• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Zeitgeist; Changing me?!?!

fullflavormenthol

Master Poster
fullflavormenthol
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
2,415
I am new here. I came to this board after having a idiot series of arguments on youtube.

The thing that I am asking is that do any other atheists feel weird that a movie like Zeitgeist, being so devoid of historical context, has lead us to a point in which we find ourselves sticking up for Christians? I mean I don't hate Christians, but I never thought I would be arguing with people that are atheists trying to explain that Zeitgeist just gets it wrong.

I think my main issue is that Atheism isn't dependent on the history of a religion, but more the overall view of the implausibility of the supernatural and movies like Zeitgeist and the GWWT detract from that central issue.

Also....I am disturbed by all the New Agey stuff littered throughout the movie. Sourcing Massey and H. P. Blavatsky bother me so much. Not only because they are really old New Age nonsense, but because Blavatsky was the writer of the Secret Doctrine, which was a HUGE inspiration upon Nazi ideology. And it disturbs me that people in this day and age would use it.

I suppose it all comes down to defending reason, but Zeitgeist put that defense in a context that I never thought I would approach.
 
I think that what I've done with my responses to claims made by the film weren't defenses of Christianity in particular or religion in general. I've definitely had those defending the film accusing me of being religious, but their accusations don't make it so. I think that what challenging the many outlandish claims in Zeitgeist (re: the religious stuff) does is allow someone who is areligious to perform an exercise in intellectual honesty. Comaratively speaking, it's far easier to make an argument that can be seen as a defense of what you believe than it is to make an argument that can be seen as a defense of what someone you do not necessarily agree with believes. The latter is complex and confusing, and in a very visceral sense doesn't initially seem logical until you drop emotional knee-jerk reactions and maintain a critical thinking approach to what you're doing.

Ironically, and I honestly don't mean this to be a morality lesson, it can be looked at in a similar fashion to the Golden Rule. If you consider how the subject matter is being approached and think about how it is not logically consistent to approach your own views in such a belligerent and somewhat tautological manner, it makes sense to expect the same logical consistency in the arguments made even against those things you wouldn't necessarily agree with as 'correct' in the first place.
 
Calling something a lie when it is one, isn't sticking up for anything except integrity. I haven't felt the least bit weird about calling Zeitgeist a crock.

If you've encountered some angry atheists who are interested only in slamming religion for whatever reason, welcome to the internet.
 
Last edited:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: zeitgeist is an inside out ******* regurgitating putrid, anal fecal matter! I'd rather **** a porcupine and shove a cactus up my ass! I'd rather drink diarrhea vomited out of a buffalo's anus! It ****ing sucks, it sucking ****s, it ****ing blows, it's a piece of ****... And I don't like it!
 
Last edited:
JonathanClement said:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: zeitgeist is an inside out ******* regurgitating putrid, anal fecal matter! I'd rather **** a porcupine and shove a cactus up my ass! I'd rather drink diarrhea vomited out of a buffalo's anus! It ****ing suck, it sucking sucks, it ****ing blows, it's a piece of ****... And I don't like it!
Click to expand...

lolwut.jpg
 
Anyway, to the OP, exposing a lie in no way necessarily constitutes "defending" the subject of the lie.

Lies are lies, regardless of whether they target someone you don't like.
 
I don't care what Ad homs people attack me with.
I ignore it and stick it to them where it really hurts.

THE FACTS.
 
Hear, hear, I am an atheist and I too have criticized it on the same grounds. It is pseudohistory -- it invents a version of the Horus myth that doesn't correspond to actual ancient beliefs known from ancient sources.

It's fun to look up the actual sources for the video -- most of the books are available on Google. Many of its claims are built on thin air. Horus crucified? Look that one up. Its basis is a Freemason book from the 1920s or so that claimed that the Mayans were of Egyptian origin and that a Mayan drawing of a chained figure with outstretched arms, in fact, shows Horus. That's the basis for the claim. Not any evidence pertaining to Horus per se but a Mayan drawing that was interpreted, on the basis of a long-outdated theory by Freemason philosopher Karl Krause (who thought that "advanced" Amerian Indians came from Egypt) as of Egyptian origin. Other than the imagination of a Masonic writer who lacked any expertise in Mayan and Egyptian archaeology (and whose brother, I believe, popularized the idea of a sunken continent of Mu), Horus is nowhere described as "crucified" in the literature. That's just typical of the dubiousness of the claims in Zeitgeist.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to the people who have responded. It seemed more weird to the people around me when I would complain about the lies of Zeitgeist. IT was more of a "Why are you fighting it, if it claims something against Christianity?"

I just feel it is wrong to make statements that aren't based in fact. Also like I said before I don't believe my atheism has anything to do with the origins of Christianity. I don't need to claim they were based on Horus to not believe in it. And my integrity with regards to historical fact is more important to me than appearing correct.

Thanks to those who responded.
 
And let's not forget that zeitgeist actually uses other conspiracy movies as "sources". Come on... It doesn't work like that.
 
JonathanClement said:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: zeitgeist is an inside out ******* regurgitating putrid, anal fecal matter! I'd rather **** a porcupine and shove a cactus up my ass! I'd rather drink diarrhea vomited out of a buffalo's anus! It ****ing sucks, it sucking ****s, it ****ing blows, it's a piece of ****... And I don't like it!
Click to expand...

I like your style, you must be a Québecer! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom