Thread: Religion - first part of "Zeitgeist": The greatest story ever told

Bible and all other religious books are good written fables.

^^FABLES^^

I always say this very thing, jesus never ever existed! That's why i walked away from that bullshit religion christianty.

Originally Posted by Ichigo

^^FABLES^^

I always say this very thing, jesus never ever existed! That's why i walked away from that bullshit religion christianty.

I don't think you can conclusively say that he didn't exist. Over time, the myth just transcended the actual man.

Just to be fair I thought I'd post.


Zeitgeist: The Movie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Regarding the origins of Christianity

"Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan criticizing the first part of the film (on the origins of Christianity) wrote that "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."[28]

Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the movie, asserting that it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting, "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[29] Similar conclusions were reached by Dr. Mark Foreman of Liberty University.[30]

Acharya S (aka D.M. Murdock), a source and consultant on the the film, responded to Callahan's critique[31] (to which Callahan responded[32]), and also rebutted Forbes' statements insisting that the primary sources used in her research support the ideas in her writings.[33]"

Zeitgeist: The Movie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Carl touches on the the history of Christianity [among other things] in this interview. It makes me sad when I watch this, but also very greatfull that he graced this planet in the era that would have suited him the most, the dawn of space travel.

^^ Nice find ^^

Originally Posted by maxpro2

I don't think you can conclusively say that he didn't exist. Over time, the myth just transcended the actual man.

I can conclusively say that the King James bible is bullshit just as easily as I can conclusively say that there aren't magical trolls living in my asshole that do my taxes for me if I eat a high fiver diet.

the Zeigeist movement or religion is basically making claims that are fabricated, misleading. If you were to do a search on the zeigeist movement you would see how everything in the first 3 videos goes against any and ALL unbiased research....

Here is video 1 of 5 disproving zeigeist claims and ther own religioin...



if any of you thought to waste 30 minutes of your time listening to first videos, 10 more minutes wont hurt, particularly when you see how deceptive the first videos are

Originally Posted by carmineb

the Zeigeist movement or religion is basically making claims that are fabricated, misleading. If you were to do a search on the zeigeist movement you would see how everything in the first 3 videos goes against any and ALL unbiased research....

Here is video 1 of 5 disproving zeigeist claims and ther own religioin...



if any of you thought to waste 30 minutes of your time listening to first videos, 10 more minutes wont hurt, particularly when you see how deceptive the first videos are

That video is a stupid waste of time. It nit picks over small details within interpretations to try and discredit the claims that zeitgeist makes about the similarities.

I don't give a fuck either way, but how pathetic and self delusional do you have to be to go into pain staking detail about the difference between a virgin conceiving a child from holy sperm sent by god and some woman sticking a holy almond up her cunt to conceive a child? Both stories are equally fucking retarded, and in that, I see all the similarities I need to.

Originally Posted by KelJu

That video is a stupid waste of time. It nit picks over small details within interpretations to try and discredit the claims that zeitgeist makes about the similarities.

I don't give a fuck either way, but how pathetic and self delusional do you have to be to go into pain staking detail about the difference between a virgin conceiving a child from holy sperm sent by god and some woman sticking a holy almond up her cunt to conceive a child? Both stories are equally fucking retarded, and in that, I see all the similarities I need to.

Can I just say I love the flair with which you deliver your ideas. If only my sensibilities were so forthright.

I will say it bought tears to my eyes to see Carl Sagan, his Cosmos series was what motivated me to be a chemist, I wasn't smart enough to be a astronomer or physicist like my brother. He is right in that anyone can be a scientist, ( look at me), it's just a way of life where you skeptically interigate the universe with the knowledge that humans are fallible.

I do disagree with the interviewer where he said Sagan was pitted against another scientist ( the psychiatrist) regarding UFOs. The latter believing in them. As a MD I can tell you, a medical degree is a training in solving puzzles using the tools of science and complex pattern recognition where you are a detective of the human body. It's not the same as being a scientist, although quite a few of us become medical sceintists, but for the most part, medical degrees don't necessarily mean we are scientists....

Originally Posted by KelJu

That video is a stupid waste of time. It nit picks over small details within interpretations to try and discredit the claims that zeitgeist makes about the similarities.

I don't give a fuck either way, but how pathetic and self delusional do you have to be to go into pain staking detail about the difference between a virgin conceiving a child from holy sperm sent by god and some woman sticking a holy almond up her cunt to conceive a child? Both stories are equally fucking retarded, and in that, I see all the similarities I need to.

just the idea that not everything set out in the name of scholarship is 100
% as it seems....

