Zeitgeist Refuted

2010, Religion  -   972 Comments
Storyline

Zeitgeist RefutedEven secular scholars have rejected the idea of Christianity borrowing from the ancient mysteries. The well-respected Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard writes in Theories of Primitive Religion that The evidence for this theory... is negligible.

The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. So if there was any influence of one on the other, it was the influence of the historical event of the New Testament (resurrection) on mythology, not the reverse. The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris.

In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld... This is far different than Jesus' resurrection account where he was the gloriously risen Prince of life who was seen by others on earth before his ascension into heaven. –Dr. Norman Geisler.

Directed by: Elliott Nesch
680
5.15
12345678910
Ratings: 5.15/10from 87 users.

More great documentaries

972 Comments / User Reviews

  1. This film refutes nothing. It is the same old worn out, ill-formed, unsupportable, and laughable arguments that religious zealots have always been barking mad about. In Zeitgeist they offer us verifiable evidence, and even tell us the sources so we can actually double check them. And Zeitgeist tells us to do something that no religious zealot will ever, ever say: Zeitgeist tells us NOT to take their word for anything, but to research and review the evidence and see for ourselves. Christians remain convinced that their 'faith' itself is suitable evidence, and that their man-made collection of ancient political propaganda is also itself conclusive evidence for god. Really. I can never make up my mind whether to feel sorry for zealots or just laugh at them.

  2. So the whole Zeitgeist movement is wrong based solely on religious inaccuracies??????

  3. @Neil Phillip Melly

    Have you watched this ''doco'' . If so what are your thoughts on the similarities between, Joseph of the old testaments and Jesus in the new testaments and how would you explain this?

  4. @Nothing_Is_Real

    Your comment may not be completely right, however would it be true all things/theorys and lifes lessons have to be taught or learnt. All babies are born with the ability absorbe knowledge to help them develop into active member of their community.

  5. Neil Phillip Melly
    please discuss the documentary and the issues contained within it. your preaching is not only against the comment policy it adds nothing to the conversation

  6. I pray one day that everyone
    will fall in love with GOD's True Son
    He is the Christ Emmanuel
    who died for us and went to hell
    to defeat the father of lies
    Jesus won which is no surprise
    since His Power is Heavenly
    and HIs Love Perfect and Holy
    theres no way He would ever lose
    thats why you must make sure to choose
    to take your heart out from this world
    and commit your soul to the Lord
    reveal your true spiritual side
    so you no longer have to hide
    the love you have for our Shepherd
    who is also known as the Word

    1. And here’s me thinking that Vogon was the worst poetry in
      the Universe?

      The Crucified One

    2. It is not alive
      this thing called religion,
      yet it's spread far and wide
      by many a minion.
      In their book of Great Lies
      it's said He's our saviour,
      words supposedly wise
      that preach bad behaviour.
      One day they'll be history,
      I hope the time flies,
      when all of their mystery
      has been shown to be lies.
      --docoman 2013 ;)

    3. You reminded me...Vogon is actually the 3rd
      worst in the universe.

    4. You're not a fan, of this docoman. I can't blame you I suppose, it took 5 minutes to compose. Please excuse my literary crime, just to make my words rhyme. He doesn't miss many tricks, this bloke AnitTheist666. :)

    5. This man, this docoman, sheers his sheep, eats coq au van.Feet of floot and mind of quick, the rhyming couplet makes me sick.

    6. you wont find true happiness in
      all instant gratification
      its all types of technology
      sex booze drugs gambling and money
      this is a world of temptation
      that offers many ways to sin
      all pleasure is temporary
      what you touch taste smell hear and see
      you never will be satisfied
      even when you are gratified
      with pride wrath sloth and gluttony
      plus greed and lust also envy
      it will just leave you wanting more
      the rich the middle class the poor
      at least the ones that have a hole
      that cant find GOD deep in their soul

    7. Are you aware that preaching via 'poetry' is still preaching?

      My apologies if you took my silly responses as if I was wanting more from you.
      And if you're going to, at least do us the courtesy of composing something new each time, you've already used that one on another thread here. (You remember don't you, the other thread where you were referred to the policy re. preaching.)

  7. God has to be taught, so it is just an idea or opinion, if god was real we would be born with the knowledge without teaching.

  8. Not to mention Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard has a bias opinion against Zeitgeist given his education is completely Christian from his beginnings and yet states there was no dying and rising God before Christianity; which any amount of amateur research will tell you is a lie. Numerous unbiased researchers have confirmed findings in this area over the years; so if not simply in the defense of the church does he deny it?

  9. I keep seeing comments about money and dereliction within the church. Especially the topic of money.

    The bible is often taken out of context by MEN who usually quote Malachi 3:10 when they need money for the church. The problem there is that that context is completely meant for the the Jewish priests from God. It had nothing to do with the common people.

    In the OT when God wanted to build the arc He had Moses take up a free will offering. Also in Paul's epistles where the modern church gets its foundation and guidelines (or at least where it should) we are told that people should give as they feel and not be under compulsion. "God loves a cheerful giver". Paul himself however states very clearly that he would not burden the members of the church to support his ministry because people may consider him as just a money grubbing person peddling the Gospel for profit . He instead quoted the proverbs "the parents should lay up for the children, not the children for the parents" He worked and supported himself and his ministry everywhere he went so that the Gospel message was not hindered by such things. The church today has been corrupted by men, as I stated before. But this was nothing new. Men screwed up the Law given to Moses, so God had to intervene and so therefore sent the Messiah to fulfill the Law. And by the righteousness of His sacrifice, we have a means to receive salvation if we believe on that alone. We can do nothing in and of ourselves. This is a common misconception by many self righteous proclaiming Christians. This does more damage than good and only detracts from the purity of the work of Christ.

    Whenever the focus is not on God, this happens. Its our nature as fallen men with a sinful nature. I say if you want to hate the church or the Christian faith, that's your business. But please, hate it for the right reasons. Men are the problem and not God.

    I still maintain that God himself loves you no matter what you may think. And his love is not tainted with strings attached to your wallet or church attendance, or anything else.
    You can be the most morally corrupt person this planet has ever known today. But if you repent of your ways and ask for forgiveness and believe on the finished work of God, you will receive grace for your actions. A free gift and no judgement attached.

    It is the hardest thing to grasp for most people. You have a choice of accepting that or not. What you do with that is ultimately up to you and I nor anyone else can make you decide.

    But know this, that the Gospel has come near to you.

    Maybe this will be dissected and torn to peaces by those of you whose consciences have been seared, but for those of you who read this and by God's grace are made to understand. I am already praising God for you. Welcome to the family.

    1. Why must someone have a 'seared conscience' to not agree with your conclusion?

  10. this is god speaking. i just wanted to say youve all been very naughty. now make sure you all pray to me tonight because i am not happy and my hemorrhoids are coming back. and to all you naughty little athiests out there, stop being so factual and making so much common sense you're making my people look stoopid. and to my followers, dont listen to a word, i swear to god i do exist, so make sure you come to church on sunday and donate all your money. if you dont you know what will happen. - GOD

    1. LMAO!

  11. The very first sentence is false, I have no hope for this film.

  12. Could Jesus come along like an incognito pizza delivery guy or would he kiiind of come along as himself? Coz I asked once that he come into my life and the pizza delivery guy knocked on the door.

    1. A fisherman was the 1st century equivalent of a burger-flipper, so yes, to conform to the myth, he would *have* to show up as a pizza delivery guy or something similar.

    2. But, did the pizza guy divide the pizza and feed the whole cul-de-sac????HUH???

  13. @ All you Atheists & Christians,

    This website has some really good documentary about debates between Atheists and Christians, perhaps it is long time since even this one was also added here:

    Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist

    One of the Gurus of Atheism seems to have a great time in this debate.

    I am sure this debate video will come here very soon. After all the guys running this website are such fair minded ones...

  14. Christians were a cult and still are. Religion/Cult. I see no difference. I don't judge the people of any religion because many are good peopled but the only difference between a religion and a cult is that the religion will tag the cult as evil or what have you and the cult itself could care less. The Zeitgeist author doesn't need to site anyone to prove christianity is just an extension of the old ways because the oldest symbols and art speak for themselves. The sitings in zeitgeist are just people giving an interpretation of these symbols. when looking at the physical facts any rational person can see relation between paganism and christianity but the first christians were pagans and Jews so there should be much overlap. The stories they knew as pagans just became part of the bible. it seems the writers of this doc doesn't know much about astrology either in fact even less than that of the original zeitgeist. Religious texts were not meant to be taken literally either. Mythology is meant to keep help our understanding of who were are as human beings and is also important for our understanding of where we have come from as human beings. There is no written interpretation of Egyptian stories from those times because they spoke the myth and didn't write it down. There is no literal equal to jesus just as there is no literal equal story to Horus and any mythological being. Each story has original parts but all share parts at some point. the bible and jesus some of the lesser interesting stories because unlike the older stories we are meant to believe at least in the past few centuries that the word is literal. India has some of the oldest stories known to man and these do not need to be interpreted because they still exist! Stories of virgin births Resurrection and space battles with aliens. Not even going to get into your comments on roman greek mythology because this is getting annoying and boring. You have presented a work just as unbelievable as zeitgeist. As soon as you mentioned the Masons and entered the realm of conspiracy theory your work here became just as equal to zeitgeist no better and not any more credible. zzz zzz zzz

    1. Amen. hebrews used astrology, which they got from the zoroastrians. Kabala...Synchretism occurs all the time, a religion being changed by the dominant cultural beliefs of the people group. Incorporating earlier ideas and beliefs to the new ones has happened forever.

  15. "I know that I know nothing" Socrates.

    There is something else that we all know exists that nobody can prove..... your internal dialogue that voice inside your head. How do you prove that?

    ...because greater is he that is in me, than he that is in the world.
    "I am God " oh yeah you are too.

  16. This documentary (NOT) is a church service disguised as a documentary. It has no basis in reality and it argues points for which it has no evidence to back it up. I am willing to bet it was funded by a religious organization that consists of a bunch of republican right wing nut jobs. My suggestion to them is get a life. Don’t waste your time watching this propaganda biased bull.

  17. ALL GODS ARE MAN MADE!!!!!
    What part of this simple sentence do you religious dumb f--ks not undersand?????

    1. Dude, Nice, I bet Ure mom would be proud........Thats catchy btw.."All gods are man made"....Hey forum looks like Im an Atheist now ,all thanks to this guy.

    2. You should be atheist but that does not mean that the mythology is useless. Where we came from as human being is layered throughout all the ancient stores including the bible. We are on a track that will end in no belief. Neither of us can stop it and in fact scripture needs it to happen to fulfill the prophecy of John. Many gods to one god to no god.

  18. hahaha brilliant!
    ever thought of writing a book? sounds like you're worth a follow...

  19. Ughh so I either take the apostle Paul's view on jesus or madame Blavatkly's view that jesus was an astrological space ghost.What happen to Truth.I need to know the truth.The Truth probably is that we all come up with convenient opinions and assumptions to serve our own agenda;which both the zeitgeist and this film do ... So who was the real jesus (if he really existed) and what was he truly like?

    1. Malachi
      Simple solution to your dilemma. If it is truth you seek, knock and it shall be opened, seek and you shall find. Jesus was real and is real, but don't take my word for it, ask Him yourself. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you. If you are seeking truth this is evidence He is knocking at your door, but He won't come in uninvited. He is love. He loves you where you are and for who you are. You can talk to Him like a friend.

    2. Horse feathers! His old man killed him. Psychopathic cults.

      Funny religee's!

  20. My Religious Philosophy is simple, I would rather believe that the diamond ring I lost Is still somewhere in my house and to one day find it. Atheist believe that the diamond will never be found and give up because it is the easier option because it releases them from the responsibility of searching.
    There is absolutely no solid proof that god doesn't Exist just as much as there is no proof to the contrary so why do Atheist feel like they can take some sort of "Intellectual" High ground because their priests are called scientists.I know some radical Christians and I Dislike them just as much as the next guy and honestly a lot of them are a bit strange but on the other hand ive only met a handful of atheist that have solid personalized opinions and arguments....Most just adopt their smartest buddy or role models Philosophy... I believe until proven wrong, not the other way around. Some might say they would prefer to not to have God exist but In my Opinion, They are either lying to themselves or have a fear of eternity which is a scary thought.

    1. @Dawid Crafford
      your diamond ring story makes no sense to me. where do you get the idea that an atheist would give up ? you are right that there is no proof god doesn't exist. too bad that logic demands that the burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. you claim god exists an atheist says i don't see any proof for that claim. please look up "russels teapot". next atheism and science are two different things. there are many religious scientists and followers of science, as well as atheists that don't follow or understand science. lastly what i would prefer where god is concerned is not relevant. there are many things that i would prefer that doesn't make them true

    2. Im not Bagging science or scientist because I personally love the sciences and I might have been generalising a bit too much In my previous statement , My point Is that The vast majority of Atheists that I have had this debate with has Never been able to give me any non "scientific" explanation against religion and when I corner them they always pull out the big trump card, The Oh so glorious Mr Charles Darwin and then I just stop listening.....I believe In evolution as well But that's beside the point. All I'm trying to say Is I'm 99.9% sure that No one will find the source of my existence in my lifetime so Id rather believe In God until proven wrong than the other way around. I've had numerous Spiritual experiences and Events of perfect timing that atheists would call Coincidences. Look at ethnic cultures around the world, They have a spiritual mindset and they are closer to happiness With less knowledge. Western civilization has corrupted us Into Being Super Rational while rational though Is not where we will find the answer to Our Existence....Science Is For Explaining how things that already exist works but never I mean never answers the question -- WHY , Ill look up Russels teapot and btw I love that u can debate In A civil Manner Thanks man

    3. @Dawid Crafford
      you stated "Id rather believe In God until proven wrong " then you will always believe. i cannot prove that god doesn't exist. i can however point to alternative explanations (yes science) that have more proof for claims made. science does answer a lot of the "why" questions for our existence. the problem is that the why's prove that we are not special and we aren't the end goal to some plan. i can give you some of the many "non "scientific" explanation against religion" if you wish. how about that there have been 28000000 gods that have been worshiped and only one (if any) can be right so the odds of following the right one is overwhelming. even if you follow the right god there are approximately 38000 denominations of Christianity alone so the odds get even longer. next there are no original bibles in existence and the ones we do have come decades to centuries after the fact and contain more differences than there are words in the bible. most of these differences are minor but many aren't (mark 16:9 to 20 not in oldest texts) and the ones we do have have been translated many times and edited.not to mention contradiction with itself and history. i can go on but will stop here as to not post a wall of text that nobody will read. finally if your religion makes you a better person, gives you direction or comfort and you do not try to push it onto others who choose not to believe or into areas that it doesn't belong than by all means believe and enjoy your life. if you wish to provide a counter explanation to our existence you are very welcome.

    4. There is only one why question, And yes I Understand completely what u said about the amount of gods and Christian denominations but unlike most Christians, I Have my own views On Christianity and I don't go to church for that exact reason..... I have a lot of qualms with the way mainstream Christianity is run and I have been researching deeply into the direct translation of the Hebrew texts.
      I Have been very into Philosophy since I was young but unlike most, I try to form my own opinions and share them in a constructive manner until i come across an opinion or theory that alters my perspective on a epistemological level, we cannot base all our opinions on deductive reasoning because there are flaws in the framework of our natural laws, Evolutionary theory and of physics that inhibit us from understanding what we think we understand. I refuse to believe that we are just very intelligent animals because of some genetic mutation, we are the mind of the universe because we came from it and now we start to understand it.....I believe that God Is the ultimate Intellect and he made us in his image , not physically but he gave us intellect and free choice. Just like any human I have many Flaws in my beliefs but Christianity answered more of my questions than any Science ever has, Dawkins also bases all his theories on empirical knowledge and this knowledge changes ever so often....The big bang is just as unproven as Christianity and I think u need a lot of faith to believe that something was created without a creator. U might say then if God exists then why made God....well that's the paradoxical situation we find ourselves in because our human minds are governed not to know in my opinion sa that Faith or being lost is our only option.....Faith Is believing Without Seeing

    5. @Dawid Crafford:

      Big difference! your diamond ring was real and your gods are nothing but a figment of your imagination, unless you can show proof of a living, breathing, moving and grooving god.

    6. Thanks Man So ure saying I have A almighty Imagination....ILL Take That As A compliment..

    7. Now that I read My own comment about the ring i realise it was a stupid analogy......Im a dumb-ass I must admit but i find it hard to put in words what im thinking..

    8. To error is human, to repeat the error when you know it is wrong, is immoral.
      Your argument is invalid. You stated and I quote.
      "All I'm trying to say Is I'm 99.9% sure that No one will find the source of my existence in my lifetime so Id rather believe In God until proven wrong"
      This statment is one born out of ignorance. The source of "your" existence would be your mother and father. Your argument makes no sense.
      You are saying, I am going to believe something I can not prove to be true, untill I am willing to believe something that is true.

      Hands over ears, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, usualy works well for true believers. Head burried in sand is also a good alternitive.

    9. U are assuming that your opinion is true and then saying that I am wrong for not agreeing with your equally unproven opinion. And Its impossible to believe in nothing so belief is either for God or there is no belief.....So If I did """Believe""" what u Believe or lack thereof then I Dont have any beliefs...hey Thats a tongue twister.......Btw My argument made sense to """"over the edge""" and he actually comes up with valid points unlike u babbling on about my beliefs....Dude Im just having a debate here and there will be no winner, Im saying what I believe just like Edge is but ure just attacking so why not try a more Diplomatic and Intellectual Approach....Say something that might change my opinion.....

    10. How can "I" change "your" opinion?
      Not possible, it is up to you to change yourself.

      If you do not possess enough common sense to decipher myth from reality. Then you shall remain a victim of the virus that you call "faith". You will most likely infect your children as your parents had infected you. You will either have the intelligence of critical thinking to cure your infection or you will not.

      There is nothing I can do to change that. Not even you can cure your own family members of the virus once infected.

      I look at you as I would people floating in outer space. I hope the best for them, however I realize they will have to save themselves. For they are beyond my reach.
      JQ

    11. Reality is what we KNOW. Our senses can interpret physical reality, but what of perception? Perception can not be seen, or heard, but it is none the less real. "woman's intuition" likewise is such a common phenomenon that can't be rationally explained. Reality and faith are one in the same. You may say what I believe is myth, but to me Jesus is as real as you are. Early sailors thought the world was flat, and they would fall off if they sailed too far. I'm sure some of them were just as vehement as you are about what they believed, that didn't make them right either. If you were a little less critical, and do a little more thinking, you might discover what is the allusion.

    12. Dear Marypopins, I don't argue with women, the bible states hell has no fury like a women scorned!! I do believe some things in the bible to be true:)

      Yes, you are right, your delusion is real to you, and your reality revolves around your delusion (your belief that Religious myth is reality).

      You have chosen you vision and your mindset (NOT), you have been programed by your parents and others in society who have influenced you....

      You have no original posture Maypopins, what happened to you? You were the dreamer, yet now all you dreams have ended into Christianity or Certainty!! There now exists nothing for you to explore, for now you know everything. This brings me great sorrow.

      Life is to explore, we are creatures of discovery. The TRUTH is liberating, LIES are BONDAGE. The day I know everything will be the day life has lost it appeal to my imagination.

      Science and Religion are branches of the same tree. They contain TRUE and FALSE statements. They exist only to help Humanity understand and discover the wonders of the Universe. The difference between the two are as night and day. One is biased on emotion, fear, control, manupilition, and the other is a result fact, biased mind sets both are reluctant to change.

      Only when you accept that the only constant in the universe is Change, will you truly understand the evolution of life. The truth is liberating and I hope someday you will expand you vision out of the box that holds you prisoner.
      Allgodsaremanmade
      JQ

    13. No, it is not known. Knowledge is certain and evidenced. You know when it's daytime. You don't need to have faith that it's daytime, you know that it is. Do you see the difference between faith/belief and knowledge?

    14. So that the diamond ring I lost Is still somewhere in my house and one day I might find it, but i'm definitely not going to wast my time searching. If I do, I do. If I don't, I don't.
      There is something else that exists that nobody cant prove, your internal dialogue the voice inside your head.
      you say "I believe until proven wrong, not the other way around" that kind of makes me feel like your looking for an out, where's your faith?

    15. Wow man, That really made me think.....U have a good point there. I guess Im just human. I still have my doubts about God and such but I refuse to believe That we are just Highly evolved Animals that Wonder about our existence....I guess U have me there.... Wow...Never thought about it like that...Good one....

  21. This film, Zeitgeist Refuted, does not refute anything whatsoever. It is a bunch of fundamentalist religious people citing their belief and faith as proof of God, then supporting their ejaculations with more belief, then more faith, and then to top it all off they close with even more belief and even more faith. They offer not one shred of fact or evidence to support their claims. It may be news to many in the general public, but the information in the religious part of Zeitgeist is old, well accepted hat in academia. That Jesus is a myth contrived partly from earlier god myths, and partly from a Markan composite of characters from the Homeric epics is well know and widely accepted by thousands of historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, classical studies scholars, theologians, etc., in the US and around the world. This fact seems new to some people because most scholars (in the US at least) don't publish their research findings to the general public, because they know they will be viciously attacked by christians.

    1. Well I would say it is well refuted, if your religious and live by the bible. lol. Perhaps you should watch "age of deceit" next. Different topic, same tactic. Same people actually, I suspect.

    2. your comment seems to convey that you dint even read the description let alone actually watch the doc!

  22. I'm waiting for 'Zeitgeist: Refuted: Refuted'. Let's face it, those of us that have families and jobs that take up our time, the only way to come to some kind of decision on what is real and what is hearsay, is to pick and chose which doc's and books to read and form your own opinions. Short of being a biblical scholar where you get paid to read the various scriptures and the enormous amount of books about them, there is no way a layman can have enough information to be sure about anything.

    That being said, while part of me feel that Zeitgeist is truly a conspiracy theory and not representative of any truth, it is so well laid out and cohesive as to be very persuasive. This 'Refuted' doc however is so all over the place it is difficult to even follow or process any of it. And it comes off as more trying to disprove something instead of trying to prove it. A disproof doesn't mean proof.

    I am not a religious person but I am not so set in that that I am not open to ideas that may change my mind in the future. This doc however doesn't come close to changing my opinion.

  23. A REFUTATION???

    I will say first that I am an atheist, and this work does not convince me to change that, though it definitely tries. I will say, however, that if you pay attention to it it is a much more competent presentation of a Christian defense than the vast majority of what we usually see, and it does throw enough opposition on the possible roots of Christianity as presented in Zeitgeist to make me accept that Zeitgeist may quite possibly have this point wrong. However, to call this a refutation of the entire precept of Zeitgeist is also in error... absolutely. In feeling threatened by the presentation of Christianity in Zeitgeist the creator of this work missed the much larger, and ultimately more important arguments that Zeitgeist sets out to present. In fact, I think if the author here had not been so impulsively reactionary he might have found that he, and the bible, in many ways validate the ideas of Zeitgeist and the two can quite reasonable co-exist.

    How do Zeitgeist and the bible's views on usury compare?
    How do they compare on the value of war?
    How do they compare on the true value of a person?
    How might a GOOD Christian interpret man's role as the stewards of the Earth-- is it to be exploitative or symbiotic?

    In fact, in an interview with Peter Joseph he commented that there are many things he likes in the bible, he just sees the evil in its application as a religion, and the division it has spawned amongst people. In some ways the author of this work even supports this claim, but he is careful to keep saying true Christians believe in peace, love, and harmony, and argues that many (if not almost all) are not true to the bible or Christ's teachings. I will not concern myself with how he knows his IS the true faith-- I believe he is trying to be true to his own moral compass. I will not get into every detail of his 'refutation', which are in at least a few cases apparently not more validated than the passages to the contrary in Zeitgeist. In fact, I think it unfortunate that Zeitgeist gave so much attention and such prominent placement to the views on Christianity, since it must so polarize many people's responses that for many it render's them incapable of moving on and finding the value in Zeitgeist... it creates the most division on this point alone, and undermines the message.

    Take Zeitgeist with a grain of salt... sure. It would be contrary to the message of Zeitgeist not to. But in getting caught up in the issue of the existence or absence of God, do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

  24. "The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. "

    ...

    Uh... OSIRIS.

    That's enough right there to stop me even watching this video.

  25. Why is it, that the most discussed topics here are religion-based? We as a civilication are at the brink of collapse, and people are still shoving their heads in the sand. Religion does not solve any of today's crisis', it only fuels them. All wars fought today (and in the past) are about religion. Millions and millions have been murdered, tortured, mutilated, and deprived of their most basic needs, in the name of God or Allah or whatever you will name it. In my opinion it is the deadliest invention of humankind ever. I lost almost all hope of our species to survive in the future, and as I am to chicken to kill myself, I will turn my back on civilication and go back to the roots of mankind. I'm learning how to survive in the wilds, how to live of the forest, and when I'm ready I will go as far away from here a possible, and let the rest of the world kill itself. And if people don't want to starve, die of dehydration or commit suicide because of all the debts they have, they would be wise to do the same. You don't need money to live, as well as religion. You need food and fresh water. That's all. And nature will provide, if you just know where to look. I believe.... not in god, not in politics, not in financial institutes, not even in mankind... I believe in myself, and thats all the belief I need!!

  26. For me, this film only adds strength to the Zeitgeist series which seems to be able to lay things out in simple logical connected order while Zeitgeist Refuted has all the feel of the endless religious mumbo jumbo and chaotic feeling that religious fanatic puppets live in and crave.

    One of the best features of our society is the freedom to express different views on the same issue letting each of us decide for ourselves.

    1. Zeitgeist is a dishonest effort. It ignores the whole picture. This doc may not be as well polished and pleasing to the eye and pleasing to the conspiracy seeking "I want to be the enlightened one" attitude that is so common. I am an atheist. But Zeitgeist is not revealing truth. It is making money of off the uneducated masses.

  27. This film, Zeitgeist Refuted, does not refute anything whatsoever. It is a bunch of fundamentalist religious people citing their belief and faith as proof of God, then supporting their ejaculations with more belief, then more faith, and then to top it all off they close with even more belief and even more faith. They offer not one shred of fact or evidence to support their claims. It may be news to many in the general public, but the information in the religious part of Zeitgeist is old, well accepted hat in academia. That Jesus is a myth contrived partly from earlier god myths, and partly from a Markan composite of characters from the Homeric epics is well know and widely accepted by thousands of historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, classical studies scholars, theologians, etc., in the US and around the world. This fact seems new to some people because most scholars (in the US at least) don't publish their research findings to the general public, because they know they will be viciously attacked by christians.

  28. Why is it that those who don't believe, assume that those who do are afraid of intellectual stimulation? That they are the ones who cannot be questioned, and anyone who disagrees, will have a religious reason. I think that comments like those, show just how limited your own intellectual capacities are. Most consider Newton as the biggest contributor to physics, and he was a believer. How anyone can make generalizations like that , and still expect to be taken as unbiased, is beyond me. I guess that it just goes to show that you don't have to believe to be an idiot.

  29. why is it so hard to think that humans of old times MIGHT just MIGHT look at the stars and the sun? Why are we scared of the Sun?

    If you are a Christian and truely believe and KNOW your God to be true... then no one can question that... anyone that does can just be ignored.

    So, why is this documentary trying to refute or defend itself just because of some other film? Example: If someone says to me, "I am not a man." I would laugh and walk away. I would not spend hours making a Film trying to reaffirm I was a man...

    This is what this Film is trying to do. If the facts of the Astro-Theology were not true or even partially consistant, then why spend all this time making this film to refute it.

    The act of making this rebuttal film shows to me even more that The Sun and the stars may have something to tell us.

    That does not mean to say it is wrong to have compassion as good Christians do. But, the Bible is all too well used by Dictators and money hungry churches... one must use caution in believing ANYTHING.

    Zeitgeist or Bible.

  30. This can't and shouldnt be called a documentary. To prove Jesus's existence through quoting biblical scripture is just ridiculous. My advice to whoever made this...find a pastime that does not require any intellectual stimulation whatsoever ...Mcdonalds perhaps or better yet become a pastor!!

  31. Zeitgeist Refuted is extremely biased, juvenile, nonsense. A bunch of LIES.
    I've been working in the world of academia for over 20 years, and while it has not been widely reported to the public, it has long been well accepted common knowledge within historical linguistics, history, archaeology, and other academic disciplines that the Jesus story is indeed based on other earlier mythologies. There are a few christian scholars who don't like this, but the overwhelming number of scholars around the world agree that the historical evidence is clear -- the Jesus story is hardly original, or compelling.
    Please, don't take my word for it. Do your own research. See for yourself.
    But research the historical evidence, not the biased, religious, defensive, reactionary barking.

    1. You must have been working in the cafetaria in academia. Almost no historians accept that the Jesus story is based on earlier mythologies. Even critical scholars like the Jewish historian Geza Vermes acknowledges that the gospel narrative had a historical backbone.

  32. I'm an atheist and I do not believe in a historical Jesus.

    Zeitgeist is a pile of trash.

    The facts are generally false. And the argument is hugely simplistic and even that simple it's generally wrong on all the facts it claims. You can look up the mythological figures in question and find out what we actually know about those gods cited. The differences are so vast as to summon the specter of lies. It could be that the makers of Zeitgeist simply took Graves' claims to heart and were terrible at the most basic bits of factchecking. But, it's hard to get that wrong without knowing it.

  33. Zeitgeist is based on fact and exposing fallacy. I don't neccesarily support peter joseph because what he is saying in his documentaries isn't really an epiphany to anybody who uses common sense. This is just some Christian religious bimbo trying to validate religion once again. people just want to be in a box. Not just Christianity was created as political control system, but Islam was too. Why do you think there are so many Arabs in Africa??? Religous conquests . . .

  34. I can't believe the title of this documentary, or the absolute Biblical gibberish the author hopes will persuade any critical thinker, Jesus did in fact walk the earth. He's refuted nothing from Peter Joseph's film 'Zeitgeist'... thanks for coming out there professor. Feel free to give it another shot if you like...

  35. just about the worst attempt at refuting anything I have ever seen.

  36. jesus is pisces, not leo.
    moses time wasn't the ram, it was the end of taurus, the golden calf? abaraham was the ram.
    the way the christ could move thru his disciples is as energy, not a person. christ consciousness? you can feel it quite distinctly on shrooms.
    jesus wasn't ussuring in the age of aquarius, he was the age of pisces! now, 2000 years later, is aquarius.
    this movie is so full of ignorance at only 15 minutes ...

  37. Zeitgeist was about Horus not Osiris you id**t!!! Apologies about the rudeness, it's just so damn obvious if you HAVE watched Zeitgeist!

  38. Id like to find one christian that has never "questioned" their faith, or better yet one that felt like if they didn't go church on Sunday they would be hunted down and dragged into the confession booth, I mean come on is religion any cruder than science? Is it not science that is responsible for the advancement of human warfare and killing on this earth? is the 200,000 people killed in the 200 year history of the crusades not comparable to the the 160,000 killed by the atom bombs the Americans dropped on Japan. Why Is it so shameful when a "christian" kills yet honorable when the word christian is removed?

  39. For more info about how Christianity is just story of symbolized and personified version of astrology watch The Naked Truth. They go more in depth with examples and religions and even explain where 'Amen' came from and noah's arc and so on. I do believe people should be spiritual, but organized religion with never take you to your spiritual limits. Faith = submission without question = control over you. Control = Power. Power leads to corruption. Christianity in theory may not be corrupt. No, objective person can say that any organized religion to has not been without corruption, and many say it is today. Televangelists for example.

  40. I would rather to have been created by something greater than I rather than to have been created by chance and evolved from a monkey. The real issue here is Organized religion and the fact that it segragates people. I am not branded, but that doesn not mean I dont beleive jesus existed! If I could meet just one person fact or fictional it would be jesus because he seems like a cool guy, all he wanted was for us to love one another...is that really so wrong????

  41. This "documentary" is an insult to honesty, integrity and intelligence. The makers of this film stretch the truth, twist the facts, and in some cases downright lie. I've asked my students to watch this film as an example of religious propaganda in its most sordid, and ridiculous, form. The makers of this film are clearly desperate to twist reality into what they want to, need to believe. Please, watch this film, take notes, then do some basic research. Every argument they make is easily proven to be nonsense. Don't take anyone's word for it. See for yourself what silly, desperate, deluded trash this film is.

  42. Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    'Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
    The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
    Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
    The frumious Bandersnatch!'

    He took his vorpal sword in hand:
    Long time the manxome foe he sought —
    So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
    And stood a while in thought.

    And, as in uffish thought he stood,
    The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
    Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
    And burbled as it came!

    One two! One two! And through and through
    The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
    He left it dead, and with its head
    He went galumphing back.

    'And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
    Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
    Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
    He chortled in his joy.

    'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    1. If I could make any sense of that at all I'd consider myself to be insane.

  43. This "documentary" is an insult to honesty, integrity and intelligence. The makers of this film stretch the truth, twist the facts, and in some cases downright lie. I've asked my students to watch this film as an example of religious propaganda in its most sordid, and ridiculous, form. The makers of this film are clearly desperate to twist reality into what they want to, need to believe. Please, watch this film, take notes, then do some basic research. Every argument they make is easily proven to be nonsense. Don't take anyone's word for it. See for yourself what silly, desperate, deluded trash this film is.

  44. Bill wynne, the number one cause of Atheism is NOT Christinans.
    It is from the understanding of Science, And the Truth.
    And not liven in some dream world that you cant wake from.

    1. Sorry but I agree with Bill to a certain extent. Its not Christianity but organised religions in general trying to tell us and in some historical cases forcing us to believe something we in fact believe to be tripe. Instead of urging people to find their own interpretation of who or what God is. If you give people only three choices and they don't believe either one they will choose not believe at all. Its not science, their are many Christian scientists, Muslim scientists, and Jewish bankers err I mean scientists.

      Their used to be two Jehovah's witnesses that would come to my door regularly trying to spread their faith. I wouldn't turn them away cause I kinda saw them as a play thing. I would engage them in philosophical debate about spirituality that would drive them nuts. Time after time they'd come back because near the end of each discussion I'd hint that I might be open to attending their church. They would note this down only to come back when they realised I had attended. As soon as I told them I wouldn't attend they stop coming back. They don't care whether I'm religious, agnostic or atheist. They only care whether or not I would attend and donate to their church.

      Pfft how could I be a Jehovah's witness... I wasn't even there.

  45. I am a Christian and as painful as watching this video is I realize that they are getting their facts about Christianity not from apostolic Christianity but from primarily Catholicism. Good research of the history of the infiltration of all the paganism in Christianity is linked back to Constantine.

    The number one cause of Atheism is Christians. There is so much hypocrisy and it needs to change. This is a very thought provoking video and has merit but will send people reeling if they have no foundation and are not willing to take time to prove things for themselves after watching the movie.

    Greed is taking over the world, the fat lady is tuning up and the s#%t is about to hit the fan. What do I do? What do you do? Is it worth thinking about?

    1. The Catholic Church is the only Apostolic Church. Catholicism is not Pagan. It is unfortunate that the directors choose to attack the Church in addition to the "Sh*te"gueist film.

  46. This movie is as bad as the original ZeitGeist movie. Both rely upon bad or no scholarship, and both make hundresds of claims that are contreversial and could be talked about for hours. But why do that when you can make hundreds of sweeping generalizations without taking into consideration the 2000 years of reasearch and thinking that have been done. Also the editing on this movie was horribe. There are too many scenes where there are multiple images superimposed and moving around. The people who like Zeitgeits were ultra-liberals before they watched the movie, and the people who like this movie were Christians before they watched it. Both are terrible.

    1. fg

  47. He is GOD he is the alpha and the omega he has always been there and will always be there. One day you will meet your Creator face to face i assure you of that.

    1. @rsanch12

      And I am going to ask him:
      Why didn't you just show up and let us know: here I am! Stop this atheist nonsense.
      Why is universe once we really started to observe it (atoms, galaxies…) so different than what it says in sacred texts? Don’t you know your own creation?
      Why exactly do you need me to pray for you: you are perfect, do you have a problem with your ego?

  48. If God is fake then who created you?

    1. If god is real who created god?

    2. Nobody, i am the end result of billions of years of amazing astrological and biological coincidences. Personaly I find that far more wondrous than being 'made' like i was a toaster or a dishwasher.

  49. This is PAINFULLY stupid.
    Poor religious people, I feel sorry for them. Really.

  50. Ya this doc was disproved within 2 months of coming out, it is entirely bullshit put forward by christian propagandists. By watching this you will in fact become less informed although I must say, that if you do watch it, pay attention to how the christian Right literally dismantles themselves as the film progresses and how full of holes it becomes. Funny stuff. Nothing to gawk about tho, sorry. God is still fake, quit being childish people.

  51. There are 30,000,000 non-believers in the US. And those are just the ones who have identified themselves. Think of those in small communities all over this nation who can't be honest about their non-belief because they live in an oppressive fundamentalist community. As more and more find the courage to be honest about their lack of belief in something that is wholly unworthy of belief, christians are becoming more and more violent in their desperate defense of their mythology. I think we will, in the next couple of decades, go through an adjustment period in this country where times will become extremely tumultuous and violent due to a lashing out by a quickly shrinking christian population. But, it is inevitable that science and reason will, in the end, win the day. The cat is, finally, and forever, out of the bag. As Russell put it, Americans, and indeed the world, are finally regurgitating that poison we were all fed at mothers knee.

    1. First of all, a true christian doesn't use violence. Did Jesus Christ use violence to overthrow the roman empire or to save our lives? God loves you and has a great purpose for you. May God touch your heart and soul.

    2. First of all no one saved my life.
      Did he also have a great purpose for those killed in holocaust?

      The truth is if You don't make your life worth anything then it will be worthless. Regardless to what this film or the Zeitgeist says- start thinking. May the truth touch your mind ;)

  52. I still hold onto the tenet:

    Religion in all forms is a "human" creation.

  53. Nothing is refuted in this film. No reasoned argument. No evidence.
    Only a load of emotional, knee-jerk reactions from a bunch of religious zealots desperately trying to justify what is simply unjustifiable. The people who made this film are perfect examples of those who have been taught exactly WHAT to think, but never taught HOW to think. This "documentary" is pure garbage.

  54. I fail to see what this documentary has actually refuted!?!
    I feel that the people who made this film have focused, rather single mindedly, on the religous aspect from Part 1 of Zeitgeist the Movie and have not mentioned anything at all from Parts 2 or 3 of Zeitgeist the Movie!
    From my perspective this means, the people who made this film Zeitgeist Refuted, have not watched Zeitgeist the Movie in its entirety, or the other two Zeitgeist movies Addendum and Moving Forward, and thus have no knowledge or understanding about what Zeitgeist the Movie was all about or what the Movement hopes to achieve!
    The only logical explanation to this, that I can see, is Cui bono, who benefits! Whomever made this Zeitgeist Refuted film has something to gain by solely defending the religous aspect and that gain is usually in the form of profit!
    Cause I know one thing for sure, this film Zeitgeist Refuted has not benefited me in any shape or form, in fact I'd like those 90 minutes of my life back that I spent watching this film as it has refuted nothing and has verified their own ignorance!

  55. There are biblical scholars, Christian archaeologists, people who devoted their lives seeking and studying the truth. What makes you think you know it all? Heard a stupid theory and hope Christianity is just a myth. Repent while you have a chance. You can go so far that you can no longer repent. Hell would be the only place for such people.

  56. who do you think you are ordering God around? Such pride.
    "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." Galatians 6.7.
    God will judge. There is heaven and hell.

    1. "Christian archaeologists, people who devoted their lives seeking and studying the truth"

      No, no.. people who have devoted their lives to finding proof of Christianity and disproving anything that does not support that view... And btw, they failed ^^

      I love it when Christians quote biblical scripture as proof of the other bits of scripture being true... Where's the logic there? I can write that Harry Potter is real in my notebook, why is he real?...because my notebook says so... Where's the proof? I don't need proof, you need to have faith and just know that my notebook says it's true, that should be enough. The human race cannot progress basing their decisions on a set of allegorical fairy tales. Even if, at some point the bible contained some intrinsic truths about humanity, they have been long-lost in the religious institutions interpretation.

      Either the entire bible is literal and not metaphorical or it is historically false, so many Christians pick and choose what requires literal interpretation and what doesn't... Oh, and they all disagree on which parts are which.

      You live burning in the hell of your own ignorance.

    2. Stolen and reposted.

    3. If you're going to make those kinds of insulting accusations, please state where and whom it is supposedly stolen from? Just saying 'Stolen and reposted' is baseless.

  57. "Even secular scholars have rejected the idea of Christianity borrowing from the ancient mysteries." Nonsense!!! Who writes these introductory blurbs for the documentaries? There are a handful of "scientists" who will agree with that opening line, but there is a huge army of scholars and scientists around the world and everywhere who will laugh at the sheer ignorance of whoever wrote it. Why ignorant? Because that opening line is so laughably and obviously wrong. At the very least the line is misleading, at worst, and more likely, an attempt to deceive. Don't take my word for it. Even a tiny bit of genuine and honest research will inform you of the truth. Archeology, history, linguistics, all inform us that Christianity is based on a mixture of earlier myths -- plain and simple. The evidence is overwhelming -- it doesn't matter what you "believe". Some people obviously don't want to believe that, but as they say, you can have your own "truth", but you can't have your own facts.

  58. mr high ever this is a discussion on the lies the original movie told. get a clue

  59. All religions are based on myths and fables. The need to believe in something is instilled in us from when we were unconscious beings over 5000 years ago. When man became conscious, the need to believe in something was trapped in the bicameral mentality of the brain. Shed the bicameral mind and you shall truly be free. I seek nothing, from anyone, and fear no one living or dead. There is no heaven, there is no hell, only that from which we came. Our legacy is what we leave behind. Shed your ego and fears of the mysterious, and understand that there doesn't always have to be an answer. When you rid your life of unnecessary religious and outside mysticisms you can finally see the truth which has been there all along. Fictional stories from thousands of years ago have no effect on me in any way, other than the narrow minded ignorance that fills the American materialistic society which is fueled by misinterpretations of fables from the bronze ages. I shed no tear for the misguided, because most of them are happy with their obvious ignorance. Proof always lies on the accuser. If you are saying something exists, then you must be able to prove it. No one has ever, and no one will ever, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to not only me, but the world, that ANY god or creator exists, existed, or will exist.

    1. The fact that you exist is the proof of a Creator's existence,
      otherwise you could not be at all.The Universe,in all it's complexity,didn't developed out of nothing for no reason.There cannot be something without a will that can turn into beeing.Thake this as an example:if no one intelligent enough to understand what a rock is existes,a rock would not be identified as it is,but wold be a meaningless entity into a meaningless world.Life exists to give sense to existence,otherwise existence would have no sense.If there is no one that creates,there is nothing at all,so the existence itself wold not be.
      And if "No one has ever, and no one will ever, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to not only me, but the world, that ANY god or creator exists, existed, or will exist." how can you prove that it doesn't exist.It all comes to a point where belief matters more than so called rationality you have.Your mind cannot understand the nature of God;I will give you another example.If I go back in time to the middle ages and tell people that the Earth orbits the Sun,and not the contrary,they will probably kill me,even if I give them all the possible demostrations,because those people are mentally closed and flat.And if I go to an "Atheist Club"(beware,this is methaphorical) and tell them that God exists for the same things I said in the first lines,and give them all the possible demostrations,they wold not believe me and they would mock me and then throw me out;because,as the medieval people,atheists are flat minded because they think they know all about the Universe and "who knows what" about religion.

    2. tell your god to come and talk to me ... i am actually the devil in person

    3. what are these possible demonstrations of God's existence? come show the atheist club... give me anything other than a bible verse...

    4. I don't like how ignorant you sound when you, with religious fervour, tow the Atheist Fundamentalist Dogma line.

      And you just don't sound smart when you say, "Proof always lies on the accuser" and then back track on that statement by asking us to just take your word for it with the accusation, "...no one will ever, prove...to the world...."

      Future predictions, with our current level of time travel technology...well to me at least...still seems un-provable. Only when you have a "time machine" (effect) and have traveled to EVERY time period and to ALL futures...only then could I possibly take your statement about future un-provability as plausible.

      But even then I'd still have to just take your word for it as attempting to show me the conclusive evidence seems extremely hard (if not impossible). I mean, how does one prove they've gone to every time period? and to every future? and in all those periods/futures they did not miss anything? and that yes in every one of those periods/futures the world had not had God/Creator proven?

      Well...since we're no longer talking about hard science but rather what we currently understand as science fiction...I'd like a future where at some point technology/methods could be created/discovered that would allow us to communicate-with/contact the original creator (and dead loved ones, and future unborn relatives and you name it...).

  60. the Council of Nicea, what is it? When Constantine became the first Christian leader of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, his vast territory was populated by a hodgepodge of beliefs and religions.

    Within his own young religion, there was also dissent, with one major question threatening to cleave the popular cult — as it was at the time — into warring factions: Was Jesus divine, and how?

    It's hard to imagine riots in the streets, pamphlet wars and vicious rhetoric spawned by such a question, but that was the nature of things in A.D. 325, when Constantine was forced to take action to quell the controversy.

    That summer, 318 bishops from across the empire were invited to the Turkish town of Nicea, where Constantine had a vacation house, in an attempt to find common ground on what historians now refer to as the Arian Controversy. It was the first ever worldwide gathering of the Church.

    The Christianity we know today is a result of what those men agreed upon over that sticky month, including the timing of the religion's most important holiday, Easter, which celebrates Jesus rising from the dead.

    Young religion

    Christianity was young and still working out the kinks when Constantine took power over the Roman Empire in A.D. 306. Christian doctrine at the time was muddled and inconsistent, especially when it came to the central question of Jesus' relationship to God.

    Jesus was as eternally divine as the Father, said one camp led by the Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria. Another group, named the Arians after their leader Arius the preacher, saw Jesus as a remarkable leader, but inferior to the Father and lacking in absolute divinity.

    Supporters on both sides scrawled graffiti on town walls in defiance while bishops from across the empire entered into a war of words as the controversy simmered to a head in 324.

    Fearing unrest in his otherwise peaceful territory, Constantine summoned the bishops to his lake house in Nicea on June 19, 325.

    Savvy move

    In a savvy move that would put today's shrewd politicians to shame, the compromise proffered by Constantine was vague, but blandly pleasing: Jesus and God were of the same "substance," he suggested, without delving too much into the nature of that relationship. A majority of the bishops agreed on the compromise and voted to pass the language into doctrine.

    Their statement of compromise, which would come to be known as "The Nicene Creed," formed the basis for Christian ideology. The bishops also used the Council of Nicea to set in stone some church rules that needed clarification, and those canons were the reference point after which all future laws were modeled.

    As a final order of business, the bishops decided upon a date for the holiest of Christian celebrations, Easter, which was being observed at different times around the empire. Previously linked with the timing of Passover, the council settled on a moveable day that would never coincide again with the Jewish holiday — the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox.

    Nicene legends still circulating

    While the Council of Nicea had important consequences, its significance has been exaggerated into legend by a few conspiracy theorists, documentaries and books such as Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code," historians say.

    Contrary to popular belief, the council had nothing to do with selecting which verses and gospels would be included in the Bible, nor whether Christianity agreed or disagreed with the concept of reincarnation. Bishops did not burn books they deemed heretical there either, historians say.

    1. Nice!

  61. Beware my friends,because Zeitgeist is the key to The New World Order; they want to make you believe that where religion has failed,the abolition of it will function.What Zeitgeist wants is a world without God,completing Satan's project.Read the Bilble,respect the Word of God and you shall be free.This new society will be founded on hathred and not love;hate towards God,what they will call senseless myth.As things will go on,you will see that I am right.But I love you all,as Christ loves you.

    1. ur so right

    2. Seriously, if this is the best your loving "god" could do then I think he is pretty weak and a twisted sick individual. If Jesus loved me as you say, he would not have put me on this ass backwards world with a bunch of moronic evolved pagans. Mebe you yourself should do some research buddy.

  62. in genesis chapter 5 their is a genealogy. the first ten names go from Adam to Noah. look up the meaning of the names.
    Adam - Man
    Seth - Appointed
    Enos - Mortal
    Cainan - Sorrow
    Mahalaleel - The Blessed God
    Jared - shall down to Earth
    Enoch - Teaching
    Methuselah - his death shall bring
    Lamech - the Despairing
    Noah - comfort or rest

    now read the meanings in order.

    the fist 10 names reads, man appointed mortal sorrow, the blessed god shall come down to
    earth, teaching his death hall bring the despairing comfort.

    genesis is the first book in the bible written way before Jesus and it tells of his coming from the beginning.

  63. sorry john but all that astrology in zeitgeist was proven wrong. the best way to tell a lie is to wrap some truth around it. everything in the beginning of zeitgeist was lies. the second part about government has allot of truth. so you watch the beginning and your like i don't know. you watch the second part and say well that's true so the beginning must be true. don't believe nothing you see or hear. do your own research. and when you do your own research check the creditably of your sources. just look up the people who did the movie. and by the way i personally seen misquotes in that movie. i.e. when they say Jesus told his disciples t go to the in and they would find a man with a picture of water and for them t follow him. zeitgeist says that Jesus was telling his disciples that that was beginning in the age of Aquarius. when the whole passage states that the disciples asked Jesus where they was staying for the night and he told them to go to the in and follow the man with the water, so he would show them where they would stay. read it yourself. its easy to misquote the bible that's why i always read the verses before and after any quote anyone makes from the bible. and if i find that they intentionally misquoted the passage then i know what they are.

    1. Actually, there are like 4 documentaries in existence as of NOW that show how inherently biased THIS documentary is, how they twisted information WORSE than the zeitgeist crew, and how literally everything they showed that involved astronomy and their supposed "revelations" of truth, were nothing more than bullshit... Really.

      As far as the 9-11 stuff, who knows, but your god really is fake, sorry, but everyone had to learn that Santa was a lie too... Grow up.

  64. notice nobody ever denies the existence of the devil, but fall head over heals not to believe or prove that Jesus did not exist. to each is own. man cant get near god because of sin, Jesus is the only way to get to GOD. back in mosses time when man sin and wanted get back closer to god they mad gaot and lamb sacrifices. Jesus was the final sin sacrifice. that is why he is called the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. dont believe and perish.

  65. I guess i should give an example,where they where talking about the chip for instance well in the 1940 they said social security numbers was the mark of the devil,so whats in your wallet.Anyone that has a cell phone can be tracked with almost no effort.I do not see how people can believe what the movie said and glad this one refutes it.

  66. i agree totally

  67. "Even secular scholars have rejected the idea of Christianity borrowing from the ancient mysteries." WHAT???? THIS IS, AT BEST, JUST PLAIN WRONG, AND, AT WORST, A BLATANT LIE. A hand full of true-believing christian "scholars" who take things on "faith", do not override the thousands of genuine scholars who have been demonstrating, by established fact and evidence, for many years now, that Christianity is in fact a hodge-podge mixture of ancient god myths that long predate Christianity. Please stop worshiping mythologies. The world would be a better place if we all regarded fact, verifiable evidence and demonstrable truth as most worthy of our respect and as the highest form of honest and moral living.

  68. Thank (I was about to say god) the stars for the internet. This is just one of the important subjects that would get a very good airing out...or cleaning out. The net has advanced natural evolution by this very act itself. Zeitgeist was a beautiful scientific documentary that revealed facts that I bet 99.99% of christians did not know. To be presented this information is likened to a slap in the face for them...or Islam or whatever. Sorry kids but no allah no christian god and while I'm at it...no tooth fairy!

  69. I just read the first line and hopefully the movie itself isn't as misleading. THe first real instance of a god dying and rising comes from the sumerian times by a story called the descent of ishtar. Does she rise on her own, no, but that after three days she is ressurected does occur, anyone can look up this story right now online. The god osiris also was eventually resurrected, in three days, or on his own, no, but again the CONCEPT of dying and rising from the dead predates christianity. of course there was the son of osiris horus who also died and was brought back to life. There is an interesting thread at least between ishtar and christ in that three days seemed to be the maximum a divine being could be dead or so it would seem because in the very same story the descent of ishtar her now dead lover dumuzi was not able to be brought back to life.

    1 human being

  70. Reactivate, I appreciate your concern. But, Zeitgeist (Zeitgeist the movie, not 'Zeitgeist Refuted') is a film based on evidence -- evidence that many people have been conditioned their whole life to just automatically reject. I understand that reaction -- my grandfather was a minister, and a good man. But he was not interested in facts, especially if they were at variance with what he had so strongly believed all his life. He was wrong. (Btw, I was once a seminarian myself.) The arguments against Zeitgeist (especially the religion part) are purely emotional reactions, not evidence based arguments. And many statements in Refuted are simply false. There is, and has been for many years, a whole army of historians, anthropologists, linguists, religious studies experts and many other scholars -- genuine scholars (not seminarian "scholars" who have been taught WHAT to think instead of HOW to think), who have always quietly asserted the very evidence cited in Zeitgeist. It is simply a verifiable historical fact that Christianity is a bastardized collection of many ancient god myths, all of which predate Christianity. Until rather recently, it has been detrimental, in some cases even dangerous, to say such "unchristian" things too loudly or publicly. The evidence in the religion section of Zeitgeist is old news widely understood in academia as fact for many, many years now -- not a few foolish, backward kooks as Refuted would have you believe. Refuted is a series of emotional arguments mixed with some rather serious slander and lies. Although the makers of Refuted probably believe the lies they spew, it is none-the-less wrong and harmful propaganda that sows seeds of ignorance and denigrates a healthy understanding of empirical based fact and evidence. It creates an atmosphere where people disrespect truth and idolize mythology; the very root of some of our worst social ills. As to a "debate", it is silly and useless to try and use established facts and evidence in an "argument" with people who are desperately clinging to the poison they were fed at mother's knee (Russell). I would no more be interested in a "debate" over Refuted than I would be about a debate over the tooth fairy. The good news is that you really don't have to take any ones word for it. There are mountains of evidence out there to be researched and evaluated by any honest, brave person who gives a bother. If you can put aside old conditioned fears and emotions and just let the evidence take you where it honestly will, such a journey of investigation would be well worth your time and effort.

  71. John, can you give a specific example of why this documentary is nonsensical ? I can give you specific examples of why Zeitgeist is insulting to my intelligence, and I'd be happy to do so. I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I am highly alarmed by how much seething is directed against this documentary. In a free society, shouldn't both Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Refuted be allowed to voice themselves? What do you say we have a civilized debate between us and see what happens? I want the truth and I think the truth reveals itself through honest debate and dialogue.

    1. Reactivate, I appreciate your concern. But, Zeitgeist is a film based on evidence -- evidence that many people have been conditioned their whole life to just automatically reject. I understand that reaction -- my grandfather was a minister, and a good man. But he was not interested in facts, especially if they were at variance with what he had so strongly believed all his life. He was wrong. (Btw, I was once a seminarian myself.) The arguments against Zeitgeist (especially the religion part) are purely emotional reactions, not evidence based arguments. And many statements in Refuted are simply false. There is, and has been for many years, a whole army of historians, anthropologists, linguists, religious studies experts and many other scholars -- genuine scholars (not seminarian "scholars" who have been taught WHAT to think instead of HOW to think), who have always quietly asserted the very evidence cited in Zeitgeist. It is simply a verifiable historical fact that Christianity is a bastardized collection of many ancient god myths, all of which predate Christianity. Until rather recently, it has been detrimental, in some cases even dangerous, to say such "unchristian" things too loudly or publicly. The evidence in the religion section of Zeitgeist is old news widely understood in academia as fact for many, many years now -- not a few foolish, backward kooks as Refuted would have you believe. Refuted is a series of emotional arguments mixed with some rather serious slander and lies. Although the makers of Refuted probably believe the lies they spew, it is none-the-less wrong and harmful propaganda that sows seeds of ignorance and denigrates a healthy understanding of empirical based fact and evidence. It creates an atmosphere where people disrespect truth and idolize mythology; the very root of some of our worst social ills. As to a "debate", it is silly and useless to try and use established facts and evidence in an "argument" with people who are desperately clinging to the poison they were fed at mother's knee (Russell). I would no more be interested in a "debate" over Refuted than I would be about a debate over the tooth fairy. The good news is that you really don't have to take any ones word for it. There are mountains of evidence out there to be researched and evaluated by any honest, brave person who gives a bother. If you can put aside old conditioned fears and emotions and just let the evidence take you where it honestly will, such a journey of investigation would be well worth your time and effort.

  72. There are a number of documentaries on this site that promote views that I simply don't think are correct. Yet, I do not oppose them being offered here. We should be open to hearing the others viewpoint, and evidence, if they have any. However, 'Zeitgeist Refuted' is a nonsensical, venomous production of sheer, outright and blatant lies and slander. The only things this "documentary" manages to refute is the intelligence and integrity of those who fabricated it. This is one production that is so spectacularly insulting to honest argument that it sorely needs to be removed from this site and regurgitated into the trash bin where it belongs.

  73. maybe instead of bitching that in your opinion he fails to refute it, maybe you should get off yur ass and refute it for yourself Shaneequa, otherwise stfu and stop insulting someone who worked hard on this piece of work whether its perfect or not

  74. I can tell from the description that this is going to be utter bull****.

    And here I was hoping or an actual rational refutation of Zeitgeist. Guess I'll keep looking.

  75. Scientists who don’t know the answer turn to God!
    Believers who don’t know the answer turn to Science!
    Maybe its time to separate God from religion!

  76. This is BOGUS! The sources named are legit in the orginal Zetgeist movie and so what if a source is cited more than once? Maybe they contributed more than once?? I also like the racist narrator makes sure you know if someone is a homosexual or not?? WTF?? This is a DESPERATE attack obviuosly.....people need to wake the F**** UP!! Stop believeing in a magic man that lives in the sky and needs money!! I think Zetgeist helps to do that. The truth hurts sometimes....Christians should not take this personally, we were ALL duped and lied to! Government and Church use to be the same thing.....the bible has been butchered by so many!! To much removed and added.....

    1. Would you accept the bible if you believed it was authentic? And what would it take for you to believe that it was authentic? If we knew everything about God then what would seperate us? And if we knew everything about God then there be no such thing called faith or accountability for that matter.

  77. I have watched it for 15 mins and checked the informations parallel on wikipedia. This documentary is exremly populistic and in fact, the guy lies all the time. You schould remove it from the page...

    1. See the other minutes too...and if you hate "extremely populistic" documentaries you should hate zeitegeist too.

  78. Where are the people with sparks? Where are the "Evidence Scholars"?
    Just 2 religious guys spoke their faith out.
    Com on guys do some justice to this huge 811 hits of comments here...That You ... Yes You have Big Bang out!

    Whats stopping you? are you not anymore proud to wear your faith on your sleeves? more over defend & PROVE it is right, as majority of you have done so vengefully here? You got to Die Hard to Live Free :-)

  79. Everyone has there own thoughts about GOD.Ipersonaly belive GOD is real as for the holy book I can't say any are perfect anything humans have had their hands on could be corrupted.We all came from somewere and I belive there is a god and Jesus was his son.I don't call myself a christian but most would.I respect all belivers in GOD Islam belives in Jesus and for all I know Mohamad was the last apostel.We came from somewere and life and the world was made not by chance nothing could have been so perfect untill humans got hold of it without GOD.I don't claim I've seen or talked to GOD but do feel he has saved my life.I am far from perfect but as long as you have a good heart you will be fine.God created us and nows about temptation and how we are not perfect and don't expect us to be.God whats to save all people and after death GOD will show you what few have known and and then you will be changed.God can change your heart GOD can do anything.The world shows inteligent design and the only possible way things are the way they are is from a creator far more inteligent then us.We can't as humans 100 persent prove eather way so I belive there is a GOD and he loves us all.I don't belive the new earth talk I now its been here billions of years we may have evolved with GODs help but there is no need to go that deep belife is all thats needed.GOD bless.

    1. Jamie,
      You sound like a very sweet person. It is required to have such sweetness in this world, however everyday we humans make a lot of choice few turn out to be sweet, few bitter. God is one such question. The faith of people depend on this question. The faith in this question build Religions. Whats your choice & why & how?

  80. "God is dead" - Friedrich Nietzsche - UNLOCK THIS. I will answer my own questions. Take a Clue - This is a philosophical statement.
    else too I will reply( I cant resist the temptation)...........

    1. Friedrich Nietzsche is Dead - God That is fact

    2. You are trolling right?

  81. Alright lets get the ID & religious guys involved, so that they don't feel left out of the game or the Atheist Jerry don't feel lonely without their Religious Tom (LOL :-D)

    my doubts with Religious guys:

    (1)What is God?

    (2)How many Gods?

    (3)Does God(s) Die?

    (4)What is Religion?

    (5)Atheist too can answer this = Why Religion or Why not Abracadabra or hocus pocus ?

    ok below questions are specific (don't feel I am picking on you...YOU MUST BE PICKED :-D):

    (6)What is the Geometry of Trinity? How come all sides are inside-out of the same?

    (7)What is "Original Sin"? Why not "Original Innocence" ?

    (8)What or who is "Allah"? is it the moon god or ??

    (9)Why messengers & prophets? Why not daily "miracles" like all kids born with ready upto date sacred books of Torah, Bible or Quran?

    (10)What do you mean by "Chosen People of YHWH"?

    (11)What is this giant wheel called - KARMA?

    (12)Why is their so much pain in this world, if God created this world & God is all good?

    (13)Why are there so many religious scripture & all disagree with each other & claim themselves to be the right one?

    (14)(Even Atheist can answer this) = How do you religious people decide when to screw whom? I mean how you make out You are Right & Others are wrong? (give a reasonable, logical answer...No beating around the bush)

    (15)What is this PITA relation that religion (especially the Abrahamic ones) have with Science, especially with the Evolutionary Theory? (I wonder why dont you just say:"whatever Apes or No Apes...hell to do with it" I am human now)

    Ok guys answer this for now...more next. Please mind it that, make your answers Reasonable...It will be great if they are Scientifically Meritorious...."However I spare you if you want to define God out of Science because - according to me based on Empiricism Science - One cannot prove or disprove that which cannot be observed"
    but for the sake of goodness - Keep it Reasonable & Logical for other questions...

    1. Thank you for more questions, the bag is full now (if we consider ALL your previous comments, all questions no answers). Why don't you start answering some of them yourself. Let us read not only your doubts but the logic of them.
      Start with; What is GOD? The most to the point.
      ps...this is not for average Joe or Jane...only well educated must participate!
      az

    2. You are Welcome :-)

      I am a mere student of life,just like you AZ. Lets see Who has the honesty, Nobleness, Bravery & Sobriety of Character to Stand by their Truth or the View they Stand for & who are so proud to spread it as Knowledge to others?

      The Ball is in their courts, lets see how Intellectual they are in their own field of interest? Or are they the Aesop's Fox that simply complains: "I don't need any sour Grapes" when it comes for true action...giving lame excuses...

      Surely by the comments, I have seen here some good intellectuals that seem to me more than just "people of mere interest". Whether they are the Religious, Atheist, Evolutionist or Creationist, we have them all here...

      My Doubts & Questions are concise & straight to the point...So lets see what they know of what they speak?

      GAME IS ON....:-)

    3. @ Virus Tera,

      You remind me of a guy called Alex (Achems should remember him), who used to be a poster here long time ago. He was talking a lot but never said anything basically. Although it was at least clear he was on the religious side.

      You are talking a lot and it's hardly possible to understand what is the point of that much talk.

      P.S. Alex was eventually banned because he never contributed constructively to any discussion while at the same time pissing everybody off.

      Good luck to you!

    4. Ha, Ha, dead on WTC7, this Virus guy seems to just ask a lot of questions only, I know he must have an agenda, so put your money where your mouth is @Virus Tera: don't keep hitting us with more questions.

    5. @ WTC7 & @ Achems

      Alex - ummh.... is it Alex the Lion...? Welcome to Africa! LoL :-D

      guys you seem to be the Big Brothers here...posting here since time immemorial! Legends...kindly accept me sincere respect to you...

      My Constructive Contribution is my doubts. As they say it: Ask the Right Question to get the Right Answer. The hidden Ultimate Question is where the Jackpot is :-)
      Appreciate constructive contribution of your insight towards these doubts...Choice is yours...Try Eat the Grapes or leave it!

      Me come not to alleviate any Paranoia...Me only spread enjoyment & happiness...:-) :-) :-)

      THE GAME IS ON...ANY DARE TAKE IT

    6. I rest my case...

      1/2 BB

    7. Wow! Thanks alot WTC7 for your kind and truthful words... ;) But that's ok. For the record, I refuted every one of your comments and everybody knows it, (and if they don't they can read my comments if they weren't taken off on so many threads and on the forums) that's why they (you'all) got "pissed off" as you put. Vlatko couldn't handle that either. And again for the record, I did not let anyone of you thug me around, like you do most Christians.
      Anyway, don't worry, all you atheists are all free to "agree" on your own, I had said enough in the past to be of help to you.
      -I got on this site today for another reason.
      If anyone wants to contact me they can do so here (and Vlatko doesn't have a problem with it...): w w w . ipertisalithias. g r (you can also read my articles in the category Topics in English where I refute this other atheist.)
      Having made that clear after so long, I still wish you all the best.
      For old times sake, sincerely "May God (still) give you His increase"
      Alex -The original :) :) ;)

    8. This is Alex -yep, the old original Alex, the guy that... "pissed you" off.
      Wow! You're still around here?? What is he paying you?? (Joking)
      Thanks alot WTC7 for your kind and truthful words... ;) But that's ok. For the record, I refuted every one of your comments and everybody knows it, (and if they don't they can read my comments if they weren't taken off on so many threads and on the forums) that's why they (you'all) got "pissed off" as you put. Vlatko couldn't handle that either. And again for the record, I did not let anyone of you thug me around, like you do most Christians. No, you din't have it your way, and the record shows it.
      Anyway, don't worry, all you atheists are all free to "agree" on your own, I had said enough in the past to be of help to you.
      -I got on this site today for another reason, but seeing your comment first page I thought I'd reply for old times sake. By the way, if anyone wants to contact me (and Vlatko doesn't have a problem with it...)they can do so here: w w w . ipertisalithias. g r (you can also read my articles in the category Topics in English where I refute this other atheist.)
      Having made that clear after so long, I still wish you all the best.
      Again, for old times sake, sincerely "May God (still) give you His increase".
      Alex -The original :) :) ;) -Comment all you want, I wont answer here, no worries. Peace.

    9. Alex, this is called a surprise :)!!! Good to see you, truly (well, as long as you are not ranting too much about your god :). Hey, no hard feelings, I wish you all the best.

      P.S. Vlatko probably knows you are here by now :)

    10. WTC7 Nope, no hard feelings, I even -from time to time- pray for His mercy on you all. I too sincerely wish you the best; you know what that entails... :) God bless you WTC7! (PS.Won't comment anymore here as I said.)

    11. @777Frivolousatheists777:

      Howdy Alex! long time no see, how's things down there in Greece? Are you still refuting Stephen Hawking's theory that universes can start from absolutely nothing! or from bubbles yet? lol. Missed our talks Alex, take care!

    12. Hi "Razor", still cutting yourself (joking old style/remember that one?) :) :) :)
      Thanks for commenting. The things here in Greece are bad and with mathematical precision will get horrible. What corrupt and incompetant governments sow, the people reap. Most Greeks are NOT responsible for this mess, but they're paying for it anyway... Amazing! For how long...is the troublesome question... if you know what I mean.
      -As you can see from my website, I am dealing with another well known atheist. Do read it if you have time.
      You too, take care "Razor"!
      May God have mercy on you. You don't know what you're missing, I must add.
      (Won't comment here any more, as I said.)

    13. @Virus Tera,

      1. Start answering your own questions, one at a time, ASAP.

      2. The game is not on (as you say it). There is no game.

    14. Generally speaking, I don't contribute on these boards (for my own reasons) but I'll take the bait and answer the questions I'm competent to answer.
      1. "God" is whomever you decide s/he/it is. The question of one's belief is rooted in a combination of experience and cultural transmission and how one interprets "God."

      2. The number of gods is again, dependent on belief.

      3. God does not die. God is/was and always will be.

      4. Religion is a set of dogmatic, organized beliefs...as opposed to faith, which is not dogmatic or organized but simply "is."

      5. Religion and hocus pocus is essentially the same; refer to #4.

      6. I've never heard of the "geometry of trinity" but if you want a somewhat decent, albeit a priori observation; in Christian belief the Trinity is Father/Son/Holy Spirit, separate but one, no one "side" of the trinity is any greater than the other two sides; therefore, the trinity could be likened to an equilateral triangle.

      7. Original Sin is a principle of Christian belief stemming from the first sin committed by Adam and Eve. Original Sin is what separates us from the Divine. One could make an argument for Original Innocence being the state Adam and Eve were in before The Fall but Original Innocence would have no bearing on issues related to Salvation, where Original Sin does.

      8. Look this answer up for yourself.

      9. The sacred books were not meant to be "updated" they are meant to be quidebooks through storytelling. If you update a story, it will soon lose its basic meaning and become another story completely unrelated to the original story.

      10. The Chosen People of YHWH are the Jewish people as told in the Torah. Again, this is an issue of faith and belief, not historical fact.

      11. Karma as a philosophical idea is too large a subject to go into here...look it up.

      12. God IS all good; pain and suffering do not come from God but from Satan. I won't try to answer your question...instead, read the Book of Job to get a foundational understanding. What you ask here is, like Karma, a heavy philosophical discussion not appropriate for this venue.

      13. Because in each of these books there are comments and clauses which state that the book in question was inspired by God and therefore it is the right and only book. This is an issue of personal faith.

      14. Refer to #13.

      15. I have no idea what PITA is.

      There...I've answered your questions. I'm not saying my answers are the right ones because there are many variables involved...the obvious one being that God, does in fact, exist. Your questions are best answered by yourself after considering the philosophical arguments from each religious group.

    15. @ danthrplgst,

      I like your reply. The question to discuss why your replies were not rational right now is secondary but allow me to give you the Reason I liked it because:

      1.You have the guts to stand by your version of truth. Therefore you deserved to be listened to. Especially without showing religious passion.

      2. You are Noble; Your reply reflects your good character to defend what you stand for - such people can be followed.(In between: your reply confirm your Abrahamic faith - but I wont pick on that! :-)

      3. You are honest to accept that your faith might have variables. Yes of course the God stuff has different version.

      I would like to criticize your faith, however if you may feel offended & hurt I will not. So please let know?

      Thank you very much for the reply :-)

    16. But the effect can be observed. The existence of atoms was considered fact and no one observed one. If all of the components of physical existence function together to facilitate a fundamental requirement, we can understand that whatever had that requirement would be God. Remember that whatever "first cause" produced physical existence, must itself be non-physical. Therefore we could not "observe" it with our physical senses. We should seek to observe the effects and should not expect direct observation through our five physical senses. perhaps we are observing directly with our sixth sense, our convicting conscience. Perhaps that is why we have a convicting conscience.

      If a motivating force that we call "love"flows over a network of channels between our consciences and generates our conviction of conscience, we could understand this as a "first cause" in the following way; Inasmuch as love is both a binding force and an illuminating one we can understand that it could not function as such without something to bind and something to illuminate. Thus we can understand physical existence which produced a race of intellectual minds anchored to the separate perspective of their separate physical bodies and motivated by fear to be selfish, to be a "required" by-product of the exact opposite motivating force which produced it. The mathematical order of that which we engage through our five physical senses is necessary to generate deception (the opposite of "illuminating") by providing our intellectual minds with an alternate path of understanding until the evolutionary movement from a base-level convicting conscience to one of increased motivation, driving our intellects to discover this pattern.

    17. Answers to questions

      1. "God" is the first cause of everything else.

      2. There is one "first"

      3. Yes, relatively speaking, when he expanded from a single point of perspective to occupy multiple points of perspective in the creation event 13.7 billion years ago.

      4. A natural development born of our necessary nature,revealed at the time of change.

      5. Some do choose "hocus-pocus and this is natural considering the motivation of their particular perspective.

      6. "Baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is a reference, in figurative language, to motivating hateful people to turn from their way by not reciprocating . This causes them to experience a feeling of guilt as love withdraws from them motivating them to stop hating. The "father" is a reference to love as the giver of commands. The son is a reference to a conscience receiving this influence. The holy Spirit is a reference to the fact that this motivating force is without flaw.

      7. This is passage through physical existence and being driven by the fear generating nature of our individual physical bodies to avoid the influence of love until we are sure the other person will reciprocate. This is the "net effect" of individual perspective as it wars against a unifying perspective.

      8. I think it is a reference to "God".

      9. Certain people are judged by the flow of love throughout the human race to be compelled to engage extended contact with the collective sub-conscious. These are prophets.

      10. "Israel" as well as "the church" are, along with other words in the Bible are figurative references to "that small group who least far departed from the influence of their convicting consciences

      11. It may be a reference to reincarnation or a cycling universe.

      12. Pain is necessary to facilitate the opposition between our intellectual reasoning and our conviction of conscience. The exact function of it depends on ones perspective. Are you experiencing it or are you encountering through your conviction of conscience another person experiencing it?

      I'm late for work so i'll have to finish this later.

    18. continuing answers to questions:

      13. The fundamental belief in a creator may be emerging from our sub-conscious. The more we endow this experience with a specific structure, the more effective it is to facilitate a psychological agenda. Often and primarily, this is determined by culture but it extends all the way down to the individual. If we break from an established religion we must form another that is different to justify our departure. We find needed comfort in being right which involves establishing others as being wrong. The different experiences (conditioning) of different people produce different SPECIFIC belief systems but at the foundation, they all have a lot in common.

      14. this can be done by telling a group of hateful people that which they need to hear to justify their hatred. Also consider the answer given to question # 13.

      15. Not sure about the meaning of PITA but I think maybe the answer to this question may be found in the answer to question #13.

  82. Christianity did not become an established or recognized religion until after 326 AD when Emperor Constantine held the Council of Nicaea.

    The earliest written historical account of Jesus Christ was not existent till about 150 years after his death. There was one account which was supposed to have come from the time while Christ would have been living, however, that was proved a forgery. Even the so called gospels, which are said to have been written by Christs apostles, were not written until long after he died.

  83. This site is great! One stop shop to many documentaries...Cheers to the owner...Thank you so very much sir :-)

    there are A few Doubts ...

    What was there before the Random Evolution took place... I rely on Evolutionist to explain?
    (creationist I already know ur answer ... Designer :-S )

    What made humans think a phenomenon called "God"?

    Naturally, why not people were simply Atheist? - As now some people claim to be?

    How did they get this God Delusion?

    Why did human want to put this God or Intelligent Designer above them, like some one controlling them(like an Authority)? please give a scientific explanation not a Zeitgeist(another group of controversial theory people) one!!!!

    Why is there not an Equivalent or subordinate or probably a better being like Humans on earth to challenge humans(our) views or atleast hold the same view? WHY ARE WE ALONE PUZZLED WITH ALL SORT OF KNOWLEDGE? (I believe this could help us solve this Evolution/Intelligent Design war once for all right?)

    Why are not Evolutionary or Intelligent Design theorist are trying to think about the above question?

    Why should not human knowledge of God be considered as an progress towards the right direction in the Evolutionary or Intelligent Design process?

    Why do we look down upon our Cannibals brethren? Why is not eating human considered as some sort of EVOLVED ALTRUISM? It really hurts...

    If Empiricism is the basis of science and science help us understand the universe around? then There should be no scope in science of what ever nature to speak about God,Angels,fairies,hobbits or whatever supernatural, because they are not Empirically observable? So If there is no such Scope in Science why are Evolutionary Atheist like Richard Dawkins being so dogmatic(just like the religious person) in propagating Atheism in the name of Science? One can not scientifically prove or disprove of what one cannot Empirically Observer
    It looks so ridiculous of him or any Atheist....It almost seem like all Atheist are bas**rds & desperately searching for their father and ATHEIST HAVE HIJACKED SCIENCE AS THEIR FATHER...

    Especially Dawkins being a scientist and having such vast experience...the behavior he exhibit was the last thing to be expected from him...very shameful indeed...If Dawkins behavior should be considered as a common benchmark of Atheistic behavior then I think we are better off with the religious folks...WE DONT WANT ANOTHER STALIN(s)!!!

    1. Don't like going into long tirades, so will keep it short and simple.

      Why should we be better off with anything, seems like you are looking for someone or something to follow as an authority be it religion or evolution.

      Look to yourself and use your own inherent power and use your own brain, not someone else's to delve into life's mysteries. I don't think someone is going to offer what you seek on a silver platter. Rely on yourself.

    2. At the end of the day one relies on own wits. We use our own inherent power & brain to take decision and solve life mysteries...
      However it will be naive, arrogant & rude on one's own part to ignore the accumulated knowledge that has been so painstakingly stored and passed on to us from our ancestors. That is how great civilization were built... I don’t want to re-invent the wheel again!
      I rather look for knowledge & answers from every side and take an informed decision (whether it comes on silver or a bronze platter)... Being self centric is like a frog living in a pond - having a very very simplistic view of life and world...

      It is Belief of Theist or Dis-belief of Atheist that are rigorously & continuously shaping decision of people around the world and hence it is the generic behavior of people as a society (and we live in a society) that looks out for someone or something to be followed...

      Below is a way I list them down:-

      Theist guys follow their respective god(s) & preacher(s)...

      Christians – follow the trinity doctrine taught by Christianity & their respective churches

      Muslims – follow the monotheistic doctrine taught by Islam

      Jews – follow their chosen race of God doctrine & the Zionist idea of Promised Land taught in Judaism

      Zoroaster or Parsi – followers of Zoroaster & are Fire worshippers

      Hindus – follow the polytheistic & caste system doctrine taught by the Sanatan Dharma or Hinduism

      Buddhist – followers of Prat?tyasamutp?da or Dependent origination taught in Buddhism. Actually it is a form of Atheism but still I categories it in theism as they some how with a complex mechanism believe in god…

      Jains - followers of Lord Mahavir

      @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

      Atheist guys follow their respective non-gods like Religions, science, ideology & Communities...

      Religious Atheist – following the Samkhya, Mimamsa & Carvaka of Hinduism India

      Evolutionary Atheist – following in path of the preacher Richard Dawkins (really it’s a shame to call him now a scientist)

      Tribal or Cult Atheist – followers of Hitler's Aryan Race supremacy ideology.

      Socio-political or Material Atheist – follower of Carl Marx & Stalin and their socio-political & materialistic ideology…

      State or Secular Atheist - Governmental en-forced Atheism…such as Soviet Union, Revolutionary of France, Mexico & other atheist states…

      So any reply to my question is appreciate!

    3. @Virus Tera:

      Don't really know the point you are trying to make, seems to me you are a proponent of ID, trying to draw people in on your assumptions, right away you are wrong when you say science is a belief system, and Dawkins is the guru of science religion, no such thing. Do not really feel that discussing anything with you would lead to any benefits, so will bow out, try someone else.

    4. @ Razor,

      I am no proponent of ID or for that matter Naturalist...I hope a broad mind can discuss without putting tags on either of the person :-)

      (@) I did not say science is a religion or belief system, it is the Atheists like Richard Dawkins who have implicitly said so & made it so by their actions. So people like Dawkins are Wrong Not Me (see it for yourself in one of the BBC Hard Talk show, Dawkins hypocrisy).

      (@) He hijacked science and brought it to such level. Showmen like Dawkins proclaim themselves as the science prophet and go around preaching Atheism in the name of science.

      (@) I don't see any other scientist from other branches of science wasting their time in such trivial discussion and performing in religious circuses around the world.

      (@) I wonder Dawkins is the Osama Bin Laden of Militant Atheism. I certainly see no reason to call him a scientist.

      (@) My points I mention are not assumptions, No sir, I derived my information from Wikipedia and only modulated them in pointers. If it does not make sense to you that's alright! you can have your opinions.

      (@) If you don't feel like you have anything to share that's alright, and thank you for your time.

      Maybe somebody else can shed some light...

      By the way this Zeitgeist Refuted and Exposed is hilarious :-D...

    5. #1 will pass
      #2 My guess is that humans at one point started creating clans and stopped knowing they were GOD only as united.
      #3 it was at one time, one of the most dangerous thing to be
      #4 it was imposed by power, control and money( or dues) and became down the line called the church
      #5 because people are raised by parents who cared, who were raised by parents who cared, by parents who cared... otherwise the baby dies. (i am amazed (again) to see my 9months old grand son have no survivor skills whatsoever!) May be we grow up thinking we are nothing without something helping out. (sorry i am not a scientist)
      #6 we think of human has having the highest intelligence but we don't know what a tree knows for exemple. A tree could be a communicating hair to a large intelligent earth. We see life me existence.... or is it the other way around?
      #7 try to reach one in person,if you can
      #8 in my private life (Thanks Leonard), i really think science is coming to realize that we are GOD
      #9 possibly if you gave a stew of human flesh cooked in a fine recipe, the person served would probably say: that's lovely, what is that?

      As for your last paragraph....I agree Richard Dawkins does his best to ridicule the ridicule and to push people to see the observable obvious. But as with anyone....the mystery is in the air around him
      My answers may not fit to most, that's expected, i am i.
      Thanks for the challenge....Achems, your turn
      Don't be so lazy, we know how much time you spend here.
      az

    6. Go ahead, you are doing fine, the answers to Virus questions have all been rehashed countless times on TDF you can even google all his questions.

      He is basically presenting some ad hominem attacks against atheists and Dawkins, ain't interested. Still think he is an ID proponent trying to come through the back door, but I could be wrong, sometimes am wrong at least once a year. (LOL)

      But would be interested to see what you can do, go get them AZ! tiger.

    7. hey, thanks for your reply. Sorry I disagree with you. I am looking for some intellectually persuasive answer.
      I appreciate the artistic & goody goody answer, It may make great stuff as an once upon a time story stuff, But I discourage doing so. Because it will become religious stuff, and soon all the Atheist will subscribe to this, and one may never know, after a 1000 so years it will become a sacred book - Atheist Sacred Book :-D. By the way, what the heck! we can make a lot of money. Just Do it! Just Don't say to Dawkins ;-)

    8. @Achems_Razor

      "ad hominem attacks" - WoW Man! Don't sound like a religious Apologist...(Don't make it a case of Sour Grapes)
      MY ASSUMPTION- LoL :-D(it is healthy to be wrong more than once in a year) - Just in case if you are some one following Atheism or probably the Disciple of Dawkins, sorry to hurt the sentiments - I understand the Passion of Faith.
      However my doubts are Logical & Appealing. All Faiths are questionable..Peace

      Alright lets get the ID & religious guys involved, so that they don't feel left out of the game or the Atheist Jerry should not feel lonely without their Religious Tom (LOL :-D)
      See my post for Religious doubts...

  84. @Vlatko, TDF Admin
    I really appreciate your open discusion comment forum.Most of these sites keep the comments closed.
    Just wanted to say "nice one"
    ......as Mohammed has resorted to quoting dodgey scriptures and baseless myths at me ,I will call it a night. Give someone enough rope and they hang themselves....as we say.
    Peace to everyone

  85. Actually I've seen the December 25th alignment, anyone in the north can. On Christmas eve go outside and find Orions belt, the three stars point to Sirius. It forms an arrow to the place where the sun WILL rise. The fact that they aren't in the sky together doesn't matter, the ancients could only write about their observations.
    What no one seems to understand about all of this is that it was an ancient way of writing. It is a language through which one can pass on knowledge too advanced for most people to understand or create a calendar by which one could associate dates or even use it to orient places. But when they speak of places in the ancient holy books written in this manner they are not speaking of places on earth, but places in the sky named for their earthly counterparts.
    It is a stretch to assume that the repetitive use of the number 12 in the bible is as coincidental as the common use of that number today. The bible is written in one context...the world is not.
    The astrological connections you can make appear throughout the text of the bible, the ancient Indian Vedas, the dead sea scrolls, the Egyptian book of the dead even...believe it or not...the book of mormon.

  86. @ Admin

    By the way those guidelines were not decided by Socrates, Jesus or Quran....Nope!
    Only I carry the guilt of framing them based on the Generally Acceptable Way of Public Talks! I surely had no idea TDF may take it with such strong exception! Oops Sorry!

  87. Admin Says:

    No, ALL is left up to the admin/moderators of this website.

    I reply:

    Yes Sir as I said earlier:

    Whoever has the gold makes all the rules...

    just F.Y.I gold is metaphorically used...it actually meant authority...

    Thanking you once again to give the link to TDF commenting rules what I generally in my own way have understood is: It has its own out of the world Rationality to decide...Sorry IF I am wrong...

    Anyways...I thank you once more for this very nice website. All I wish was if my guidelines could upgrade the enjoyment effect...thats it...Lets have some fun! :D why so Serious!

    1. OK @Mohammed Safwan,

      I had to edit 3-4 of your comments so far. Do not use H1 headings and a big text markup. Please don’t overuse or misuse the markup.

      Just write plain text, preferably nicely paragraphed. If you want to emphasize something then bold it. Don't overuse that too.

      Do not exaggerate with the preaching (quoting scriptures).

      It seems you didn't read the rules.

    2. Ok @ Admin,

      Will keep a check on the html markup and the preaching stuff!

  88. At the end of the day, the jesus Myth argument is based on:

    1. SOCIETAL POPULARITY. By and large, society accepts the jesus Myth, because it's integrated into our society because it has been around for several thousand years. Used to control people and now has become a corporate enterprise (which is government). Just because this control business has our societies "acceptance" DOES NOT mean it has any more credibility or truth than any other tabloid magazine.

    2. ALIENATION & ostracism, guilt and segregation if you dare question or defy the "RULES". Take a look at the gay/lesbian population. By feeling love for the same sex (and as a result in homosexual relationships), some may consent to having another's penis inside their anus). However it's deemed as EVIL! (but vaginas are ok.. unless your a woman of course).

    3. PROPAGANDA and Government/corporation control.

    4. BIAS because they love a currently dead (so-called) "saviour".

    5. CENSORSHIP to disallow free-speech from those who wish to enter into logical and productive arguments.

    So my shout out to the christians is:

    "Give an unbiased account for your case from someone who does NOT have a personal relationship with an invisible, dead saviour - but provide evidence from someone who is simply searching for the truth".

    Then, I'll be willing to listen to your bullshit counter-arguments without the lame-ass "comebacks" that are currently offered by so-called "scholars" and "sirs" (governor Bush was labelled illegally as the "president", but did he have much credibility?)

    - Question popular belief people! It's just "control" pulled over your eyes with no accurate evidence to THIS VERY DAY. They've had over 2000 years to prove this case, but the only credibility is that christ-following based belief has messed up many generations. Which unfortunately impacts and influences today's society without QUESTIONING.

    1. Surah 109. Al-Kafirun
      1. Say: O disbelievers!
      2. I worship not that which ye worship;
      3. Nor worship ye that which I worship.
      4. And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
      5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
      6. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

  89. Aside from all this religious documentation (personally i think most of it is nonsense) which generally sums down to one important question, why do we exist. Some say god created all things. Wow, that was easy, i guess i can just keep living my life without questioning my true state of being. Not a worry, right, even as we blindly lead our species to death... Or I can think logically about it, say, causality, then apply that to the great answer. God being the answer, and if everything came from god then I ask where did god come from? Did he just magically appear "poof"!? If so why?... and why... and why... and you get the idea

    1. Whatever created or caused physical existence must itself be non-physical and therefore outside time. Any thing existing with this nature must be eternal with no beginning and no end because to exist and then to cease to exist constitutes a change which is an event and all events require a space in time to occur.

      Whatever generated the expanding singularity 13.7 billion years ago must be eternal and if conscious, must know all he or she knows simultaneously. It is impossible for anything existing prior to the creation of time to "come" from anywhere because this would be an event and all events, in order to occur must occupy a space in time.

      Why would the existence of a "God" who created everything cause you to stop questioning your true state of being?

  90. Does God exist ? Something does not come from nothing, the vast Universe is something, it seems to have had a creation from a point in what we call time. Whatever, we as mere humans, on some insignificant ball of rock on the edge of an insignificant galaxy of billions or even trillions of others, will never know the 'grand plan' or who or what created it and why, because in the scheme of things, we are insignificant, we place some value or importance on our life, but there is nothing remarkable about us, other than having evolved enough to question our existence and why we exist.

    As for all the Pseudo religions out there, they are all inventions of humanity, a way of trying to answer the questions of why we exist, all can be traced back to human creators, and are therefore also of complete insignificance. They represent 'i want to believe' philosophy, because the thought that there is a big fat zero when we die, that our conciousness has no intrinsic value, that the atoms of our body float away and become a part of something else within the confines of our planet and that one day all we, and our planet will be, is a part of a dense white dwarf star, is just to hard for some weak minded people to accept.

    The worship of the Sun, which goes back to the dawn of modern man, is about as close to a God as we are ever likely to get. It gives us life, and we were born from it, and one day it will give us or our planet death (the reality is we will be long extinct before then) and we will be consumed by it. So all this bickering about religion is handbags at 10 paces, forget about it and live what life you have, for you only have the one, at least only one where you are who you are right now, for it is logical that genes will arrange themself into an exact copy of you again in the future, but devoid of the stored memories you have in this life, your mind is only a unique to you collection of sights/sounds/feelings/emotions, memory by its very nature, is constantly erased and of no consequence.

    It is the fear of death which brings belief in earthly religion, but there is nothing to fear, you simply no longer exist, as you did not exist prior to your conception. You are erased, and in time, even those remembered today, and bibles and religions, and technology and knowledge, will all be erased from existence, as if they had never even been born.

    It is a hard pill to swallow that your insignificant life, is essentially pointless.

  91. AGAIN SORRY IF THIS IS A DOUBLE POST
    @Mohammed Safwan
    QUOTE
    "CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN
    The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’."

