit on 21-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)

Checked out your "Acharya Agrees with Acharya" link again. So let me get this right: First Acharya admits to playing fast & loose with the sun/son comparison and then quotes a work from the 1700's that still doesn't make her point?

I like you GoldenKnight, I don't know why exactly though I do, but c'mon...sheesh...let's see some good scholarly work from a website other than that drivel.