IF, and lets just say if for some reason, early man had received a truth, WHATEVER that means, it is possible for shades of that ruth to still be around, BUT surrounded in myth and allogory. There is NEVER, and I mean NEVER a time in history that we can find thru archeology, where the symbols of the constellations are not already embedded during that time of history somewhere. This means the origins of constellationsal symbols PREDATE recorded history. the constellations are the same but depending on the culture, the stories are slightly different... IF the constellations told a story (which later was mythologized and corrupted), then if that story was later fulfilled in Christ does not diminish its truth nor does it mean it borrowed from the mythologies, in fact, itwould mean the mythologies borrowed for an original extant story!

At any rate, if there is some force or divine guidance that directs an ultimate end or karma or destination for all of us, then I would have to believe that we are all part of that plan and altho we dont always or ever fully understand, doesnt invalidate it, just means we are getting closer.... Science teaches big bang. Imagine being small auto part in an automated manufacturing plant. You can study all the workings of how the car parts work (the universe) and never have reason to have a hint that there was a creator believing somehow no matter how far back you can see, (the evidence) since you cant go beyond the cr itself to see outside it ever, trapped in this bubble we call a universe... it always points furthur and furthur back. So what was before the big bang? ok energy but wehre did it come from? Science will NEVER ever ever be able to prove first cause, it is outside it's scope, religions call this first cause God.a power outside and before the very beginning of this universe.

Anyway, I can see how people are sarcastic and have issues with taking sides and wanting to prove every religion is false under the guise of scholarship but regardless of how man wants to describe it, or mythologize it (is that even a word?), it doesnt change what intuitively, when we are quiet, we know..... These seigeists for instance, are trying to hail a new messiah of the age of aquarius, a matreiya, the water bearerer who comes to replace Christ the fisherman they have mythologized their story and corrupted the truth of the others they battle with.

Dont beleive everything you read, it is so easy to demoniZe something if you so intend to do so.

A great deal if time and energy for a remedial post. If everything HAS to have a beginning, where did God come from?

Funny how religious people also exclude god from that hypothesis, because they are foolish enough to believe that god is the one thing that has always been. When applied to energy or matter however, well that just make sense to them

Originally Posted by carmineb

just the idea that not everything set out in the name of scholarship is 100
% as it seems....

IF, and lets just say if for some reason, early man had received a truth, WHATEVER that means, it is possible for shades of that ruth to still be around, BUT surrounded in myth and allogory. There is NEVER, and I mean NEVER a time in history that we can find thru archeology, where the symbols of the constellations are not already embedded during that time of history somewhere. This means the origins of constellationsal symbols PREDATE recorded history. the constellations are the same but depending on the culture, the stories are slightly different... IF the constellations told a story (which later was mythologized and corrupted), then if that story was later fulfilled in Christ does not diminish its truth nor does it mean it borrowed from the mythologies, in fact, itwould mean the mythologies borrowed for an original extant story!

At any rate, if there is some force or divine guidance that directs an ultimate end or karma or destination for all of us, then I would have to believe that we are all part of that plan and altho we dont always or ever fully understand, doesnt invalidate it, just means we are getting closer.... Science teaches big bang. Imagine being small auto part in an automated manufacturing plant. You can study all the workings of how the car parts work (the universe) and never have reason to have a hint that there was a creator believing somehow no matter how far back you can see, (the evidence) since you cant go beyond the cr itself to see outside it ever, trapped in this bubble we call a universe... it always points furthur and furthur back. So what was before the big bang? ok energy but wehre did it come from? Science will NEVER ever ever be able to prove first cause, it is outside it's scope, religions call this first cause God.a power outside and before the very beginning of this universe.

Anyway, I can see how people are sarcastic and have issues with taking sides and wanting to prove every religion is false under the guise of scholarship but regardless of how man wants to describe it, or mythologize it (is that even a word?), it doesnt change what intuitively, when we are quiet, we know..... These seigeists for instance, are trying to hail a new messiah of the age of aquarius, a matreiya, the water bearerer who comes to replace Christ the fisherman they have mythologized their story and corrupted the truth of the others they battle with.

Dont beleive everything you read, it is so easy to demoniZe something if you so intend to do so.

Hey, I'm on the same page as you. I am skeptical to the point of being skeptical about skepticism. I am willing to hear all ideas, but I am not willing to be spoon fed dogshit and told it is cheesecake. I would love for one the religions to be true. I wish for nothing more than for Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, ect, to appear in my living room with me right now, kick back on the couch, and have a discussion with me about my purpose in this universe.