    NO WRONG AGAIN, IT WAS MAN .IN THIS CASE POLYTHEISTIC SUMMERIAN MAN!!
    YOUR CLAIMS OF QURANS GOD INSPIRED SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ARE BOGUS AND LAUGHABLE
    Such claims just show your ignorance of other cultures and ancient knowledge
    ABRAHAMIC MONOTHEISM DESTROYS AND SUPPRESSES KNOWLEDGE AND THEN CLAIMS TO BE THE FOUNTAIN HEAD OF ALL KNOWLEDGE!!
    Using your own scientific "PROOF OF GOD" scenario ,if the sumerians where writting about far more advanced scientific knowledge at least 3,500 years before the quran was complied.What about Babylonian mathematics? Mayan astrology? African tribes knowledge of the Sirus B star? Ancient buildings and monuments?
    THEN THEREFORE A MONOTHEISTIC ABRAHAMIC GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!
    AND ITS SUMERIAN GODS AND GODDESSES THAT REALLY EXIST BECAUSE THEY GAVE US THIS KNOWLEDGE FIRST!!
    BUT I do not think this proves that gods exist,even with your statistical arcobatics..I'm still an atheist....but are you now a polytheist?...or is this not a good enough proof for you?
    If so, what where you going on about in the first place? About modern scientific knowledge being a proof of your allah god?!?!?!
    I think you need to be true to yourself,AS your arguements would not even convince yourself!
    ABRAHAMIC MONOTHEISM DESTROYS KNOWLEDGE TO PROTECT ITS OWN LIES!!
    Abrahamic monotheisms suppression of knowledge and destruction of science has held humanity back, exactly how many people have needlessly died because of this ignorant belief and its barbaric effects is countless but well beyond the numbers in any holocaust.
    CHRISTIAN ABRAHAMIC MONOTHEISM BROUGHT IGNORANCE DISEASE ,FILTH AND HALFED EUROPEAN LIFE EXPECTENCY!!THE ISLAMIC VERSION BROUGHT THE SLAVE TRADE!!
    The “Age of Faith”, the 1000 years of the Dark Ages, was marked by a very low standard of living for most people. They lived in filth, sanitation being considered too sensual to be pious. The average life expectancy was only 25 or 30*,(less than half a previous pagans life expectency) and Bubonic Plague, Typhus and a host of other diseases regularly decimated hundreds of thousands of people. 340,000 people died of plague in England, roughly 30% of the population in the winter of 1349. Christians had banned not only the study of medicine, but declared hygiene to be “sensuous” and therefore a sin.
    Continental Europe had similar death counts during the 1300's, recurring waves of plague sweeping the countrysides, whole towns dying in days. The church encouraged ignorance: “Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), the most influential Christian of his time, bore a deep distrust of the intellect and declared that the pursuit of knowledge, unless sanctified by a holy mission, was a pagan act and therefore vile.”
    EUROPEAN PAGAN PEOPLE BATHED REGULARLY ,WHERE KNOWLEDGABLE AND DISEASE FREE AND MOST DID NOT HAVE SLAVERY!!
    Abrahamic monotheism is the ANTI-ENLIGHTENMENT of religious beliefs. As it claims to have all the knowledge in the world in its book ,its followers burn or destroy or dissmiss other works of enlightenment and philosophy and believe in thier total cultural supremecy.Thier minds are closed!
    FOR EXAMPLE
    Amr ibn al ‘Aas led an Arab army that sacked Alexandria in 642. Another enlightened abrahamic monothiest,he also burnt the Great Library of Alexandria
    “They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous.” The Arabs subsequently burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers
    CHRISTIANS HAD ALREADY BURNT THE PAGAN GREAT LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA BEFORE. THESE ARE THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE ACTS OF VANADLISM IN HISTORY ,WHAT GREAT WORKS WE LOST WE CAN ONLY IMAGINE!!ISLAMISTS THEN DEMOLISHED THE LIBRARY AND VANDALISED THE GREAT PYRAMIDS TO BUILD MOSQUES!!! HOW ENLIGHTENED!!
    IMHO Abrahamic monotheism could also be refered too as mental "AIDS" (Agressively Inserted Delusional Syndrome)
    DON'T DIE OF IGNORANCE
    TRUTH CAN HANDLE AWKWARD QUESTIONS ,ITS LIES THAT NEED LAWS AND THREATS AND DOGMA TO KEEP THEM GOING!!
    THUS JUDAISM,CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM'S DEADLY DOGMA ,DOCTRINES AND LIES AND SUPPRESSION
    IT HAS NO BASE IN MODERN SCIENTIFIC REALITY ,PLEASE CHECK DNA, ARCHEOLOGY OR ORIGINAL THEOLOGICAL TEXTS!!
    You will also find greater wisdom and scientific knowledge in these older original texts
    THEREFORE ,BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS ,THIS IS MORE PROOF OF YOUR GODS NON-EXISTANCE!
    BUT...take heart....
    People believe in the strangest things but still manage to behave like decent human beings,therefore belief is irrelevant ,therefore god is irrelevant!!
    BUT an abrahamic monotheist might murder me for saying this,(which makes him a dangerous psychotic) but others manage to still be decent human beings.
    So if your actions are good I wish you and your god all the best.Your belief in Islam ,Christianity or Judaism is irrelevant to me.
    Humanities diversity will save us, humanities conformity will kill us! (Most murderers wear a uniform these days)
    Mankinds story begins in mythology with an act of rebellion, it may well end in reality with an act of obedience!
    DARE TO DEFY GODS AND GOVERNMENTS!!
    Humanity was here long before either and will be here long after both ideas have passed away, or these will be the ideas that kill humanity and maybe all life on Earth!Justice ,truth , compation, and decency are human values older than abrahamic monotheism, they will still be with us long after abrahamic monotheism has passed.Right now the REAL answer ,if it even exists,is well beyond science or priests, imans ,rabbis or priestesses ,but we should keep searching for the truth with open minds and good hearts.
    VIOLENCE BREEDS VIOLENCE
    EDUCATION BREEDS UNDERSTANDING
    PEACE TO EVERYONE
    P.S.Mohammed ,I mean no persoanl insult and thank you for your honest conversation.If anything, you are a credit to your beliefs, all the best.

    1. A very good expose on your posts of the fairy tale religions.

    2. thank you for the compliment and sorry for the late reply.

    3. super super... just baseless arguments just many many baseless arguments....
      I am no Superman like you to jump from science to history, history to philosophy, philosophy to polytheism, polytheism to Altruism and finally fool one self(using self blogs) saying look I proved it!!! Voila :D

      Chill out man!

      Lets take One Step at a Time Baby One Step at a Time...

  92. Huh? Of course Monotheism is just a distillation of old religious ideas, the sacrifice to the god just got more abstract, is all. First we sacrificed humans, then chickens, then humans again, but symbolically. Osiris has all the relevant elements of the Jesus story, Jesus just went one better and was resurrected in the flesh. Only nitpicking academics would call this a fundamental difference. Dionysus, Baal, Melquart to name just a smattering of ancient "dying gods" who by their sacrifice redeemed us (or brought back summer, or fertilized the crops or whatever). A statue of Isis & Horus could be put beside the Pieta in the Vatican without any possibility of any observer failing to see the parallels. Mesopotamian creation stories are virtually identical to those adopted by Judaism, Christianity & Islam. The christian Daemonologie is just a catalog of rival near eastern deities (Sin, Baal{zebub}, Pan, Lucifer etc). Christian missionaries encountering Buddhism had to invent a theory of demonic imitation to explain away the striking similarities in the two stories. Now of course some of this will be parallel rather than derivative, as creation and sacrifice myths provide the same answers and fulfil the same psychological needs respectively - but with respect anyone who does not admit that the Christian gospels are very much influenced by the cultures and history of the surrounding peoples is just a twit.

  93. the zeitgeist part 1 exposed, is mainly about religion(disappointing), its only answering back to what **zeitgeist the movie** sed about religion. i saw that movie, and in my opinion , it was interesting, entertaining and well put together. moreover, im not a Christian so im not offended by it. and it further proves how religion is always a HOT topic. which it is a fact, during the Byzantine empire, the king wanted to create a symbol, which ironically turned out to be cross to unite his people under one cause. and it worked. (GENIUS). and if it is true religion is only for social control. then its not such a bad idea. because if u take away the little that people have to believe in, in the world we're in today, ANARCHY is the result. religion is not as important, as the 911 conspiracies zeitgeist mentioned or bankers trying to keep us in debt for LIFE. i presume our children will inherit these problems. and that alone should be THE topic of discussion.

  94. SORRY IF THIS IS A DOUBLE POST!
    @Mohammed Safwan
    The Crusades and what book?!?!?! Have you read any REAL historical books?
    You obviously are indoctrinated by your Abrahamic monotheistic religion, and do not know its true effects on mankind or your history
    FYI ISLAM ATTACKED EUROPE FIRST!
    In 711 CE, the Islamic Moors conquered Visigothic Christian Hispania. Their general, Tariq ibn-Ziyad, brought most of Iberia under Islamic rule in an eight-year campaign. They moved northeast across the Pyrenees Mountains, but were defeated by the Frank, Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 CE
    ISLAM SPREAD SLAVERY,THEY GAVE US THE WORD SLAVE
    It is thanks to Islam that we have the word SLAVE today.Slaves where WHITE EUROPEANS!!!
    Saqaliba (Arabic: ??????, sg. Siqlabi) refers to the Slavs, particularly Slavic slaves and mercenaries in the medieval Arab world, in the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily and Al-Andalus. It is generally thought that the Arabic term is a corruption of Greek Sklavinoi for "Slavs".
    The word was also often used more generally to refer to all slaves from Central and Eastern Europe
    During the 8th and 9th centuries of the Islamic Caliphate, most of the slaves were Slavic Eastern Europeans (called Saqaliba)
    There were several major routes of the trade of Slav slaves into the Muslim world: through Central Asia (Mongols, Tatars, Khazars, etc.); through the Mediterranean (Byzantium); through Central and Western Europe to Al-Andalus and further to North Africa (Morocco, Egypt). The Volga trade route and other European routes, according to Ibrahim ibn Jakub, were serviced by Radanites, Jewish merchants(another bunch of abrahamic monotheists).
    Other ways included the islamic Gazi or Razzias
    Ghazi or ghazah (noun (s. m.): ???? gazi; verb (s. m.): ??? gaza, from ??? gazw) is an Arabic term that means "to raid/foray." From it evolved the word "Ghazwa" (???? gazwah) which specifically refers to battles led by the Islamic prophet Muhammad
    Ghazi warriors depended upon plunder for their livelihood, and were prone to brigandage and sedition in times of peace. The corporations into which they organized themselves attracted adventurers, zealots and religious and political dissidents
    THIS WAS WHY "THE FRANKS"(NOT Europeans) MARCHED INTO THE MIDDLE EAST!!PAYBACK!!SO IF YOU BELIEVE IN ISLAM DO NOT BLUB ABOUT THE CRUSADES!!!
    In English these where called RAzzias and they continued for over a thousand years
    Razzias, raids on European coastal towns and villages, mainly in Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal, but also in England, Scotland, the Netherlands, Ireland, and as far away as Iceland. The main purpose of their attacks was to capture Christian slaves for the Islamic market in North Africa and the Middle East
    Pirates captured thousands of ships, and long stretches of coast in Spain and Italy were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants, discouraging settlement until the 19th century. From the 16th to 19th century, pirates captured an estimated 800,000 to 1.25 million people as slaves
    THE SLAVE TRADE RUN BY ARAB ABRAHAMIC MONOTHEISTS THE CRUSADES RUN BY EUROPEAN ABRAHAMIC MONOTHEISTS,WHAT A NICE GOD
    FYI The "crusades" where also carried out by Abrahamic monotheistic believers,so YOUR GOD ,all powerful that he is, must of wanted it too happen, and maybe complaining about the crusades is pissing god off? Pagan europeans did not commit such barbaric acts.Thus proving Abrahamic monotheism brings out the very WORST in humans.
    BUT the thing about abrahamic monotheists is they always know what god is thinking and he always hates the same people they do!!
    THAT IS A PROOF YOUR GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
    I call myself an atheist because I do not believe in sky gods. Your gods stories are all tracable back to these same sky god stories ,but in the original version there are GODS and GODDESSES!His stories therefore are REWRITTEN fabrications! While his followers try and destroy the originals
    THIS IS FURTHER PROOF YOUR GOD DOES NOT EXIST

  95. any person alive today knows all the information that a person 2 thousand years ago knew, plus all the information leading up until today rendering the bible obsolete as it is a closed system of information just as all religions. worthless however if you study the unified field theory you will find the level below quantum mechanics is a self aware state of pure consciousness , this is the fabric of our universe. scientists will soon find out that the universe is a simulation built from matter which is the programing language powered by consciousness, which is the foundation of the universe this is the truth not opinion therefore religion is worthless and closed systems are obsolete as they do not advance with modern findings

  96. What a bunch of bull just like anything about religion. Live how you want to live people. Be a leader not a follower.

    1. @ cancelyourcablenow

      Have you seen 'Zeitgeist: The Movie' yet?
      TDF? SOCIETY? 184.Zeitgeist: The Movie

      0z

    2. Yes, I have. Why?

    3. @ cancelyourcablenow
      "Yes, I have. Why?"

      Because 'Zeitgeist Refuted and Exposed ' doesn't even talk about 'Zeitgeist : The Movie ' (except for the intro). So, if you hadn't already seen 'Zeitgeist : The Movie ', I was going to recommend that you do so that you didn't come away from this thing here thinking 'Zeitgeist : The Movie ' was all about religion.

      That's all.

      But you have seen 'Zeitgeist : The Movie ', so there's really not much for me to add.

      0z

  97. @ Mohammed Safwan:
    "I have so many questions that remain un-answered."

    Yeah, well, I have but one:
    Do you, or do you not, believe that it is WRONG to kill homosexuals?

    Disagreeing with my answers to your "many questions," is one thing.
    Failure to understand my answers, is your problem.

    "[You] have so many questions that remain un-answered."
    I am not being paid to provide you an education. It seems, at every turn, you know not enough, even to disagree. You only ever ask more questions. Your 'comments' on derivation of species, are not opinions; nor, questions; not even sarcasm; more like bad rap.

    You recite the Koran. Is that all you know? Is that all you want? It would seem that 'thinking' to you is but a distant and foreign notion about which you are not the least bit curious.

    Have you ever entertained a thought of your own; of your very own; independent of, and from, anyone or anything, ever? Have you ever in the course of your life harbored one, single thought which has not been spoon fed? Must you, every, single step of the way, be told what to think?

    Ignorance is not inherently bad.

    Very intelligent people are sometimes woefully ignorant. But to choose to remain ignorant is a choice made only by those lacking in self respect.

    Your consistently stubborn and persistent refusal to answer 'yes' or 'no' to a simple question, Do you, or do you not, believe that it is wrong to kill homosexuals, can be interpreted by me in only one of two ways:

    1. you believe killing homosexuals is not inherently wrong; or
    2. you haven't the balls to answer!

    You might well wonder, Why such interest in knowing your belief on this issue?

    I wanted to find out whether Islam holds it right to kill homosexuals or, for
    that matter, to stone adulteresses to death. You will not speak out against
    such horror. You may plea their lives be spared, but condemn such killing as fundamentally wrong, you will not. I was hoping to find a Muslim with a conscience of his own.

    But, no.

    I see now ever so clearly what Islam and you and, most likely, many followers
    like you, are all about:

    Willfully ignorant. Brutish. Uncivilized. Barbaric.

    Sorry to have bothered you.

    Enjoy living life by a user manual.

    ?????

    0z

  98. Another Weekend Sunday School homework for the Apes:

    TITS FOR ______

  99. Oz Quotes:- "I wanted to find out whether Islam holds it right to kill homosexuals or, for that matter, to stone adulteresses to dearth. You will not speak out against such horror. You may plea their lives be spared, but condemn such killing as fundamentally wrong, you will not. I was hoping to find a Muslim with a conscience of his own.
    But, no.
    I see now ever so clearly what Islam and you and, most likely, many followers like you, are all about:
    Willfully ignorant. Brutish. Uncivilized. Barbaric.
    Sorry to have bothered you.
    Enjoy living life by a user manual."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I Reply:-
    CAUTION! DANGER: APES SHOULD NOT TRY TO INTERPRET HUMAN FUNDAMENTALS - HUMAN FUNDAMENTALS & LAWS STRICTLY DONT APPLY TO APES - AND THEREFORE IF THE HUMAN TRAINER OF THE APE IS PUNISHED UNDER ANY VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS - IT IS NOT WITHIN APES JURISDICTION OR ANIMAL KINGDOM CONSCIENCE TO INTERPRET SUCH THING AS EITHER KIND or BARBARIC - "SIMPLY PUT, APES & HUMAN CONSCIENCE DIFFER"

    Ex:- LION EATING A DEER(or for that matter Apes) IS NOT A PUNISHABLE ACT IN ANIMAL KINGDOM
    But,
    LION RAPING AN APE or LION & APES HAVING INTERCOURSE IS AN OUTRAGEOUSLY PUNISHABLE ACT IN ANIMAL KINGDOM - Although THERE HAS BEEN NO SUCH INSTANCES DISCOVERED, SEEN & REPORTED.
    Therefore:
    Humans Enjoy their User Manual or Laws
    &
    Apes Enjoy their BANANA
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HOME WORK FOR APES & Ape's TRAINERS:

    "That which you see not necessarily Exist, And That which cannot be seen Not Necessarily Do not Exist "

    1. This is just plain gibberish! Tells us your opinion without the analogies from the animal kingdom. I believe we are more than just merely animals as we have a soul accoutable to God for our actions where as animals do not. Just answer Oz's question directly and be done with it. Thanks. I did. I'm interested also to hear what you have to say as long as it's to the point.

    2. gibberish might be my reply to Oz, but it is not possible to answer to a person who wants to deal with multiple subject at the same time...I have kindly did reply to him about his out of topic queries(see my explanation on human rights) but I see Oz really wants to hear sound that is music to him/her and assumes all other sounds are noises...This is serious damage to any discussion... but seriously i dont want to jump into the homosexual topic here...I know he wants to know what is the stand of Quran about it(and by Oz claim: Oz has already read the Quran cover to cover...I actually look forward to know what Oz knows) - but here it is too intricate a topic to be discussed or propose opinions about...We already are in a bigger mess trying to know if God exist?However Oz has such swinging tendency it is not really easy discussing with him.
      However, I will soon start a discussion with "over the Edge" on this topic "Existence of God" then I believe we all can be involved once again...

      thanks!

    3. Bravo! Charles

      Now do you see how religious doctrine can make a person say silly things? :)

    4. Bravo! Joe,

      TO ERR IS HUMAN,
      BUT
      TO ERR & BLINDLY & PASSIONATELY FOLLOW THE ERROR IS ABSOLUTE THE NATURAL SELECTION OF ?

      YOU GUESSED IT MAN - APES, APES & APES
      THATS WHY ATHEISM IS RESERVED FOR APES(not humans)

      You ask for gibberish talk you get gibberish talk...You see it is the Birth Right & Natural Selection of ...APESSSS :-D

      Enjoy ur Weekend :-)

    5. Mohammed Safwan: I suppose that was fair enough. Mo cannot be pleased anyway. He definately has a set agenda. You can argue for God's existence if you'd like but you are likely to encounter even more opposition than I have as a Christian. I actually try to show restrain in giving my opinion on some threads. I certainly am no ally to Islam, but I understand the passion of faith in sincere beliefs.

      Peace to you,

      Charles B.

  100. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Oz Quotes:- "Very intelligent people are sometimes woefully ignorant. But to choose to remain ignorant is a choice made only by those lacking in self respect."
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------I Reply:- Good Ape(or Ancestrally connected Ape) you have nicely trained to have read it, But understanding it is a different thing...But never mind it wont apply to Apes...YOU ENJOY YOUR BANANA :-D
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oz Quotes:- "Your consistently stubborn and persistent refusal to answer 'yes' or 'no' to a simple question, Do you, or do you not, believe that it is wrong to kill homosexuals, can be interpreted by me in only one of two ways:

    1. you believe killing homosexuals is not inherently wrong; or
    2. you haven't the balls to answer."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I Reply: I Don't Blame Apes... Sometimes Apes don't understand a few seemingly complex statements like "Ask the Right Question at the Right Place" - The Fault here is not of the Ape it is the Fault of the Trainer...You never mind..You ENJOY YOUR BANANA :-D

    CAUTION! DANGER: APES SHOULD NOT TRY INTERPRETING THINGS WITHOUT BEING UNDER STRICT SUPERVISION OF HUMANS
    else they usually end with conclusion such as the one above:
    KNOWLEDGE IS NOT IN THE BALLS - SIMPLE TERM IT DOES NOT TAKES BALLS TO ANSWER, IT TAKES BRAIN!... You Never Mind...JUST ENJOY YOUR BANANA...Until your absconding Trainer is found for giving you such bad training...:-D
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  101. OZ "SWEET HEART"

    Oz Quotes:- "Disagreeing with my answers to your "many questions", is one thing.Failure to understand my answers, is your problem."
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I Reply:- Evolutionary apes just dont understand the concept of mirror. Do they?...Same things applies to you as well:Failure to understand my answers, is your problem."
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oz Quotes:- "I am not being paid to provide you an education......"
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I Reply:- No Body, No Body in this world wants to get "EDUCATED" from a bunch of monkeys(oops Apes right? oops Ancestral connection right?)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oz Quotes:- "You recite the Koran. Is that all you know? Is that all you want? It would seem that 'thinking' to you is but a distant and foreign notion about which you are not the least bit curious.
    Have you ever entertained a thought of your own; of your very own; independent of, and from, anyone or anything, ever? Have you ever in the course of your life harbored one, single thought which has not been spoon fed? Must you, every, single step of the way, be told what to think?"
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I Reply:- Yes I do recite the Quran. I know the Quran & I learn a lot from it & it has helped not just me but many many people(humans not Apes or Ancestral cousins of Apes) around the world to see life in the right perspective or rather find out the reason for "Existence of Life". Its a book (guide book) that provides the time & intellectually tested(again only applies to Humans not to Apes or their Ancestral connections) right framework to know & experience this world & make progress in all endeavors of life like: Human Functioning & Rights, science, economics, politics etc...etc...
    Therefore it is actually the Ape like mental nature people who need to start off entertaining the thoughts of reasoning & multi-dimensional arguments and stop thinking in the Tribal Religion called Atheism. You see Apes do a lot of things in the zoo and science labs but APES ARE STILL CALLED AS "WELL TRAINED" & NOT AS "WELL EDUCATED" - SO PLEASE DONT CONSIDER YOUR CONDITION AS "EDUCATION"

  102. It seems some in control here? has a soft corner for a few & probably guilty of selective listening ...Frogs of a pond I see...

  103. E-MEN Third Class! - WoW - Mind Blasting... :-D

  104. Okay, have to log in again, some good posts on the god stuff.

  105. @ Mohammed Safwan

    "Atheist as well because they too claim that there is no God.", i.e.:

    "Atheist as well [must assume burden of proof] because they too [make a] claim[, namely,] that there is no God."

    Indeed, a burden of proof would rest with the atheists were it the atheist first launching a claim. However, this is not here the case. Your contention, therefore,
    "Atheist as well [must assume burden of proof] because they too [make a] claim[, namely,] that there is no God," does not apply.

    It is the theist, not the atheist, who launches the initial claim. A claim can only be negated AFTER said claim has been made! Clearly, burden of proof rests with the claimant who launches a claim, not with the challenger.

    In plain language: YOU WENT FIRST, thus rests the burden of proof with YOU.
    You are the claimant who launched the claim in the first place, therefore burden of proof rest with YOU. You went first. You said, There exists a 'god'. In reaction to such an initial claim having been launched by you, the non-theist may reject the veracity of your claim if you fail to include falsifiable evidence in support of your claim.

    That having been said, if you DO present falsifiable evidence in support of your claim, and the atheist then persist in denying the veracity of your claim, in spite of the falsifiable evidence in support of the claim, then such an atheist does now indeed bare responsibility for falsifying any such falsifiable evidence as there may be. Should the atheist succeed in falsifying such falsifiable evidence as there may be, then the theist is back where he started; burden of proof shifts back to the claimant, the theist.

    If, on the other hand, the atheist should fail in his endeavor to falsify such falsifiable evidence as may have been set forth by the theist in support of the theist's claim, then the theist has scored a point, though most probably has not as yet succeeded in accumulating sufficient, independently corroboratory evidence to as yet declare victory.

    Atheists could not say 'there is no god' unless someone had first claimed that there were. Atheists are REACTING to a claim initially launched by the theists. YOU are initiating the proposition. Therefore you must show your falsifiable evidence in support of your claim before you can demand of the theist that he prove you wrong. One cannot possibly be expected to prove something wrong, with something that has as yet to be presented!

    For example, someone walks into your room and says to you, E=mc² AND provides you with falsifiable evidence in support of the claim, falsifiable evidence subject to independent investigation. If you were to say, No, that's wrong, you would have to show why you say it is wrong. On the other hand, someone walks into your room and says, E=mc², and you ask, Why do you say that, and the person says, It came to me in a dream, or, worse still, says, I have no reason for saying this; I just do and it is true; now prove me wrong! Can't you see how ridiculous that would be?

    Addendum:

    I have come across this so often, it deserves mention.

    Muslims think that if they cut-&-paste from the Koran an argument for
    the existence of 'God', they have somehow provided falsifiable evidence
    for the existence of 'God'. After all, Muslims will say, If God says He exists
    then, surely, that must be proof enough that 'God' exists!

    This is known as a tautology, and it will not fly. It is not even an argument,
    never mind evidence, let alone 'falsifiable' evidence, least of all, proof!
    All such attempts are circular, tautological, logically fallacious. Each such 'argument' assumes at the outset that which is to be proved!

    A statement about the existence of a 'God' counts as an argument if, and
    only if, the assertion is:
    a) sufficiently well defined;
    b) not taken as axiomatic.

    If the subject, whether or not it is well defined, is taken axiomatically to be possessed of existence, then any 'proof' of said subject's existence is always reducible to the assertion: 'subject' exists, because, 'subject' exists!

    In plain language: Because 'God' exists, 'God' must exist.

    It is self-evident that such 'reasoning' is not an argument but, rather,
    a setting out of an axiom similar to an axiom such as:

    There exists 'Empty Set', Ø, where Ø ? { }, such that { Ø } U Ø = { Ø };
    indeed, such that for any set, A, A U Ø = A.

    Given the axiom set out above, to demand a 'proof' for the existence of Ø
    is without meaning and is incoherent.

    QED

    0z

    1. @ Mohammed Safwan
      "Yes I copy pasted it from a Islamic source,..."

      You should always cite your sources, otherwise you are guilty of plagiarism. And in the case of cut-and-paste to which you refer,
      you are plagiarizing 'God'! (lol)

      Whoever told you that the "...the Quran's proof of mathematical probability [has] such rare information..." is either lying to you,
      or is very ignorant, or both. What you cited is anything but "rare information." It is but simple high school mathematics, no more
      difficult than figuring the odds of winning at roulette in Las Vegas.

      As far as snowflakes, and the like, I have already explained to you that for an ice crystal to form, at all, it must do so in some one or another particular configuration, otherwise, there wouldn't be any ice crystals! But, as you know, there are ice crystals. Ice crystals exist! The physics
      of ice crystal formation is well understood. The phenomenon is not miraculous! The formation of ice crystals is not magic!

      To predict any one particular ice crystal configuration in advance of its formation would be as impossible as predicting during a storm exactly where a leaf falling from a tree will hit the ground. But that doesn't make leaves hitting the ground during a storm a miracle! Nor does the fact that no one can predict in advance how any one particular ice crystal will form render the formation of ice crystals a miracle!

      Wake up! Use your brain! What do you think the brain is for?!

      I do not know where you live, but my sense is that you know nothing about science. So-called 'Islamic Science' is nothing other than the same kind of tired, old collection of half-truths and superstitions that have also been made up by Christian Creationists. Such arguments are erroneous.
      It is child's play to show them all as being FALSE. The problem is that so many people are scientifically illiterate. The scientifically illiterate have no skills with which to think critically about the C R A P they are being fed. You are being been fed C R A P.

      "...so what are you trying to prove then?"

      I am not trying to prove anything. I HAVE proved that falling leaves and snowflakes are not magic! They are both natural phenomena. I have proved this with simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand logic.

      Surely you do not think that just because it is not possible IN ADVANCE to predict where any one particular leaf will fall, falling leaves are therefore miraculous!

      Surely you do not think that just because it is not possible IN ADVANCE to predict how any one particular ice crystal will form, ice crystal formation is therefore a miracle!

      I don't know from where you cut-&-past this professor-student nonsense:

      "...Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

      Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do."

      No professor would say: "... yes, of course, I do."

      Every professor knows we are not "evolved from a monkey" Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

      An ape is any member of the biological superfamily Hominoidea (hominoids). There are two families of hominoids.

      1. Hylobatidae?'Lesser Apes, sometimes called 'Small Apes'
      2. Hominidae?'Great Apes': chimpanzees; gorillas; humans & orangutans
      3. Monkeys are not apes. Monkeys are 'Simian Pimates'
      4. As seen above (#2) Humans belong to the family of the 'Great Apes'

      "R u trying to prove this is no wonder no miracle as such thing even is seen in nature?"

      Safwan, Nature is wonderful, but Nature is NOT miraculous!

      ......................................................................................

      You should watch both of the documentaries listed below, in their entirety! It's all directed at Christian Creationists, but so-called 'Islamic Science'
      is the same thing, just packaged differently.

      TDF?SCIENCE?68.Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
      Watch the full documentary now (playlist – 15 parts, 3hrs)

      TDF?SOCIETY?176.Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?
      Watch the full documentary now (playlist – 32 parts, 5hrs)

      Also, watch the REAL Zeitgeist!
      TDF?SOCIETY?183.Zeitgeist: The Movie

      0z

    2. @ Mohammed Safwan

      I am asking you for the second time!

      Do you, or do you not, believe that it is WRONG
      to kill homosexuals?

      0z

    3. @ Mohammed Safwan

      "...the fact that homosexuals are being persecuted because of their anti-evolutionary, anti-naturalistic behavior & the law is against them..."

      That is a LIE, and you know it!

      The reason homosexuals are being killed has nothing, do you hear NOTHING to do with their "...anti-evolutionary, anti-naturalistic behavior & the law is against them..."

      It has to do with the fact that the Koran condemns homosexuality, and ONLY because the Koran condemns homosexuality.

      Your statement that homosexuals are being killed because of their "...anti-evolutionary, anti-naturalistic behavior & the law is against them..." is a LIE.

      Thank you so very much for PLEADING that homosexuals not be killed. But that makes no more difference than your "...belief that anything is wrong or right..." And whether your belief as to what is right and will "...change the facts & laws..." is utterly irrelevant to the question I asked.

      I did not ask you to plead. I did not ask you about evolution. I did not ask you if you views as to what is right and what is wrong will "...change the facts & laws..."

      I did asked you, and I do ask you, for the THIRD time:

      Do you, or do you not, believe that it is WRONG to kill homosexuals?

      I do not care if it makes a difference. I do not care whether
      you want homosexuals to live or die.

      I do care whether you believe it is WRONG to kill them.

      I've asked you, and now I ask you, for the THIRD time:

      Do you, or do you not, believe that it is WRONG to kill homosexuals?

      PLEASE GIVE ME A SIMPLE 'YES' or 'NO' to the question

      Do you, or do you not, believe that it is WRONG to kill homosexuals?

      I await your answer: 'YES' or 'NO'.

      0z

    4. Dear Oz,

      I still dont get the whole point what you want to make speaking about snowflakes & now prediction of how snowflakes form...I know that snowflakes are natural phenomenon and no one is predicting about them...

      All I copy pasted was:

      Quran revealed some scientific facts - that were proved today in modern science as true and therefore if it was not
      prophet muhammad it must be the creator of this earth who must have revealed it...
      So how does this connects with snowflakes?

      Are you trying to say:

      that Muhammad copied it from the ancient civilization?
      or
      it was a fluke he just stumble upon these information?
      and
      it was another fluke that he considered that this information was important and the idolators Arabs would straight away buy this like hot cake without questioning him?

      what is it?

      It seems Evolution is just downloading you & only you with all great wise scientific information & all the rest of the worlds homo sapiens both past & present just did not match the bill to see the obvious -

      Is Science Partial?

      Why does not any science guy or Atheist guy try to help religious guys like me understand what is evolution?what is science? I have so many questions that remain un-answered?

    5. @ Mohammed Safwan

      And do not give me this C R A P, Let's stick to the subject of whether there is a 'god'.

      I have answered you.

      You have presented no viable case. And still, I have answered
      you, twice, and so has 'over the edge'.

      I have given you a detailed response to the question, Is there a 'God', so please stop telling me, To get back to a question, that has been addressed multiple times by 'over the edge' and by me.

      If you want to say something about it, fine.

      I have done far more work than you trying to discuss the matter.

      Now I have a question:

      Do you, or do you not, believe that it is WRONG to kill homosexuals?

      0z

    6. @ Mohammed Safwan

      Listen, buddy, I have read the Koran, in English, cover to cover,
      I probably know it better than you!

      There is nothing 'scientific' in it. If you have been told otherwise, then you have been lied to.

      Anyhow, why don't you learn some physics, calculus, chemistry, and then decide for yourself.

      GET AN EDUCATION.

      As far as 'snowflakes' go, I was answering a question you asked me about one of my examples given to you several posts back.

      Obviously, to you, all this is just one big joke.

      Well, I am not amused.

      Do you, or do you not, believe that it is WRONG to kill homosexuals?

      oz

    7. Dear Oz,

      Are you the re-incarnation of Harvey Milk(I know you are not..just joking)

      Well then go learn some lessons from Harvey Milk's life..and stop relying on any persons opinions - You investigate the evolutionary truth and u come up with answers...

      About the legal & ethical stand of Quran on homosexuals - I say Dont care in the opinion of a book you dont care - being a muslim I say so because
      Quran says if you dont care about what the book says so go act however you like in this world

      And if you keep on shouting that its a lie, its a lie, its a lie things are not going to change...But more over it will sound like this guy who made this STEW-PID documentary Zeitgeist Refuted...he too sounded the same to all its a lie its a lie its a lie

      And for third time I too say whatever I mention about the legal stand was according to UN-Human Rights policies...go check with them if you have any clarification to do...please Oz...

      You dont have to ask me dear to speak about Evolution - I ASK MYSELF TO SPEAK ABOUT IT :D by the way thanks for the short evolutionary history of hominids_It was kind of funny too to know that we are not evolve from Apes(or monkeys whatever...)but share the same Ancestry...I WONDER IN THE FAR FAR FUTURE THE EVOLVED SUPER HOMOSEXUALITES WILL RENOUNCE HOMO SAPIENS AS THEIR PRELIMINARY STAGE OF EVOLVE SPECIES & JUST SAY...WE BUT SHARED THE SAME ANCESTRYits a kind of paradoxical joke..isn't it?

      And I say again my stand on homosexuality has no impact or connection with the topic I & "over the edge" are struggling hard to kick off...

      Also if you can fulfill my below request it will be great:

      try to see if you can help me in answering some of my questions?
      I hope Atheist have this super humanitarian way of making others especially these religious guys learn some science...
      SO WILL YOU HELP ME?

    8. @ Mohammed Safwan

      You have consistently refused to answer my one question:

      Do you, or do you not, believe that it is WRONG to kill homosexuals?

      Instead you talk about Harvey Milk.

      My question is simple and requires only a 'YES' or a 'NO'.

      I have answered many of your questions.

      You have only quoted from the Koran and asked me more questions. I know nothing about you or what you think.

      Do you think?

      You ask me what science is. If you honestly do not know what science is, then find out.

      You have told me nothing. You only attempt to recite what you have memorized from the Koran and about Mohamed. If you have any thoughts of your own, that might be interesting.

      "Quran revealed some scientific facts - that were proved today in modern science as true and therefore if it was not prophet muhammad it must be the creator of this earth who must have revealed it... So how does this connects with snowflakes?"

      My example concerning ice crystals was in response to your
      (sorry, Mohamed's) numerical analysis of the improbability of certain events occurring. I read your(sorry, Mohamed's) math and its interpretation(which you memorized). Sorry, but it is nothing. It says nothing about anything. You insist that it makes clear the infinite improbability of certain events occurring. Only problem is, it doesn't.

      That is not my opinion, that is mathematical analysis. If you do not like it, complain to Mohammed about it.

      I cannot go on and on forever clarifying everything over and over. It is hard work.

      "Quran revealed some scientific facts..."

      Are you going to tell me about the star that was discovered?
      That is a thermonuclear reaction, quadrillions to the power of quadrillion of them out there.

      It would have been useful if the Koran had the recipe for penicillin? Gee, we had to do it without the Koran.

      Or how to build the first quantum-computer that just went on the market for commercial use last month ? all done without any help from the Koran. What a pity.

      Why does not the Koran tell us how to cure Alzheimer's disease?

      Why nothing useful?

      You tell me to read the Koran.

      I did.

      Very, very, disappointed.

      Religion offers nobody anything. It turns otherwise decent people into mindless robots.

      "Qumran revealed some scientific facts - that were proved today in modern science as true and therefore if it was not prophet Muhammad it must be the creator of this earth who must have revealed it..."

      Have any idea how many times I have heard that exact same 'quote', word-for-word?

      Try to have a thought of your own.

      Thinking is so important.

      0z

  106. @Mohammed Safwan
    i answered your post that contains so called proof. this knowledge that you claim the Qur'an first presented was known long before the book was written. also could you please show me where in the Qur'an these things are said. please do not give me an interpretation of a passage i want a passage that says these exact claims you make. the reason i ask for the exact description not an interpretation is all holy books take statements that could hold multiple interpretations and twist it to fit the point they are trying to make . example "15:19 And the earth have We spread out," sounds like a flat earth to me. finally you still haven't provided any "proof" that god exists.that was the subject that my responses to you began on. and we have covered many subjects since then (and gone way off topic) and i will leave this discussion alone til such proof is provided.

    1. @ Over the Edge:

      Yes I read your post. And as a muslim I have no problems accepting that yes Anaxagoras would have proved that Moon derived light from the Sun and has no lights of its own.(Shortly after the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.), Anaxagoras was accused of impiety for holding that the sun was a red-hot stone, not a god as many believed. Moreover he claimed that the moon didn't shine by its own light, but reflected the sun's light. (This theory was the prelude to his discovery of the eclipse.) He was imprisoned and sentenced to death. His execution would have taken place but his friend Pericles, intervened, using his authority to save Anaxagoras' life. )
      And no problems with .Eratosthenes of Cyrene (Ancient Greek: ???????????, IPA: [eratost?én??s]; English: /?r??t?s??ni?z/; c. 276 BC[1] – c. 195 BC[2]).accepting he must have proposed that Earth was spherical in shape
      And ofcourse you must be knowing the kind of consequence they have faced or were about to face for such Truthful claims...

      Now considering the case of Quran & its Revelation to Muhammad(pbuh) if for the sake of argument one assumes that Muhammad(pbuh) copied it from other text & Muhammad knew how to read & write(although Muslim know by History this Prophet did not how to read & write):
      You tell me how good this accusation holds when such (the above discoveries) knowledge were not much known & not just known such knowledge was actually suppressed and not allowed to see the daylight because of the Religious bigotry the Greek had(as stated above in case of Anaxagoras) against the Truth...
      And Muhammad as a man of 40 years of age how much knowledge this guy would have possibly gather by the time of his death by 65 to compose a work such as Quran(really any literary work require some dedication of time right? some research & then arranging it into or lets say translating it from greek to Arabic the again mentioning some of the most historic events...Can clubbing all this together into one meaningful term to change the future of the world a Humanly possible work?) A work that shook the Idolators Arabs world to renounce & throw away their Idol worshiping & gather as one nation - An achievement of spreading the Truth, putting records straight that even the above mentioned Greek great men could not achieve - Dont you think Muhammad had very strong ground to make some big claims & as a mortal the temptation to claim such greatness for himself...So what made this Man go out of his way & renounce such claims & simply say he receive such knowledge from God...(was he out of his mind - A man out of his mind after doing such gigantic work)
      The odds are too much of such things to be called as co-incidence, accidental knowledge or plagiarism... And remembering the kind of hard time Muhammad suffered after Revealing the message that there is "no god but One God" in the hands of his own people it is highly improbable to believe that such work as Quran is a work of Man & is fake or it is against humanity or it is oppressive the message spread by Islam is oppression

      And this is what some Great thinkers in History say about Muhammad:

      Thomas Carlyle: In his aforementioned speech in defence of Muhammad, refuted the pagan allegation: "FORGER AND JUGGLER? No, NO! THIS GREAT FIERY HEART, SEETHING, SIMMERING LIKE A GREAT FURNACE OF THOUGHTS, WAS NOT A JUGGLER'S" .... "THE WORD OF SUCH A MAN IS A VOICE DIRECT FROM NATURE'S OWN HEART. MEN DO AND MUST LISTEN TO THAT AS TO NOTHING ELSE; ALL ELSE IS WIND IN COMPARISON"

      Gibbon(An Agnostic): Historian in his work "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" says about Islam & Quran: "THE CREED OF MOHAMMAD IS FREE FROM THE SUSPICIONS OF AMBIGUITY, AND THE QURAN IS A GLORIOUS TESTIMONY TO THE UNITY OF GOD."

      La Martine, French historian in his work "History of the Turks" summarises:
      "PHILOSOPHER, ORATOR, APOSTLE, LEGISLATOR, WARRIOR, CONQUEROR OF IDEAS, THE RESTORER OF RATIONAL BELIEFS, OF A CULT WITHOUT IMAGES; THE FOUNDER OF TWENTY TERRESTRIAL EMPIRES AND ONE SPIRITUAL EMPIRE - THAT IS MUHAMMAD. WITH REGARDS ALL STANDARDS WHEREBY HUMAN GREATNESS MAY BE MEASURED, WE MAY WELL ASK, 'IS THERE ANY MAN GREATER THAN HE?"

      Now as far as giving the reference of the verses from the Quran I will surely provide it - No problems...

      And as far as science is concerned...I hope you are an American or probably if had a chance to visit America go search for the work of George Sarton - History of Science & you will see it was the Arab Scientist who took the pain of translating all works of great greek thinkers to Arabic that restored the chain progress of science & research & you will learn the great contribution the Arab Muslims have done to Science...F.Y.I the greek works were first translated to Arabic & from Arabic to latin ... it is a big controversy in itself today why this fact is not acknowledge publicly...when there are lot of work that have acknowledge this shut off behind closed doors...what fears them...And this has only contributed to further misunderstanding...amongst the people of the world...and thereby falsely equating Islam to Christianity & Judaism...

    2. @Mohammed Safwan
      first you said "The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered" when i provided proof they were discovered earlier you said that the prophet did not have that knowledge. how do you know that ?next you stated "now as far as giving the reference of the verses from the Quran I will surely provide it - No problems" i am waiting. you still have not given proof of gods existence which was the original request. we are not talking about science or weather or not there were great Muslim scientists. or weather Mohammed was good or bad, right or wrong. only does god exist. i am not interested in discussing multiple subjects and clouding the core issue if that is not ok with you then i will stop this discussion. i know in this post i have gone off topic as well but i am done doing that

    3. Not all the scientific facts of the Quran were discovered by then or within the life time of the prophet
      "How do i know that prophet was not aware of such discoveries by the Greeks or any body else"?

      "The Modern Scientists & Modern Historian so they say & so they confirm" -
      for ex: The Dark Age theorist(although their theory is dubious & is a conspiracy - The modern world firmly as a group believes it), George Sarton-Introduction to the History of Science, Historian like Thomas Carlyle, Micheal Hart, George Bernard Shaw speaking about the knowledge of that world, Tolstoy Russian historian" Now if they are wrong we need to check with them ask them to make necessary changes or if they are dead ask their fans, the people who hold copy rights of their works to do the changes" - Me have no control in this regards

      However as u said, I agree that we r deviating from the actual topic, hence I agree to just discuss over
      "Proof of God Existence"

      Therefore I request you to come up with some rules of the discussion that we may mutually agree & follow

      If not we will again miss the track...

    4. @Mohammed Safwan
      "Therefore I request you to come up with some rules of the discussion that we may mutually agree & follow"
      ok how about repeatable confirm able, testable, historically accurate and not an interpretation of a holy book. all holy books can interpret their writings to be accurate but at most only 1 can be true

    5. Confirm able - I agree
      Testable - Please Elaborate ?
      Historically Accurate - There are so many customized Histories around I dont know which to rely on - You can give me your version of history lets live with it...

      Interpretation of holy book - Well see Religions are the outcome of holy books(that why Stephen Hawkins says these religious guys to stop reading it-thats where all the God Delusion lies)Therefore the very objective of this discussion fails if we do not hold the real culprit itself-The holy Book...So Cant leave them...
      And I being the religious guy here I in-variably without a chance by default have become the advocate of these religious books-And on Earth all advocates propose,discuss,solve their cases with these religious books of theirs no matter how ridiculous they seem to the advocates of evolution or the advocates of creationism or the advocates of history or the advocates of any subject matter here on earth...

    6. Mohammed Safwan
      ok word for word proof not a twist of anything. you claim that your god exists (1 of 28 000 000) provide proof something that can be verified. i deny all gods . can you at least deny all but your god? tell everyone who is not muslin that they are wrong. you play word games or skate around the facts. the onus is on you. i am done trying to be accommodating. provide real proof of what you claim and stop splitting hairs. i as an atheist make no claims of knowledge. you claim to know that truth so show it.

    7. over the edge
      Super. Well before I set out to discuss over the existence of God now I will propose a few terms of discussion that will be of reasonable nature to base our discussion on...
      But for Now... Please allow me to enjoy the harmony of (Intelligent)ly (Design)ed (Evolution)ary Probable Natural Selection movie(of course sci-fiction) - X-MEN First Class
      Until then you enjoy ur life...
      (too much of discussion is too bad)...

    8. Hi Over the edge,

      Got free, So have finally come up with a list of terms of Discussion. Hope we can initiate a good discussion.

      Safwan

  107. This doc seems to be an exercize in theological hermeneutics offering an alternative interpretation of the origins of the Jesus myth.

  108. Guys no doubt Zeitgeist looks scandalous when it comes to religion(and over with this scandal they just lost the whole other points in their documetaries that probably might be true that the world today is a corporate dynasties world) & however as a muslim I must say Jesus(pbuh) exist not on the evidence provided in the religion of Christianity because for sure things in the Bible too are not less scandalous as Zeitgeist.
    Zeitgeist is adamant in just proving the point that religion for all issues in world. However to buy certain extend of Zeitgeist idea of religion being a problem today & it is because of own Christianity's History which Christian are ever open to give an explanation of the atrocities they have caused and no matter what they cannot explain themselves clean out of this filth that they created for themselves.
    Zeitgeist however, I am surprised that you are too scare to attack Islam, I would like to see people who are doing the Zeitgeist documentaries to take on Islam & its scholar that they can easily get everywhere & ofcourse to take a critical study of the Quran. I am sure Zeitgeist will be awaken to know or rather surprise that their idea of creating a better world looks a bit dwarfish with what Islam already envisioned & achieved(also lost... the better world later due to lot of events in history that simply says that the world was not mature enough to accept the advancement) without either the usury or corrupt money or the heavy technological investment that Zeitgeist emphasis to invest or to be brought together or shared economy theory.

    I hope the zeitgeist guys are listening....And dont fool the world by advocating your ideologies by dexterously using the knowledge of Science - Science is indeed a friend of Religion... dont make a friend look like a enemy. Science helps Religion to itself clean from superstitions & useless customs to keep itself pure. And Religion help science in its continuous endeavor in bringing conviction in the spirituality & The Existence thats beyond the physical observation.

    My Christian brothers, even if we forget what Zeitgeist has spun about christ, please think, investigate & observe, Christ was not the son of God, this very idea of god having a father or son is a pagan culture or idea. Until you stick to such notion of god having sons, Christianity till eternity will be haunted with ghost likes of Illuminaties, free masons, communists, Atheists for today Zeitgeist.

  109. Glad I read the comments before wasting my time on this one. I think people today tend to forget that the middle east was *the* crossroads of the ancient world, spanning from Europe and Northern Africa to Asia. The people who lived there were not ignorant backwater savages with no knowledge of other cultures; they were sophisticated and knowledgeable, and perfectly capable of combining juicy bits and pieces from various religions into yet another. Hence the "Judeo-Christian-Islam" ideologies overtaking so much of the world. Easy to gather, easy to disseminate.

    @LordGavin: No, disbelief is *lack* of belief. It doesn't mean you don't have beliefs of your own, but that's not the same thing. Since religion is a social institution that derives its power from the "faith" of its believers, not tangible evidence, disbelief in one religion doesn't necessarily imply belief in another, or in anything else, for that matter.

    Vlatko is doing an awesome service in allowing us all to debate the subjects of these documentaries, and this site gives us an outlet to discuss the social-gathering-killer topics of politics and religion without alienating friends and family!

  110. Why are people so concerned with disputing religion. If a belief in a supreme being benefits a person's life and their attitude towards others, what's wrong with that? Isn't disbelief actually a belief?

  111. Why are you people so in love with religions? why are you trying to find a god who nobody has seen and that everybody claims to know and understand? why are there so many religions that claim to be the true ones? Religion, jesus, god who cares..respect your fellow human and lets try to understand eachother better. Lets us use the tool of science to save humanity not a god, or a prophet.

    1. If you are created then it is your obligation to find out who it was and why he did it. Science, while it states that it must be proven by facts doesn't always abide by that. Evolution, has not been proven and is taught in our classrooms and is accepted as fact when there are so many holes in the theory. The fossil record does not even confirm the theory as Darwin predicted.

    2. Who sid that we were created? your bible? your fathers and grandfathers? and because they say that you should believe? what about your own critical thinking? You give god a gender like if you know god in person why not a she or it? True science need to be tested to be true science. Evolution has been tested and attacked constantly that is why Evolution is called a theory. How do you know that it hasn't been proven? or maybe a little bird told you that? There is a big difference between a theory and a hypothesis. A theory must have facts in order to be a theory if you think I am wrong go to wikipedia or get a dictionary and find out. If there are holes in the theory is because scientists haven't found yet that evidence that you want to have in order to acknowledge the theory of evolution and if scientists find more evidence it is most likely that you will continue not accepting the theory of evolution. There is enough fossil evidence and evidence in nature that proofs that evolution is present. A True fact is that you ignore the evidence for evolution and you are probably not very well informed about the theory of evolution.

    3. @Julio: Operative term: "IF". Not sure why "if" implies obligation of any sort, though. And err... L2L, as the kids say. There are plenty of docs on this site that could help you understand the difference between the secular definition of 'theory' and the scientific definition. They are not the same.

  112. Did ANYONE buy this nonsense?

  113. I've done some more research, and talked with a professor of mythology. Simply speaking, this refutation is absolutely false. Isis WAS known as the "Great Virgin", and all of the things that Zeitgeist suggests about the legend of Horus are absolutely true. The myth of Horus does not exactly mirror Jesus in every way, and that makes sense. Horus was a well known myth during the writings of the bible. Why would someone copy it to every detail? The things that do parallel are enough to suggest that Paul certainly knew the myth, and that writers of the bible could have borrowed the ideas. Horus wasn't resurrected or crucified in the same way, but he was crucified and resurrected. His birth was virginal. His arrival was announced by the north star, etc etc etc. Only the details separate the myth from Jesus - the basic ideas, and many of the action of the myth, are exactly the same. I previously knew that Horus predated the Jesus myth, and this movie tried to make it out as if no other myths did. Again false. Most of the myths predate the Jesus myth, some by thousands of years, many by hundreds. Any myth that there is a parallel to be drawn from pre-dates the Jesus myth. Although this movie is right, certain story lines were added and altered after the writings of the bible, there is plenty that could have spawned the Jesus myth: flood accounts, sacrifice, virgin birth, resurrection, three wise men, miracles, etc. Look it up before you make a documentary full of nonsense.

  114. Within five minutes of this documentary I have found some serious problems. If these can be cleared up with actual evidence, please someone help me. As far as I know, there are several gods and myths who predate Jesus that share almost all of the details of his story. Of course there isn't one that is exact in EVERY detail, but combine the many together, all of the elements are there. Dionysus, Horus, Mithras, etc.. All sources I have ever studied say that these myths predate Jesus by hundreds of years. The myths I studied in mythology class at my University say this. Where is this video getting information from??!?

  115. Nothing but a sad & pathetic attempt to cling to outdated myths & a system of society that clearly isn't working & needs to be changed. Nice try but an epic FAIL.

  116. Well done,

  117. I think what the Zeitgeist and many Atheistic Marxists Movements do with this kind of Documentaries is the ability to think and explain things as limited to memorization as possible with intimidation techniques giving the illusion that if you or anybody disagree with the way they command you to accept their interpretation of the Renewed-history with no evidence under no secular but theosophical world views is because of your personal racial or intolerant views towards diversity movements coming from the environment you live since are ruled by Judeo-Christian world views that condemn some actions that according to sacred writings are not allowed cause are sins or natural errors. The only purposed for these kind of Documentaries as Zeitgeist is to demonize Christian Majority Countries by dehumanizing anybody who are followers of what Marxists call "The most powerful capitalist religion in the planet" better known as Christianity because it has so many followers creating a universal Democracy based on the principle of Individualistic Salvation instead of Collective Salvation, some call it greedy and some call it a beast of a political system, no matter what you think what Christianism is rest a sure is a lot of money invested in it as 2000 years of wars and extermination of the followers of a simple carpenter(labor) better known as the son of the God Of War king of the Jews, in the old days that powerful capitalist religion was Judaism, i guess if you look at it Jesus a simple Carpenter who in today standards is just a simple Labor said his name will replace the name of the Biggest Capitalist God ever known(Yahweh)creating a new religion based on every single law written by the Prophets of the Jewish God but now no-jews can join in individually since the Religion of Yahweh is abolished by Yahweh himself via his Son. Ha! and he did replaced the name, his people and took over the Capitalist System!.Still today some families from Jewish ancestry are the biggest Capitalist in the planet, thats why Marxists always blame Jews in anything they write, Capitalism is the Enemy and the Judeo-Christian religion are the biggest Capitalist in the planet(Rockafellers or Morgans etc). The problem with this way of viewing the world is that it excludes critical thought, intuition, empathy, and wisdom since the people informing you about Biblical History are already Marxists or New Agers into Collective World Views who already took sides and want to erase again the religion they disagree with, in this case Christianism already is the target of those Collective Religions better known to Christians and Jewish writings as Paganism. If you let them they will traps us in a box composed of all the things we have been known through history and now being replace by those who only memorize information instead of understanding information.

    1. Your logical is circular and falls right back on you. Plus it is fallacious from the get-go, you are sooooo quick to throw around Marxism and communism, while praising Christianity. Of course Jews became some of the largest bankers and most well taught financeers because that was their culture for so long! No one would let it be any different.

      Christ is NOT is a historical figure, this is not something I am saying you or anyone else to propagate some marxist agenda. A resouce-based economy (which is probably why you call people in the Zeitgeist movement communists) is NOT communism. It's not any ism, it has no monetarily-based motivations. It's about human advancement, freedom, and the idea that knowledge is free, that health is free, that we can help, teach, and health each other for free. I pursue the music, writing, science, and more on my own, not because of money. I n fact the only way I Can pursue thoe things professionally is if I put myself in debt tens of thousands of dollars for a job that may not even be waiting for me. Obama cannot save the economy no more than any other president can, even Ron Paul, unless we come together and take the fed down and Wall Street down. Regulate banking to a T and start working towards social systems to feed the millions of needlessly-gone poor and hungry in this country. And we need to heal the sick, the 30 million Americans without insurance. This is what we NEED. The more dangerous the drug, the more legal it should be, the more regulated it should be, ending the drug war would go a long way to helping our societal problems. Cartels would suffer, the DEA would fight it every inch of the way because they know they depend on drug usage just as much as any Cartel or banger.

      We criminalize up to 8x more people in this country and it's getting worse. We mix Christianity with government all the time, We use sets of the 10 commandments in courthouses which is an affront to secular society. People from Denmark and other highly developed coutnries with no homeless, low drug abuse, and the highest per-capita rate of human contentment in the world, are appalled when I tell them my situation and how I've lost everything because of childhood disease, (which I beat, got out of a wheelchair and started doing martial arts, accumulating an unbeaten record in boxing), to being fed methadone to manage my arthritis! When I am told smoking cannabis, something that replaces 7 of my medications, is evil and bad, instead they want me to take drugs that have ended my career and made me incapable of working or functioning because for me to get active I have to dope myself up.

      The point is, we live in a country that has a dark, horrific history that has done very little to make up for it. And now it is making slaves out of all of us. History has shown the two ways to make a slave are by religion, and money. And there is no bigger fool than one who believes himself to have true freedom of choice in this country. The only freedom you have is the ability to select between pre-fabricated options. If you don't fall into the mold you get sucked into a pit of despair and monetary valuelessness, which makes you valueless in turn. Or so we are told.

    2. Well said, Joe.
      If people confuse judaism with communism they have to look it up.Judaism is a religion, the more strict version of Christianity if I may say so and the starting point for the Islam. Communism is a political system. However communism is confouded with Judaism, because the leaders of the Bolsheviks were Jews and it was from the beginning a Russian Jewish Movement against the antisemitic regime of the Tsar.
      Karl Marx was a Jew, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were Jews(Russian Ashkenavi Jews). The father of Karl Marx changed his name from Hirschel Mardochai to Heinrich Marx just to get his government job in Germany. Lenin and Stalin were both Jews and after Stalin's refuse to the Jewish bankers to give them control of the Sovjet financial system, those Jewish bankers funded the Nazi Socialists and Hitler as a force against this Communists. While the Bolshevik October Revolution before was again funded by them because Tsar Alexander II did not give them the control. Stalin's revenge to this fact is well known he exiled the (intellectual) Jews in Russia to Siberia.
      Read the book "Wall Street & The Bolshevik Revolution" or the book "Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler" by Antony C. Sutton.
      All the religions are about self preservation and narcism, if you play well you can go to the heaven or born again in a better life.
      Christianity against Islam, both are in fact Judaism for other cultures, fired up against each other by people who call themselves God believers.
      Due to this, cultures and groups are shattered and killed, in the name of God or Allah.
      Give people something to be scared of and they will listen, first it was the devil, witchery and the pagans.
      Now it is terrorism and people are still buying this stuff.
      It is not relevant if Christ is real or not, the message and the story is beautiful. If people can get hope and strength by it, why not? Instead of discussing and refuting, humankind should be more tolerant, understanding and mercyful to each other. More love.
      Instead of making documentaries and scientific research and endless discussions, instead of spending time and effort about this subject, spend the same time, money and effort for the needed, for research to heal diseases and inventions which can help the humankind.
      Spend more time in passion and understanding of each other, there are so many problems in the world and every single human has to endure through enough problems, small or big, in his/her lifetime.

  118. it's clear that by the look of some comments, some people take great 'care' in making use of the HEGELIAN DIALECTIC to undermine other's clarity.

    Get working on your LIVES people. signs, symbols, cryptic texts are all for those who are trying to work out what's really going on in their minds.

    Don't mess with other's clarity of vision, just cos yours is DISTORTED!

    LIVE - OUTSIDE OF THE WEB.
    USE YOUR TRUE VOICE AND MAKE IT RESOUND FOR REAL

  119. Jesus My way or the High way!

  120. the zeitgeist film i was able to look up how and ware they got there info from giving me a way to look up the info more my self ware is this guy info coming from I under stand there are two side to every story.I my self have looked in the life of Buddha hand the religion its self. there are many similar things about there lives. Jesus vs.buddha All his so called proof is from religious followers id take it more serous if there wore some "secular" back up in his Refute. And no refute about the fact that the four gospals lived more than a decayed after jesus berth or the fact Christianity spred threw a violent and forceful crusade. that wiped out most of precivalisation. I have been following
    enchant eygpt findings. It is amazing to me how much there are rethinking what previous findings. ZEITGEIST is in Idea to join use all and not look at ourself us and them.

  121. well the religious segments can definately be discussed BUT who really cares. from the Zietgiest series i personally saw the discussion of religion as merely a foundation for the control that "the powers that be" have today. the more important issue was slavery thru debt and the problems with the monetary system. that is what is important and that is what i took from zietgiest. the religion stuff was interesting but in the end i personally dont really care that much about it.

    1. Parts 2 and 3 of Zeitgeist are even more nonsensical than the first. It's the same old conspiracy bullshit that dates back to the John Birch Society and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    2. your living in a fantasy world spoon fed to you since birth

  122. The first documentary is relatively good, but the second one is a joke. Zeitgeist is not accurate, true, but that does not validate religion or even theism.

  123. So are all of you "debunkers" also against the rest of the movie as well? I am glad that you took the advice of the movie creator and checked his "math" so to speak. I think maybe he added the whole Christianity part just to get your attention.
    Are you gonna now tell us that his review of the monetary system is inaccurate? If so... ask yourself why you would defend a system that neither cares for you or anyone else outside of their club.
    I think it's funny that ancient texts are the only form of history books we have left. It would seem that book burnings were of great importance to the victors back in the day.

    1. I am against the rest of the movie, as a matter of fact. The poor scholarship in part 1 doesn't inspire confidence in the scholarship in the rest of it.

      You then say:

      "Are you gonna now tell us that his review of the monetary system is inaccurate? If so... ask yourself why you would defend a system that neither cares for you or anyone else outside of their club."

      Being against the movie is not the same as saying that we are for the monetary system; I'm against it myself, but that is not an endorsement of ANY portion of Zeitgeist in the least. It's not that black and white. That is like saying that just because someone says Ward Churchill lied about distributed smallpox blankets that therefore we believe that the claims about Genocide against Native Americans are ALL a hoax, because they are not.

      My position against Zeitgeist is it's atrocious scholarship.

      I think it's funny that ancient texts are the only form of history books we have left. It would seem that book burnings were of great importance to the victors back in the day.

      I think you just contradicted yourself here. How could we have ANY ancient texts as OUR ONLY FORM of history sources IF the burnings were AS important as you are implying they were? Then why would we expect to have Herodotus's Histories, Tacitus' Annals and Histories, and Plutarch? This statement you made is self-contradictory.

    2. I think perhaps you mistook my statement as contradictory when in fact it was not. Book burnings were/are a complete travesty. My point about that was the only reference of "fact" we have is the texts that are in existence. Those (in all there forms) are written by the victors in most(being conservative) cases.
      The Zeitgeist films did perhaps take liberties, but like I said in my original statement, perhaps "you" might condemn the rest of the info based on the initial introduction? You had admitted that that is what you felt.
      That was more my point than any other.

    3. I'm a debunker who does not think the whole Zeitgeist movement should be ignored. Allot of relevant things are brought up

      The creator of Zeitgeist didn't make the religious part of the documentary to get our attention- he made some huge azz errors and took people's words as TRUTH, like smooth talking Jordan Maxwell aka Russell Pine.

      Sometimes there are conspiracies within conspiracies. The love of money is the root of all evil, that should have been what the documentary should have focused on.. because you will find so much lies focused around money.. in religion, govt, politics etc...

      When u watch a film like this, always do your research... never believe everything you are told, just because it sounds right.

    4. That's what I said.

  124. Even though I am a Christian, I am NOT a fundamentalist...And I do not believe the Bible is infallible... I also am a history major, so I think I can give a well informed opinion about this.

    The scholarship in Zeitgeist is non-existent. I looked at the sources that Part #1 has listed on it's website, and they are largely from D.M. Murdock who goes by the pen name Acharya S. Acharya S is not taken seriously by the scholarly community, and a simple investigation in encyclopedic sources (as basic as they are) is enough to show why.

    Just as a couple examples of how horrible the scholarship in Zeitgeist is:

    1. Claims that Horus was born of a virgin in a manger are wrong. He was born to Isis who was married to Osiris. The fact that they were married is enough to imply a sexual union, and therefore it is unlikely that she was a virgin. [1] -- Neither is it true that Horus was born on December 25th. According to more reliable sources, he was born during the Epagomenal Days which means he was born at some time in the Fall. [2] Even if Horus were born on December 25th, it would not matter since the date of Jesus' birth is unknown.

    2. Attis was PROBABLY born of a virgin, but we cannot really know that because the sources are silent at to his mother's chastity. The claim that he was dead for three days is misleading; that is to say that reliable sources show that the festival of Attis rising three days after his death are really POST-Christian, and therefore it does not pre-date and was therefore not an influence to Christianity. [3]

    I cannot debunk ALL of part one...or even the other parts of Zeitgeist in one comment because there is no way to debunk all the drivel it spouts out... Trying to argue with the likes of people who believe all the non-sense spouted out in Zeitgeist is like arguing with a Creationist... Yep, you read my correctly: I compare the Zeitgeist crowd to Creationists since they have so much in common.

    ---------------------
    [1] The Encyclopedia Mythica.

    [2] Opsopaus, John. Five Days Out of Time.

    [3] Attis and Related Cults, pages 39 to 42. — Attis and Christ, by A.T. Fear

  125. Dear Religious friends....

    The biggest scam you could possibly portray on humanity would be to have them believe in something for which there is no ACTUAL proof other than the fact that everything around you IS the proof, without ever showing how. Then you would wrap up the stragglers by telling them that if they do not follow the scam with unquestioning faith then they would pay for eternity...but not until AFTER you have lived, for which there would also be no proof... until of course, you die, oops... too late. Ha ha ha...PERFECT scam. All you'd need is an instruction manual... You could even have old and new versions written and then transcribed and modified again and again over the ages by biased Kings, rulers, peasants, who the hell cares, they don't even have to KNOW the original language... make it up... as long as the basics stay intact, for which you'd set up some committees who would guarantee these basics get out and hey, even make a REAL NICE big buck off of it...

    HOPE through FEAR through HOPE through FEAR has always been an awesome trap for those who are weak or dazzled enough to be trapped. It is in fact the same technique used in the Monetary System (Hope to be rich...Fear to be poor).

    If there is a god I can see in everything, then I figure "IT" is a god of all-encompassing perpetually-changing death and creation. Not a standardized edition written by a gaggle of FALLIBLE HUMANS thousands of years ago. When "Jesus" threw the Bankers out...he should have sent the priests with them. Those two have been our bane ever since! I mean...ranting Religious documentaries based on only 15 minutes of over 90 minutes, just shows how insane these people have become. "Take your blue pill...stay in wonderland and believe what ever you believe."

    The biggest MISTAKE "Zeitgeist" ever made was keeping the first 15 minutes from the cutting room floor. If only because we'd have to put up with fanatics shouting for the rest of the film. For JUST ONE MINUTE would the religious BORES sit down at the front, you can still believe in your HE-GOD (I take it HE has genitalia...or at least you've seen HIS beard?) and focus on the fact that the EVIL "Zeitgeist" is REALLY about is the EVIL within people, who are committed to self-gain over others by using ANOTHER perfect scam on humanity... the MONETARY SYSTEM.

    SHUTUP, sit down, watch the GOD-DAMNED film. You people always MISS THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.

  126. I've got a question for you, god believers. If your parents would put you to life then completely ignore you, watching you starve, getting beaten, your brothers getting killed, forced you to fight against other families in their names, told you they made all that's around you and when you put that in question killed you or made all your brothers reject you and tell you that if you continue listening to them and believe in their promises you may AFTER YOU DIE have the chance to be JUDGED to know if you did good enough in YOUR ONE AND ONLY LIFE, would you, even though you know they existed, stop believing in them ? I wouldn't and i think still believing after you add up all these bad sides is :
    a) being masochist ( it's not a bad thing if you love it )
    b) being afraid of change ( understandable when all you've been said through your life is that someone high in the sky that created everything gets you a great gift if you had a good life and makes you suffer for eternity if you do something bad like... STOP BELIEVING IN HIM)
    c) not having the chance of being educated ( i'm not being disrespectful, we don't have all the same luck, if you're able to read this you do know it)
    d) being stubborn ( see b) )
    e) being stupid (it's a choice and i respect it... ( it may be the part where some believers begin to dislike me))
    or f) all of these answers

    Please notice that i did not argue about the fact that whether or not god exists neither did i use any scientific evidence to prove that something is really wrong about what is written in the bible. I'm just telling you that even if that guy exists he wouldn't be trustable so i wouldn't believe in what he says.

    Notice too that if you tell me that i must not take everything written in the bible for granted i will ask you why they did in the past ( in they did murder people for that cause) and now that these change have been obviously proven we must not. Isn't your god perfect? If yes why does he make humans lie in his bible? Seems like he doesn't even consider the commandments in his book, it sounds like he's not perfect and contradicts himself.

    I'll let you baffle from now on.

    P.S. Please excuse my english it's not my first language

  127. I am so very sorry but this mocumentary is an absolute waste of time and time is precious to waste your life even watching it. The whole effort of debunking Zeitgeist has been spent in absolute failure and does not get anywhere in the end .So my dear boy back to the Bible (a book written by scholars that did not even believe such person existed five hundred years after he was born) and leave science to work the rest of it out as religion has no finger in the real world (apart being involved in politics) of things and cannot be taken seriously in this day and era.

    By the way when Jesus does turn up again I will be the first to take he's swab for DNA test just to see how the Devil he did that trick with the resurrection.

  128. I would be very grateful if all the religious people out there would please explain to me why god did not include in his book these particulars:

    1. An explanation of germs and virii.
    2. The true relationship of the earth to the sun and stars.
    3. A discussion of gravity.
    4. Math.
    5. Physics.
    6. Chemistry.
    7. Dinosaurs, which he undoubtedly was quite proud of.
    8. An explanation of the need for illnesses and suffering.
    9. An explanation for why in some instances murder is ordered and condoned, and in others it is banned.
    10. A discussion of deep sea creatures for the enlightenment of those who had yet to behold them.
    11. A discussion of possible life on other planets, and why the earth god might not 'be made in their image' or vice versa.
    12. Why when there is some disaster, some believers die and others are saved, and how the disaster is 'god's will' and the lives saved are 'miracles' and how this makes any sense.
    13. How a loving god can allow natural disasters that take the lives of innocent children by the thousands.
    14. Why prayers for the most part go unanswered?
    15. If god invented the universe, he also must have invented the workings of things as we have come to know with science, why do his followers seek to refute this science or ignore it (whilst still partaking of some of it).
    16. Why are gays and others hated by some god-fearing/loving/following people, if god must have obviously created them?

    I have many more questions but answers to these would be much appreciated.

    Oh, and as an afterthought: Peter Joseph has done nothing but advocate nonviolent change.
    Peter Joseph has tried to put forward a true revolution in thought, economics, caretaking of the earth and everyone and everything on it.
    Peter Joseph has calmly answered all of his critics and has been almost superhuman in his gentle demeanor, intelligence and patience.
    Peter Joseph is the closest man I have ever seen or heard of in all my 57 years that exemplifies your jesus. Why are you so afraid of him? How long before this man is crucified?

    Oh, and a last question. What if Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco, being god-made, were sent here by him for you to listen to and learn from? It's been 2000 years. It's time for the second coming, is it not? Or do you intend to have these men die for your sins also?

    1. because my friend ,god is not for you to understand ,no human will ever understand that which is supreme in the all and that also doesn't meant that the sciences are wrong you see the sciences are just what WE perceive WE humans with mental limits who is to say that the entity which created has has to tell us everything about him. if you created a clone to harvest would you tell him that he is a clone ? and that is the mystery of life the search for god.just never stop believing.

    2. From a Christian perspective as that has been my main point of study in the past, and I speak only from my own views -

      Particulars 1-7 ~ Why should these things be explained in full in the Bible? That is what science is for. Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" This passage invokes many of the things you mention - the 'invisible things' such as the forces involved in physics and other scientific disciplines are clearly seen once our science has advanced enough to be able to discern and understand them. Even dinosaurs might fall into this, but the general purpose and theme of the book is the revelation of God and His relationship to mankind, and though it contains science, it's not meant to be a scientific treatise on any of the issues you mention.

      #8 ~ There is not a 'need' for illness and suffering. Though some may view it as judgement, much illness and suffering is a result of natural events and phenomenon, our interaction with other organisms, normal life processes, or the result of man's own activities.

      #9 ~ This is a little harder. As it relates to the Bible, you must understand the differences between Old Testament and New Testament. In short, God is described as a just and righteous God who cannot tolerate what we might call sin. The end punishment for sin is death, and it must be dealt with in order for God to remain a God of justice. In the Old Testament, sins generally demanded the death of an animal as sacrifice, or the eventual death of the offender. In the New Testament (after the advent of Jesus), the Christian view is that Jesus paid the punishment for all through His own death. This is why some people see the Old Testament as promoting murder, but you will not see it condoned or ordered after that point until possibly the judgements mentioned in books like Revelation. It is also an opinion of many that God gave government over to man - the decision to use capital punishment in modern times is a choice made by current governments.

      #10 ~ See first point. Enlightenment about the natural world was not a main purpose of the Bible.

      #11 ~ True the Bible does not mention this exactly, unless you might consider the realm of heaven or hell another planet. Still, God is described as creating life on THIS planet, and again, the Bible tells of God's interactions with mankind HERE. Some will argue that God might've put some type of life on other planets, but the Bible also portrays man as a very unique and special species, which tends to dispute the idea.

      #12 ~ Matt. 5:45 - "for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Things that happen to mankind happen to all mankind. A believer is not going to be magically protected from a volcanic eruption. If I lived through such an event, I might call it a miracle myself! Even though some people will say it's God's will, they rarely understand exactly what God's will is, though some think they gain insight later on. The bottom line is that many believers think God has a plan for each life, and that whatever happens really is the best thing for all involved, even though they may not understand how or why. Many would even view death as a preferable alternative to a horrible future only God might know.

      #13 ~ I think Christians see natural disasters as natural disasters. God doesn't necessarily 'allow' them, they are a product of the natural world and environmental processes created as part of our world. Some find judgement in them, but I have a hard time understanding how one would know if a disaster is natural or judgemental. Still, things happen, and humanity is often in the vicinity. There is little else to explain unless you try to get back into what God's will might be.

      #14 ~ Well, God can say no can't he? Some believe motive has something to do with this, but Christians will often admit later on that their prayer WAS answered, just not in the way they had assumed it might be.

      #15 ~ See first point and the passage. To me, a Christian should believe the Bible to be accurate, and that the natural world and science will only reveal further evidence of God to humanity. Accurate Bible interpretations will always agree with accurate science and vice versa. I personally believe that many current religious interpretations of some scientific ideas are not accurate at all. I have studied the Bible myself, and with the proper interpretation of Bible and science they agree quite harmoniously, which came as quite a surprise to me.

      #16 ~ The Christian according to the Bible should hate no one. Yet you might say it instructs followers to hate the sin and not the sinner. A Christian generally thinks homosexuality is a sin, but many have a hard time loving the person behind that and get hung up on human tendancies to turn away those they disagree with. I see the hate of certain Christian circles towards homosexuals as a great failure on their part.

      There's my long winded 2cents on what I feel would qualify as a Christian-ish answer to many of your inquiries.

  129. This documentary is a joke. It says that statements from Zeitgeist are completely false just because they're not 100% accurate; things like "Horus did not turn water into wine, he filled empty glasses with wine" or "she was not a virgin, she was impregnated by a god". Are you kidding me?

    Not to mention it only 'refutes' the part about religion... which i find irrelevant.

    The only part i like about this documentary is the first 20 seconds: "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - which is kinda funny, given the context of the documentary, because it can be very well applied to... you guessed it... religion.

    PS: lurk moar

    1. This documentary is a joke. It says that statements from Zeitgeist are completely false just because they're not 100% accurate; things like "Horus did not turn water into wine, he filled empty glasses with wine" or "she was not a virgin, she was impregnated by a god". Are you kidding me?

      So I guess it means nothing that the claims made in Zeitgeist are in fact 98% wrong? The only thing I will give Zeitgeist is that the Biblical flood was possibly taken from Gilgamesh.

      By the way, Horus had nothing to do with wine. I think you mean Dionysus.

      The only part i like about this documentary is the first 20 seconds: "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - which is kinda funny, given the context of the documentary, because it can be very well applied to... you guessed it... religion.

      True enough. A religious apologetic, if no evidence is given, deserves not to be taken seriously... Likewise, much like how Zeitgeist has shown a lack of scholarship, it deserves no more consideration than Creationism...which deserves none.

  130. my Lord pleeease protect me from this moron! I was raised christian, boy o boy were my parents wrong in indoctrinating in this myth! it is a story!

  131. @louise
    Baaaaaaaaaah

  132. Well = if Vlatko himself agrees that this is the worst doc. on the site, I think I'll save myself the fit of anger everyone else seems to have experienced watching, or reading the comments.

    Anyway, Zeitgeist rules.

  133. Why is it called Zeitgeist Refuted if all it talks about is religion? I thought it was going to say something in defense of the monetary system... you know, what Zeitgeist is actually about.

  134. The problem with this doc is that what he says can be dis-proven to by other historians...what the original movie is also about is to start thinking a bit. Even if one fact in the original is correct then the whole house of cards falls down...and its historically a fact that todays bible was put together by the roman empire in Constantinople back in the days to control the public, and it worked...What the movie was trying to say, don't swallow everything you hear..find out your-self before you go and become a devoted Christian when you might not know what it really is..

  135. I like a slap down as much as anyone and this refutation is rich in factual counter claims,...that seem well researched.
    Where this documentary falls flat is in the delivery and editing. The main speaker breathlessly reads thru everything he did to refute various Zeitgeist claims,...with some very annoying background music that builds and builds for about half of the video,...the narrator goes on and on spewing out his findings,...w/o it seems a single break, sentence or paragraph pause. Then just when you think you can't take it anymore ca bang someone in editing decides that's a bit much and they change the format to a more normal paced delivery, it's all too much. At about 40 minutes I packed it in.

    Anyway Gilgamesh, which is a well documented version of the basic Zeitgeist theory already makes the point,...religions borrow from each other, and steal/plagiarise each others important dates and events,..I think that is basically true,...further these dates often revolve around the equinoxes and solstices,...duh,...not sure why the creators of this video are so livid to slap down this Zeitgeist,...as if by doing so they prove there is one true God? Perhaps Zeitgeist's got so popular they HAD to do something. It was fun while I could stand it but I was already in the "it's all a big fat myth" camp anyway, that wasn't likely to change.

  136. Mitch Graves come on mitch, you are as dumb as you claim others to be. it is common knowledge that the spanish inquisition alone killed as many as half a million free thinking innocent women. where do you get this 3 to 5 thousand deaths in the name of christianity? you are telling us, and have proof of, that in all the religeous wars that only 3 to 5 thousand people have died at the hands of christians? how many north american indians have died in the name of christianity? Estimates of native populations before europeans arrived was around 40 million people. the catholic schools that took the native children from their families have killed tens of thousands of children. religeon is the root of ALL evil.

  137. I had fun watching this and reading all the comments. I just don't get how you can call something " the one and only truth " then claim you have faith in it. There is no need for faith in something you know for a fact is true. I don't have faith that I am typing on my keyboard right now I know for a fact that i am typing on my keyboard right now. but that's just my opinion I could be high

  138. I think Dr. Gary Habermas needs to see a doctor he seems to have 1200 fingers on one of his hands

  139. health and natural wealth!
    az

  140. Could'nt watch much of this...as many other people.
    They can have the religious part the way they want it...most Zeitgeist supporters or well-wishers don't care...we are trying to change our world not the religious history.
    If Jesus existed or not. will not changed the fact that our earth is losing it's health!
    az

  141. this movie is total proof tht religioin is total nonsense- well done! deluded jeebus creepers!

  142. I don't know about the quality of the film and won't be watching it, but I do know already that Zeitgeist was trash, based entirely upon sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated claims. I know that the Zeitgeist creator was heavily influenced by Jordan Maxwell, who has been thoroughly refuted. Jordan Maxwell in turn, was influenced by HP Blavatsky, who also made many nonsensical generalizations and unsubstantiated and unsourced claims, and she was also a huge hermetic mystic/occultist.

  143. wow....i think i lost what few brain cells i have left....outrageous movie. someone taking things personal?

  144. This film is horrible. horrible. horrible attempt.

  145. This film is horrible. horrible attempt.

  146. This is So stupid! All of the arguments have no backings, and NO FACTUAL LOGICAL evidence! only "hidden messages" that refer or make point to "something" can can sound like it...........This dvd hurt religion verses defend it, why would any one rebel against the original Zeitgeist movie? If your religion is so dam real it would not matter what any one said

  147. it's not even like i believe everything zeitgeist says but at least it presents some interesting ideas, I particularly liked zeitgeist moving forward. Anyway this one here is crap.

  148. I guess it doesn't key on blatant obscenities like the user name "Jizzass" though. Well...at least it got me for the word "stup*d".

  149. What a pathetic attempt to discredit Zeitgeist!

  150. @Vlatko~
    Cool. Thanks. I was kidding about the 'decorum' thing. I realized it keys on certain words without context.

  151. In the interest of comment section civility, the moderator has asterisked out my use of the word "stup*d" at the end of the "It's the Gospel..." sentence. I abhor such attempts to override art for the sake of decorum.

    1. Well... it is not for the sake of decorum @Lary Nine. It is for the sake of keyword density.

      Hover your mouse pointer over it and the word will reveal to you (and to others).

  152. Christian apologetics are weakest when they attempt to refute science or history and strongest when they stick to the message! You guys sound like a coven of Pharisees debating the fine points of the law. Didn't Jesus say it is what comes out of the mouth that counts, not what goes in. Didn't Paul say "Love God and do as you will." I'm a former devout believer, but I still recall enough to recommend that you'll be wiser to stay 'on message'--- "It's about the Gospel, stupid! The Gospel!"
    Keep bringing the good news. Nothing else matters...if it's true.

  153. All I would like to say is please for those of us who are interested in this make sure that your arguments are actual arguments where you are building on or tearing down another persons argument and not tearing down and belittling the people who believe differently then you. Scholarly arguments look at the statements presented and provide counter evidence to dispute it, they do not attack the other party personally. So again I plead with you for the sake of us who wish to see a good discussion about this subject and also for yourself so that you do not hurt your cause and ruin your credibility. Who beliefs someone who sidesteps that subject and knocks the people's intelligence. I know I don't I believe that it just makes you look ignorant.

  154. OOPs, I guess the PCs think st_pid is a profanity. If it is struck out again by this software, the word starts with an "s" and has 6 letters and means the opposite of smart. lkd

  155. I just came to know about the existence of the “Zeitgeist” documentaries; they are totally new to me and I have yet to listen to one. So I “Googled” a bit and came across this blog about a contradicting documentary (haven't watched it either).

    I must say I am taken aback by the anger expressed by most of the atheists who have posted. The anger and venom demonstrated by tone and profanity is so very sad. So destructive to each person during and after their ranting expressions. I wonder if any of you atheists has read Lee Strobel (who uses careful and extensive research) or C. S Lewis (who used his intellect and observations) to proclaim Christ. Both were highly intelligent and adamant atheists well into adulthood, but who came to know Christ and went on to be competent apologists for Christianity.

    My prayer is that before you die you will come to know the peace that was so unfathomable to those of us before we came to accept Christ. It is a peace that is instantly recognizable when we meet another Christian, a peace based on something more than the fact that we hold the same beliefs. It is a peace we know and enjoy and are thankful for because we know the same person, Christ Jesus himself.

    I am a former agnostic or atheist who came to faith in Christ as an adult, even as I was working toward a PhD in Chemistry (can you believe it?), even at the shock and disappointment of my family. While I am dyslexic, I do not think I am ignorant or stupid or irrational or unintelligent or suffering from any disease of mind or spirit.

  156. lies

  157. The comments people make when faced with a film that shows the facts of zeitgeist part 1 has never ceased to amaze me. People just refuse to believe the facts. Look, Peter Joseph out right copied all the so called facts there. The reason I say copied is, most are made up and the rest are twisted for an agenda. This film is merely showing this. To leave a comment bashing religion of any kind is just showing your intelligence level. The things presented in this film are the truth and easily looked up. People will claim up and down that its all bull. But at the end of the day, no one will produce any concrete proof of that, because there is none. The concrete proof is presented here in this film for anyone to see or research further for themselves. Zeitgeist part one is truly amazing for its brainwashing techniques. Wake up! Or maybe you can just leave a comment bashing religion. Or better yet, You can leave a comment bashing me but leaving no actual counter argument to the things shown in this film.

  158. Its hard to refute truth , Zeitgeist is just based on fact . Unlike religion . This is just a sorry effort by the powers that be in this world to slow down the movement . They are loosing control . Its time for truth ....it is time for ZEITGEIST !

  159. "Saint Zeitgeist" - LOL, Thats classic.

  160. this is total bulls**t!!
    watch zietgies for real logical sence andd meaning.

  161. I studied to be a Christian pastor , got my degrees .....6 years later ended up an Atheist , another words I'm born again . Religion is just a way to control the masses . Break The will and control the mind so they can just flat control . Religion is dead and a new world is on the way .
    I pray every night to Saint ZEITGEIST (LOLOLO)

  162. IT SEEMS SLIGHTLY CULT YOU SAY... it is a movement and it does require a construct to get her going. to me the kicker is that we need a total new reality and we cannot get there, no one can, using the same systems that have brought us to this point....point of cultural and ecological collapse... so if an organized movement(Zeitgeist) that drives us away from this destructive reality has a starting point ..so be it....even they say they're not sure of the end....so.. new movie out....Zeitgeist: Moving Forward... Oh man, to be in NEw Zealand...wow! like CArlin said "usa is done brothe".... from the cold north woods in Minnesota. will ck out your show... oh yeah, this doc here was garbage....take care

  163. Got fed-up quite fast. I'm always amused when I see peoples who have not yet realized that we are in hell here!
    Yep! Dunno why or how, I guess that memory of judgement was lobotimized in a way or another...
    Otherwise, why would there be life down here?
    It just gotta be that we were assigned to be here.
    It appeared that through the centuries, peoples try to remember what was before birth. Oniric sights!

    What God would gave permited "Attilla" massacres, the Norman's one in N-England a few 1,000 years ago, the Roman ones? When one think for a moment that in one single battle in N-England, a (1/4) of the population over there died in tragics events. What was the % of living homosapiens in those years compared to the holocaust?
    Which God would permit that in his "Best World"?
    I know for a fact that my mom or dad wouldn't have permited me to torture my brother or sister for the thrill of it.
    Nor my non-family related neighbor as well!

    Then... Why does whatever God remains mute?
    Simple & obvious: It's the deal.
    Sending us all under test to see each one of us behaviour while completly free to do anything one feel like!
    Even a "Little" estafet from WWI!
    We're free to do what ever we feel like down here.
    Then, that whatever God will know factually everyone, if fit for an ideal world. If there is an ideal world that is!

    As far as I'm concerned, I have enough fun in life that I do not feel any need to abuse any other homosapien in this world. Nor support any abusers like the Chruch leaders, Islamic or Christian, Boudhist, petroleum magna what so ever who already figured out that God will not, ever intervene on planet earth. Thus dsclosing his plans!
    I do not and never needed Zeitgeist to figure that out.
    Just look at present homosapien behaviour and history!
    So very simple.

  164. To Wes,

    Thanks for your wise, intelligent and kind words, you should be a diplomat if you aren't one already. I also love your biblical quote.

    I don't deny the possibility of a creator(s). As someone with a lot of respect for the scientific method, I like to keep my mind open. To me Atheism is just another form of man made religion based on feelings and not facts. I'm just convinced the one(s) in the OT/NT aren't it. I'll check out the book and the documentary although I know Edgar Cayce was wrong about Atlantis and the sphinx ;^) (My mom was into the guy for a while)

    I got a recommendation for you as well, its also written by a sceptic or should I say X-sceptic. He thinks he's proven the existence of god through physics. I've only poked at it because I don't know enough about physics to be able to understand what his positions is. It's called;
    The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead by Frank J. Tipler (Maybe check out some of the reviews on amazon before investing any time and money though).

    Shalom & blessings to you too.

  165. The only thing one can argue for is that no one knows or can know if god exists or does not. From there, say what you will, but you don't need god for goodness, too bad most people are self serving scum bags lol, religious or not.

  166. To JustG

    Well I think at this point it is safe to say that we are at a stale mate with our friend Nick. At the the end of the day believing in God/Christianity doesn't come about by a change in knowledge but rather by a change in the soul.

    To Nick

    You are no doubt very intelligent, well read and knowledgeable on these topics. I believe that you are truly seeking the truth and I pray that you find what you are looking for. I hope that you do not however look for God in the eloquent speeches of men or in the plethora of texts on the subject but rather in the still and quiet hours of your day. Search your soul, not your intellect. I am not saying don't research but don't look for God while researching. Research for knowledge and information. Then reflect on what you have received and seek God then.

    As a Jewish man you are probably familiar with the account of Elijah in 1 Kings 19 when he was on Mt. Horeb. God said that he was going to pass by. Then there came a powerful wind, an earthquake and fire but God was not in those things. Rather he made his presence known through a gentle whisper. It is in the whisper and the stillness that God reveals himself to us.

    There is more to this world than what we see and I think that you know that otherwise you wouldn't be on this journey. There is a spiritual world and a supernatural force that drives and influences our physical world. Science knows this and tries to shut it out but Science always comes back around to say, "Something else is going on here that we just can't explain." That's when the theories start but they never "evolve" to anything more than theory. Is it because what is going on is supernatural and is being orchestrated by a supernatural being? Maybe.

    Sorry for preaching I can get winded as I am sure you can too. Again I pray that you find what you are looking for.

    A book I recommend reading for your research is called The Case for A Creator by Lee Strobel. It is not a flowery and naive Christian book but an intelligent think piece. Lee used to be an atheist so he approaches the book with a skeptics view of the idea of God looking through scientific and critical eyes. People criticize him as being biased and only interviewing Christians but what they don't understand is that he is the skeptic. He takes the role of the well informed alternative to the Christian answer.

    Also for kicks watch the documentary on Edgar Cayce because it's pretty interesting. You can find it on this website.

    Peace and Blessings

  167. Sorry my fault I should have kept it simpler.

    All I'm try to point out is the bible OT and NT are littered with pagan influences from start to finish in addition to the rituals and beliefs taken on after they were written and that it's silly to try to deny them and hypocritical of the so call monotheistic religions to point fingers at pagans.

    The reason I'm trying to prove myself so vehemently is because I wasted many good years of my life on man made religion and if I can prevent someone from doing the same it would help me sleep better.

    As for the philosophy if you could recommend something that would be awesome but I'm already a fan of Baruch Spinoza. Taoist philosophy is cool too.

  168. Wow, that's a nice list. Too bad you missed my point and chose instead to support your bad claims w/ them.

    Ultimately, I've never tried to get you to believe anything so I'm not sure why you are so vehemently trying to prove yourself. A couple simply suggestions for your research surely doesn't require such a mess of information and assumptions?

    Maybe try a philosohpy course or two. If you make it so easy for me to show 1 thing is wrong or not what you say, my work is already done.

    Good luck to you.

  169. Well JustG,

    I suppose I could list all the materials and teachers that I've learned from over the past 20 years (Jewish/ Christian and Secular/Academic and lets not forget the "Pagans") and I could look up all my quotes and give them to you and maybe even make a film like this one and shoot down every argument in a systematic way just like they did. But something tells me that you'll still find fault with my work unless I come to the exact same conclusion as you do and follow the same version of Christianity as you do. Even if I do come to the same conclusion as you and you convince me I'm completely wrong I still won't worship the god(s) of the bible or Jesus again because they are immoral and I'll take my punishment in HADES gladly. (long live HADES, Greek God of Tartarus a.k.a. Hell ;^)

    So I will end it here and just agree to disagree.

    BTW, you should re-read that link you sent to me a few times and maybe even look over that entire website. Here's some food for thought if your interested;
    - The Book: A History of the Bible by Christopher De Hamel
    - A Journey through the Hebrew Scriptures by Frank S. Frick
    - The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels
    - "The Disputation" of Barcelona check what its about on wikipedia. There's even a boring movie of it (runs about 45 minutes)
    -Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion (Forgotten Books)
    by Joshua Trachtenberg
    - God: A Biography by Jack Miles
    - The movie "Agora" 2009 should be fun to watch
    - The Hebrew Goddess 3rd Enlarged Edition by Raphael Patai
    - The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality by Gershom Scholem
    - Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism by Gershom Scholem
    - This a fun one -Veda and Torah: Transcending the Textuality of Scripture by Barbara A. Holdrege
    - Don't forget "the Dead Sea Scrolls" and the biblical Apocrypha books of the OT & NT.
    - If you want to know how Jews and Jesus thought, you better read all of the Talmud too.
    - If you want a no holds barred view of Judaism's view of Jesus look up "Rabbi Tovia Singer".

    I also highly recommend anything by Sam Harris if you haven't come across him already.

    Happy studying, no pressure and Shabbat Shalom

  170. In that case you should up your research. Surely you should know better than.

  171. BTW, I am Jewish and Israeli.

  172. @ JustG

    Good comeback ;^)

  173. ps. I think what you are doing is great if this is all your own research, but recommend you approach the topic w/ less bias. Biased research is bad research.

  174. To Wes & anyone interested,

    Thanks for the interesting perspective. I'll definitely look into it further. But since one of the most significant fundamental beliefs to Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins so we don't all go to hell or to burn in a lake of fire unless we accept him as god in the flesh has nothing to do with the OT, at all. Therefore if there is no eternal hell, hades, lake of fire or any promise of eternal life in heaven for that matter because these ideas are clearly not from Jewish sources means there is no need to believe in Jesus as god in the flesh, a demi-god, prophet or even a legitimate spiritual teacher.

    The concept of an after life doesn't come from the OT. Some Jews just liked the idea and adopted it from the Greeks. That doesn't make it true. We can't even know if the real historical Jesus even endorsed these ideas.

    I think people should be good for goodness sake and not because of reward or punishment. The well being of the future of humanity rests on that alone. (I know some of you might say that is one of the devils' lies but if the devil said that, I'm on his side. Not to confuse some of you out there, I do not actually believe there is a devil anymore either).

    The NT has too many conflicting random ideas in it, never mind comparing it to the OT. As they say, "oil and water don't mix".

    As for the OT, I think it has very little place in the world today as a spiritual guide book. At most it can be used as a historical reference mixed with some spicy metaphysics to keep it interesting.

    Face it, most people would agree that it's laws are immoral and the punishments for breaking "gods" laws are not of a loving god nor are they fair in anyway. Most of the punishments are death sentences. The rewards are lame too, god promises good weather and bountiful crops for obedience but never delivers (FYI- gods laws in the OT is his contract with the Hebrews and not applicable to anyone else with the exception of "be fruitful and multiply", if you believe in the bible that is). He states his laws are for ever binding on his people, so what type of omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient god would change his mind as often as the god of the bible does? How come thou shalt not rape isn't one of the 10 commandments? Surely rape is worse than coveting your neighbours stuff by any accepted standard of morality today, i'd hope. I think a twelve year old child could make a better set of ten commandments.

    If some supreme BEING created yours and mine DNA and the laws of physics you would have to expect a book a lot more clear and consistent from that god, now wouldn't you. The god(s) of the Hebrews' is mythology.

    How much time has humanity lost to this subject and how many people have needlessly died for it. Jesus "said", "if a man has the faith of a mustard seed, he could move a mountain". Well if dying for your belief in him isn't complete and utter faith, I don't know what is. Many millions have died for him and never been able to move a pebble never mind a mountain. Like I said before, the Jesus was a man with Jerusalem syndrome. I'm sure the money spent on tithing alone could feed the world and build the most amazing hospitals we could ever ask for. The money spent on the printing of bibles (that most people never end up reading anyway) could also make the world a much better place to live for everybody.

    Arguing about interpretations of "god(s)" riddle books or should I say, ancient man made texts and making up apologetic answers to justify blind faith is a waste of a precious life. You can't imagine how many loving families these books must have broken up because of it's teachings.

  175. @ Nick

    You are right that there were other Christian teachings but they were also refuted and warned against by Peter, John, Paul and other apostles.

    The gospels were written in order to preserve eye witness accounts and teachings that were "heard from the horses mouth." These writings weren't about them or what they were saying but instead about the life of Jesus.

    I will agree that there is no real evidence that Matthew was written by Matthew because why would a disciple of Jesus need to rely so heavily on the gospel of Mark who was not an eye witness. The only reason I can think of is that since Mark was a close associate to Peter, Matthew read Mark and did not disagree with the things that were written, so he kept what Mark had and added more accounts.

    The most important evidence for Mark's credibility comes from Papias (140 AD) who quotes an earlier source saying that Mark was a close associate of Peter, from who he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord. Mark is also mentioned in Acts and Paul's letter to the Colossians.

    As for John, he was a prominent figure in the early church but is not mentioned by name in the Gospel. This seems natural if he wrote it because again this is not about his life but rather an account of Jesus' life. The textual style of the 3 letters of John are almost identical to that of the gospel of John. There are also similar phrases found in passages the passages of the gospel and the letters.

    The introduction in Luke's gospel is very significant to the credibility of the text itself.

    "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

    This to me is a great abstract for a research study, which is most likely what The Gospel According to Luke and Acts was. The Gospel is specifically directed to Theophilus, whose name means "lover of God" and almost certainly refers to a particular person rather than to lovers of God in general. The use of "most excellent" with the name further indicates an individual, and supports the idea that he was a Roman official or at least of high position and wealth. He was possibly Luke's patron, responsible for seeing that the writings were copied and distributed. The author is clearly dedicating his work to his publisher.

    Again we do not have the name of the author mentioned in the gospel itself just as the others, but Acts is clearly a second addition to the authors gospel because it is addressed to the same recipient, Theophilus. This indicates that the same author wrote both books. The language and structure of the gospel and Acts are similar.

    Within the writing itself are some clues as to who the author was. Certain passages in Acts make use of the pronoun "we." (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16) At these points the author includes himself as a companion of Paul in his travels.

    All of this to make the argument; the gospels and the acts of the apostles are not based on hear say but are rather accounts of either the disciples themselves or are authored by those who had direct contact with the disciples and eye witnesses.

  176. I vote to remove this doc. The guys voice is annoying. The content is utterly boring and I cant stand people just using other peoples work as a platform to spout their own dogma. Please stop helping religious fanatics spread their fairy stories.

  177. Back @ Just,

    Oh yeah, I am doing "a lot more research" on the subject. That is why I took the time to watch Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Refuted and Exposed" in the first place. I try to get as much information from as many sources as I can get my hands on in order to sift through the B.S. on my path to the truth. I've even worked on major archaeological digs in Israel/ Jerusalem, so there ;^P

  178. Back @ Just

    You are correct I am quite knowledgeable on this subject but I don't claim to be a scholar. I made no attempt to write every detail that I knew such as how and when Rome converted to Christianity because that wasn't the point of my critique. You are correct, there were other Christianity's before Rome took over, I thought that was to obvious to mention so I didn't. Lots/most of early branches of Christianity were wiped out by the Roman standard of Christianity.

    The point of me bringing up the Christmas tree, easter bunny...- was to show blatant pagan symbolism and rituals all throughout Christianity, because my point of writing on this page was to refute "Zeitgeist Refuted and Exposed".

    You have no proof that the any of the gospels are "eye witness" testimony. Like I mentioned the first gospel was written no earlier than 30 years after the fact and some of the others were written 70 and later years after the fact. How would you like it if your local modern news media gave you the "good news" 30- 70 - 100+ years after it happened based on hear say? Would you be satisfied with the accuracy? I think not.

    The Jewish "idea of a saviour" is 180 degrees different from Christianity. Messiah literally means "anointed shield" in Hebrew. In order to be king of Israel you have to be "anointed" by the High priests "the Cohen" cast with a special blend of oils. Every legitimate King of Israel that was "anointed" was a Messiah. At the time of Jesus many Jews didn't recognize the legitimacy of king Herod because he was a Roman puppet king in their eyes and they considered themselves in spiritual exile. A saviour of your so called immortal soul had noting to do with their expectations of a messiah, at all. There was a great deal of corruption happening at that time and there were over 26 factions of Jews all with differing points of view. They only wanted a legitimate king the could restore Israel to the way it was in first temple times. FYI -The last Israeli election had 34 different parties running so not much has changed since then.

    Your quote is referring to being burned alive, like the people of Sodom and Gomorra were "with fire and brimstone" and not in an after life for all eternity like the ancient Greeks and other ancient people believed in. Your quote makes absolutely no mention of eternal damnation, just an assumption based on pagan belief systems. FOr something as serious as eternal damnation don't you think god would have warned his people about it when he made his contract with them and gave his law to them because he didn't. Not in the Torah and not in the Talmud either. FYI - I didn't just read the OT, I learned/ studied it, from the people that wrote it I might add so I didn't have to rely on a 5th hand translation from someone that has no knowledge of Hebrew or Jewish tradition.
    But what are your qualifications to comment on the subject?

  179. If we all believed in the christian god or any thereof the interpretation of said god would still be different. Making God different to each of us. Religion is a way to control the masses via consent. Belief systems are indoctrinated and enforced no matter how much evidence supports the cause.

  180. @Nick
    @
    You appear to know this subject very well, so I question why there are so many inaccuracies. I imagine either because you are misled or are outright misleading. You correctly state that Christianity was overtaken by Rome. We all know that, however you neglect to mention that it wasn’t until approx. 300 years after Christ. That means there are many Christians who are / were not RC. Baptists for example.

    I’m not sure what your point of bringing up things like a Christmas tree or the easter bunny is. Just an FYI, this has nothing to do w/ Christianity.

    Next you can’t honestly think it logical to compare eye witness testimony (Gospel) to mythological supposition?

    If the Jews have no idea of a hell or of punishment why do you suppose they require a Savior? Surely you know that the old Testament is riddled w/ prophecy of this kind.

    Oh, but just to clarify this point for you, you many want to actually read the Old Testament rather than ‘misleading’ people.

    “Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.”

    If you wrote in earnest, I suggest you do a Lot more research. Besides, you wouldn't want to waste your life lying to yourself.

  181. Great film and well researched.

    It seems to refute Zeitgeists claims with the exception of one major one. The fact the Christianity has strong pagan influences.

    In fact this documentary even points it out when it mentions the Roman Catholic church. The Romans hijacked Christianity and made it their own. If you trace back all major sects of Christianity they all derive from the Roman Catholic church with few exceptions like the eastern orthodox branches and Coptic Christianity. The Romans decided on which books would be canonized in the NT.

    The Romans made Jesus's birthday on December 25th and there is a multitude of known pagan elements in Christian holidays. Such as the x-mas tree, yule log, statue making, icon worshipping, the easter bunny is a known pagan fertility animal. Not to mention the worshipping of saints which is expressly forbidden in the ten commandments. Sure you can say that you're denomination doesn't do these things and that the Romans didn't practice true Christianity but doesn't that kind of mean that there was no Christians until Protestantism came around over 1500 years later or until whenever your version of how the religion should really be practiced?
    What is left over without all of these things?

    The argument the film makers use against Dionysus and some other influences will shoot these guys in the foot. They claim that the oldest written documentation of these mythological gods that have similarities to Jesus are written long after Jesus died. They lead the viewer to believe that it's ridiculous to make those claims because there is no previous documentation. But the oldest Christian gospel was written more than 30 years after Jesus died and the rest or the NT was written much, much later. So just because there is no known written story about Dionysus or any other mythological gods doesn't mean they didn't exist. Early Christians burned many libraries back in their day so that may explain why there isn't any written sources. The Greeks were well established 800 years before Jesus was around and the Egyptians and Babylonians much earlier than that.

    The OT has no mention of Hell and Jews have no concept of it either or at least not until after Alexander the Great invaded Israel and the NT even uses the word "Hades" the Greek god of the underworld. That is a clear and provable pagan concept that is a fundamental belief in Christianity. Without hell, there is no need for a "son of god" to die for the sins of mankind. The lake of fire in the book of Revelations is also a Greek idea :^P The ancient Greeks worked very hard to assimilate the Jews. There is no threat by god to the Israelites for breaking his law and there is also no promise of eternal life of admittance to heaven anywhere in the OT. Also an ancient Greek concept not to mention a common pagan one too.

    My theory is that Jesus had a bad case of "Jerusalem syndrome" (look it up, the Simpson's even did and episode on it). Many people in Jesus's time thought they were the "Messiah" and to this day you can go to Jerusalem and see all kinds of crazy people claiming to be the messiah or Jesus him/herself.

    If there was really a god in heaven that loves us why does he let us fight over ambiguous riddle books and why doesn't he fight his own battles? According the the bible god killed/punished some people directly but not others. If there is a god of the bible he certainly isn't the god of love or logic that is for sure.

    Zeitgeist might be full of inaccuracies and out right lies but the fact is Christianity in all it's forms has its fundamental roots in paganism. Take away the pagan elements and all you have is another version of Judaism with another false messiah to add to the list. The ancient and modern Jews/Hebrews had a tendency to absorb pagan ideas, Christianity is one of them.

    You probably only get one life to live don't waste it by lying to yourselves.

  182. Everyone Take Care....

    One day I see the hatred for Christians coming to life. Believe what you want. I dont understand the name calling.

    We all have the same destiny. (dirt) Who knows afterward?

  183. Way to make a bad situation worse. Despite the the fact that the movie Zeitgeist makes a very week argument against Christianity and religion in general, this movie utterly fails to draw new light to the argument. Further more the film maker seems to deny the influence of Astrology on all religions. It goes even further to illustrate linguistic parallels which support evidence of the Egyptian origins of Christianity while trying to refute that very argument. The unenlightened might very well fall for the tricks of fast talking film makers like this one, or the makers of Zeitgeist, but, anyone with even a basic knowledge of Etymology and symbolism can see through the veil of political rhetoric. Because, that what this is. Political propaganda under the mask if Christianity. This film is yet another example of modern people acting as if they know more about ancient people than ancient people did.

    P.S. To the Film Maker: Etymology is the study of the roots of modern language. You may want study this before making another movie that makes you look as uninformed as you do now.

  184. Ohh i miss yeats hhaah 50.000 years ago :) :) sorry and thank you.

  185. You see the new discovery about new human race-Denisovans
    I wanna tell you that 50.000 Alien race come here and build civilization and new race(MODERN HUMAN) to work for this GODS...Read sumerian's story they will tell you how human was created ! Now tell me who build 27.000 years old PYRAMID in BOsnia ?? HAAA...HAA !!?? WHO ?? It is possible that something come from another star to our planet!! Open your mind, dont be blind and stop watching TV !!!

  186. @ docugeek

    ""I LOVE THIS VIDEO. it shoots itself in the foot at about 6 minutes in when he says “december 25th has nothing to do with birth of jesus, it was added by roman catholic church in 4th century AD.” I assume that was when emporer constantine held a council at nicea and compiled the christian religion out of pagan festivals. i.e. saturnalia on dec 25th became christmas. therefore would it not be possible that the rest of the reilgion was a pic’n'mix designed to unite the roman empire?"""

    I think you are missing the point entirely. That is exactly what he is trying to say, that the Roman version of christianity is an edited version of the original christianity. It didnt start with Constantine, christianity existed from the 1st century. When the Romans got hold of it, they edited it and added these simillarities to pagan religeon to make it sit better with its people. Other religeons and beliefs were also edited after the original christianity to mirror things in christianity, so while they have their origins pre-jesus, the mirroring of christianity was not somethign added untill post-jesus times.

    What can be taken from this is that ZGs attempts to suggest christianity was formed from other myths and religeons is faulse, christianity was not formed this way, rather christianity and these other religeons have been edited and soiled over time SINCE christianity was formed.

  187. Not saying that everything in Zeitgeist is (excuse the pun) gospel, however it appears to me that this film doesn't do a great job of fully refuting the piece. Instead it takes small issues, briefly explains why the Bible says it's wrong and then moves on quickly before answering possible questions with their theory. Citing a debatable source and calling it "Biblical truth" does little to help credibility.
    That said I state again that there were many problems with Zeitgeist but this refutation is inadequate to confront it.

  188. A smart man once said,
    "Christianity, that's a good idea. When are they going to put it into practice!?"

  189. @The entire post.

    Listen at you jackals. How many of you truly think you
    would be worthy of the love of Jesus Christ. Man is corrupt and always has been, Your reply is that the Creator is either a myth or God is corrupt for making such cruel beings as we are! Many of you will find out soon when you get a pain in a certain part of the body and you go to your Dr. and then when he says Sir or Ma'am you're ready to die. How many of you will call upon God, Please God, No God! Deny me now and I will deny you then!

  190. Surely I'm not the only one who laughs at the idiocy of those who condemn other beliefs yet believe Zeitgeist is in any way based in reality.

  191. Actually I would disagree that paganism is of the same mindset as Christianity, Islam and Judaism. All three of these religions are monotheist whereas paganism is polytheist. Christianity and Islam also claim to believe in the same Jewish God.

    What's interesting is what Justin said about todays religion becoming the futures mythology. Judaism has been around for a very long time, back when polytheism was still widely practiced. Yet it has survived polytheism. Do you ever wonder why that is? All of these other mythological faiths died out with the changes in culture and the falling of their empires.

    The Jewish people are no different regarding their own history of national rise and decline yet their religion didn't die out. There must be some truth to what they believe to hold onto it for all of this time.

  192. I LOVE seeing on here that their are so many people with their heads on straight and can think for themselves! Living in Utah drives me NUTS because they're so brainwashed here by fanatical religion. It's good to see there are other educated thinkers out there besides myself who see it all for what it truly is...myths, lies, fables, people's false hopes that something paranormal and magical REALLY can exist...but no proof is ever shown for it, which only encourages them even more to keep believing in something with no proof because in some messed up way, by not having proof it even MORE SO validates to them that it's true because their isn't any proof! Wow, now that's really a mind *uck!

    So Zeus and Jupiter must have really been real (to the Pagans) right? It's the same kind of thinking people! Christianity, Muslim, Islam, etc. Are all the same idea of thinking.

  193. It's so simple people: I don't believe in the Bible because i don't believe in Mother Goose or Jack In The Beanstalk.

  194. Today's religion will be the future's mythology. Both believed at one time by many; but proved to be wrong by the clever.

  195. Why wouldn't they use the bible as a reference? It is one of the main sources used in the Zeitgeist documentary.

  196. And yet people believe the outright lies in Zeitgeist w/ zero evidence. The irony is lost on most.

  197. Kay, first of all I shut it off after the narrator starting using the Bible as a reference for information. It was interesting at first, but you lost me when he started quoting the Bible as some truth over evidence.

  198. The bottom line is that if you didn't watch the film you have no right to comment on it.

  199. well science and logic mostly relies on everything reamining the same in order for them to work as if everythign was random and dynamic science would have a problem as there is always the assumptiion A +B will always = C now and in the future and that reliability in an ordered universe makes no sense otherwise ,

    the 1st and second laws of thermodynamics are another thing that cause issues with evolution as does angular momentum ,

    another question to ask why does langauge only go back serveral thousand years , the fossi record : thats not consistent only in text books : as for fossils themselves they are dated on the rocks and the rocks dated on the fossils another form of cirular reasoning .

    there would be more space dust if universe was larger ,
    a star dies approx every 30 years roughly 300 documented : where is a star documented as being born not just getting brighter

    if the differnt levles of rock depict differnt ages why are many trees petrified / fossilied standing up going hrough many layers , they wouldnt remain vertical for that many years as they would just rot away .

    carbon dating : inconclusive

    a world wide flood and 8 people surviving is a common belief among many many cultures

  200. Watching this is a waste of electricity. We are seriously asked to believe that the physical body of Jesus floated up to heaven (who saw this? nobody!)as well as the physical bodies of every human that ever lived will, on the "Day of Judgment" will rise out of their graves and fy up to Jesus to be judged, and hopefully to PHYSICALLY live in a non-material, astral environment. Evidently many people, even today, are born several hundred years too late.

  201. @Keith

    On the point of philosophers and writers during the 1st Century not commenting on Jesus, they would really have no reason to do so.

    The movement of 'The Way' was seen as just that, the movement of a newly created Jewish sect and hardly worth dealing with. There had been many movements, rebellions and individuals claiming to be the messiah and this one wasn't seen as any different. It seemed to have "caught fire" and spread much faster and stuck around much better than others. But the writers of the time would not have seen this sect as the greatest event in history as Christianity claims it to be today.

    I suggest reading a book called The Case for Christ, by author Lee Strobel.

    Sure he interviews Christian professors but there are always two sides to every argument and this book delivers a good argument for the side of Christianity.

    Feel free to suggest sources for me to read that support your claims as well and I will read them.

    Have a good one and God bless.

  202. so the pagans were wrong about the sun standing still for three days - yet a man coming back to life seems historically accurate. And citing theologian sources is a biased way to argue a point. 0 out of 10 for proffessionalism

  203. @SCB It's not brain science. But you'd actually have to watch or read something and not just rely on your own bias to get you by.

    @Keith. That's a whole lot of bias there Keith. For someone who suggest research you may want to try harder.

  204. @JustG - wut?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    @Aaron Maxwell - I completely agree

    Can't prove that the bible is truth with extracts from the bible!
    I didn't get past 5mins.

  205. zeitgeist debunked,The Da Vinci Code debunked,why? because Jesus never existed.
    first century:
    Philo (20 bce-50 ce)
    Helenistic Jewish Biblical Philosopher
    exact contemporary of Jesus,never knew of a Christ that could be made flesh than he knew of a Jesus in human form.
    Seneca (c.1 bc in 65 c)
    Roman Stoic,Philosopher
    Greatest Roman writer on ethics of his time has nothing to say about Jesus or Christianity.124 letters dealing with moral issues.
    Irenaeus (c 130-c 200c.e)
    Bishop of Lyons,one of the earliest Church Fathers,believed that Gods word could never be incarnate in one man.
    Josephus (c 37-100)
    Jewish historian,wrote "Antiquities of the Jews"
    the passage the Christian refer to this number 18.63-64(the name of Jesus appears).The lack of reference of this in the 2 and 3 century of the Christian fathers.It appeared for the first time in the 4 century by,Eusebius (church historian).Scholars have discussed this in detail,the vast majority find to questioned it's authenticity.as well as Eusebius creditability at all.
    There are others of this time,Pliny,Tacitus,Suetonius all wrote of Christians,the grand total of 24 lines.The greatest historical event in the history of the world.Bible Scholar Harry Elmer Barnes believes these to be forgeries,as well as many other bible scholars.
    There is no hard,historical evidence for Jesus existence coming out of the first century, period.What about the Gospels?.There is the four Gospels (over 20 as of now),but these are the only ones to make it in the Bible,a little odd.There is no autographed manuscript of any of the four Gospels that have ever come to light and not one credible witness has ever claimed to have seen one.It is intended to be read as a mythology and not as a literal event.
    The birth of Christ was celebrated in the spring, until the year 345,no one knew the actual date so Pope Julius changed it to Dec.25,three days after the winter solstices.So Jesus celebrates his birthday with Mithra,Dionysus,Horus and many more.Pope Leo the Great had to tell Church members to stop worshiping the sun in the 5 century,and that is only a small faction of Christian history.It is all there to read, just have to do a lot of research.And no I'am not a Atheist,just a seeker of the truth.Christian reply,Satan placed all this in history to confuse and make us wander away from Christianity.Very amusing stuff.

  206. @Aaron. Funny how you people always seem to think you know what you're talking about, yet jump to ridiculous conclusions based on nothing but your own bias.

  207. Ten minutes into this 'documentary' it was quite clear that that the filmaker's refutation of Zeitgeist is the contention that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. No point watching further.

  208. okay... it is understandable that some people are atheists and don't want to accept that Jesus is real
    but the real point of this movie is to show that the claims that Zeitgeist made were false, imbellished, or completely invented...
    meaning that Zeitgeist has been debunked, so there is no way you can say that this "confirms zeitgeist", every point zeitgeist made is debunked methodically and using scholarly sources, you can't argue with that
    study ancient religions for yourself before you think you know more than the scholars and primary sources quoted in this film

  209. After watching these videos, I am failing to see why there are so many negative views on them. I don't understand how people are saying that there are no refutations made and that this is such a soft argument against zeitgeist, when the creator of this documentary is using the same methods for delivering information as the creator of zeitgeist did.

    Are you all saying that his information is false based on the sources that he uses Egyptologists, Astrologists and astrophysicists. All of these individuals are professionals in their fields and they say that the zeitgeist information paralleling Mythology to Christianity and its sources are not credible and false. How do the things that these individuals say have zero credibility?

    I can understand that the feelings about the creator of these movies are that he is not credible but what makes the creator of zeitgeist so much more credible?

    The way that I see it is one individual has an agenda (made very clear by his proceeding two videos) and the other individual is merely claiming that zeitgeist is false. He is not, to my understanding, voicing that we should all be Christians but rather is saying that Christianity is not a product of mythological parallels and here is why.

  210. Isn't it humorous that so many criticize this and openly admit that they can't even bother to watch? I have to say, it's not wonder you like Zeitgeist. Certainly, you also can't be bothered to check the facts of that piece either.

    Have we never heard of mixing lies w/ the truth so that it becomes more believable? That's what they did here. Took events like 911 and mixed it w/ religion in order to discredit religion. It therefore seems only logical that those of faith would point out the inconsistencies and outright lies told. And that is what we have here.

    If you think there are any accurate comparisons between Christ and Krishna or Horus, you should spend less time criticizing and more time upgrading your education.

    What you are failing to see is that the point of Zeitgeist is not to call for the so-called eutopia you are all waiting for, but to destroy Christianity. It is clearly a new age tool intended to indoctrinate the masses. Ironic I know.

  211. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
    Worst publicity ever for christianity a real disaster
    watch the zeitgeist works and make your own mind

  212. Such A desperate attempt... i'll like to suggest the author to read more about hindus.
    Traditionally, the authorship of the Mahabharata is attributed to Vyasa. There have been many attempts to unravel its historical growth and compositional layers. The earliest parts of the text are not appreciably older than around 400 BCE. The text probably reached its final form by the early Gupta period (ca. 4th c. CE). If Mahabarata is so old then how come Bhagavata Purana which is tails of Krishna teenage dated after that....
    If that author is suggesting that Bhagavata Purana is copied from Christianity then i would request him to run around a tree with the speed of light so that he can F*** him self

  213. An abominable excuse for a serious documentary.

    Religion, or what some call faith, is nothing more than sheer wilful ignorance. Those who practice it are by default bereft of reason, clinically delusional and manically closed-minded; those who propagate it are either more so, or very smart and highly malicious.

    The more I hear of it, the more I see of it, the more I lose the will to live.

  214. Wow, discrediting a documentary about discrediting the bible, WITH the bible. Im convinced christians have no sense of irony. This is a lot like the christians in Texas wanting to ban the book about book banning because they burn a bible in the story.

  215. I couldnt bring myself to watch another second of this rubbish!! What a complete waste of time!
    Zeitgeist isnt just about religion.......free your minds from the slavery of the life we now live in!!!

  216. I can't really bring myself to even watch this. I'm expecting it to be one long "religion IS true" video, which I don't like or hate, but that's not a refutation of the Zeitgeist movement at ALL. Someone tell me they explore other areas than the religion part (the least important and certainly least debatable part of the whole film) of the film.

  217. Now this was a complete wast of time. I accept that for most of this crape I was sleeping, But still this was a wast of time, brain cell, ear and eye nerves.

    Now Jesus must be certain that for what a useless cause he was crucified for!

  218. As others have said, this documentary is utterly ridiculous. On the other hand, some of the anti christian and anti religious comments are just plain bigoted. Just because one is factually correct doesn't keep them from being an @$$hole.

  219. one of the most stupid and ridiculous documentaries i have ever watched.

  220. hahahahaha it is so funny when he uses the "conspiracy" voice to say silly things like the "Dunkin Donuts Discount" reference!

    It is a sad documentary though, really... those people just CAN'T be taken seriously. For ALL the reasons the commentators before me have mentioned.

  221. hello...
    my family is catholic so am i... i did everything the church asks, baptism, comunion, etc. but now i'm not intereste in religion since a long time ago. i'm 29... how many times do they tell you "the bible is the word of god"? that's the biggest lie ever!! it's NOT the word of god, and isn't even written by him... st marcus, st peter, st whatever?? c'mon. i respect the people who believe and those who don't, but i look at the religious fanatics and thank that i'm not one of them. it's a neverending talk, believers will always have an answer for whatever you ask, but seems like popes and priests are now being left by god because a lot of them have been discovered raping kids.. am i wrong??? and what's the believers or the church's answer???? i agree in one thing, it's ok to believe in something, it's a human thing, that moves something inside us, "i can't do this, but with the help of god i will" then you go and do it. that's THE ONLY good thing. but RELIGION is way different to that, take a look at the vatican, are worried on humanity illness, poverty, hunger, war???? they say they are, they pray for everyone of us, they "spread" the word of god to help us. How in the heck does that help us??? they are worried but they do NOTHING! and there's people ginving them money. god doesn't need money at all, does he? like i said, it's a neverending talk with people who believe. i do believe in god,but i don't believe in the humans that live from us, period. have a nice day you all...

  222. BUCKYY!!!!! ur the best
    love ur tutorials

  223. Thanks poster(s)! You saved me at least an hour or more that I'd never get back! Was a Zeitgeist fan. Read a bunch of info countering Peter Joseph, and wasn't sure, now I'm back on the Zeitgeist train! For good! The man is absolutely BRILLIANT! My only area of contention in the first Zeitgeist movie was historical data about Jesus. But, I love it when I come across something that makes me THINK!

  224. It amazes me how a Documentary like this can be taken seriously. Of all the Docs on this website that i've seen throughout the years I can honestly say this one is complete and utter nonsense. For those of you that actually believe in and support this bullocks, may God have mercy on your soul. *snickers*

  225. I LOVE THIS VIDEO. it shoots itself in the foot at about 6 minutes in when he says "december 25th has nothing to do with birth of jesus, it was added by roman catholic church in 4th century AD." I assume that was when emporer constantine held a council at nicea and compiled the christian religion out of pagan festivals. i.e. saturnalia on dec 25th became christmas. therefore would it not be possible that the rest of the reilgion was a pic'n'mix designed to unite the roman empire?

  226. Some of history was washed away, does makes it difficult to recall. The need to have concepts and principle analyze by breaking them down into minute details diverts the energy of them and allows divergent trips into dead end ventures. The first attempts at application must be reasonable and believable in order to reach the "knowable level of acceptance. Thanks kindly for sharing an interest in advancing mankind with the video, Easter eggs, and Gods, etc. Peace and Harmony to all.

  227. The narrator is too annoying to hear for so long. A better idea would be to make a completely original movie/documentary. I can't see this kind of tit for tat immaturity being viewed by as many people as necessary to retract the Zeitgeist following. Poor effort.

  228. Anyone here have facebook? I would love to have some of you guys partake on my discussion boards!

  229. I have to comment because of some of the silly comments about this film and yet those that are leaving these silly messages haven't even watched the Zeitgeist movie at all. Nor have they have researched on thier own any of the infomation about it.

    Those that say that this is great evidence on refuting the original movie are pretty much christians. Believers of the faith.They show continuously to follow without questioning it and anything that does question it is automatically wrong. This is why they use circular logic and are to afraid to research outside of that boundry. The fear of being wrong is against thier internal ego. Why do you think that they all become hypocrits sooner or later? Religions of this kind are built to feed that ego. How else do you think that they feel it is ok to judge and go against the law? They have the power of repenting and that makes them think that it is ok to do so...they will be forgiven no matter what. Circular logic begats circular which inturn just begats more circular logic. However, it doesn't prove squat and I find it to be irrehensible and grotesque. It makes me feel sorry for all those that follow without searching for the real truth. No wonder why so many are so easily deceived by churches these days.

    You cannot make a documentary with people that hold the same opinions as the one making the documentary. You can not call it true information because of that. If this doc proved the original movie wrong then why not interview the other side of the coin and then disprove thier opinions instead of trying to use people that are believers as well as you to disprove it? That alone discredits this film as truthful.

  230. While I did denounce the presenter of this movie as a possible bigot, I cannot dispel the compelling evidences with which he made his case. I am glad that I did watch this movie. Good job!

  231. The presenter of this program loses my credibility when he mentions one of the sources for the movie Zeitgeist as an HOMOSEXUAL (at 8:28 time frame in the movie). However, he didn't put a label of Heterosexual on others mentioned. Hence, he has almost NO objectivity and a probably bigot.
    Besides, I am a believer of Christ. In fact, I believe that Christ is GOD!

  232. Well...*somebody* obviously took Zeitgeist totally the wrong way...wow, pretty vitriolic response; you can tell this guy delved deep into the books to research this response. Reminds me of when rappers diss each others and have mic wars over who's the baddest MC. 'Aww, hell naw...no you di'nt! You ain't jus' talk about Jesus dat way! I'm original gangsta, original creatah, call me King or just Jah, but I'ma destroy you all, just don't call me Allah....'. Sorry for the bad rap...just needed to occupy my mind somehow to avoid it from being completely shut off by this doco while I decide what to watch next. Though, I gotta say, there were some racy parts....Zeus is spankin' the monkey and ejaculates on a mountain, and it turns into a *real* seed for a tree...then later on some chick (no disrespect, just keepin' in character...remember I'm really a horse...and just how do you think Centaurs came about, hmm?) some chick comes and sticks an almond up her...ya know. And then has a baby. LOL - that story beats the Stork thing any day!

    Truly, though, since there wasn't any TV, the ancients had to entertain themselves by telling great fairy tales, each which would have had to top the previous one to keep people entertained. So...just like songs might borrow a phrase or bit of riff here or there, or hip-hoppers might sample song fragments, I'm sure there was some artistic cross-pollination happening back in the day. Thank god (lol) we've got the scientific method to explore our world now, and we have to prove things to each other based on rules instead of just spinnin' yarns. THe only thing really offensive about the Bible and that other Jewish book the Torah is the way they treat kids, babies and such. Man, I ain't into that kiddie p*** c***. Other than that, pretty brutal - lots of senseless violence, blood and gore, ritualistic slaughter, war, and crazy stuff like that ordered by "God" himself.

    But too bad that none of those Gods could figure out a way to conjure a freaking CD in English or some other modern language and then command it to go to #1 on the charts...that way people could hear the girl in Her own words, and not have to project their own human insecurities, anthropocentrism, sexism, and other human faults onto God's otherwise spotless character (despite the propensity for needless violence, apparently just for entertainment, though that part's probably made up too. I guess that's the thing with all fairy tales - at the core is some sort of moral or undeniable fact around which an intricate, racy, elaborate fiction is spun. It's just that, I guess not much different from now, sometimes people have trouble separating entertainment from reality and the search for real truth. I don't mind Jesus or God of the Christian faith; they're invented to be more interesting than most mundane gods, though the writer(s) could have stuck some bestiality up in the story to keep the readers more riveted; then they wouldn't have had to kill so many people just to sell their book. Sick people. Masters of duality as well as fiction, unfortunately.

    Too much ergot-laden wheat affecting their brains back in the day. Well...I think I've given this documentary the appropriate amount of serious analysis and commentary to which it's entitled, so I'll gallop out now. Anyone down to breed with a hot stallion and create a modern-day God? It's about time for a new one....*the stallion swishes his tail, pricks his ears, and widens his eyes as if to raise eyebrows suggestively* I promise to be gentle - I'm a good horse. Anyway, final thought: if anyone wants a customised saying that'll get attention like a custom T-shirt but set to music on your own original song, get with me on the website above - ain't tryin to spam, but couldn't miss this opportunity to let y'all know what I do, given the subject matter. p.s., if you're too freaked out to touch it, I could leave some behind for whoever wants some (there's plenty to go around!)...and y'all can conceive Zeus style. But you'd be missing out. Who said evolution can't be just as *fun* as these ridiculous religions, huh? Love, StallionHorse

  233. ahahah, its really funny how these biased christians try to say that hindu texts from 3000-2000BC are post-jesus.... ridiculous, pathetic and absurd. Krishna dates, as commonly understood, 2500BC.

  234. Pity the fools who take as granteed everything that is said.
    Make your own researches and make your own conclusions, losers.

  235. wow. alot of info to compute! i still don't believe there is or was a god... just because of adam and eve(sinners) we have to pay the price?!? that seems fair.. little children dying of stavation because adam ate an apple... cmon people.. and he was raised by a snake?!? milk!!! the ability to speak/walk/love/ reproduce was all taught by a snake... and why did god change his mind on certain bible stories(this is what i think they actually are (stories).. you know how you tell your children bed time stories.. like new testament... and the old... why the difference's if it's the word of god!!! who is responsible for the changes... it also said that after jesus died no one wrote about him for 50 years and how accurate is that? so i guess the goverment will release the real info on 911 50 years later.
    one thing that really makes me think is his name jesus.....
    it's latin.....jesus was supposed to be a jew?!? yes/no...
    some good entertaining stories thou...

  236. Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Refuted both offer convincing arguments, questionable sources, and reasonable doubts. However, only one has it’s roots in common sense.
    I’ll go with that one.

  237. The original Zeitgeist agrees with everything you say and gives FACTS and explanations not given in your Department Of Education issued western civics books. WATCH Zeitgeist.

  238. Could they have found a lesser man to narrate this? Maybe a kindergartner who stutters. I like how it doesn't touch at all on the financial/political facts of the OG Zeitgeist. It's funny that every person who likes this movie is a severely undereducated westerner that hasn't even seen the original Zeitgeist. Christianity on a global scale is a small religion compared to Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism. It's severally divide (over 11,00 factions and growing) The only thing that makes it so well known is the root of all evil, money. All the great, note worthy minds within christian societies were secular nonbelievers. If you are trying to counter the last point I made make sure the person you note followed the bible and wasn't desperate to organize a movement wile recovering from cultural genocide resulting in forced christianity (no slave owners, people who slept around or civil-rights figureheads) READ A NONFICTION BOOK PLEASE. SAVE OUR CHILDREN.

  239. Q. Why do you celebrate Jesus' birthday on the winter solstice and his resurrection on the spring solstice?
    A. Because you are a modern day surf/peasant, happy to prolong separation as long as you can say you belong. Not even considering the unification natural, logical explanations for the bible could bring. The barer of fish, I mean the figurehead for the conscience revolution for the age of Pisces would be proud of the OG Zeitgeist.

  240. I have allot of counter points for the retard who produced this(and any poor sap who sides with him), too many to list. If I only referenced current, wide spread, standard university text I might be able to fit the facts on a two page word document; bullet point style, back to back. I've studied the subject vastly as a christian and knew that christianity in a community sense was at best a tool for unification. When I saw the OG Zeitgeist documentary I thought "thats awesome somebody gave the harshly written bible some natural value to the common man".

    To me it made the Christian traditions respectable. Whether used to unify or enslave. The OG Zeitgeist was dumbed down and left a bunch of stuff out. I'd like to say that the producer of the movie above found any hole or gap in information it could and attacked it using out of context references or people with a bias degree and otherwise no real credibility. Almost every scholar in opinion would say jesus(in the context of the bible) was a story figure and nothing else. Could you imagine a educated man thinking water could be turned into wine instantly.

    "it doesn't matter how much heart you have if you aren't mindful enough to use it wisely." THANKS FOR PROLONGING THE SEPARATION OF PEOPLE AND IDEAS. Burn in hell Keith Thompson. Lastly after scouring the internet for a few hours not one secular scholar I found thought Christianity's ideas or stories were original (Quite a bold lie at the top of this page.)

  241. Come on guys, this is ridiculus. I have heard about five different opinions on how the christian faith got started and who founded the catholic church. Did you guys not take western civics or something? Christianity was a product of the first monotheistic religion. Created about four thousand years ago in Canaan it was called Judaism. This established religion conflicted with the new religion proposed by Jesus called christianity as it did not believe that Jesus was devine or the son of god. It also had many rituals and allowed certain things in the temple that Jesus did not like, so he founded christianity as an alternative to Judaism and in so doing got himself turned into the Romans who where in power at the time. Even though the Romans crucified Jesus they also eventually made Christianity the official Roman religion, under Constatine. Then we see the Roman Catholic church get formed. The Catholic church also split because of disagreements on procedure and hierarchy, the new Catholic church was called the orthodox catholic church and was centered in the east. The west remained faithful to the pope and was centered around the Vatican. The orthodox church denies the procession of laying on of hands and says the pope is a fraud. They have a college of cardinals that dictate procedure and so forth. Then many hundreds of years later comes Martin Luther whom creates protestant religion, meaning any Christian religion that is not catholic and believes in personal preisthood. Of course we see that the protestant religion has split into many denominations. This is the history in a nutshell, wether you guys like it or not. It is simply what happened.

  242. very nicely put kurrrt ;)

  243. Almost 4 Billion people on the planet, among as many opinions. All human knowledge is fallible, all claims to ultimate or absolute truth questionable. Hypotheses should be taken as tentive, for even well established principles may later be modified in the light of new evidence or more comprehensive explanations.
    Does aiming your bible deception towards other deceptions helping yours? The existence of occult, paranormal, miracles, or transcendent realities, have not been- always skeptical? Does 2010 science find God or The Devil to be living entities? Or simply figures of speech. Reading from the deep deception of various writtings of the past telling todays truth in only your messages?
    Humankind today does not witness angels flying in the sky. Does the hundreds of thousands who have witnessed UFO's tend to choose a modern correction to the past? The space shuttle will waist massave fuel amounts and use millions of pounds of thrust to gain enterence into the outter atmosphere. Yet we witness those who effortlessly come and go at lightspeeds in beamships.
    Indeed, calm, resolute and unbending intention that underlines all forms of decision, actions and thoughts will bring about more positive changes in one life span than thousands of years of aggressive misuse of each other.

  244. I am repelled by the concept of God being so incapable of forgiveness and empathy that he required the torture death of an of His son in order to allow believers to be saved.

  245. guys there is no god son of god lol please

  246. people need to understand the Jesus was never named Christ as the word itself came from the first "gentiles" to believe in Jesus, the greeks, the term means anointed one. they also need to understand that the romans were the next big gentile followers and that took a couple hundred years. and what people commonly refer to as the catholic church is actually the roman catholic church. which is the same church that cause most of the evils. there were many catholic churches but because the romans were the most savage and killed off or became more powerful then the other we never hear of the others, but they are still strong they are called the orthodox and they dont have the history or evil that the roman catholic church has. the reason i say these things is becuase there is a huge confusion about christ, and the catholic church. i am a christian becuase i do belive in Jesus and what he did. but i also dont believe in organized religion becuase Jesus never had an organized church nor did he have a building. plus we have to be smart enough to realize that things do get lost in translation. and considering there is no way that the first gospel writers ever used the word christ, (again becuase it was a greek word) nor even used the word gospel to be fair, we have to understand that many many things had to have been lost or changed and yes even munipulated in translation. and i make that point becuase people say that religions has caused on these problems. but its not religions its the evils of men and women who abuse it. just like with anything else that is abused. its the manipulations that made it bad and the power that evil people got from it, not the root. and there are more things then religion that can fit in that catagory. peace.

  247. @zed
    so true, most "christians" really have no idea how their beleifs have come to be, like fact that most seem to believe in some combination of Calvinism theology with a Scofield interpretation of the "endtime" and milleniunism etc.

  248. Dr. Norman Geisler is the author or co-author of some 70 books and hundreds of articles.  He has taught theology, philosophy, and apologetics on the college or graduate level for 50 years.  He has spoken or debated in some 26 countries on six continents. He has a B.A, M.A., Th.B., and Ph.D (in philosophy). He has taught at some of the top Seminaries in the United States, including Trinity Evangelical and Dallas Seminary and currently he is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, CA

    Notice how he's an evangelist? Now why would an evangelist with plenty of degrees under him refute this? Well, we know why. But, all else aside for having all that you'd think he'd take the time to get his information correct. Paganism is the route BEFORE Egytians had thier beliefs and yet he compares the Egyptian religion? Funny how he'll never do that unless he could use it in his own favor. However, he IS an intelligent man. But nieve. He refutes Zietgiest with false information.

  249. why do so many 'people' on this site claim to be christian but not catholic? catholic = christian. there is no other christian bible older than 200 years at maximum. most of them were made up in the in the 1920s in the begining of brain washing.
    if you're a none-catholic christian then you're a deluded cutist, even worse than normal christians.
    magic is not real a magic man did create the world get over it.

  250. i've never heard so much blaitant lying in all my life! every historian knows that the resurection myths and other cult beliefs that the bible was later based on are all recycled time and time again. every single word of the bible is plagerised from other much earlier religions. over 5000 years before christianity the indians had all these myths not to mention all the masonic religions or the jews! the 'people' who made this should not be being given money to make this confusionist propaganda. just because someone argues that jesus was actualy a watermellon does not mean that we have to accept that as one of the possibillities. these liars think they can just go around saying anything and that people will be stupid enough to believe it, and now we will see people quoting this rubbish in debates and saying that it is just as valid as any other explanation. but its not!

  251. I think many of you missed the true point of the first Zeitgeist film. It was meant to be facetious, illuminating how things from the past can be interpenetrated in many ways to draw several inferences. This has been going on for hundreds of years. Just look at Christianity itself, with so many sects of that religion, all different interpretations.

    This is the main problem with language, which is why the subsequent following Zeitgeist film put emphasis using the scientific method and critical thinking.

  252. I use to doubt too. Something happened in my life (A revelation/vision of Hell). I began to realize that a God does exist because I stopped lying to myself to appease my conscious. I knew that I couldn't bribe my way into heaven as a criminal working good deeds. I nearly went mad when a new revelation came to me. I had a vision of Christ suffering upon the cross the wrath that was I would of had to undergo if not for his unblemished life and worthy sacrifice. No one ever before told me who he was. I just thought he was a teacher. Never before did I recall him as the one true son of God until then. I was born again. Those words (born again) have such a profound meaning now. I use to think it was just some sort of poetry, yet now I know you are truly turned into a new creature. I fear now for those who are still blind.

  253. I think that it is important to note that the great strength of republican and imperial Rome was the ability to assimilate and adapt! We can clearly see this in the way republican Rome took the Greek gods and made their own version. Its a case of seeing a powerful idea that worked and was useful in some way, recognizing the power and absorbing this version into popular Roman culture for their own purpose.

    Exactly the same thing happened with christianity. The Roman governors saw how powerful an idea this was ( people would die for this belief!) and assimilated these ideas into their own pagan system. Hence the Astro/nomical/logical ideas in the NT of the bible are remnants of the older religion that remain in the 'new and improved' Roman version of christianity.

    There are historical timeline checks that can be made to this idea and it is really important to notice that many of the writers of the NT had a Roman interest and backing. No idea appears fully formed and there is always a connection to the previous older ideas.

    @JC 'I simply believe that these 2 documentaries should be separate if you wish to have any cohesive discussion about what the films present.' Thats a fair point, but not all inclusive.

  254. @JC

    Well here I have copied the answers to this bogus refuttal film for you here since you couldn't find them on your own.

    1. The Mike Licona person speaking in the beginnign about non of the pagan gods before christian was actually before christianity…um Eygptian culture and religion has been around since 4,000 BC. that is 4,001 years before Jesus ever walked the earth. The Persians use to own the land of Israel back before Jesus was even on earth. We know and can date the Greek mythology gods and culture way before Jesus ever lived on earth. These are facts and it is common sense knowledge. What about Krishna? As a matter of fact this Licona character even states that there are sources that can accoutn of Jesus’ life within 150 years of his life. However, they can’t accoutn for the very years of Jesus’ life like the bible supposedly does?

    2. The oldest known religious documents are the Samaritan texts and yet not one of them speak of Jesus at all. As a matter of fact Jesus actually doesn’t appear in texts until after the A.D. era begins around the 66 A.D. mark. This proves that all pagan ritualistic gods before him were in fact in place and worshipped. This also proves that the resurrection of these gods, miracles and birth dates preceeded Jesus by at least 1,000 years.

    3. The Narrator speaks of everyone adopting the theory in the Zeitgeist movie as fact without proper investigation. I find it funny and odd that those who say such things believe in a text that they don’t properly investigate either. That is why when asked why they believe it they always say, ” faith “. This shows that the author of this so called refuttal is going to give you a biased look at HIS interpretation and show what HE calls facts to support his theory.

    4. It is absolute fact that the New Testament was put together by the Catholic indoctrinations or “brotherhood” as the narrator calls it. This has been documented over and over again.

    5. In Hebrews Ch8 Verse 4 the bible states:”If Jesus was actually on earth he would not have been a preacher at all.” NIV Bible 2005. Let me point out that preacher=pastor=rabbi=teacher. Jesus refers to himself as the only true rabbi and teacher.

    6. All the sources quoted in this first episode show nothing that factually disproves anything stated in the Zeitgeist movie. They only refer to speculation or complex inference in which the data is complicated and opens the door to individual interpretation. No facts just more of the same specualtion that they are accusing the authors of anti christian books and the Zeitgeist movie of doing. All of them are Theology or Religious Studies scholars so they are of course going to state what they believe in with out properly investigating it. Oh and by the way isn’t the bible all about complicated data that is open to undividual interpretation as well?

    7. Interesting to me is that the narrator begins speaking of Horus and states an actual fact. Scholars and the bible do refer to Jesus’ birth as being in the spring. However what the narrator is not telling you is why the date Dec 25th is important and is worldly practiced as his birth to this day. The fact is that regardless of what the bible states about it at all we really do not know because it still could have been Dec 25th. Do you really think that the climate has always been the same on earth as we know it today? The biblical texts talks of warm days and a hot sun during the birth of Jesus. Scientific recods show that during the switch over of BC to AD that the climate was indeed different as were the seasons. Research that one and then look at the Global Warming nonsense going on right now.

    8. The Eygptian Book of the Dead does in fact refer to Isis as a virgin during Horus birth. Oh wait we may have mistranslated that and yet we did not mistranslate the bible at all. Seriously people? Give me a break!

    9. This quote about Mairt is incorrect. The book of the Dead does in fact refer to Isis as Mairt and that it is reference to her name as such.

    1o. This is all refuttal of the refuttal in the first episode of this supposed refuttal. I do not wish to continue this viewing because it is obvious to me that it is bias information with no facts at all and most of what it claims as facts is inapropriately cited and misused. The credibility of the author and narrator in this refuttal has been shot down and shows that in fact, this refuttal is more dishonest than the Zeitgeist information is.

    My response to Beaux is this: The Dec 25th birthdate was transposed and given to Jesus from the pagan gods before him. The "christian" beliefs and the bible are no different than they are. It is just another telling of them. The fact that all these similarities between these dieties are known is a form of common sense. It suprises me then that it is ok for "christians" to look at the pagan religions and state that of course they are all a like, but when it comes to the similarities of the "christian" religion and the pagan religions you all act like it is blasphemy and a down right lie. However, not one of you have ever debunked the connections and similarities.

  255. @ Epicurean_Logic

    My comments do not need to be all-inclusive. I enjoy this site, but most people are bias in some way, and that's okay. Whether it was a conscious act or not to put these films together isn't my claim. I simply believe that these 2 documentaries should be separate if you wish to have any cohesive discussion about what the films present.

    Many of these comments are too dismissive of Christians to be of any relevance to what Keith was pointing out in "Exposed". If he's not using the Bible as a source, then it shouldn't matter if he believes in God. Instead of a mass of "logical" people coming out and declaring that Zeitgeist Part 1 has holes, I see comments which scream out self-imposed ignorance and hate. Where are all the logical atheist and agnostics that usually troll these threads?

  256. OK. At least 8318. I am prone to the odd excaggeration.

  257. @JC, you said,

    'Why these two documentaries would even be on the same page is quite telling of the host.'

    geez. everyones a critic!

    'Promoting confusion and suppressing viable dialogue on a very interesting subject seems to be the result.'

    What you fail to mention is that Vlatko has posted thousands of docs, and has helped promote discussion and eduacate a lot of people(at least 8324). promoting confusion? Gimme a break. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

    1. Hmmm... From where did you get 8324.

  258. I didn't watched "Refuted" because I already know what the Bible says (for the most part). However, I'm really boggled at the response, or should I say lack thereof, to Keith Thompson's assertions in "Zeitgeist Exposed" to Part 1 of Zeitgeist. The absolute ignorance in the opposing comments is astonishing. Half of you are talking about "Refuted" which is a documentary that is literally preaching to the choir and is obviously not worth discussion across the board.

    Why these two documentaries would even be on the same page is quite telling of the host. Promoting confusion and suppressing viable dialogue on a very interesting subject seems to be the result.

    @charlesovery, I could never find any useful information posted by you in amongst these comments or any response to Beaux.

    @azzy Check the sources you link and then watch the video again. Keith shows that two of Peter's sources have no evidence or citation to their claims and one even puts a fake Greek crucified Christ medallion on the front of their book.

  259. Oh, and Dee. You are closer to the symbolism of Satan than your ignorance will ever let you see. <3

  260. I believe Jesus was simply trying to describe his state of consciousness using a limited language. "The Father and I am one". But, the problem seems to be as the years grew and language wasn't so limited we found only a literal meaning in the Bible, as so did the translators I would guess. I think both sides take the literal meaning, as one side is brainwashed into a life of fear the other side(smart)looks at it and easily points out the obvious faults basing it off of what it literally says, just like the (dumb) side. You know? I am you, you are me, and we are all together = blasphemy from the retarded, and retarded by the intelligent.

  261. @ Jack, The Astro/logical/nomical analogies between Jesus and the sun are more relevent to the death/crucifiction, and may very well be of a Roman influence.

  262. I don't think any sufficiently critical viewer would think the take away point of Zeitgeist was that there was never a Jesus person. The stated relationships with Horus and other gods were obviously drawn out of a rabbit's hat. I think the more common belief among atheist is that Jesus was like a classical L. Ron Hubbard, inspirational to some, but full of it to rational people. When applying Occam's razor, the claim that Jesus performed miracles simply loses against a mythological description of the sun being applied to him (creates grapes, bread, heals sick, walks on water at sunset, compassionate to all, rises to heaven, etc.). You're not really a scientist if you prefer complex explanations over simple ones. Whether the person called Jesus was aware that people would claim he performed miracles, or whether such features were added to convince the many European tribes to abandon their pagan beliefs is unclear. Even the bible itself does not state Jesus was born on the 25th, this is probably a later addition to coincide with the sun-inspired Germanic festivals of light.

    TL;DR: The story of Jesus does coincide with sun mythology, for whatever reason that may be.

  263. didnt read any of that ^^^^^^

    I only got six minutes into the film before wanting to kill the whiny voiced narrator.

  264. i cant watch this power editing- quote mining- this is clapping with one hand- why are these books of religious fiction even circulating- ban them- or lets go back to reading tolkein- theological mis-representing rational logic.

  265. religion is the indoctrination of the young and subsequent generations. Zeitgeist is communist propoganda desperately idealisitc and unworkable. I love this site!!!! Fair trade

  266. In my opinion, this film actually works against itself in a way, and demonstrates part of the point that the Zeitgeist film is proposing. For exapmle, a lot of THIS films content is claiming that the Zeitgeist creators have many misinterpretations and distortions of the stories they propose in their film, such as the egyptian stories and myths. With this same line of thinking you could say all of the same things about the stories in the bible, that they have been misinterpretated and distorted to this point. In conclusion, I will side with the party that has less monetary motives, and in this case, it's clearly not this films creator.

  267. @nick
    re: good teacher. google dave hunt. or roger oakland
    i have really enjoyed your posts here and alex as well ty.

  268. @octopussy07/11/2009 at 18:12

    if I proclaim myself a believer in aliens to a psychiatrist I am deluded and probably will be ascribed with some form of mental illness,if I am a believer in a son of god magician chap called jeebus who breaks the laws of physics I am considered sane just religious.religion is simply, from a scientific viewpoint, indistinguishable from madness.
    discuss.

    whether we like it or not we all are forced to accept some uncertainty in one form or another.

  269. These days, even my dog can make a documentary.
    All religions off the planet...peace! You are all right....

  270. Shut up your Boring .. this guy is just confirming what bollocks religion is,,,

  271. god...heheh...are we still entertaining this??

  272. Sorry folks had some brain wind......Correction on my entry. Was really referring to Epictetus. Forgive my senility.

  273. After reading some of these comments I deemed it not even necessary to even watch though I did watch the doc it claims to refute. A lot of evil has come from religion as well as good but I am basically a follower of Epicurus and his philosophy...or of what was left to us. This man was Marcus Aurelius's tutor FYI and was born a Greek slave in the Roman Empire. He is the proponent of the Golden Rule of life that if man could follow we would surely be a hell of a lot better off. But when I do quote some scholars of the Bible my favorite person has to be Hilel and his counterpart Shumai. A man asked Shumai to teach him the law (Torah) while standing on one foot. Shumai told the man to quit wasting his time. The man then turned to Hilel and asked him the same question and Hilel lifted one foot and said "Do not do unto others which you would not have done unto you" The rest is Commentary. Thus explaining the LAW........

  274. This is a Christian attempt to document the supposed real life of Jesus. I wish it would say that up front. It only took two minutes of watching to determine this.

  275. The main objective of the zeitgeist movement is not the dismantling of the christian faith. It aims at the CURRENT socio-economic model of the west and the fact that someone bothered with this so called documentary simply shows how misguided people can be. This reaction reminds me a little bit of the Prophet Mohammed cartoons incident...

  276. So Chris, what makes you so sure that you are not the one that has been deceived? How are you so sure that the history you think you know is the correct history? Your proof of this is not in the bible, well it actually is, but I doubt you know how to recognize it.

    These films do not and have not refuted the original Zeitgeist connections to religion. NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! For some answers to that read my comments ans see for yourself.

  277. FORGOT TO SHOUT I BET MOST OF THESE COMMENTS FOR ZEITGUIST ARE FROM YOUNG VERY HEALTHY PEOPLE WHO NEVER HAD A LIFE EXPERIENCE ONE THING FOR SURE YOU WILL ,I BET THEY ARE ALL UNDER 35 THE BIGGEST SECTION OF THEM

  278. ONE THINGS FOR SuRE EVRYONE ON HERE WILL CALL TO GOD IN THE END EVEN ATHEIST CALL FOR GOD AT DEATH ASK ANY HOSPICE NURSE INFACT MOST PEOPLE OVER 45 START TO SEEK GOD,IN tHE KORAN YOU HAVE UNTIL THE AGE OF $" YEARS TO CHOOSE YOUR SIDE,NOW I DONT KNOW IF ITS TRUE THE KORANN BUT IVE HAD £ NDE ONE I WENT TO A REAL BAD PLACE <1 I DROWNED AGE 4 OR 5 RESUSED EVRYTHING WAS GROVY THEN 1 TIME I NEW GOD AND EVRYTHING,THE BAD PLACE IS COLD DARK BUT HOT WITH SCREAMING HORDES AND YOUR FILLED WITH THAT ULTIMATE TERROR WHERE YOU CAN NOT MOVE EVEN YOUR LIPS TO ASK FOR GOD THEY THE DARK SHADOWS HOLD YOU SO YOU CAN NOT SPEAK

  279. People always argue after watching this kind of doc. Their all try to defend their beliefs of lack of beliefs. Nothing was resolve.

  280. Also the second video, has some nice evidence.

    OH WAIT, there is none.
    + the opening states that zeitgeist is unbiased and that the refuting doco is biased.

    The use of subliminal visuals i.e. the bible verses and the article with the heading "Lucifer" shown in the montage, is pretty sad.

  281. So what I've gathered from the first few minutes of this is that the creator of this documentary has failed to see the point of zeitgeist creator. The zeitgeist creator is giving reasons for the modern reasons of christianity and other religions, not actual fact. The zeitgeist author is AGREEING that these things never happened, which is why religion is such a lie. I mean, this exposing documentary only furthers and agrees with zeitgeist.

  282. Uhh, sorry Chris white/ nowheretorun1984, but that "Esoteric theosophical Lucis Trust crap based on the teachings of Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey" is your own creation. HP Blavatsky is only cited *ONCE* in ZG. Bailey, not at all. Proves you wrong right there. Now, go meet your gay friend Keith TRASH to watch porn in his moms basement.

    People can see through the lies in the videos you guys have been pumping out. Eventually, accusing everyone of working for Satan gets old. If you're gonna do that you'll need to provide evidence that Satan/Lucifer/Devil actually exist. Good luck with that. Christians can't even substantiate the claims for Jesus or God, let alone Satan, so they don't even try because it's so embarrassingly absurd to begin with.

  283. It has been refuted. It's regurgitated Esoteric theosophical Lucis Trust crap based on the teachings of Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey. They are deceiving you and your falling for it..

  284. afly, not all who question the official version of 911 are crackpots. John Farmer the senior legal council for 911 commission said in his book 'the ground trut' "at some level of government at some stage there was an agreement not to tell the truth. i was shocked at how different the the NORAd tapes (released aug 2006) were from what we had been told. We and the public have been missled and lied to" Also how come some prominent pentagon officials and willy brown mayor of san francisco were warned not to fly that day? yet no warning given to the public?
    Also check out lots of fbi cia whistleblowers and the jersey girls. a conspiray is when two or more people plan something together, therefore the official version is a conspiracy to cover up their blataant mistakes and incompetencies.
    The zeitgeistmovement is dangerous because its a new age cult but questioning your leaders is a must for defending your democracy.

  285. I'm glad someone has refuted this Zeitgeist nonsense. Thanks so much for putting this online.

  286. well i think its good that some one at least tried to counter the Zeitgeist movie ...i would love to see some one counter the growing number of 9/11 conspiracy documentaries

  287. Beaux,

    You should research how long it has been known to mankind that Jesus' birthday was actually on December 25th. Here you can start by researching the relationship of pagan religions that delve in astrology and then go research what the winter soltice is within Astrological reasoning. I think you will find your answer to why it has been adopted as such.

  288. Once again, the simple fact that Jesus was not born on Dec25 nor is there any actual evidence that he was puts a huge gaping hole in zeitgeist's theory. Not only does it mean that Jesus did not share a birthday with any of the mentioned deities but it destroys the whole winter solstice/lining up of the stars bull as there is noting to relate Jesus to said date of Dec25. No one has yet to give a reasonable counter to this argument, as a matter of fact I challenge anyone to either prove that Jesus was born on Dec25 or that even though he wasn't he is still somehow related to the solstice.

    And again I'm not saying that you have to believe that there is a God or the Jesus was his son, I'm just trying to get you to realize that real christianity is not based on astrology. That being said I see how it could be confusing as there are many religions out there parading as christianity (in fact they are the majority) that do indeed have roots in paganism and astrology, but be assured that the KJV bible (weather you believe in it or not) has no hidden or occultic references to paganism or any other ancient religion, I've studied it enough to at least know that.

  289. if zeitgeist and their associated venus project and founders are anything linked to scientology, which is a dangerous cult, then steer well clear. a previous poster has researched these links.

  290. ssikpie,

    This film does not successfully disprove anything about the original Zeitgeist movie. It is interesting to me that you say such nonsense without even wacthing the Zeitgeist movie and not even researching the informatin that is within it. Hmmm, did the bible tell you that this refuted zeitgeist? Or did Jesus personally tell you that?

  291. bah The Olympians are the only true gods!!!

    come on look at all the ancient cities they where in,the cities are real so must be the Olympians.
    Troy for example the greek gods fought on both sides and Troy is real

    Zeus will strike down all you faithless scum :p

  292. Stupid? Why? It seems that the man just tries to disprove Zeitgeists claims.. Successful he is. I didnt see the other film, maybe thats the thing everybody thinks is stupid??

  293. this is totally stupid...

  294. What a load of boring crap. And that music going on and on and on in the background. God, strike this twat down with one of your bolts of bloody ligtning please. I dont care if Zeitgeist is factually wrong or right, it got all you religious pillocks jumping up and down waving your underpants in the air, which is good for a laugh at least.

  295. hahaha wow, nice try guys. you cant say religion is true and then use the BIBLE as your evidence. haha good one. get real guys, open your eyes.

  296. Perhaps the producer of this doc should scoot on over and view "Who Wrote the Bible?"
    IMHO... God (if he is actually around) is kicking back with a glass of wine and enjoying this pathetic spectacle called "the human race" on his own personal broadband connection and having a good giggle... I know I am...

  297. So you're agnostic?

    If you are talking about any post made before the one I originally responded to then that's too bad because I will not dig through these possibly hundreds of comments just to find yours and respond to that. If you don't mind a brief summary would be nice.

    If you are talking about any post made after the one I originally responded to then I would like to know what you read in my response that made you think I hadn't read yours because I assure you that I have read every post of yours made since my fist post, I even quoted a bit of one of them.

  298. Beaux

    Have you yet not read what I have stated in the comments above about this ridiculous doc? When you actually do I will answer you on your questions.

    Oh I do not practice a religion and nor is there ever a need too.

  299. charlesovery out of curiosity if you aren't an atheist then what religion do you practice?

    I know that just because someone is an authority figure doesn't mean that they are automatically right which is why that is only one of the things used in my argument, but I do feel that what they say does have some validity as many of the professors were atheists and therefore have no reason or incentive to defend Christianity. That is the main reason I included them in my argument but if we are going to just ignore everything they say because they may be mistaken that's ok with me as there are many other points to argue. On a side note I would like to know what the Eygptologists that you know think about the idea of Jesus being based on Ra.

    You talk about real research and the true history, which I don't disagree with you on but looking at the references for Zeitgeist you can tell that the makers have little grasp of what you would call real research. How do you make a documentary with little to no primary sources and expect it to be taken as fact?

    You said:
    "Either way I know for a fact that the odea of “christ” , December 25th and the rest of the time line does not add up when you ACTUALLY research true history."
    But I'm not sure if you are saying he was or wasn't born on Dec 25. It sounds like you are saying he wasn't because it doesn't line up to 'true history' which is what I and this documentary said (Zeitgeist on the other hand claims that he was). The Dec 25 birth date was added in by the Catholic church generations and centuries ago claiming to have calculated the date after researching scripture and so on. The date has stuck because the Catholic church is the biggest so called 'Christian' chruch in the word and as such their influence is great, not to mention that while some are more removed than others most denominations are just offshoots of the Catholic church and carry many similar teachings. The real reason for the obviously-wrong-if-you-actually-read-the-bible Dec 25 birth date lies in the origins of the Catholic church. When Christianity was made into the official Roman religion by Constantine he wanted to unite Rome under one religion. To make this idea more palatable to the Pagan citizens he introduced many pagan rituals and practices into the 'official' church which can not only explain Christmas but also Christmas trees, the Easter bunny, many of the statues you see in Catholic churches, and even the Popes hat as these are all remnants of the Pagan religion.

  300. Well Beaux,

    Read my other posts on here and you will see the facts that I have already stated. However, I am not an athiest!

    Sound research on the Eygptian culture does not come from those of authority figures, like these professors you speak of. I say this cause I know several Eygptologists myself and it seems that they all have different view points themselves. So how do you know they are telling you what is real and true and not their own perception of what was real and true? Have you researched what they tell you or are you speculative on doing that and like to have others tell you what to believe? Either way I know for a fact that the odea of "christ" , December 25th and the rest of the time line does not add up when you ACTUALLY research true history. And yes there is a different history than what is taught in schools and there are some serious issues with what is being taught as history in the schools. Most of history that talks of the Eygptian culture and such is mostly someones own perception combined with little speculation and superstition. With that stated how is it possible that you know you are hearing the truth from these so called authority figures? It comes down to the fact that we really do not know what all went back then in the Eyptian culture, but I assure that the evidence presented in this is ridiculiously false by all kinds of accounts.Here is an idea for you to research Mr. Inquesitor Beaux, why has the date December 25th been passed down and transcended from generation to generation and century to century?

    You should read the book "Fingerprints of the Gods" by Graham Handcock. It is an interesting read.

  301. So in your opinion consulting professors who specialize in Egyptology and Greek/Roman Myth does not constitute researc? The fact that neither the bible nor any other historical or non-historical document (except that of the Catholic church) even suggests that Jesus was born in the winter let alone Dec. 25 isn't a fact to you? The fact the none of the deities mentioned in Zeitgeist had a virgin birth comes from a weakness of intelligence (one of them was born from a rock)? You say that these aren't research and facts but you completely ignore the fact the Zeitgeist has no primary research sources and the books that he does reference have little to no primary research sources.

    In my previous post I asked you to summarize those facts that you claimed to have and I called out the straw man of "God isn't real so this movie is bull", but in your post you neither stated any fact nor did you refrain from making the argument that somehow god not being real means that Zeitgeist is right. I'm not here to discuss weather this movie promotes Christianity or not that's beside the point I just want to hear some good reasons why the information about Jesus not being based on astrology is bad.

    Many of you seem to think that just because you are an atheist means that you are automatically an intelligent logical thinker who only speaks fact, not only is this not the case but the reverse is also not true, just because someone believes in any religion does not automatically make them irrational illogical thinkers who base everything on faith. As a matter of fact I have seen much faith being placed in Zeitgeist, if that weren't the case you wouldn't have so many claiming that it is right with no evidence to back it up.

  302. Well Beaux,

    Not only have I stated some great evidence that are not only philosophical but actual historical facts, others have also on here. I'm not sure what you think is proof but there is a lot here to examine so saying that noone has is absolutely ridiculous! Most of the comments that I have read does not say anything about taking this off the site. I think it is good to keep on the site considering that the information is so onesided with no facts. It shows the weakness of actual intelligence when one allows themselves to wallow in a "faith" based system instead of actual research. This refyttal shows no research at all and is solely based on ones opinions and inference that supports that ones beliefs. How that doesn't destroy someones credibility in your eyes is absolutely baffling to me. It is extremely clear from start to finish what the point of this refuttal is and that is to support a belief system not a fact, research, or intellictual system. You obviously cannot have both according to the narrator!

  303. Well anyone who has any kind of life probably won't real every single comment from top to bottom but that's besides the point. Like Edwin I haven't seen anyone make any valid points about why this documentary is any more bull than Zeitgeist: part one, that is unless you consider the "God's not real" straw-man a valid point. That being said I do admit that I have not read every single comment here so I wouldn't be surprised if there were a good point or two. To save me from drudging though the comments to find something worth debating against would you mind summarizing a good reason why this video should be taken off the site?

  304. Edwin,

    Obviously you did not read them all cause there are several comments on here that logically show great information. I think you should try harder.

  305. It took me a while to read most of the comments on Z refuted and I must say....people watch your language :). No seriously, I did not read too many facts (if I read any at all) that shows why Z refuted should be flushed down the toilet.
    The only thing the maker of this documentary did is showing the audience, there are a lot of inadequacies in the original Z (first part), and therefore the original Z documentary (concerning the part 1) is at the least to say very very bad journalism. If I'm really honest he succeeded in doing that. Start to think for yourself and don't believe anything that's being told to you without some proper investigation. DO SOME RESEARCH yourself! (A few minutes google-ing shows proof for many of his statements).

  306. Wow, it's a bit interesting to see so many atheists, or at least people who claim to be atheists, put so much FAITH in one movie or one man that when given facts the prove him wrong instead of reviewing the facts, doing some personal research, and coming up with their own opinion they cry and moan about how the person who made the other video is right because his views are closer to their own.

    Fist, the movie doesn't claim to prove that God is real or that Christianity is THE religion, all it set out to do is

    1) show that Christianity(I mean real Christianity not Catholicism or any of the denominations that split off) is not based on astrology

    2) show that many parallels drawn in the Z movie are wrong

    3) And he did offer a bit of evidence that Jesus was a real person regardless if you believe if he was the son of God or not

    So all the complaining about God isn't real is irrelevant as the movie doesn't claim to prove that he is.

    When you have atheist professors with degrees in Egyptology saying that claims made in the Z movie are wrong I don't see how you can refute that by saying "well God doesn't exist so I'm right and your wrong". But atheists are people of logic and they understand how the world works so they wouldn't make such a retarded statement...right? Of course what many of you (and I say many because this does not include all of you) seem to think that just because you are an atheist means that you are automatically an intelligent logical thinker(and if the first thought in your mind just now was 'no I don't' or something similar then you probably fall in this category). But there is hope because God loves you...ok that was a joke.

    Seriously though, the simple fact the Jesus wasn't born on Dec.25 refutes like half the the Z movie's whole argument. Aside from the fact the all of the so called related deities now don't share a birthday with Jesus, the whole thing about the winter solstice and the stars lining up is in the trash.

    I'm not asking you to believe that Jesus is that son of God I just want you to see that he isn't the sun of God.

  307. Jesus Loves You!

  308. As an atheist, I have chosen to read the bible out of curiosity however whenever I discuss passages from the bible, the common rebuttal is 'the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose'

    I now ask, are you Christian fanatics not doing the same thing? using random quotes when it serves your own interests

  309. very inconsistent, Contradicts itself throughout the whole Doc. This doc took on a task that really shouldn't have been so hard, Basically to refute points in the movie that were not fact. But thats not the agenda of this film. This film is very primative in execution. I was cringing on alot of the info put forth just like in zietgiest. The Z movie is easier to watch though.Various non christian resources can prove the existence of jesus within 150 yrs of his supposed death? REALLY please list those, i actually would want to know. Said 25 of dec. moot point, but then references to make point on mithras. ect. continues this theme throughout doc. i was hoping for a serious attempt to refute the Z movie, however this documentary had a shot to make some good points but then ruins it by referencing the bible and furthermore pushing there christian agenda through.DO NOT ERASE DOC! This would make us ignorant and thus furthering preconcived notions of objectional thinkers. If you know your stance nd views..Basically if you know yourself you don't need to worry about any shmuck's failed attempts at disproving science and common sense. Believe in yourself Because there is divinity in all of us. You willl never know unless you search.

  310. This is just as thin as the Religion part of Zeitgeist. It takes a "hypothosis" from the encyclopedia britanica and then tries to pass it as fact (as regards Mithra)32:27-33:23
    Jesus' biographers never met him, it almost admits it, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels 40-70 years after Jesus died, so how can they be Gospel? They never knew him!!!!
    The Zeitgeist (Religion part) does run with ideas and does give false or information but the Economics part is spot on (addendum) and the 9/11 part is just conspiricy.
    How can Christians use science and pre Christian history to refute anything when the vast, vast majority scientists and pre christian historians dont agree with the bible.
    Altho this documentary does admit that christianty has holes such as the cross and his birthday.

  311. Wow! The other so called refutal video is of the same circular nonsense as the the other one. THey both state the same crap that I have already refuted in the first refutal film. However, I will post some things here on this anyway.

    For someone to accept that the Old Testament (which isn't really of the "christian" religion)and the New Testament to be the oldest religious documentation of any religion and of any savior god is baffling. It contradicts any early writings of the Old Testament that has to do with the Exodus. The Old Testament was written before the New Testament and Jesus wasn't even known or heard of or else he would have been chosen and called by name. Why else do you think that he isn't called by name or considered to be a savior until after he was supposedly born? Keep in mind as well that Jesus and Moses aren't even Hebrew names.

    One other thing that is interesting is how the Narrator contradicts himself. The narrator states that the translation of world is aeon, which he says means FOREVER, an unbroken age. He then quotes 1 John 2:17 which suggests, "the aeon passes away, and the lust thereof; but he that does the will of God abides forever." Can anyone else see the narrators contradiction on this? If aeon means forever, an unbroken, then how can it pass away?

    Another great contradiction the narrator makes in this second film is when he says that there are many gods named Horus. He then starts talking about the characteristics in which we mostly know of one named Horus. There are other gods named Horia, Hora, Hor-ep, and many other names like this in the Eygptian culture. The problem is that not one of them was considered savior status like HORUS did. As matter of fact the narrator flat out lies about the nature of timing of the Eygptian culture and religion. Remeber both the bible (their main source of information) and other historical documentation prove that the Eygptian culture was around at least 1100years before and isrealite settled out of the country. Or were free from teh Eygptian bondage, so how is it that anypart of the history of the "christian" religion can be older than the Eyptians?

  312. Vlatko-the 2nd video that you added doesn't play past the 9th minute and there it stops buffering. Can we get that fixed pls? I would really like to examine the rest of this film and prepare an analysis of it.

    Thank you!

  313. Mr Gondai,

    Not sure what your statement is referring to. If it is something that is stated in the movie or something someone wrote on here.

  314. @dans

    I am not Catholic and nor I am "christian". I don't believe in religion, however I am not an aetheist either.

  315. Lol the whole quoting jesus made me piss myself. haha

  316. @charlesovery---- are you a catholic? may be you say is true. but i want you to know that Christianity is different form roman catholic... by the way I'm christian i don't believe in catholic doctrines.

  317. LMAO

    This does not refute nor debunk anything about the zeitgeist movie for several reasons.

    1. The Mike Licona person speaking in the beginnign about non of the pagan gods before christian was actually before christianity...um Eygptian culture and religion has been around since 4,000 BC. that is 4,001 years before Jesus ever walked the earth. The Persians use to own the land of Israel back before Jesus was even on earth. We know and can date the Greek mythology gods and culture way before Jesus ever lived on earth. These are facts and it is common sense knowledge. What about Krishna? As a matter of fact this Licona character even states that there are sources that can accoutn of Jesus' life within 150 years of his life. However, they can't accoutn for the very years os Jesus' life like the bible supposedly does?

    2. The oldest known religious documents are the Samarian texts and yet not one of them speak of Jesus at all. As a matter of fact Jesus actually doesn't appear in texts until after the A.D. era begins around the 104 A.D. mark. This proves that all pagan ritualistic gods before him were in fact in place and worshipped. This also proves that the resurrection of these gods, miracles and birth dates preceeded Jesus by at least 1,000 years.

    3. The Narrator speaks of everyone adopting the theory in the Zeitgeist movie as fact without proper investigation. I find it funny and odd that those who say such things believe in a text that they don't properly investigate either. That is wy when asked why they believe it they always say, " faith ". This shows that the author of this so called refuttal is going to give you a biased look at HIS interruptation and show what HE calls facts to support his theory.

    4. It is absolute fact that the New Testament was put together by the Catholic indoctrinations or "brotherhood" as the narrator calls it. This has been documented over and over again.

    5. In Hebrews Ch8 Verse 4 the bible states:"If Jesus was actually on earth he would not have been a preacher at all." NIV Bible 2005. Let me point out that preacher=pastor=rabbi=teacher. Jesus refers to himself as the only true rabbi and teacher.

    6. All the sources quoted in this first episode show nothing that factually disproves anything stated in the Zeitgeist movie. They only refer to speculation or complex inference in which the data is complicated and opens the door to individual interpretation. No facts just more of the same specualtion that they are accusing the authors of anti christian books and the Zeitgeist movie of doing. All of them are Theology or Religious Studies scholars so they are of course going to state what they believe in with out properly investigating it. Oh and by the way isn't the bible all about complicated data that is open to undividual interpretation as well?

    7. Interesting to me is that the narrator begins speaking of Horus adn states an actual fact. Scholars and the bible do refer to Jesus' birth as being in the spring. However what the narrator is not telling you is why the date Dec 25th is important and is worldly practiced as his birth to this day. The fact is that regardless of what the bible states about it at all we really do not know because it still could have been Dec 25th. Do you really think that the climate has always been the same on earth as we know it today? The biblical texts talks of warm days and a hot sun during the birth of Jesus. Scientific recods show that during the switch over of BC to AD that the climate was indeed different as were the seasons. Research that one and then look at the Global Warming nonsense going on right now.

    8. The Eygptian Book of the Dead does in fact refer to Isis as a virgin during Horus birth. Oh wait we may have mistranslated that and yet we did not mistranslate the bible at all. Seriously people? Give me a break!

    9. This quote about Mairt is incorrect. The book of the Dead does in fact refer to Isis as Mairt and that it is reference to her name as such.

    1o. This is all refuttal of the refuttal in the first episode of this supposed refuttal. I do not wish to continue this viewing because it is obvious to me that it is bias information with no facts at all and most of what it claims as facts is inapropriately cited and misused. The credibility of the author and narrator in this refuttal has been shot down and shows that in fact, this refuttal is more dishonest than the Zeitgeist information is.

  318. "People say Christianity was created for Social Control....
    which is inconsistant with the writings of the bible where the teaching of John...."

    And I stopped watching.

    I love it when they use an archaic Bronze age to Dark Ages piece of literature as proof against Scientific and Historical fact.

  319. wow so Zeitgeist was wrong at the religious stuff, that doesn't mean that religion isn't a lie. I believe that even if Jesus existed, he wasn't the son of god so he is meaningless. I believe you should just be a good person following rules that you put for yourself by using your minds reasoning and respecting other individuals and doing the best in life. Religions are completely meaningless to anything. Trying to prove it right is a waste of time. I don't care if you don't think I'm right. Wanna be religious? then do so without annoying people like most religious people do.

  320. All these people who claim they are open minded. In order to be open minded you must be able to see the angle of the opposing view. Stop judging people and look at yourself. Also, ask some geologists about their belief in a great flood and see for yourself that more Christians were killed from Nazis than were Jews and that more were killed by non believers than crusaders in this century surpassing written history Stalin 7 million, Hitler 22mil. The real enemy is centralized power. It divides us (as seen above) then conquers.

  321. Both Zeitgesit and this anti-Zeitgeist are completely missing the point. The problem is not who came up with the God hoax first, who copied who or who's got the better version of God - the point is that most religious myths are simply false: the Universe didn't apear in 7 days 10.000 years ago, humans are not descended from exactly one man and one woman, there was never a flood, Noah had no way of transporting 3.000.000 species of animals etc etc etc.

  322. alex you plonker that might sum it all up you'll prob wont ever realize what a waste of time and effort you give to religion you could be doing something more productive fool

  323. this is a joke right?

  324. "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."
    -Bertrand Russell

  325. Hmmmm...... The level of hatred from unbelievers.

    Don't confuse a believer with the Benny Hinns or John Hagees or millions of so called Christians who love war and oppression.

    Well said Ivana.

  326. Another thought provoking film.It didn't surprise me at all the resulting comments and name calling! Hope nobody gets burned at the stake.

  327. lol. watched the first thirty seconds and thats enough.

  328. WOW...that was alot of reading, good ridence to alex, I was getting tired of him, alot of interesting and well informed comments, definately alot more entertaining than the film.
    I believe there is a higher power controlling the universe god or gods, I don't know, for me seeing is believing, and when I pass on, I will learn the truth...or not.
    nothing has divided the people of the world and caused more death than religion.(in my opinion)

  329. Hi, Ben.

    I agree with you in theory, but scientific paradigms are not etched in stone, like Religious ones are.
    Scientific theory's can be, and are changed, if a more viable one comes to fruition.
    Religions will stick to there main stories no matter what, and will add more fanciful tales to keep there main stories going.

  330. Hi, Jennica,

    I guess a lot of us wanted to know that about Alex, I told him once maybe he was accumulating brownie points to get into Heaven.

    He was called Religious Alex, he is no longer on the air.
    He was banned from TDF for various reasons, so he will not reply back to you.

    Regards: :D

  331. Being an 100% athiest and declaring certainty of that stance is just as illogical as being 100% religious. Atheism is tremendously naive in presupposing we understand all the process that are in existence, to the extent where observations through science are used as evidence by atheists to fashion a philosopical/theological type stance on the theory of origins, which like religion is unfalsifiable . This is due to the fact it is based on what scientists believe to be true at the time. Therefore if a scientific theory was falsified, is would be disregarded by atheism as incorrect and not included in their stance. In this sense atheism will fit into whatever paradigm dominant scientific thinking has to offer, and is at the moment posing as a philosophical stance that claims ownership of "what we believe to be correct knowledge at this time (as scientific paradigms often shift)" . Or at least this is what is happening recently with leaders of atheism such as Richard Dawkins using scientific knowledge as a basis on which to dissprove the idea of a god, deity, or supreme being and promote atheism. How can you logically present constantly changing, uncertain knowledge as evidence to prove a precise philosophical viewpoint? The fact is you cant, and the only way you can is by constantly adapting the concept of what atheism means. In this sense atheism is just useless baggage that tags along with scientific advances adopting them as their own.
    It is for this reason I will happily argue that current uncertainty is the only thing that is logically correct, and due this this uncertainty, temoporary agnosticism ('temporary' as we cant prove whether the future will present certanties), is the only logical philosophical stance that one may hold (if it was complete agnosticism then you would deny any possibility of ultimate knowledge being held at some time in the future, which also cannot be proved).

  332. Alex, what is it that you hope to accomplish by transcribing the entire 'Bible' onto the comments section of a documentary website? Just curious.

  333. I exist (here's your proof. :P)

  334. Ivana,

    I like what you say here. I, being an Atheist have noticed a group of those that attack religious people just for being religious, I like to call them "anti-theist". they are the inverted version of the "holy rollers"....I care not for what you believe, I know what I believe. the only real problem I have is, when someone makes a claim it is their responsibility to provide proof of that claim, not the other way around. it is also annoying when someone uses the source as evidence of itself...let's say I can prove zeitgeist is completely accurate and true, because in zeitgeist, at 10:45 in the documentary it says something....doesn't make sense does it?

    I would never call you nor anyone else an idiot just for your beliefs, but if you (general you) were to claim to be able to prove the bible is true and accurate by using the bible as the source of the proof, then I wouldn't be thinking of you (general you) as a very smart person =)

    one last thing, it bothers me to no end, that I must be forced to choose between two candidates, whom one will eventually have control of the weapons and armies of mass destruction, that believes there was a snake that talked, and a old guy with a beard floating in the nether world, who blew life into a handful of mud...
    would you want someone who truly believes there is a giant space penguin in the center of the earth with their finger on the button and today is the prophetic end day?

  335. I don't care about the documentary. I didn't even watch it all. But the comments are reflecting the unending battle between religious and non-religious people, which I really do not understand. None of you can definitively prove that God exists (or doesn't). What's at stake here is your own belief system, which is the core of the person's self. So, when an atheist (who has the advantage of relying on the proved Darwinian theory and thus feels so much more comfortable with his beliefs) belittles the faith of a religious person, he literally belittles the core of that person. And it really is difficult to be religious these days, considering that the people are becoming a huge disappointment. It's easy to be an atheist - no possibility of cognitive dissonance, since only science is your "God". But what I don't understand is WHY do atheists hate religious people so deeply (and vice versa). Religion is not responsible for all the wars, human stupidity (which uses religion as a very convenient excuse) is. Catholicism (I'm mentioning it because I'm most familiar with it) is a very simple religion - you have a master rule to love others as you love yourself, and those little ten rules which are really simple and do not hurt anyone. Those rules are the core of that particular religion, more important than anything else in that famous Bible everyone likes to mention. I personally don't like the level today's religion has fallen to, for me they are going the wrong way, all the way. But that atheistic notion that religious people are brainless idiots who think their God is going to save them from their troubles is really offensive. If I'm respecting your opinion and you as a person, why don't you respect me and my own opinion?! Why am I an idiot just because I believe there's something more to life that just this?! And why is that negative?! I don't understand the pleasure in hurting other person's belief system, especially if that system doesn't hurt anybody/anything?! You all (religious people AND atheists) feed on that feeling of superiority/intelligence/ego-trip when you manage to really hit the center, without considering you are only digging a deeper hole and that a final answer is impossible to find! No one is going to give the other side a benefit of the doubt because that would undermine his own fundamental system of life, so why are you trying?! Just accept the world in all it's versatility, because that's what makes it wonderful.

  336. i agree that each side should get a fair chance, this was a weak display for that side...

    the really sad part is that the comments to this was more informative and far more entertaining.

    i will say this, if the bible is the word of god, and is undeniable, then why does the followers feel the need to defend it?

    " In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

    Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
    US astronomer & popularizer of astronomy (1934 - 1996)

  337. To Phoenix
    to shorten you earlier post I think it would go something like this.
    -Everyone here is getting too wrapped up in their own bullS#$&- end paraphrase.

    which is true for just about everything, including this very comment...

    crappy doc though.

  338. I'm contacting the Springer Show! We should be a little more considerate to Vlatko's hospitality (and petience with us), but it is easy to get caught up in the moment and just type away, isn't it?

    What do you get when you cross a J.W. and an atheist . . . Someone who knocks on your door for no apearant reason . . . . good greif! I laughed in spite of myself with that one! :-)

  339. Phoenix hi!
    If you like see The Case for Christ here on TDF. See also my comment there at August 30th, 2009 at 17:42. If I can be of help get my email.
    God bless you in your research! He will.

  340. thanks alex for te help. I am a Christian, and have been trying to research my faith. Zeitgeist did make me realize that we shouldnt blindly trust anything but should search for the truth ourselfs, so im definitly going to take a look at what u got here. I just want to know that my faith isnt based on some craziness of the sun that happen way back when. Again thank you

    -PX

  341. all of you are acting stupid, ok maybe not all but still,Stop being ridiculous. I saw one guy on here who said" wow produced edited and made by one man" as if to critisize the documentary. But wasnt zeitgeist PRODUCED and EDITED by one man?? Also, alot of people on here say how much they laugh and dismiss this documentary, claiming evrything from the classic "god is just imagination so this guy is (wrong stupid or your favorite put down) or in saying that this guys documentary is simply filled with holes, lies etc..... honestly im cool with that, IF YOU GOT THE EVIDENSE TO BACK YOUR SH** UP. Yall dont have it. What you do have is a bunch of opinions and closed minds. that goes for both sides of the issue. If you can't figure out what that leads to ill break it down for you

    Your opinion + someone elses opinion + closed minds = everybody dissin each other...and nothing new or good coming from it.

    i bet no one on here can prove god exist, or that he doesnt exist. I know this because if you coulda,, you woulda,, but you cant. Now for you zeitgeist people, didnt it mention in the film that people associate thier ideas with theyre personality, so that when your idea is threatened it actually threatens a part of you, so you naturally take a defensive position on the issue to protect yourself, even if the new idea is something better than the one you held before??? it did didnt it! thats why your so damned dismissive of this movie. the same goes for the Christians too...huh imagine that.... I seen all the disses on here, but you guys dont bring in any facts yourself you just diss on this dude or each other. Wasnt the whole point of this zeitgeist movie to find the truth yourself and spread it to others so we could all be better? And the same goes for the Christians as well, if not more so. You cant simply dismiss zeitgeist because its easy too either. One of the biggest points of Christianty is to spread the truth to people. But yall know what your doing? your spreading your own high and mighty know it all a**es on each other and now this whole comment box smells like sh**.

    How bout we try this instead.

    How bout we find sources, why thyere sources, or just general proof. Please...anybody, names, websites. I want it from both sides. Its an important issue no matter how u look at it because it affects everyone. So be real, be courteious, and stop acting like snotty nose b**st**rd children fighting over a d**mn cookie in the play ground. quit hiding behind computer screens an act like adults, SHARE INFO, IDEAS, LINKS, SOURCES, PROFESSERS ETC so we can find out the truth or at least get as close to it as possible. I know this wont happen. so let the failure begin

    -PX

  342. Graham,
    You're wrong, her prayers will have an effect on you in the long run.... you will realize it then. Remember this message.

  343. Religion is just a scapegoat. Those who have faith are blinded and can't seem to see plain facts refuting it. I'm having difficulty in my life and just because of that my mother said she had started praying for me, which just made me sad, because she had been thrown in a corner and with nowhere else to turn to followed the sheep's path. Well I hope it makes her feel better because it's not going to do anything. Should I tell her she's just giving herself false hope that a man in the sky will make me better?