Until then, my deepest wish is for my consciousness to disintegrate into nothingness upon death, and this fucking nightmare will finally be over.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

A great deal if time and energy for a remedial post. If everything HAS to have a beginning, where did God come from?

Funny how religious people also exclude god from that hypothesis, because they are foolish enough to believe that god is the one thing that has always been. When applied to energy or matter however, well that just make sense to them

Even scientist can't explain the creation of matter and energy. The fact that we exist violates every rule of physics and thermodynamics. Honestly, I think the big bang theory is as bullshit as talking snakes and burning bushes. People are just too egotistical to admit that they don't fucking know.

I actually disagree. The big bang is proving to be quite accurate. The mathematical model, with the discovery of the Higgs Boson which will soon be verified, still holds true.

Originally Posted by KelJu

I don't give a fuck either way, but how pathetic and self delusional do you have to be to go into pain staking detail about the difference between a virgin conceiving a child from holy sperm sent by god and some woman sticking a holy almond up her cunt to conceive a child? Both stories are equally fucking retarded, and in that, I see all the similarities I need to.

once I turned 16 and didn't have to be dropped off at church by my parents I found that driving to the mall to Timeout and playing Defender for a couple of hours was much, much more rewarding.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

I actually disagree. The big bang is proving to be quite accurate. The mathematical model, with the discovery of the Higgs Boson which will soon be verified, still holds true.

If Higgs Boson can prove the ability for mass to be created out of nothingness, then I am willing to rethink my position. But currently, the big bang was pulled out of someone's ass a long time before higgs boson, super symmetry, or string theory. Even if the hadron collider can show evidence of higgs bosen, it still doesn't explain a lot of other important shit fundamental to the the big bang theory like gravity.

I'm not saying the big bang is wrong, I'm just saying as of yet, nobody knows.

Quantum physics is the most accurate and most applicable field of science at the present , molecular biolgists , uranium dating of the earth's age by geologists, to nuclear physicists apply its tenets and predictions all the time, something from nothing is absolutely within the realties of quantum physics, (casimire effect), or the big bang , can happen. The second law of thermodynamics don' t apply to the subatomic world, and only a closed system in the macroscopic world, does quantum physics explain everything, ( grand unification )? No, which is why they are still looking, ( and remember the superstring theory is just a mathmatcal theory, not a scientific theory yet, , I don' t believe it has generated any experimental data yet. ( unlike say quantum physics and general relativity)

Notice how they throw in at the end 'btw it was all for political power'. I don't buy into the idea that religion was created by those in power to control people. I think it was the opposite but that's not a popular idea these days because now people see Christianity as the establishment power. While it's true it does have power now, it doesn't mean those who created it had the foresight to see that.
Game theory dictates that those who have the most to gain from an altruistic/cooperative society are the weak. Many of the biblical teachings are about how justice will be restored to the weak(the meek shall inherit the earth). Most of the moral principles also benefit the weak 'love thy neighbor as thyself'.

Nietzsche called it slave morality.
"As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility:"

And what is the movement we see now? The weak see an association between chrisitanity and power, so these must be evil. And what is the morality taught by popular atheists of our day? Utility.

Guys like Hitchens and Dawkins have passed off their morality as science but it's just English utilitarianism(the principles of utility) and it doesn't take much research to find that out.

I like sagans quote and I will paraphrase " Religion is about history,poetry literature, morality, compassion for the least fortunate, all of which I endorse, where I have a problem with it is when it claims to know science"

Be still and know that I am God

Originally Posted by troubador

Notice how they throw in at the end 'btw it was all for political power'. I don't buy into the idea that religion was created by those in power to control people. I think it was the opposite but that's not a popular idea these days because now people see Christianity as the establishment power. While it's true it does have power now, it doesn't mean those who created it had the foresight to see that.
Game theory dictates that those who have the most to gain from an altruistic/cooperative society are the weak. Many of the biblical teachings are about how justice will be restored to the weak(the meek shall inherit the earth). Most of the moral principles also benefit the weak 'love thy neighbor as thyself'.

Nietzsche called it slave morality.
"As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility:"

And what is the movement we see now? The weak see an association between chrisitanity and power, so these must be evil. And what is the morality taught by popular atheists of our day? Utility.

Guys like Hitchens and Dawkins have passed off their morality as science but it's just English utilitarianism(the principles of utility) and it doesn't take much research to find that out.

I wouldn't really say that Dawkins passes his morality off as science, but more like using science to make his arguments.

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

Quantum physics is the most accurate and most applicable field of science at the present , molecular biolgists , uranium dating of the earth's age by geologists, to nuclear physicists apply its tenets and predictions all the time, something from nothing is absolutely within the realties of quantum physics, (casimire effect), or the big bang , can happen. The second law of thermodynamics don' t apply to the subatomic world, and only a closed system in the macroscopic world, does quantum physics explain everything, ( grand unification )? No, which is why they are still looking, ( and remember the superstring theory is just a mathmatcal theory, not a scientific theory yet, , I don' t believe it has generated any experimental data yet. ( unlike say quantum physics and general relativity)

Well the universe is all encompassing. Meaning there are spiritual law's and material law's. Science explain's the material law's and does a pretty good job at it, yet there is many law's we have not yet discovered.

However spiritual law's we hardly know anything about. I blame orthodox relgiion that does the same thing in church each day and is not creative enough. Heck those guys at the Vatacin still were those pointy hat's they wore 500 years ago.

We just barely figured out matter and energy are one in the same. Now we have to learn about the vibration of energy and how to detect it.

Hint: The higher vibrational energy comes from the spiritual world and then is progressively lowered until our physical senses can detect it.

Another hint: We have the power of our minds through our built in spiritual facilites to lower or raise energy. This applies to even the energy of our spiritual selves. (we are spiritual being's not material for anyone wondering)

A key is to know that our minds can detect these higher vibration's. It is like a radio receiver and we can tune in to another station. Just like I'm sure some of our greatest scientist did such as Nicholous Telsa. He brought so much information to our earth that was useful for us. Do you think he pulled all of this info from his material self?

And the kicker is: We all have this power. We just don't use it. We have it turned off right now because people in power don't want you to know it. They want you to just go to church and then be quiet. They won't want you to be creative like your father. Because if you were you would discover these thing's and would be free.

I am here for you. I have alway's been here. To find me your have to go inside yourself. For you and me are world's apart in consciousness but at the same time there is no space between us.

Sounds great!

Originally Posted by BP2000

Well the universe is all encompassing. Meaning there are spiritual law's and material law's. Science explain's the material law's and does a pretty good job at it, yet there is many law's we have not yet discovered.

However spiritual law's we hardly know anything about. I blame orthodox relgiion that does the same thing in church each day and is not creative enough. Heck those guys at the Vatacin still were those pointy hat's they wore 500 years ago.

We just barely figured out matter and energy are one in the same. Now we have to learn about the vibration of energy and how to detect it.

Hint: The higher vibrational energy comes from the spiritual world and then is progressively lowered until our physical senses can detect it.

Another hint: We have the power of our minds through our built in spiritual facilites to lower or raise energy. This applies to even the energy of our spiritual selves. (we are spiritual being's not material for anyone wondering)

A key is to know that our minds can detect these higher vibration's. It is like a radio receiver and we can tune in to another station. Just like I'm sure some of our greatest scientist did such as Nicholous Telsa. He brought so much information to our earth that was useful for us. Do you think he pulled all of this info from his material self?

And the kicker is: We all have this power. We just don't use it. We have it turned off right now because people in power don't want you to know it. They want you to just go to church and then be quiet. They won't want you to be creative like your father. Because if you were you would discover these thing's and would be free.

I am here for you. I have alway's been here. To find me your have to go inside yourself. For you and me are world's apart in consciousness but at the same time there is no space between us.

what you express is very much in line with some eastern religious practices and philosophies, unfortunately, the abrahamic religions, which are more dogmatic don't allow for multiple truths as in eastern philosophical religions. As you must know, there is great healing power in meditation to laughing yoga, documented in peer reviewed journals, but when I bring these modalities up to my hardcore southern fundamentalists, they shirk it because they have roots in hinduism and buddism....strangely enough , some of my "christian scientists", will embrace these traditions because it doesn't involve administration of medicine........

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

unfortunately, the abrahamic religions, which are more dogmatic don't allow for multiple truths as in eastern philosophical religions.

I'll take dogmatic over subjectivism any day. At least there's hope for them, subjectivist are content to be unreasonable.

Originally Posted by troubador

I'll take dogmatic over subjectivism any day. At least there's hope for them, subjectivist are content to be unreasonable.

I don't know how you can honestly draw that conclusion. One set of beliefs actively ignore scientific evidence and the other embraces it. Western religions are more concerned with controlling the masses while eastern religions and philosophies are predominantly concerned with evolving human consciousness.

Its clear which set of beliefs show signs of hope, IMO.

Originally Posted by troubador

I'll take dogmatic over subjectivism any day.

not much of a choice there. although it seems many people enjoy living in the bizzaro world that they create in their mind