  344. The following is my answer to Charly's hypothesis. I know it's long, but remember that half of it is Carly's words quoted by me so he knows what I'm referring to (and you all as well). Wish it could have been shorter, but that was not possible. If one is not interested in what I say, it would be appreciated if he just skips over it instead of hasseling me :) about it. I cut it into two parts.

    Charly,
    glad to be of any help; that's what I'm here for.

    You write:
    1) “This is a pretty good doco – superior to Zetigeist Refuted in every way.”
    Glad you liked it, although I don’t see why it’s superior to “Refuted”. They serve two different purposes, hence the outcome is different. (Did you see the first one: Zeitgeist Exposed as well?)

    2) “From previous comments, I do find it strange that many think this doco is one sided – the title is called, “The case FOR Christ”.
    It’s meant to be. Are you then the same critics that never mention the same thing against Zetigeist or Dick Dawkins? They’s just as one sided. Bottom line, there’s value in having one sided docos, whether pro or con – the secret is to watch both.
    ------Very true. But it was not one-sided dismissing the other side. I mean it refuted the other side with facts.

    3) “I do agree that the ending was a bit much Joe – I kind of cringed too – but if you consider that this doco is probably passed around in churches for the newly initiated (their target market) it’s probably what they wanted…”
    ------You “cringed” to it?? Charly, where does it say that this doc was for churches? It wasn’t. Show me where you got this idea from. His effort is towards the atheists or undecided mostly. Not towards Christians. Christians don’t need this for themselves to believe (they believe already and have a relationship with Him), but for others.

    4) “The fact that they use scriptures/ the gospels to validate the story, yeah, that’s acceptable. Look, we need to be realistic about this – ABC, CBS and NBC weren’t around to cover the story…
    The fact that we have those accounts, and they’re reliably from around the same time – that’s pretty good.”
    ------Not accurate. He doesn’t just use Scripture but outside sources as well.

    5) “Not the ’scientific ideal’, — but that’s just never gonna happen, unless we invent a time machine. Let’s be real.”
    -----This “Not the scientific ideal” is strange. What is the scientific ideal to you? If you read “Shattering the Christ Myth” you will see how science is used for all historic documents including the New Testament manuscripts.

    6) “Jesus was intentionally coordinating everything in his life so it matched with the prophecies. He was convinced he was ‘the chosen one’ from an early age apparently, and also knew the old bible off by heart………………..But Jesus knew what he was doing all along. For someone as intelligent and strong of will as he, the odds of meeting up with those prophecies, are pretty good.
    ------a) Pretty good?? Jesus was at the temple at 12 amazing them:
    Luk 2:46-49 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. 47 And ***all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers****. 48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, ***How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?***
    How could He do this? Don’t tell me He already had learned the Old Testament. Then, did Jesus stage His birth place and events around them?? How about His death?? He staged that too? How and why??? Were the soldiers into the plan, when the pierced Him, as it was prophesied (John 19:33-34; 36-37)? Or when they gambled for His cloth, as prophesied (Matthew 27:35)? Or assigned a grave with the wicked but was buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9)!? ***These are just a few of the hundreds!*** They alone speak for themselves, but if you put them all together (hundreds of them), even a “deaf” person can hear their message!!!!
    b) Charly I find weird your sureness on what He supposedly did? Don’t you??
    c) If you like to believe this, do so. But know you have **no proof** to offer to yourself for this. You’re just accepting it, because for some reason you are finding it convenient. Could this be true? --Christ fulfilled prophecy because He could, but all prophecy. The basis for all His fulfilled prophesies, was planned by God (His heritage and His birth place). As you can understand, He could not fulfil these and get away with it!! Especially among Jewish scribes!!! Also, His miracles (healings, signs and wonders), due to which Jews (who didn’t believe Him!) accused Him later (outside source) of doing witchcraft (not make-believe -- so he according to them existed and did magic! This is what’s important), were planed by Him as well to… fulfil prophecy??? You believe something like this? You can’t just go buy some supernatural powers and fool everybody :)
    Think it over.

    7) “The Resurrection.
    Well, here’s where the rubber meets the road, and I’ll present here another hypothesis, also based on the accounts: We know Pilate did not want Jesus punished. He declared the man innocent. In fact he ordered the beating first, in the hope that so that the enraged Jewish clergy would have had mercy and let him go. That’s why he then presented them with the option of letting a crimial or for Jesus to go… So the intentions to serve justice were there – but he had the conflict of a raging crowd to appease. So what if Pilate staged the whole crucifiction, to make the clergy believe he was dead, but in the background saved Jesus?”
    -----Charly WHAT-ARE-YOU-SAYING??? What clergy?? How do you stage such a crucifixion??? In plain view of all of His family, 12 disciples, and hundreds of others who were 2nd in discipleship?????? Are you kidding? He was seen by all believers and non believers being cricified!!!!!!! He was nailed by the hands on a cross (maybe they were tied as well), was whipped and beaten before that, and pierced by a soldier’s spear **as documented**, again…. for all contemporaries to read!!

    8. “Motives were already in place and the accounts that come next, put a very probable scenario:
    a. jesus was on the cross for a very short period – unlike any other crucifictions.”
    -----How do you know that all others (!!) crucified, lived longer on the cross???? This Charly -I gotta say- is silly. b) Now, even if I granted you that Jesus was on the cross less hours than all (….), why could that be?? Can there be another logical reason, 100% compatible with the claims of the New Testament?? Off course. He was tortured way more than others before the cross!
    (Patience :) Second part comming up)

  345. For Charly (second part)
    9) “The process of dying on the cross is not fatal in itself – it’s long and drawn out so that it can take days on end. He was there apparently just for a few hours!”
    -----a) You mean the process of hanging on the cross, right?
    b) Not sure what you mean, but anyway the following show that the purpose of crucifixion was death:
    Mat 27:24-25 "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."
    Are you telling me Charly that these words don’t imply death? Pilate knew this would happen, something He didn’t want. If it was just a punishment Jesus would live through, why all the fuss with washing his hands and speaking of His blood on their hands? Besides, haven’t you read:
    John 19:32: The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.
    Do you know Charly why they broke their legs? Death! It is called “crurifracture”, and its purpose was that the victim would not be able to take in a good breath while hanging from his arms, so he would quickly die from suffocation.
    So the purpose of crucifixion -contrary to what you say (I think/don't want to do you an injustice)- was the death of a man on a cross. If you don’t believe the above see the word “crucifixion” on Wikipedia. (“There is a record of one person who survived being crucified.”-Wikipedia.)

    Do you know why Jesus’ legs weren’t broken? The next verse:
    33 "But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs."
    This was the superficial reason. His legs not being broken, was symbolically hidden within the Passover ordinances given by God for the slaughtered sheep (Jesus is by the way called “The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin’s of the world”):
    Exo 12:46 "In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the
    house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof."
    And in speaking of the righteous servant:
    Psa 34:20 "He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken."
    Fulfilled in Christ:
    Joh 19:36 "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be
    broken."
    If Jesus had not died when the soldiers came to check, they would have broken his legs, and this prophecy
    would not be fulfilled, and the symbolism of the slaughtered sheep would loose its weight/explanation as well.

    But is there another way of confirming Jesus died? Two details:
    “To confirm that a victim was dead, the Romans **inflicted a spear wound** through the right side of the heart. When pierced, a sudden flow of **blood and water** came Jesus' body . The medical significance of the blood and water has been a matter of debate. One theory states that Jesus died of a massive myocardial infarction, in which the heart ruptured (Bergsma) which may have resulted from His falling while carrying the cross. (Ball) Another theory states that Jesus' heart was surrounded by fluid in the pericardium, which constricted the heart and caused death.(Davis) The physical stresses of crucifixion may have produced a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. (Johnson)
    The stated order of "blood and water" may not necessarily indicate the order of appearance, but rather the relative prominence of each fluid. In this case, a spear through the right side of the heart would allow the pleural fluid (fluid built up in the lungs) to escape first, followed by a flow of blood from the wall of the right ventricle.(Edwards) The important fact is that the medical evidence supports that Jesus did die a physical death.”
    This all happened in plain sight of hundreds of eyewitnesses. Would you put the above facts in writing for
    all contemporaries to read when you and everybody knows that none of it is true????
    And believe me, there’s much much you don’t know on the issue!

    10) “He was taken off the cross shortly and accounts state that he was speared, – to speed up the process and take him off.”
    -------Funny. Actually, “speed up the process” towards death (broken legs and piercing)!!!

    11) “You could easily put a sponge like spear with red ink and water to make it look like he had been stabbed…”
    -------Easily huh? :) I think Hollywood had its toll on you pal :). All those eyes on the soldier (they knew what he was going to do; it was a known practice), but all were to stupid to see that the spear was a fake. Come oooon Charly! How'd did you think of that one. This hypothesis of yours, I must say gives me the impression that you’d like there to be another “explanation”… any explanation. No offence, just telling it like I see it in the hope of awakening you maybe to a reality of yourself you are avoiding. Again, no offence. Just being honest.
    John himself testifies to being an eyewitness (In his Gospel he is accustomed to speak of himself in the third person):
    Joh 19:35 "And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe."

    12) “The key is, Pilate wanted hima alive. (and he was the ruler of the city)”
    This is again weird. Think. If Pilate staged the whole thing, this would be a real foolish strategy of him. Why you ask? Because if Jesus was ever seen alive, Pilate would be ridiculed by the people and who knows what a riot that would have brought on, and what the outcome would be! I mean, he was afraid to stand up to the pharisees and to those who yelled “crucify him” and do the right thing to begin with! He seems like a coward and a diplomat at that! He doesn’t fit the character of someone who would stage something like that. He wouldn’t risk his authority and be ridiculed as a liar/deceiver, or maybe even risk his life!! Things were wierd (religion and politics). So, it doesn’t sound right.
    And even if we entertain your thought, and supposed that Jesus was escaped far away to another country, guess what (I love this one :) )??
    HE’D COME BACK!!! UNTIL ALL OF PROPHECY REFERRING TO HIM BE FULFILLED!!! Pilate’s nightmare! Then He’d definitely not get away a second time :)
    13) “To further support this idea, we also know that Jesus was then shortly taken into a secret tomb, where he was out of sight for three days. That’s optimal time to get some rest, some bandages, some medicine and come back.”
    ------a) Charly the three days mentioned were not 3 X 24hour days like ours. Jesus was crucified on Friday and resurrec-ted on Sunday. The Bible uses expressions like “three days,” “the third day,” “on the third day,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” to signify the same period of time/parts of the day; it was a known figure of speech something repeatedly shown elsewhere in The Bible.
    b) Jesus clearly died. This is what the fact shows. The fact that you or anyone can make a hypothesis means nothing actually since a hypothesis can be made on anything. I mean ON ANYTHING! Try it.

    14) “Yes, the desciples would have seen him and 500 others. Yes, he went away – probably because if the clergy knew about him again there would have been another riot – especially now that Pilate would have also been implicated in this act.
    That’s a pretty solid argument I think.”
    ------Doesn’t make clear sense. Don’t know what to make of it exactly.
    Anyway, they saw him being beaten, crucified and pierced and dying, buried, and resurrected. And after that (!) again they saw Him.
    Well, you got the idea. I hope :)

    May God give you His increase!

  346. Thank you Alex, for your indepth answers and guidance.
    I'll take what you wrote and meditate on it.
    Much appreciated. :)

    God bless.

  347. Joe
    no need to explain. I understand perfectly.
    God bless you!

  348. Dear Alex

    “Or is the bible too deep in your ass to understand reason?”
    At first, believe it or not, I thought you were a punk-ass religious fanatic who simply pissed on people's opinion to satisfy your self-serving delusions. Then I saw how much time and efforts you made to have people understand you. I read your comments, clicked your links, and I really tried to understand where you were coming from. I gave you my benefit of the doubt.

    "But, yes, you have improved."
    Alex, are you trying to prove that I was right about you all along?

    And for the rest of your comments...they don't deserve any responses. Sorry.

  349. Joe hi!
    1) “You are dear to me just like anyone and also it’s my way of showing respect and tolerance despite you calling me and others with insulting names.”
    -----This sounds nice, if it were only true (after the “dear” part follow):
    “Or is the bible too deep in your ass to understand reason?”
    “As long as you not b/shitting I would love to read your comments” (something you apologized for.)
    But, yes, you have improved.

    2) What insulting names are you referring to? Just mention one insult to you so all can see, one that can be seen as such by common sense. If there isn’t one that is expressing “insult”, would that give me a right to openly call you a liar, exposing you? It would. Whether I would call you that or not is up to me and concerns the weight of your words in context.
    Now, regarding others, (you being -as you sometimes appear to be…- a moral protector of others…), if I for instance called someone “ignorant”, I’d have done so because I had reason/s that showed you were ignorant. This is not an insult from my side, although one can subjectively take it as such. Not my fault. I name things (not like most) as they are, but without passing the line and cursing at someone. I spoke of some Christians being ignorant as well (on this thread).
    The same hold true for the word “arrogant”; I will use it, when I really see one being such. If one does not want to feel insulted (while he is not being insulted!), he should be more “sound” in reaction and argument, but also realize, as I repeatedly say, my purpose is never to insult but to awake and also realize that someone sees him/her as they really are (in the comments). Someone can believe that, and someone can’t. Simple as that.

    3) “And it’s nice to read a short comment from you and I think it’s more effective(hint).”
    I agree and prefer it as well. But this is not up to me. People say many wrong misleading things, but also ask questions that demand detail and solidity in evidence. (Also, in some comments I answer to 2-3 people at a time.)
    This is something you should have realized by now Joe.

    4) The part about Jesus not existing is just as the word describes it... "ingorance". (How can people still say things like that?? A rhetorical question...)
    God bless!

  350. Dear Daniela

    If I may comment...

    When you say that 'Jesus was proven' I think you have to ask yourself which Jesus.

    Jesus, also known as Yeshua or Yehoshua in Hebrew, was a common name during first century A.D. and there is a great likelihood that many Jews could have had same name.

    Was there a man named Jesus? Yes
    Was there a Jesus according to Christian doctrine? Still debateable

    If you believe there was a Christian Jesus then god exists.
    Because Christian Jesus was and is a son of god.

    And, yes, I agree this doc couldn't have been worse.

  351. Dear Alex

    You are dear to me just like anyone and also it's my way of showing respect and tolerance despite you calling me and others with insulting names.

    Thanks for the clarification of 'His increase'. And it's nice to read a short comment from you and I think it's more effective(hint).

  352. well now that uve "proven" "jesus" to have lived... prove me god exists. haha this documentary coulndt be worse.

  353. Joe hi!
    I'm amazed with that "dear" part... :)
    By "His increase" I mean the fact that God is the One who must, allow or help, one to grow in knowledge of truth, once it is given...!! This is yet another wonderful truth many are not aware of.
    This principle is from:
    1Co 3:5-7 "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."
    So my belief is, that no matter what I do for you, you need God's positive involvement to get it. So, this statement of mine, is just a prayer to God that He shows grace and mercy on you by giving you His increase, hence "receiving" what I give you. What you will do with it, is your choice.
    ---There's more to this, but... no-can-do :)

  354. Dear Alex

    What do you mean by 'His increase'?

  355. Charly hi! (replying to your comment "at" September 9th, 2009 at 05:19)
    Glad I can be of any help to you (hopefully). Now, realize that you have to objectively first understand what I write, remember it, and at the end, see if they it all accumulates into a picture of the truth.
    1) “Now you mentioned a few interesting things that I ought to be doing…
    1. Witness to others that Jesus is the Son of God.
    Well, I don’t really know that for sure Alex. There is a part of me that’s skeptical, so for me to declare this to others, that would be a bit of a lie.”
    -----Yes, this would be a lie. This is not what I meant of course. You said that you tried to contact God, but this was very vague to me. I wasn’t sure whether or not you had realized Who Jesus was, at that time. So what I said referred to the case you had come to realize Christ was the Son of God. Anyway, my point was, that you first learn about Him (that’s why I directed you to my comments and links), see where the evidence leads regarding His person (See “The Case for Christ”), and as you will realize **He must be The Son of God**, then, you must dare to openly confess Him as Son of God and your Lord. This is where all your evidence will push you to make the leap of faith and confess the truth all the evidence leads to.

    2) “I believe Jesus was a real teacher, one that was endowed with healing powers – but so are others these days and in days past…”
    -----Indeed healing powers is not proof you are the Son of God, but it may show that you might have a connection with Him. That’s another story. But can you name one for me who is not a Christian?

    3) “For the part that he came from a virgin and rose from clinical death – well, facts don’t fit the data.”
    -----a) Charly, what data? Does anyone have data that shows Jesus was not born of a virgin??
    b) The virgin birth is accepted on the basis that other Old Testament prophecies have come true. It cannot be proved on its own, nor disproved of course. But one does not need to prove that to realize Jesus was The Son of God.

    4) “No one has done that yet in recorded medical age. Absolute Zero.”
    -----a) Done what? Give birth without previously having intercourse?? Of course not. I mean, it’s a miracle, not something that can be repeated.
    b) Returning from clinical death, is recorded hundred of thousands of times, if not millions!! Google it if you want.

    5) “Jesus also said that beyond him, we would be able to do miracles like his and greater… Again, no one has been able to top his miracles. Not even close.”
    -----a) This is incorect. Not “we”. He was talking about his followers (those who believe in Him).
    Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do….
    Note Charly that “He that believeth on me”, that is, on His power and desire to give that which we ask for (Heb.11:6). Christians fall sort of such faith. Why? Touching upon it, because their sins prevent the application of faith as they are made by them to hesitate. If there is hesitation there is no answer from God as an answer to our faith. (Most of the times God gives us what we ask for, in grace/mercy, not due to a faith that pleases Him )
    See the principle (note that “anything” in v.7):
    Jam 1:5-8 But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting: for he that doubteth is like the surge of the sea driven by the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; 8 a doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways.

    This kind of faith is scarce, so the miracles are scarce as well (small or “greater” ones); it’s not that God does not want to do miracles (this -that He does- has been manifested to me and millions of Christians personally.)
    b) Secondly, there’s no reason to believe that there weren’t Christians throughout history that indeed did such miracles, ones that were though not documented. Why would they necessarily be?? I myself with another older Christian, did provoke through prayer such a miracle that could be considered “greater” or of the same “amazingness” (no doubt), when I was just a few years in faith. I know that most will trample over it here, so I’ll just give a clue to it: Elijah.
    I have heard of a real amazing miracle somewhere in Ethiopia I think. The story goes somewhat like this. Christians were persecuted and as they fled they prayed for a mountain to get out of the way… and it did. I’ve been told that this is apparent when seeing a before and after map; a mountain seems out of place. I don’t know the accurate details of the story, nor if it’s true. But I’ll search the claims and let you know. This would be considered a “greater miracle”, right?
    c) These words of Jesus could be said to be at least fulfilled by the apostles: Acts 5:15, 19:12, 13:11, 5:1-10. (Remember these miracles were documented in Scripture and we have no contemporary voice of their time, exposing them as liars. The existence of such documents alone, in itself, speaks for the truth).
    The problem is, how can one compare amazing miracles to find the greater one among them?? Anyway, for these greater miracles to take place:
    ** there has to be strong unshakable faith in God The miracle worker.
    ** a holy life
    ** there has to be a reason for them to manifest. One might have that strong faith for such a miracle, yet God might not want to perform that particular miracle.
    d) Now, when Jesus said that those who believed in Him, would perform greater miracles, He was not prophesying that they definitely would!! His attempt was to let His followers know of their potential. Christianity has suffered much throughout history, and I believe this potential, has been “misplaced”.
    6) “With that said, I am willing to temprarily suspend my critical side and let Jesus come and testify to me directly.”
    -----No. Never suspend your critical side!!! NEVER!! God gave you it!! It’s just that the problem is that people believe that thinking critically is enough, when it isn’t! You need:
    a) to have all the facts, in order for your critical thinking not to deceive you.
    b) to have a very good thinking capacity; not all people have this, and they cannot be helped to realize this, since to them it sounds belittling. In their case, they can progress in their search for truth up to a degree, no further; from then on they have to be led to deeper levels of truth. They many times -almost inevitably- even become a hindrance in achieving/receiving the truth.

    7) “I have followed your formula in a sense, and I have not had any revelation.”
    -----a) (It’s not my formula.) “Followed”, in what “sense”? I think you somehow misunderstood my comment or I wasn’t clear enough. You have to first apply your faith **on the indication** before you, and THEN God will reveal His Son in you. Remember this.
    b) You know, your type of situation, was less possible in the past. Most people in simple heart and in sincere quest for God, read the New Testament without knowing any opposing “views”, and with an open mindedness read it as they would in simplicity read any other book. Because there were no contradicting ideas that would place doubt in them within The New Testament (as today: books, television, internet), they just realized what they were reading, was amazing and truthful. Believe it or not. Then, they applied their trust to it, deciding repentance unto God and faith in Christ, and God fulfilled His promise to them, giving them His Holy Spirit. Simple as that. Today of course atheists will claim: “Ha! See!! Their ignorance of the facts lead them to their belief!” But this in itself is ignorance. There is nothing that can destroy a knowledgeable Christian’s faith. There is nothing out there, that can come close to showing that the salvation message of The New Testament is a false one. NOTHING. But if Christians like the simple hearted (in a good way) that I mentioned, came in contact with the ignorance and arrogance to the facts of atheists, prior or at the same time they were reading the NT, then unjustified doubt would grow in their heart; this would hinder their application of trust. (Unjustified because they are filled with gaps and absurd beliefs.)
    In closing this. A good advice would then be to turn off all atheistic arguments because they are proven wrong time and time again, and just read the NT one more time, as if you have heard nothing and just reading a new book. If as you read it gives you the impression “this is history”, just go with it and see where it takes you. Tell God -in simple heart- that again you are attempting to learn the truth about the Person named Jesus of Nazareth. Then keep reading. See what happens. I believe most if not all atheistic claims would seem foolish to you.
    It’s hard to give personal advice to someone you never met up close, I’m just guessing your detailed needs. I hope I’m not way off.

    8. “So why would I be going out to testify? I would not be believable and could not get myself to say things that my heart is not fully convinced of…”
    -----No Charly, don’t do this! It’s a sin in itself! God can’t be fooled, and most Christians can’t either.

    9) “My biggest weakness probably comes on the sexual dimension. I am single, have engaged in pre-marital sex and have/ do sometimes watch porn – in particular when I am single.”
    ----I’ve been there Charly (this is your real name?). This is natural and God knows (of course) this need of ours and the -to different degrees- weakness to control it. He apllies His longsufferring to you, because He wants to invest in your sanctification/holiness in order to save you. All He wants to see in you, is **a continuous effort to real repentance**. Now, if at this time, you sin, you again have to apply your faith in Christ’s work on the cross for your sin. This practically means, saying “Christ, you died for my sin, the sin I just committed (name it). Forgive me for my sin and failing to resist it. Help me grow far from what is not pleasing to You. From this moment my effort will again be against this and other sins.”, and believing that Christ **already paid for that sin/s**. Believe it, confess it, go on in holiness. This Charly means removing your self from the presence of sin and placing your self in places of less or no spiritual danger, (church, fellowship with Christians. If television is a problem, get rid of it, at least till you grow in Christ and can control it instead of it controlling you.) This does not mean just to abstain from sexual immorality, but to stop lying, cursing, talking behind people’s back, using women as an “object”, disrespecting your parents/family, thinking of yourself alone and not of others, etc.

    So, it is a matter of heart first of all and God is more longsuffering than one can imagine (for He hates what… He hates -sin.). When you start to believe in Christ and want to repent because God wants you to, you should just put your effort in doing good not giving tome to sin.
    Christianity Charly is not an easy path (depending on the luggage were carrying) but it’s a blessed path of virtue, miracles, guidance, truth, change, a life of blessings unto eternity.

    10) “But I have tried to be good. I have decided to stop all forms of sexuality and wait for my wife… The most I have went was eight weeks. At that point, I’m like a bow under tenstion and without any ‘hope’ in sight, for me to continue on that path indefinitely is impossible.”
    -----Charly you’re on the right path, don’t loose it. God did appreciate your efforts in pleasing Him (Again, did you believe in Him???...), but salvation will not be given to you according to your works but according to Christ’s work on the cross. Works just honor God’s holiness and prove your sincere repentance. Do put effort in pleasing God, BUT KNOW ****only Christ’s work will satisfy Him and your trust/faith in this grace given to mankind***, because you will always be a sinner (to a certain degree)!
    Eph 2:8-10 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not of works, that no man should glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.

    Even if you had one sin in your life before coming to Christ, the absolute God would have to have sent His Son to die for you (if you can imagine that!) since His absolute Justice would have to be met, and It says: God is Holy, man has sin, man deserves punishment (in simple terms), and God’s love replies: “My Son will pay for them.”.
    11) From experience, I don’t find the idea to abstain from all forms of sexual expression, in any way, untill marriage doable. Not in todays society anyway.
    -----But your dismissing the facts again. Millions, in today’s society, do exactly this! It’s not easy, but a man who has brought his heart before his Creator, can accomplish more than he can imagine.

    12) “Sure, it was somewhat different in ancient times – i.e. you would be paired up with a wife at the age of 16 or thereabouts. Marriages were quick and to the point. You would be able to direct your sexual energies within a partnership quite easily.”
    ------The good old days :) :)

    13) “How can I possibly abstain myself from all forms of sexual expression for 1-3 years or more, untill the honeymoon?”
    -----What? Why wait 1-3 years???? Find a good person with real virtue and friendly at least to Christianity and get married. (The thing is, are you a good person with real virtue etc.? It looks that way.)

    14) “Again, I tried it for eight weeks, in the hope that I would have some form of breakthrough – but I had no revelation – just a lot of pent up frustration…”
    -----Charly in talking about revelation I am talking about information implanted into your spirit. Practically this means that The Christ you applied your faith to due to your indications, will be revealed deep in you! YOU JUST WILL KNOW DEEP IN YOU (!!) CHRIST WAS AND IS THE SON OF GOD. It’s like you walking on the path of Christ and God suddenly placing you in Christ, becoming fully aware (beyond explanation) that He was Who He said He was!

    Hope I’ve helped.
    I advise you to enter the forum, where you can send me personal messages that I will respond to, or get my email address there in my profile. This way our conversation will be in private and unhindered.
    Please state less question each time, so I can answer faster to you and to others as well.
    May God give you His increase!!

  356. Hi again Charly,

    Thanks for the response, you put some good arguments forth.

    The fact is that Gallileo was held under house arrest and not executed (but he renounced his science that was going against the teaching of the Catholic church and lived a very comfortable life in 'detention' after that as a matter of fact). But Giordano Bruno, an extraordinary scientist, an unharnessed spirit, did not and therefore died at stake.

    I am well aware that Nero's persecution of Christians was not the only one (& I said it was the first recorded one) and that the subsequent emperors persecuted them to a larger or lesser degree, but that still doesn't change the fact that people's beliefs are not conditioned by the physical consequences they may endure because of them.

    But to answer your question - I believe that the Christ brought a new, extraordinarily appealing message to all those who saw no hope in this life - that a pious, Christian life here, however hard, was the entry ticket to a paradise in the next. That was something completely different to the pagan understanding of life and death. Therefore, in my eyes, there is no wonder that so many gladly sacrificed their lives certain that their sacrifice allowed them to enter into a much better world. I guess that for someone without such a strong faith it is impossible to comprehend it (me included). Although, the number of those that renounced Christ under such threats is not as small as we are lead to believe - some correspondence between the Roman officials at the time indicates that they were not sure what to do with numbers of those who claimed to have rejected the Christian faith.

    But such devotion to a cause (or a belief) is not confined only to these extraordinary early Christians. A Czech student Jan Palach set himself to fire and burned to death in 1969 in the middle of Prague in protest of the Soviet occupation of his country. Shortly after, another student did the same. I don't think any additional explanation is needed here... The Spirit works in mysterious ways...

    If it counts for anything, the Constantine's mother was a devout Christian, she was even even canonized as a saint later on...

    As for the Zeitgeist, it's anything but ridiculous. On the contrary, the topics it covers are very serious and relevant to our lives today. I may myself not be convinced with the connection it makes btw Christ and various other ancient deities (primarily because I have not researched any of it and am not familiar with the evidence put forth). But since I am familiar with the field of international relations, and politics in general, I can only say that the other topics covered in the doc are of immense importance. The notions are not original in any way, if you research a bit, you will see that Zeitgeist elaborates on issues that have been pinpointed as problematic for some time now, even in the mainstream political science - the issue of the elite rule, for example. The monetary system is is so plainly a field where manipulation by those within the system is taking place, that I feel there is no need to explain it to someone who doesn't see it. The Founding Fathers did their utmost (although many of them are accused of being Masons and all sorts of things) to prevent the establishment of a central bank in the US. Many subsequent US presidents were opposed to creation of such a blood-sucking institution, Jackson in particular, until Wilson was lured into establishing the Federal Reserve, which he later regretted. We are not jealous of them, they are simply blood suckers who have the power.

    I myself don't blame the Catholic church for the ills of the world, but because of its pretty violent and demagogic history it has to share its burden of it.

    Looking into oneself is always a good way to start, and the problems are usually exactly there. Another way of finding peace is a total ignorance of the world that surrounds us. One can always make a choice.

  357. Hi WTC 7,

    Well, I presented a subjective, conscience driven challenge:
    --> Would you (not hypotehetically, but actually you) stand up on your present beliefs, if you had a painful optional death put before you?

    Personally no. I'm not convinced enough of anything I believe to put myself optionally in the mouths of lions.

    As for your reason, well, they are not the same thing. The Catholic church didn't put to death 'Martyrs' but already condemned people. (many of them actual criminals, let's not forget) It wasn't exactly 'optional'. Galileo shut up after being threated with grand heresy - after making fun of the pope and challenging his authority, mind you. He was just put under house arrest.

    Bottom line, Christian martyrs had the option to back out of it, - but chose to stand on that anyway, - valiantly, more like Socrates. (yet they were ordinary people, with little or no education)

    As for the historic references, well, you sound like a smart guy and know about your history - so you should know it extended beyond Nero, and Constantine was more than just about the creation of symbol... You know what I'm talking about. (and so do I) SO let's not dilly-dally around the issue with distorted historical references...

    Again, bottom line:
    The question is - why would the early martyrs and the apostles themselves - choose death over their beliefs?

    Again, I'm not Christian, but I look at the facts, and must admit - there was something there...
    (If you notice in the previous posts, I do have my doubts too about whether Jesus was the Son of God, or whether he was merely a very influential and inspiring figure for the times -and yes, the idea enthused people, a lot.)

    The Zeitgeist proposition is much, much more ridiculous. With such lame references, it takes a lot of faith to actually believe it - and I'm not even going to go into the 9/11 conspiracy. Of course,as I said docos like these get peoples attention.

    People need to have some sort of external demon to believe in, - a scape goat - rather than looking into themselves to realize they're leading meaningless and lame lives.

    So today it's very fashionable to blame the Catholic church for the world's ills, or the government, the banks - for why their life sucks. It's a time long principle for 'scape goating'. Sacrifices to the Gods used to be the favorite means in the ancient times accross the world. Today we like to tear down the successful and one's that have a purpose in their life.
    We're scared of them. They have a purpose, and we don't. "They must be conspiring against us!"

    The only problem is - wherever you go, there you are - as Socrates put it. Things, ain't gonna change, untill people look within.

  358. Hi Charly,

    Just a few comments on your last post.

    I think it is wrong to say that people choose or reject what to believe in on the basis of the assumption that they might be killed for it at some later point.

    Also, it is not quite clear why you consider the fact the early Christians choose to accept the faith of Christ in the face of almost certain torture and death should be a strong and valid argument which proves that there was something "real and powerful" behind it, specifically at that period of time. I find the argument weak for two reasons:

    1) it provides the same validation for beliefs of all the martyrs – victims of the Catholic church throughout centuries (victims of the infamous inquisition, of the witch-hunt, which alone accounts for thousands of victims burned alive, the scientists who perished for not renoucing their scientific beliefs, etc.). For, following your argument, there had to be a power behind their faith so strong so as to give them strength to withstand the terror of the Catholic church;

    2) the persecution of Christians by the Romans was by no means equally intense at all times and all parts of the Roman empire; the first recorded state-sponsored persecution on a large scale had in reality nothing to do with Christian religion at all but was the way for the insane Nero to avoid the wrath of the citizens of Rome by accusing the, generally not understood and mistrusted, Christians for setting the city on fire (whether he himself set Rome on fire or not is disputed by historians, but is not important here).

    As for the vision of Constantine, I personally can't see the gentle and loving Jesus instructing how his sign of cross is to be carried in a battle… But, ok, that's my personal view of it…

  359. Alex:

    If it was a beautiful gorgeous Woman, knocking on my door for no apparent reason. I would find a reason! :D

  360. Hi Alex and all readers here,

    Wow, thanks for the indepth reply.
    Well, here's my input into the debate:

    First, why I think Zeitgeist is a joke.
    Basically because the facts don't fit the data.
    And the number one reason, comes from the Early Christian themselves. If the story of Jesus was a total fabrication, then why would anyone choose to believe it, at the expense of being crucified themselves or to be shreded alive by lions?
    The Romans gave them a simple command - renounce this story or die a brutal and painful death. Yet here there were, thousands of these Christians, facing it head on.
    (there's plenty of undisputed historical data on this)

    If anyone told anyone in this forum, renounce your atheism or be eaten alive by lions, not one person here would be brave enough to do that!
    Heck I'd dance to whatever Romans told me to believe and go back to my normal life... That's reasonable. Why would I choose the alteranative - unless something indeed was happening in the consciousness of the people at the time - that was real and powerful?
    The facts don't fit the data.
    (That's also not to speak of Emperor Constantine and his vision....)

    Zeitgeist of course, is created by a bunch of opinionated Gen Ys, who smoked a few joints, had a few occult books lying around, and thought of creating a doco, since it's so easy to do these days... Also mix in a few plausible conspiracies, which is a hot best-selling subject, and let it appeal to a similar taget market. Too easy.

    (I had predicted an Obama conspiracy doco to come out after he was elected. It's too easy not to have a best-seling title with a hot subject like this.
    It's a simple formula for a best-seller = Take one popular point of view that people feel strongly about - and try to proove the opposite - in particular to make you believe you're being duped by all these 'oldies in power'. Zeitgeist came out all guns blazing - Christianity, 9/11 and so on. Da Vinci Code is another classic example, of how to create a best-seller)

    Anyway, back to our dialogue.
    Now you mentioned a few interesting things that I ought to be doing...
    1. Witness to others that Jesus is the Son of God.
    Well, I don't really know that for sure Alex. There is a part of me that's skeptical, so for me to declare this to others, that would be a bit of a lie. I believe Jesus was a real teacher, one that was endowed with healing powers - but so are others these days and in days past...
    There's no proof for me that he is far and beyond a human being, who was obviously very gifted, wise, strong of will and so on. For the part that he came from a virgin and rose from clinical death - well, facts don't fit the data.
    No one has done that yet in recorded medical age. Absolute Zero.
    Jesus also said that beyond him, we would be able to do miracles like his and greater... Again, no one has been able to top his miracles. Not even close.
    Again, strong reason for doubt.

    With that said, I am willing to temprarily suspend my critical side and let Jesus come and testify to me directly.
    I have followed your formula in a sense, and I have not had any revelation. So why would I be going out to testify?
    I would not be believable and could not get myself to say things that my heart is not fully convinced of...

    One additional comment on the steps you listed actually.
    My biggest weakness probably comes on the sexual dimension. I am single, have engaged in pre-marital sex and have/ do sometimes watch porn - in particular when I am single.

    But I have tried to be good. I have decided to stop all forms of sexuality and wait for my wife... The most I have went was eight weeks. At that point, I'm like a bow under tenstion and without any 'hope' in sight, for me to continue on that path indefinitely is impossible.

    From experience, I don't find the idea to abstain from all forms of sexual expression, in any way, untill marriage doable. Not in todays society anyway.
    Sure, it was somewhat different in ancient times - i.e. you would be paired up with a wife at the age of 16 or thereabouts. Marriages were quick and to the point. You would be able to direct your sexual energies within a partnership quite easily.

    Let's look at the logistics today - 2009:
    Between the process of actually finding a compatible partner, much dating, then getting to know them, then getting engaged, then planning for a wedding... well, that can take at best, one whole year - more realistically, two years, but also maybe three of more.

    How can I possibly abstain myself from all forms of sexual expression for 1-3 years or more, untill the honeymoon?
    (especially since I have tasted the fruit so to speak, and know how good it can be)
    Unless I have a new biology, this is almost like asking me to go into the desert for 40 days and fast. That is equally beyond my power.

    Again, I tried it for eight weeks, in the hope that I would have some form of breakthrough - but I had no revelation - just a lot of pent up frustration...

    I'd appreciate your perspective on this Alex,
    God bless.

  361. Razor,
    Oh that's where you get your "sharp" ideas from! Add one more to your collection: The god delusion.
    PS.
    "What do you get when you cross a Jehova's Witness with an atheist?
    Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason."

    :)

  362. Jefferson hi!
    Thanks for taking the time to reply to my challenge.
    Now, you write:
    1) “The the writings of historians from the time that Jesus would have been born, we find that the premise that Joseph and his pregnant wife had to travel for a census is not a possibility.”
    -----This is weird. I’ll explain why. If one accepts that the gospel of Luke was written before 70 AD as it actually was (from Wikipedia):
    “Some scholars have posited earlier dates for Luke's composition. Arguments for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel note that Luke is addressed to "Most Excellent Theophilus," possibly a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus. This reference would date the original copy of Luke to within 4 to 8 years after the death of Jesus.
    Some think that Luke collected much of his unique material during the imprisonment of Paul in Caesarea, when Luke attended to him. Paul mentions Luke, in passing, several times as traveling with Paul. However Guthrie notes that much of the evidence for dating the Gospel at any point is based upon conjecture.
    Carson, Moo and Morris opt for a date prior to AD 70 based upon 6 factors. Most prominent in their view is that no event beyond AD 62 is mentioned in the book including the death of church leaders such as Paul or James. They note that there is no mention of the Neronian persecution in the early 60's or of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.”
    a question comes up:
    How could he make such a mistake in speaking of a census that didn’t take place?? (I marvel at people’s gullibility, lack of critical thinking, even bias to this extent!) I mean he did not just speak of a particular census, but PUT IT IN WRITING FOR ALL TO SEE!! Go figure! I mean, why wasn’t he “lynched” so to speak, by his contemporaries?? Wasn’t he afraid of it when thinking of attempting such a frivolousness? No. He would be -bluntly put- what would be called AN IDIOT (!) to lie about facts of such weight (wouldn’t he Jefferson?) that all his contemporaries are aware of (!!!), or was completely ignorant of what is happening around him!! COULD THERE BE ANOTHER REASON?? WHY DOES ONE HAVE TO RESORT TO SUCH CONCLUSIONS?
    If anyone unbiased reads the Gospel of Luke, Luke will strike him as a man with no purpose for lying about something like that, or anything else for that matter; he seems 100% honest in his documentation, and knowledgeable in general.
    So, the question is, “What did his contemporaries know, that obviously made Luke’s words make sense to the?” This is **the sensible question** to be made.
    Barnes writes:
    “According to his view, the passage here means, “This was the “first” census of Cyrenius, governor of Syria.” It is called the “first” to distinguish it from one “afterward” taken by Cyrenius, Act 5:37. It is said to be the census taken by “Cyrenius; governor of Syria; “not that he was “then” governor, but that it was taken by him who was afterward familiarly known as governor. “Cyrenius, governor of Syria,” was the name by which the man was known when Luke wrote his gospel, and it was not improper to say that the taxing was made by Cyrenius, the governor of Syria,” though he might not have been actually governor for many years afterward. Thus, Herodian says that to Marcus “the emperor” were born several daughters and two sons,” though several of those children were born to him “before” he was emperor. Thus, it is not improper to say that General Washington saved Braddock’s army, or was engaged in the old French war, though he was not actually made “general” until many years afterward. According to this Augustus sent Cyrenius, an active, enterprising man, to take the census. At that time he was a Roman senator. Afterward, he was made governor of the same country, and received the title which Luke gives him.”
    There are other reasonable explanation as well.

    2) “It isn’t a possibility because, among other things, Roman records were kept very well and there was no census at the proper time….”

    “In support of Luke's description of the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, it is confirmed that Augustus did decree a 5% world wide inheritance tax to support the military. This was sometime before the second taxing in 6 CE and likely before Herod's death in 4 BCE; it was at some point discontinued. When this census took place cannot yet be determined, and Quirinius' official status at that time is unknown.”
    3) “…and Romans did not require a person to travel back to a city to be counted.”
    Again from the same link:
    “The Romans usually took a census in one's home town. However, in a census for inheritance taxation it would be expected that this would be conducted where the tribal records were kept, no matter who conducted the census…………. Joseph may have recently inherited some land. Since the special taxation was related to inheritances, Joseph journeyed to Bethlehem to claim his estate and settle any taxes due. He would have there registered his property for the census. Or, perhaps Joseph had recently become eighteen years of age, and as an adult was required to then register as an independent household. Or, they had recently married, and the registration of the family was required. Or, Joseph and Mary thought that their child might be the promised Messiah and that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2). They may have timed their trip to Bethlehem for the census to ensure that Jesus was born there. Also, registration may have been required before the end of the Roman year, that is, December 31, and they were late. However, there is no need to require that Joseph's registration occurred immediately after the census for taxation was decreed.”
    Perfectly consistent logical explanations.

    4) “But, these things have to happen in order to fit Jesus into the prophecy of being a Messiah. He has to come from the house of David and the way chosen for that to happen is to have him born in the City of David.”
    ------a) What extremes people go to!... With your logic all other fulfilled prophecies (on Christ) were made up as well. So, did Jesus stage His death?? Were the soldiers into the plan, when the pierced Him, as it was prophesied (John 19:33-34; 36-37)? Or when they gambled for His cloth, as prophesied (Matthew 27:35)? Or assigned a grave with the wicked but was buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9)!? These are just a few of the hundreds! They alone speak for themselves, but if you put them all together, even a “deaf” person can hear their message!!!! Tell, you would believe that the above were staged, and still consider your self intelligent?

    5) “It is the luxury of a non-believe to be able to remain objective and honest about the Bible. It is unfortunate for Christians that they are not afforded the same advantage.”
    ----Find one comment of mine, in all Zeitgeist threads where I was not honest. Just one, will do.

    6) “While neither a Catholic nor Orthodox priest, I do have an intimate understand of the bind a believer finds his or herself in when the challenge of such beliefs creates a big scary vacuum in the life of the follower of the Christian myth.”
    ----Sorry, but you have a lack of understanding for most if not all aspects of Biblical Christianity. This is -for starters- made clear by your illogical conclusions (on Luke, the census, and on prophecy/so far…)

    7) “I feel for you, I really do. But passive aggressive posts on the internet are probably not the solution.”
    ----Thanks, but no thanks. But if it’s any consolation, from my view, you being a spiritual victim, I feel for you too, I’ll pray for you as well. God still cares for you. (Imagine that.) // “passive aggression” as in defence for His truth, yes, no problem.
    May God give you His increase!
    PS. It would be honourable for you if you don’t just react to this post, but keep silent to it if you think you may be mistaken. I will not consider it cowardly of you. BUT if you react with nonsense arguments to the above, this I will consider cowardly of you, cowardly a your expense and at the expense of others. Be prudent; everybody's gain.

  363. Not bad, ALEX, But I like all of Patrick O' Brian's great books of the sea. Master And Commander,
    The Far Side Of The World, And all his other 21 books of the sea.

  364. Jefferson,
    sad yet impressive that song of yours: "Somewhere"!
    You sing:
    "Somewhere I’ll be free of the fears, somewhere, there’s peace for me, but not here..."

    This is true, because man can only find real peace in Christ. Many are taught they are in Christ when they are not. The "good news" though is, **Christ is here!!** for all!! The same Christ spoken of here:
    Mar 4:37-41 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. 38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? 39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? 41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?"
    This Jefferson is my experience. Him I follow!
    This is Who you need, this is Who atheistic falacious teachings and ****American "Christian" subculture**** has deprived you from Jefferson. Sort it all out and you will see, this is what happened. My prayer is with you. Really.
    God bless you!

  365. Jefferson:

    I went to your website. Watched your Videos, also on YouTube. You have great songs, and great talent!

    Regards :D

  366. Alex, an example:
    The the writings of historians from the time that Jesus would have been born, we find that the premise that Joseph and his pregnant wife had to travel for a census is not a possibility. It isn't a possibility because, among other things, Roman records were kept very well and there was no census at the proper time and Romans did not require a person to travel back to a city to be counted.

    But, these things have to happen in order to fit Jesus into the prophecy of being a Messiah. He has to come from the house of David and the way chosen for that to happen is to have him born in the City of David.

    If there is no census there is no trip. If there is no trip, Jesus isn't born in Bethlehem. If he is not born in the City of David, he can not be the Messiah.

    BTW, my knowledge of the Bible is solid. I do not, in order to protect my fragile and unsustainable belief in it's divinity, add or subtract anything from it. It is the luxury of a non-believe to be able to remain objective and honest about the Bible. It is unfortunate for Christians that they are not afforded the same advantage.

    While neither a Catholic nor Orthodox priest, I do have an intimate understand of the bind a believer finds his or herself in when the challenge of such beliefs creates a big scary vacuum in the life of the follower of the Christian myth. I feel for you, I really do. But passive aggressive posts on the internet are probably not the solution.

    JM

  367. Jefferson hi!
    Sorry, no intent to insult you, Catholic and Orthodox priests (if indeed this is true) by rule know nothing of The Bible and apologetics in general. This is my experience time and time again in talking with them. I hope you are an exception, but from what you say, you can't be.
    Now, instead of just throwing a rock, why don't you expand a little on the bit about the nativity scene. You know... that "inaccurate and impossible" stuff. Otherwise, that more smoke from your pipe.
    I'll be waiting.

    God bless!

  368. Alex,
    I have watched that film. It is... cute.

    Just so you know.. I am a former priest. I am perfectly aware of the validity of my claims and also keenly aware of the weakness of yours. Great joke, btw, one of my favs.

    No, this is not ignorance. The nativity scene offered in the New Testament is inaccurate and impossible. But that is what happens when you try to force something into a prophecy that it never was.

    The single thing that makes this more credible than the film you quoted is that the writers at the time who discredit the story aren't attempting to do so. They are simply writing HISTORY as it is.

  369. Charly hi!
    I appreciate your kind words. God bless you for them.
    (Your referrence to Jedi, is not blasphemous, but just funny :) Did you know that Jedi was an ancient monastic peacekeeping organization? I didn't. This is where star wars got the idea.)
    Now, you write:

    1)“One major question I have for you:…
    ………That’s the thing that I don’t get though. I have tried to get ‘born again’, I have prayed for the holy spirit to renew me, but nothing happens. What happens when you want to believe, you want to go there and have that religious experience – and nothing happens?”
    ----Charly, that is what is suppose to happen…! Hold on, allow me to explain. Now, many people who attempt to be born-again do not know that they cannot born themselves again! They cannot do this. This is supernatural and this is why it is God’s job and promise. Being born-again, that is, of God, means receiving the identity of a son. This identity is given to you, when you enter in His Son! As you do that, He gives you The Holy Spirit to reside in you, then the “birth/identity” process is complete. But how do you enter His Son? You enter not in your own way. But in the way He predestined/predesignated.
    In God’s plans, man is able to connect to God, only by the means He has designated. Those means are:
    1) actual repentance = turning your mind processes to following obeying His will, in simple words, in practice turning away form sin (porn, lying, premarital relationships, homosexuality, etc.). And this for life of course.
    2) faith = accepting the event that Christ was the Son of God who came to earth, lived and died for the remission of all your sins, and resurrected, now mediating for your salvation and more. You weren’t there, that is why your faith is required. By faith you proclaim, that *God does not lie, that He is trustworthy*. (A big story why faith was chosen) This faith is to be kept to the end.
    What does a person who has this real faith and repentance do??
    a) He **openly confesses** to the world that “Christ is The Son of God, He is my saviour! When I leave this earth, I will forever be with Him!”
    b) he removes him/herself from sin
    c) He gets baptized in water. This is the seal of faith, by which Christ’s work, is merited to you. It is the closing signature in a divine Covenant. Both parties, God and man, are to uphold, the context of the “contract”.

    Many people Charly try to come to God, in their own way, but The Way, is already there for them. It is Christ. You enter Christ, in sincerity by repentance and faith, more accurately, you are placed in Christ as God sees the reality of those two factors in your heart.
    So in closing:
    God will not give someone His Holy Spirit if:
    a) His two presuppositions are not met.
    b) If man just wants to live something supernatural
    c) If someone wants to live something supernatural, in order to believe…! This is contradictory to God’s will. The supernatural follows a sincere heart that dedicates itself to The Lord, not the other way around.
    **We are not called to see to believe, but to believe in order to see.**
    The world has it the wrong way when it comes to God. God on the other hand honours the child like faith with His blessings (guidance, answers, miracles).
    It is not an easy road Charly, but it is the only road. It does though get easier as on progresses in the will of God. His purpose is sanctification, holliness/virtue. A Christian is tested time and time again. He cannot forget that he told God that he will live a life of repentance and trust.
    God of course, encourages our faith from time to time with wonderful (…) things, and strengthens our walk with Him.

    People who are not aware of these presuppositions and their mandatory adequate fulfilment, hence get “nothing in return” in their attempts, become disappointed, and enter disbelief, atheism.

    2) “At the end of the day I”m left to the good old ability to reason…”
    ----Reason Charly, is good reason, when you have all the facts straight, otherwise you are deceived.
    3) “As such, I cannot honestly say that Christianity or Christ for that matter is the son of God, because he has made no contact with me… even though I have tried to contact Him.”
    ----Although I undertsand, again, you have to see yourself as He wants to see you. And you have to make sure, you don’t want to come in contact Him, just for the experience. He cannot be played with.
    From my experience Charly it is not at all impossible, if God is contacting you through me…! You can think about it.
    My final advice. Think carefully about the above, decide it, confess it in bold faith (confess to someone Jesus is your Lord and saviour from now on! If they laugh, you laugh in joy!), be baptized, attend a protestant Church (maybe a baptist church / avoid charismatic churches.), and in time God will surprise you in a way you were never surprised. A fact, better yet… God’s promise (lived by million throughout history).
    PS. Forget about what God will do (it’s a trap) or what you will live (He knows both!), just find out the facts about the Christian faith to build on it, and follow him for life. Please read my comments on all threads (Zeitgeist The Movie, Addendum, Refuted and Exposed, Jesus Camp, The case for Christ, Louis Theroux’s Fundamentalist Christian.). I ask this of you because I know it will be of help and right direction for you.
    Here for you and on the forum.
    May God give you His increase! He does care about you by the way...

  370. Jefferson,
    if you only knew how ignorant and arrogant your comment is, you'd blush. Much on this on the net that destroys your simplistic reaction, but you can see the film on TDF "The case for Christ". Not that it will help you, since you don't want to be helped
    Go do your research and stop joking around.
    But speaking of jokes, have you heard the other one? Listen:

    A blonde calls her boyfriend and says, “Please come over, I need help urgently! I bought a jigsaw puzzle, and I can’t even start it. Her boyfriend asks, “What is it supposed to be when it’s finished?”
    The blonde replies, “According to the picture on the box, it’s a big chicken.” Her boyfriend hurries over to find the puzzle spread over the table. He studies the pieces for a moment, then looks at the box. Turning to his girlfriend he says, “First of all, no matter what we do, we’re not going to be able to assemble these pieces into anything resembling a chicken”
    He takes her hand and says, “Secondly, I’d advise you to relax. Let’s have a cup of coffee, and then…” he sighs, “let’s put all these Corn Flakes back in the box…”

    Smile but think pal! ;)

  371. Um..
    This is a good attempt but this entire film is pretty pathetic.

    You know, there doesn't need to be a "Zeitgiest" theory to disprove Christianity. All that needs to be proven is that the nativity story never happened. Contemporary historians disprove the story for us. Their writings are older, and far more verifiable, than the oldest scrolls of the new testament.

    If that story is false (and it is) Jesus can not be the Christ. If Jesus is not the Christ there is no point to Christianity.

    So you don't need Zeitgeist, which does have plenty of holes in it, but you also don't need crap like this....

  372. ALEX!

    Wow! I have to applaud your gigantic efforts here. Just read through most of this posts here and have to say it's impressive to see. It's like watching a Jedi at work ;-)
    (Sorry for the blasphemous reference - but it's a good image). :-)

    Although I'm not a Christian (more like a philosopher) I think many could learn a lot from you. I certainly have. Thank YOU.

    One major question I have for you:
    You mention somewhere earlier in these posts, in response to someone who's faith was shaken by contrary ideas, it was because they were never really 'born again' by the holy spirit, but merely realying upon reason/ belief... (a quick paraphrase, I know)

    That's the thing that I don't get though. I have tried to get 'born again', I have prayed for the holy spirit to renew me, but nothing happens. What happens when you want to believe, you want to go there and have that religious experience - and nothing happens?
    At the end of the day I''m left to the good old ability to reason...

    As such, I cannot honestly say that Christianity or Christ for that matter is the son of God, because he has made no contact with me... even though I have tried to contact Him.
    What's your take on this?

    God bless you.

  373. B....cks... Religion is a hoax, god? I don't know, infact no one knows... But if god which has power of everything, would not bother to write books for us, or sends us some kind of messengers in order to pass his or it's messages. I am sure it can do that directly and immediately. Just like a baby snake just comes out of its shell; 1: knows how to swim 2: where to hide to protect it's self 3:whats edible basically whatever it needs to survive. Everything else we think is just imagination. We need food, air, water, shit, pee, sex and sleep... rest is not necessary. So I believe what Zeitgeist told us even if they are bullshit, the main thing is that, all the stories that we've heard is just a fiction, dream, imagination... Thats all. World must wake up. A.S.A.P

  374. Nay hi!
    You write:
    September 2nd, 2009 at 20:09
    “God won’t heal amputees because the soul is forever and flesh is temporary?”

    Do you hear yourself when you speak?"
    ----Who said this? Who are you referring to?

  375. I've come to understand that religion is the ultimate marketing tool. In controlling idiots, who refuse to grow up.

  376. Death, for princes, kings and nobody's, for all ages and all occasions.
    As Socrates put it "Since we do not know what death is it is illogical to fear it".

    OK, that was plagiarised from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. But I think its a good summation.

  377. "God won't heal amputees because the soul is forever and flesh is temporary?"

    Do you hear yourself when you speak? If that is true then why do Christians claim god heals cancer etc? If what you claim is your response then he wouldn't bother healing anyone.

    I'm so sick of you religious crack pots.

  378. Alex:

    On your PS. Not to worry. I fully understood! Otherwise it would go against everything you say. :) :)

  379. I agree Joe.

  380. Hey Alex, Max, and everyone

    This thread has gotten so long the comments went astray long while ago. Why don't we move to the forum.

  381. Sorry, my mistake, it was just a read error.

  382. Does any one know why some posts have been partially censored?

  383. Razor,
    I also ommited the next one (Exodus 2:11-12) but just commented on it, just to save some space.
    Now, I ommited posting 2kings 2:23-24, but not dealing with it. This was done purposely. I thought of not putting just the whole passage but give a link that has the passage as well as its explanation, and this because the nature of the passage is indeed a controversial one and demands further elaboration.

    I wanted the people to get a more rounded answer, one that was in fact ready, instead of me having to write one down, and eat more space like I did in my comment on the Song of Songs. Believe it or not, I’m always under this pressure (if you can imagine!). Now and then, I make some small cutbacks here and there.
    So that’s what I did.
    Ps. when I said "Don't knock it till you try it!" I hoped you'd understand, being a Christian I meant within matrimony!! Just clarifying to make sure.
    God bless!

  384. I just finished 'Passion Of The Christ'. I think there should have been more blood and more beatings. Other than that, I give it four out of five stars.

  385. correction:

    Bethel, not Bethal.

  386. I am already there, under discussions/philosophy. I answered Joe.
    See you there. Or here. Or both.

  387. Alex:

    You seemed to have omitted 2 Kings 2:23-24.

    23-And he went up from thence unto Bethal: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, go up, thou bald head; go up,thou bald head.

    24-And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she Bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two of the children of them. :)

  388. We really should be using the forum I think, Anyone care to suggest a thread topic?

  389. Has anyone seen the movie called 'Jesus Christ Vampire Slayer'? It's very enlightening.

  390. Part 2 (last part)
    Razor continues and I answer:

    7) “Some kick ass verses:?”
    ----Should have written them out. So here are some of them at least. Learn form them. Learn that God WILL NOT be played with, and he is no emotional push around cry baby (I will comment on some):
    *Eze 25:17 And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.
    *2Sa 23:8-10 These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time. 9 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines that were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away: 10 He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword: and the LORD wrought a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to spoil.
    *11 kings 2:23-24? (Note the “11” when it should have been as two: “II”. Just “razor” cut funny :) Apparently this is a man familiar with the Bible, ha, ha, :) ha ,ha, :)
    * “Exodus 2:11-12? You can’t even see the heart of Moses behind his act, can you?
    * “1 Kings 18:24, 38-40?: God did an amazing miracle for Elijah to prove to the people there that He is the real God and not Baal:
    * 1Ki 18:38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God. 40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
    * ‘1 Samuel 18:25-27? This is how business was done then. You have to put your 3D glasses to understand it properly. God allowed these things all the time, in order to put fear in the hearts of all enemies who attempted to lure the tribes of Israel far from God’s will. Saul by the way wanted to humiliate the Philistines (those who remained living) in that manner, letting them know, that the people without the foreskins (Israel -Spiritual Israel = The Church // Cut off foreskin = cut off life “of the flesh”, repentance.)
    * “Judges 15:15-16?
    This a miracle which God carried out through Samson:
    “14…….and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands. 15 And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.

    As usual, let the record show :) you answer nothing, I answer everything!!!!!!!!! But don’t think I do it just for you. I do it for all to see.
    May this fearsome God give you His increase in time!

  391. ALEX:

    11-2 So what!I hit the wrong keys on the computer. At least I never have any spelling errors! Thanks for saving me the time on writing everything out! I do not know why my post should get you so discombobulated! Peace! :) :)

  392. Alex: Yes, I respect your views!

    No. I have no problem with Great sex!

    And it seems you do not either!

    Again, I was relaying information! :)

  393. Razor
    You write:
    1) “This forum is chocked full of Bible verses.”
    ----Well, no it isn’t. In quantity, the Biblical passages in comparison to all the comments posted, are not note worthy. It’s just easy to “see” it that way…
    2) “So I thought I would lighten it up a little.”
    ----Oh, how very considerate of you razor :)
    3) “These verses cannot be banned unless you want to ban the Bible!”
    ----Banned??? For what?? Telling the facts as they are, as they happened???
    4) “Great sex: in the Bible!”
    ----You have a problem with great sex?? Don’t knock it till you try it :)
    Razor you have no idea of the Bible, like most of your stature.
    5) “Ezekiel 23:19-20”
    God is talking about Samaria and Jerusalem who were of Gods, but then apostatized having turned to idols etc., Spiritually “fornicating” against God (i.e. leaving God love). These vivid images serve the purpose of showing that as abominable is physical fornication to God, even more is spiritual fornication. These two cities lusted and turned to what the world offers. This was inspired to be written in the language and culture of times. These readings to them, were not of great significance, but they are today to today’s hypocrites who in their personal lives may do even worse, but are shocked when they read their doings in The Bible.
    6) “The entire Song Of Solomon is about Sex!”
    God being the Creator is not shocked with the aspect of sex in people lives. He is not dirty minded like some. But anyway, some insight into the allegorical aspects of “The Song of Songs” by Barnes:
    * “If in other Scriptures are found words of indignation and wrath and terrible threatenings, the characteristics of this book are sweetness, cheerfulness, and joy, characteristics somewhat at variance with “the hypothesis” so-called “of the shepherd lover.” According to the view taken in this commentary, there is only one lover in the Song, and one object of his affection, without rival or disturbing influence on either side. The beloved of the bride is in truth a king, and if she occasionally speaks of him as a shepherd, she intimates that she is speaking figuratively. Being herself a rustic maiden of comparatively lowly station she, by such an appellation, seeks to draw down him “whom her soul loveth”; though he be the king of Israel, within her narrower circle of thoughts and aspirations. And, therefore, while the whole poem breathes of almost more than regal splendor and magnificence, the bride is nowhere represented as dwelling with any pride or satisfaction on the riches or grandeur of her beloved, but only on what he is to her in his own person as” chiefest among ten thousand” and “altogether lovely”.”
    * “…the Song of Songs is in its essential character an ideal representation of human love in the relation of marriage (Song 8:6-7) ”
    * “It is then no mere fancy, which for so many ages past has been accustomed to find in the pictures and melodies of the Song of Songs types and echoes of the actings and emotions of the highest love - of Love Divine - in its relations to humanity. Christians may trace in the noble and gentle history thus presented foreshadowings of the infinite condescensions of Incarnate Love; - that Love which, first stooping in human form to visit us in our low estate in order to seek out and win its object (Psa 136:23), and then raising along with itself a sanctified humanity to the heavenly places (Eph 2:6), is finally awaiting there an invitation from the mystic Bride to return to earth once more and seal the union for eternity (Rev 22:17).”

    Part 2 comming up...

  394. I write this,"without Prejudice to everyone"! This forum is chocked full of Bible verses. So I thought I would lighten it up a little. These verses cannot be banned unless you want to ban the Bible!

    Great sex: in the Bible!
    Ezekiel 23:19-20
    Yet she became and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lover, whose genitals were like those of Donkeys and whose emission was like that of Horses!
    The entire Song Of Solomon is about Sex!

    Some kick ass verses:
    "Ezekiel 25:17"-Which is in the classic movie, Pulp Fiction.
    Davids Mighty Men "2 Samuel 23"-Movie in progress.
    "11 kings 2:23-24" "Exodus 2:11-12" "1 Kings 18:24, 38-40" '1 Samuel 18:25-27" "Judges 15:15-16" :)

  395. For Max
    All this time I couldn't get this 3rd part in Zeitgeist the Movie, I give up. That page might have a problem. So
    -part 3 (my friend continues, and I close)
    “When we say that God created life, we mean that He created even the principles by which life is organised and sustained. No matter how hard he tries, man can never, by definition, do better than that.”

    Hope I covered your question Max.
    God bless you!

  396. Achem's razor hi!
    You outdone yourself in this one! Very good comment!
    Now,
    I did not mention astral projections/travel. This indeed is New Age and dangerous, physically and spiritually.
    Regarding the facts on O.B.Es':
    *it is something not provoked but completely natural (although we are not knowledgeable of those particular natural laws that allow or provoke it). This is something apparently allowed by God to happen for purposes I will not get into. It by the way gives testimony to the soul via a differnt means.
    * All of the Bible speaks of the existence of the soul
    * and it's seperation from the body when one dies.
    * Apostle Paul was aware of the possibility (!) of the seperation of body and soul in a living person without him finally dying. This is shown in 2Co 12:2 "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven."
    * Most of the million of people that experienced o.b.es know nothing of the occult/new age. They are guilty of nothing, even if they did know of the occult practices, since this is beyong their ability to control; the out of body experiences I am referring to are the near death experiences (NDE).

    The verses you point out say nothing about O.B.Es. especially the last one. But indeed they do warn against occult practices. Hence one must define occult practices. An occult practice is recognized in its total, not just a part of it. E.g. hypnotism could be of scientific use, but it can be of occult use.
    I hope you're not puzzled anymore on why I spoke of o.b.es.
    God bless!

  397. Max:

    Thanks for your support! :)

  398. To Alex: Peace: I gave my viewpoint, and you gave yours. That is done! One thing that puzzles me is about your reference to O.B.E's, and astral projections, travel, as being Christian? unless I read it wrong. In my books it is Occult, or at least new age! Is it not detestable in the eyes of God?

    (Deuteronomy 18:9-11) (Galatians 5:19-26) (2 Chronicles 33:6) (1 Peter 1:13)

    Regards:

  399. Some facts:
    * Science is not evolution nor creationism nor ID. Science is science, as truth is truth and reality is reality.
    * ALL SCIENTISTS use the scientific method in their research. As I said, the interpretation of the finds is the problem.
    * All agree on microevolution/adaptation. Don't IDs use the scientific method then?? Suddenly they conveniently become “unscientific” when they show that the gap between microevolution and macroevolution is billions of miles long, to the point that it is realized that microevolution has nothing to do with macroevolution, and macroevolution is left out there, completely useless, rather useful to bad religion!...
    * Evolution doesn’t even provide proof for Macro-evolution, when it should not only be found, but found all over the place! Non at all. Don’t kid yourself. Look at what they offer. Ridiculous.
    * Evolution as a “theory” (…) does not answer the fundamental questions of life, and admit it, only ID does! Something that annoys all evolutionists, but it shouldn’t if it is science and truth that they want to promote.
    * The existence of so many people having out of body experiences (seeing things outside their body that they, according to evolution, could not have seen), proves the existence of the soul. The soul alone destroys materialism and evolution, not to mention that consciousness does so as well! And much more (!!), but I don’t want to scare you off with the rest!... ?
    * Science showing the existence of a Creator is and will be the number 1 “find” of all times. But then again, “find” what?? Creation is out there for anyone to conceive/perceive and not something hidden!!
    To me this “find” is inexcusably delayed (due to evolutionists) since everyone knows, EVERYONE who can observe that is (! -and is honest and -today- daring), that nothing living comes from non living and no form of intelligence comes from something that has a form of intelligence.
    *Evolutionists love to claim that Intelligent Design is the Trojan Horse of Creationism into science. This might seem true, but the fact remains, IDs never mention the Bible, even if they believe in it, they leave it aside, and talk science. And *this is what matters! * All else is fancy polemic to encourage the atheists’ stance to life and God. So *don’t be disorientated*.
    But there is another side that all should know.
    Evolution is -by rule- atheism Trojan Horse into science.

    God bless all ye honest thinkers ou there! :)

  400. edit:- prey should read fall.

  401. I agree Razor,

    Theists always slide it to the gaps of our understanding. We can not understand every thing, and I think there will always be an element that will prey on that gap.

  402. Serious scientific publications disputing Evolution are all but nonexistent. Creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living World took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value!

  403. Alex,

    For me the controversy lies in so called intelligent design not evolution.

    No hard feelings though, after all I can not prove the non existence of a transcendent being. So its non existence is an article of faith on my part too.

  404. Max hi!
    As I've made clear, I will be open for the purpose of awakening those who should be awakened.
    1) I have to openly say, that you are not interested in any degree of certainty that hinders your chosen beliefs. I was hoping you would. Time does tell.
    2) "Small selection"?? What are you talking about? I just gave 4 links so not to be accused of posting to many links, as I was already! Besides, it's not about how many links you can provide, it's about what is said in them! All this evidence against evolution and you say: "a small selection of dubious merit". Wow, what a comment. I mean if you realized that even if half were true(!!) on each link , you'd stand differently on the issue of evolution and God!
    So all the arguments made are false, "of dubius merit"?? YEAH, RIGHT! :) :)
    Like most, you are not interested in the truth. So, don't kid yourself. You just comment on me, just to say you did.

    God bless you!

    Leonie welcome!
    Since you address me: This site is Vlatko's NOT MINE (just making sure you understand this). I just comment here like everybody else. You don't need permission to comment here. Since you are already signed in, permission "is granted". It's open to all. Freely comment on anything you like.
    By the way, Vlatko and I do not share the same views.
    Again welcome and God bless you!

  405. Alex Hi,

    You are again circumventing a vast amount of up to date research and data in favour of a small selection of dubious merit.

    The degree of certainty for this small selection is very low indeed.

  406. Hello Vlatko/Alex!

    I want to thank you for providing this site where I am able watch much the documentary interesting ones. I am sorry that my English is not good. I generally speak French. I comment on here, because it seems that this thread is more in activity. I wonder whether I am allowed to present observations on the video here, because I have an opinion, but I do not wish offence you or anyone else which think differently. I am agree ing with Vlatko/Alex on the video, and me please express the ways in which I agree. Moreover, I want not to offend Vlatko/Alex (or anyone who think different to me) if this and mine is not your precise opinion. Is this allowed? Thank you, Leonie

  407. This thread is turning into more of personal attacks than a sound discussions.

  408. Rachel
    You write:
    “Max, I have really enjoyed reading your comments, and it’s nice to have someone point out when someone else is being belligerent, insulting and self-righteous.”
    ----Yes its nice (cosy and convenient) when they agree with your manner or niews. But when they don't?

    Gordon
    1)“…..Alex stop judging others according to your own personal beliefs”
    ---- This is NORMAL and necessary. Everybody judges others according to their belief! (whether they admit it or not) But why do they lie about it?? So think outside the box please. Am I suppose to judge according to someone else’s beliefs? (But to answer your possible up coming question…) “judging” has to do having a prefixed model of morals. Almost everybody does! And morals are what define people. And defining people is necessary in communicating with them accordingly.
    You also write:
    2) “BUT you’ve fallen into the trap of the “SPIRITUAL KNOW-IT-ALL”…”
    ----Instead of saying I know it all, try to think: “Could I be wrong and Alex right?? Could it be that I don’t know it all and his responses just make the point??””
    I don’t know it all. But I know where you get this impression. You get it from the fact that I know what I believe and why I believe it very well (and still learning!).

    3) “try to understand that the right path for you, may NOT be the right path of another!!”
    ----Try to understand there only on path, the one The Real God has shown.

    4) “…….think about it…you say “liar” criticize, scoff & condemn comments & opinions of others just cos they don’t fall within the charmed circle of your approval???!!!!”
    ----No. I condemn biased without integrity comments, and put liars in the spotlight.

    5) “You are like Christ??…. serving the will of God???”
    ----You don’t know Christ and you don’t know God’s will. Learn about both from the source, and then read all of what I wrote again, so you’re excused.

    6) “By the way the “pagan” symbolism is not evil or satanic that is a typical fear-based reaction based on bad research from similar people.”
    ----No, you don’t get it. The idea that “christians” (?...) would promote pagan symbols/statues/images of false gods and built a Pentagram with streets is not evil? It is to a Christian!

    7. “Anyway all the best & i hope you think about what I say. Instead of skimming whilst thinking up an ego-defense over-yarn…your trademark..”
    ----Likewise I wish you the best, leading up to your salvation in time. The door will close. I did think about what you said and you are simply wrong on all accounts. My trademark by the way is “for the truth”.

    Max
    The following are false:
    “a transendent being. Who’s existence is by definition equivical.”
    “We can not prove the existance of god it is a matter of faith.”
    “I’m not saying this being can not exist, but that it is highly improbable and by definition unprovable. Thats why we call it faith.”
    (No, that’s why YOU call it “faith”.)

    You also write:
    “As to signs, of this transcendent being. There are non that I can think of that do not fit in to well understood naturally occurring processes, or fantasy.”
    ----a) “do not fit in to the…” This is your mistake Max. Try to figure it out.
    b) Already gave an excellent sign, or should I say signs, about particular prophecies fulfilled. (How can I doubt someone is lying when he does not admit that that is clear evidence [that no evolution can explain!] of The God of the Bible?)
    c) “well understood naturally occurring processes”
    Sincerely I CANNOT see how a common sensed person can believe in evolution. I really can’t.
    As I said elsewhere, see: ““Confessions of the evolutionists” by Harun Yahya (he’s a muslim). It’s the 3rd or 4th from the top. Find the index and choose the chapters you want to read on-line.”

    c) “or fantasy”??? The way I see it, this is an insult to your self. Think about it.

    God bless you!

  409. Alex,

    Once again, we are left with the dilema of trying to prove the existance of a transendent being. Who's existence is by definition equivical.

    We can not prove the existance of god it is a matter of faith.

    As to signs, of this transcendent being. There are non that I can think of that do not fit in to well understood naturally occurring processes, or fantasy.

    I'm not saying this being can not exist, but that it is highly improbable and by definition unprovable.

    Thats why we call it faith.

  410. "... why atheists go on to trash The Bible and Christianity, since that to them would be “second base”! (Could it be hate, ignorance and arrogance combined?)You have to pass by first base first, otherwise going around second base is useless, irrelevant(simple baseball :) ). But anyway, we Christians entertain (…) them, since hope dies last."

    My final comment on this page : Alex stop judging others according to your own personal beliefs, You think you know it all Cos A belief in Jesus or Monkey Magic, whatever... improved your life ??? great I'm happy for you. BUT you've fallen into the trap of the "SPIRITUAL KNOW-IT-ALL" try to understand that the right path for you, may NOT be the right path of another!! this is extremely egotistical & BLIND. think about it...you say "liar" criticize, scoff & condemn comments & opinions of others just cos they don't fall within the charmed circle of your approval???!!!!You are like Christ??.... serving the will of God???
    No, not for sh!t.

    Just holding up a mirror for you, But you go ahead & criticize the mirror cos you don't like what you see.

    By the way the "pagan" symbolism is not evil or satanic that is a typical fear-based reaction based on bad research from similar people. Like I suggested its not freemasons Or" Luciferians" that are behind the scenes Its as Washington(MASON 33rdegree)himself said "... i See in the future an era of corporations being enthroned..."( from memory)but you'll probably say that he couldn't give a prophecy cos he isn't in the bible...
    Anyway all the best & i hope you think about what I say.
    Instead of skimming whilst thinking up an ego-defense over-yarn...your trademark.

  411. Max, I have really enjoyed reading your comments, and it's nice to have someone point out when someone else is being belligerent, insulting and self-righteous.

    I ship back to Iraq on Saturday, so no more time to waste here. Later.

  412. Joe asked:

    Dear Gordon

    Sorry but I am baffled by your comments.

    Free Mason, Illuminati, New World Order, and Matrix?

    I know I am not versed in these topics (except Matrix) and what I do know only comes from skimping few docs. How do they relate to each other. I thought these were conspiracy theories with circumstantial evidences. Although they are entertaining, aren’t theories are just theories unless supported by irrefutable evidences? And don’t atheists use same arguments to discredit religious beliefs? At glance, your comments seem self defeating but I am sure I misunderstood

    I brought up the FACT that the founding fathers of the USA were Freemasons (33rd Degree ones at that), For Alex to ponder whether these were actually "Satanists" AS why.... would supposed Devil-worshippers
    Give Americans the Bill of rights & COnstitution,( NOW BEING EVISCERATED BY CORPORATE ENTITIES) Hmmm..... doesn't sound like the conclusion of an INTELLIGENT person does it.

    As to the Christ & the Matrix, Well, I'm not an "atheist" or a Christian, but I know there is a One universal Force that many call "God" regardless of cultural differences its all from the same source.
    And My interpretaion of a messiah Is more of a representative, a setter of EXAMPLES ( who'll possibly re-incarnate, probably already has), rather than a modern day Idol we all bow down to & "believe" in. thats just stupid caveman SH!T.
    Although the "god " of many a ranting Cristian or Muslim would look something like one of HP Lovecraft's Demons from the Outer gulfs or something , with tentacles & a big leering grin full of blackened razor sharp teeth, considering all the Division & pain they cause AND HORRORS In the past like the inquisitions("god" sanctioned torture - to death more often than not), witch burnings ( BURNT ALIVE!)"Holy wars" etc etc i could go on....( In their HOLY name LOL)
    Hope that helps....

  413. I said others integrity and not the integrity of an individuals statements.

  414. I find this whole page funny. Most of the comments are anti-religious with good reason but the fact that religion can still attract so much attention is a win for religion. You know the type of kid that screams and cry's for attention? The best way of dealing with them is to let them scream and cry until they tire themselves out, could the same not be applied to religion? As anyone can see religion is fading(except for the middle-east where God is law), let them have their last tantrum and the world will be better for it.

  415. Alex: No one is making you an enemy but yourself. I do not consider you an enemy at all! You are not being very mature right now not me. You do not make me uncomfortable in the slightest! I have my story and I'm sticking to it! In fact I would miss you if you left these forums.

  416. I'm not convinced as to the strength of of your case as you seem to circumvent well documented pear reviewed research.

  417. Rachel
    Glad you finally gave an interesting comment we can talk about! :)
    Too bad you didn’t do that in the first place.
    You write:
    “There is one person in particular that I will not engage with in discussion, but I would like, for the benefit of those who want balanced and truthful information, to make two points clarifying things he/she said:
    1.It was claimed in a debate with Achems Razor over the potential for psychoactive mushrooms having influenced the development of religions, that psilocybin was the psychoactive ingredient in the mushroom amanita muscaria. This is inaccurate information. The psychoactive ingredient in amanita muscaria is muscimol. There is no psilocybin in the amanita muscaria mushroom.”
    ----1) Although you are right, you are the one whose information is inaccurate. I did not say psilocybin is from amanita muscaria! I said it is found in “magic mushroom”. Listen to what I said in talking to razor:
    “True you did not mention Psilocybin, but I did, so what’s the big deal? I mentioned it because it causes the mushroom’s hallucinating effect and to make known the great dangers of it, something that again hinders strongly the idea that it was a religion starter!” One of the books razor -previously to my comment- presented for me to read was “Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy”. I was referring to the magic mushroom in general as a “religion starter”. This is what I had in mind. Amanita muscaria is considered as well a “magic mushroom” and a very dangerous one as I’ve said. In particular, these dangers are (just google amanita mascuria, the first one on top):
    “These may include dizziness, confusion, dryness of the mouth, rapid breathing, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and muscular twitching, along with a general feeling of numbness in the limbs.” And even worse:
    “Back to the bad news: In some cases, users of Amanita muscaria have been known to become both paranoid and agressive during their trips. Red-faced, they have exhibited high levels of violence and self-destructiveness, even to the point of self-mutilation. Because things may be seriously distorted accidents of all sorts are not uncommon on this trip. Prolonged use can be debilitating mentally. For those who have consumed too much, raving madness may result. Overdose can cause delirium, convulsions, deep coma, and death as a result of heart failure. The only known antidote for overdose is atropine, but the effectiveness of this drug on Amanita muscaria "poisoning" is now being seriously questioned. Some profess that adding atropine may increase the chance of serious illness or death.
    Most important, one must know which mushroom to pick. A small mistake in-this regard can be deadly.”

    2) “Ron Wyatt, famed self-proclaimed discoverer of Noah’s Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, The Ten Commandments, The Ark of the Covenant, Christ’s crucifixion location (and many others relevant biblical sites), has been widely dismissed by scientists, archaeologists, biblical scholars, religious leaders and his own church as being a con man.”
    ----Look, I’ve read what the other side says, but when looking at the finds, I’m not convinced. Sincerely I have no problem if all he says is wrong, the facts of Christianity are not effected. Note that there are scientists in the last link I gave on Sodom and Gomorrah that give contrary impressions. Also, I mean, they’re where the Bible says they are, and they bring such detail that fit the account. In that link some of the opposing arguments are met. There’s something fishy going on but I’m still not sure where! I have a clue but I can’t say for sure. Now, Wyatt being a con man I don’t have reason to believe, although I do not dismiss the possibility of him lying to achieve a find or for other purposes only he knows (he says he is not allowed by God to show some things, that it’s not time yet. Don’t know.). But a con man, is a strong accusation. I'll take a look into it, since you gave no helpful source on it. Also, you don’t have to be an archaeologist to find something, although you would need his assistance and validity. As to what was excavated and how (on the ark of The Covenant), that may have been done illegally, I don’t know.

    Max,
    You write:
    “…please try not to question others integrity.”
    ---Just hold on! I will expose anyone who is unfair. Unfairness does not equal integrity. So why hide it? Besides Max, I see other things, that -sorry- you don’t, when communicating with people; they though know what I’m talking about. But for the record, these are the words I said to Rachel:
    “So yes you’re entitled to your opinion, but if you have integrity, make sure it is balanced one. Otherwise,speaking for myself, I’m not interested at all in hearing “wishful thinking”. But you do what you want.”
    Indeed, her comment had no integrity, since it made “up in the air” accusations and absurd remarks. Read it and see my reply.
    Now, why shouldn’t we question someone’s integrity? When we have reason we should! And this openly. Why do we let people get away with crimes???? Sorry to sadden you, I won’t do it.

    God bless you!

  418. Achem’s razor,
    You write:
    “Since I believe we are all entitled to our viewpoints, why do you insist of ramming your viewpoint home to all the people that are free thinkers on this forum!”
    ---a) Razor you’re cutting your self up again and this time actually by a cheap shot like this one. The only reason you call it “ramming” is because it makes me the enemy but also because I make my case clear and strong, just as I will continue to do so. Yes, I know my existence bother you here because I don’t let you get away with the erroneous things you say, and this makes you uncomfortable, but as you say, I’m “entitled to my opinion”, right? Please be mature about it.
    b) By the way, what’s all this being “entitled to our viewpoints” about? If one can read, I NEVER said the opposite! So be fair and don’t lay this on me.
    c) You make it sound like you’re my victims on one hand and on the other that I am not a free thinker like the rest of you. This is a joke, and after all this time, a bad one.
    God bless you!

  419. "... if there is a God it should be a She, not a He!"
    Achems Razor! You certainly are my man :-) :-) :-)! I myself find the notion that god is a male, by default, utterly chauvinistic and ungrounded :-).

  420. Alex,

    I have some respect for you as an individual, please try not to question others integrity.

  421. Hi Rachel,

    I have seen a couple of his You tube videos, and I concur with your statement. But I am lazy and do not have the patients to debate the basics of geology with others here.

  422. I just endeavored upon the laborious and unpleasant task of reading through all of the comments to this documentary (which, I contend, still, was a terrible one). There is one person in particular that I will not engage with in discussion, but I would like, for the benefit of those who want balanced and truthful information, to make two points clarifying things he/she said:

    1. It was claimed in a debate with Achems Razor over the potential for psychoactive mushrooms having influenced the development of religions, that psilocybin was the psychoactive ingredient in the mushroom amanita muscaria. This is inaccurate information. The psychoactive ingredient in amanita muscaria is muscimol. There is no psilocybin in the amanita muscaria mushroom.

    This information is easily verified by a simple Google search or looking up amanita muscaria, muscimol and psilocybin in Wikipedia.

    2. Ron Wyatt, famed self-proclaimed discoverer of Noah's Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, The Ten Commandments, The Ark of the Covenant, Christ's crucifixion location (and many others relevant biblical sites), has been widely dismissed by scientists, archaeologists, biblical scholars, religious leaders and his own church as being a con man.

    Answers in Genesis, the Christian organization that espouses Young Earth Creationism and a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis calls Wyatt's work fraudulent. A spokesperson for the Israel Antiquities Authority states, "Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. ... [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc."

    With regard to the Ark in particular, a Seventh Day Adventist professor of archaeology (Ron Wyatt was of the Seventh Day Adventist faith) states, "While the Durupinar site is about the right length for Noah's ark, [it is] ... too wide to be Noah's ark. Wyatt has claimed that the "boat-shapedness" of this formation can only be explained by its being Noah's ark, but both Shea and Morris have offered other plausible explanations. Likewise, Wyatt has argued that the standing stones he has found are anchors, while Terian is aware of similar stones outside the Durupinar site area that were pagan cultic stones later converted by Christians for Christian purposes."

    Note: William H. Shea is a Seventh Day Adventist scholar. John D. Morris is a geologist. Abraham Terian is a professor of Armenian Patristics.

    All of this information is neatly conglomerated in Ron Wyatt's Wikipedia article. Additional sources are linked there, and you can find more information by googling Ron Wyatt.

  423. To Alex: One thing that you said, I finally agree on, and I quote..."you have to understand that the key in understanding our significance is hidden in the answer of whether the God of the Bible is the real God or not. If he was not then I'd agree with you. But since he is, it all makes sense"...end of quote. Your viewpoint is that the GOD is real! Mine is that the God is not! Since I believe we are all entitled to our viewpoints, why do you insist of ramming your viewpoint home to all the people that are free thinkers on this forum! And you keep referring that God is a He. Since I am a man who loves women and to give women there proper due, if there is a God it should be a She, not a He!

  424. Rachel
    you are entitled to your opinion and to your feelings. But you have to realize (I'm trying to help you so) that your biased opinion without any actual reason to back it up, has an effect on people reading here, young and old. You just trash Refuted and Exposed, just because you "feel" like it. You are actually -believe it or not- trashing the fact that Christ is The Son of God. So don't expect a smile and a pat on the back, don't even expect indifference. You can disagree but at least be soberly condiderate of the facts when doing so. Your kind of comments bring down the level of discussion. This is why -bored to do so- I'm replying again to your comment. So, when you want to say something be considerate to the truth (any truth) as well as to the people who might not be able to discern between "feeling"/hearsay and facts. Also, think that if you found out one day that Christianity is the real thing, in what position would that put you, and those whom you've influenced (not many, non the less). Be sober, why not? So, know that when you throw rocks at my house, I'm not going to sit back and watch. Atheist frivolously say whatever they want against my "house" all over the internet, just because they don't have a "house" of their own, that is, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOOSE (or at least that's what they think...!), they can just mock, and trash and make up things all day! Christians on the other hand are on the truth's side, and what they will loose is people's souls that will wind up in hell. Yeah, don't believe it, but see where I'm coming from.
    So yes your entitled to your opinion, but if you have integrity, make sure it is balanced one. Otherwise,speaking for myself, I'm not interested at all in hearing "wishful thinking". But you do what you want.
    God bless you!

  425. Alex,

    I'm entitled to my opinion, just as you are to yours. You may call my words a waste of space, and I call the vast number of lengthy comments you have put up here a monumental waste of time (and space). I can't imagine what kind of life you lead if you're spending so much time here responding to people point-by-point about how they're wrong and you're right - truth, facts, perspective, insight, intuition, experience and good spelling/grammar be damned.

    You have your Jesus if he makes you happy. I don't have to have him though. And if efforts to prove his divinity or even existence to me don't convince me, then that's my business, and I have every right to feel how I feel. Additionally, I have the right express my feelings and opinions in a forum where my thoughts and feelings are invited - such as this one. And what's really nice is that I don't owe you or anyone else a detailed and sourced account for how I've come to my conclusions. I have a life, and my time is better spent living it than trying to convince someone that some apparition I believe in or don't believe in did or did not exist.

  426. Rob (Max),
    by the way, accepting that that is the reason you use the name Max, it still does not negate the fact that you were deceptive, since you knew everyone would think your name is Max (and not Rob).
    Anyway, you write:
    1) “That is why we’re talking though isn’t it.”
    ---We are talking because you think I am superstitious, and you are ignoring the facts, not because I think I am superstitious.
    2) “Why where you converted in your twentys?”
    ---Actually the question is not just why but how. I was “converted” to Christianity a) by God and because b) He was revealed to me in my spirit, an experience that millions experience, an awakening (you can say) to His Person. One that you, as a materialist (could be wrong) cannot not accept. At the time, I was then studying on Buddhism (although an Orthodox Christian); I was always sincerely interested in the truth (something my God honours…). But when Biblical Christianity came along, it made -in comparison- simple good sense.

    As this experience took place, more things became revealed to me, like my need to repent and believe in Christ. And this I did. Since then, my personal changes and experiences with God, are increasing till this day!!!

    3) a) And no, I am not a social animal, but a person made in God’s Image. A social animal is a sorry way of viewing ourselves. Stop believing lies. Evolution is a lie! See the grand facts out there objectively. Why are you avoiding them??.....
    b) Contrary to what you say, *in a sense*, religion in general (not just Christianity) as an outlook is in greater proportion then science is with “what’s out there”, because religion acknowledges the Creator, and the fact that all are His creations, something that many scientists can’t or won’t grasp. Also, Christianity deals with man surviving this life in virtue while it simultaneously offer the Way to surviving the next one… hell! Many scientists is in the dark regarding it all this.

    Achem’s razor,
    A legitimate position, one though that is easily countered.
    You write:
    “We are tiny carbon based units of no consequence, to the rest of the Cosmos. Even our Sun is a small 4th grade star. There are stars that are up to 9,000,000 times brighter than our Sun……..… And then we have the audacity to think we have a pipeline to God, and that everything revolves around us!”
    ---1) You have to understand that the key in understanding our significance is hidden in the answer of whether the God of The Bible is the real God or not (wish I could underline that). If He was not, then I’d agree with you. But since he is, it all makes sense. (Today, things that make sense, are not welcomed “for people loved the darkness rather than the light”.) Let me elaborate. Our size does not matter, since:
    ** in The Eyes of The Creator we are far greater then all universes combined!! We were initially made in His Image.
    ** Be careful in thinking the following: Let’s say we were a millions of miles tall, each one of us, what would change in The Eyes of God?? Nothing! He could have made us that way, or He could have made us smaller than a cell, so what? Size has nothing to do with it. Whether a galactic giant or a microscopic being, He still stares man right in the face, in the manner he would look at an ant and the vastness of space at the same time! I hope you give time to this simple yet profound description.
    Christianity speaks of man as significant not just in the eyes of people, but in The Eyes of God!!!!!!!!!!! So, what cosmos?? We are significant... in The Eyes of God!!!!!!!

    2) “And then we have the audacity to think we have a pipeline to God, and that everything revolves around us!”
    ---a) Audacity has nothing to do with it. He is the One Who says we can talk directly to Him in prayer (not prefixed prayers by the way). Hence -in a way- audacity would be not to! Again the issue for you to find out is, if He is the real God or not.
    b) Indeed, Biblical Christianity agrees, man: 1) should not see everything as revolving around himself, but everything revolving AROUND GOD. 2) God does see everything revolving around Him, this is why He wants to… save man!! Figure it out.
    May God give you His increase.

  427. I agree. We are a social animal with a limited ability to understand the universe. Religion is quite provincial in its outlook. Out of proportion with what's out there.

  428. In the grand scheme of things we humans do not realize just how small and insignificant we really are. If you could build a one half mile square box you could fit every man, woman, and child on the planet into it and still have room to spare. We are tiny carbon based units of no consequence, to the rest of the Cosmos. Even our Sun is a small 4th grade star. There are stars that are up to 9,000,000 times brighter than our Sun. One teaspoon full of Neutron Star stuff would weigh as much as 200 million Elephants. There are billions of Galaxies with billions of stars, some of them up to 13 billion light years away, and because of inflation, are moving away close to the speed of light. And then we have the audacity to think we have a pipeline to God, and that everything revolves around us!

  429. Why were you converted in your twentys?

  430. That is why we're talking though isn't it.

  431. Max
    I don't have any superstitions either.

  432. Yes I have fears, joys, sadness, hopes but not superstitions. Max is my on line name in memory of my father, who never used the internet.

  433. Max, no offence taken.
    But you're wrong.
    Hate to say it, but I see myself as a happy, delightful person, who loves people and loves to serve them any way he can. This is not just my view since others can vouch regarding its accuracy. What fear and pain are you talking about?? I mean, why fear and pain? And "forged" in it?? Don't know where you get this idea. But, you are entitled to it, as long as you're honest to your self regarding it.

    Ps. So Max is... Rob?? What for?
    --Could this mean you are in fear, since you hide your true identity?

  434. Hi Alex,

    I'm going to remark on your faith now so please forgive me me if I offend.

    I believe you are a clever witty intelligent individual who probably has an edge that has been forged in fear and pain.

    If your faith has given you relief from that, then hold on to it. You don't need any more.

    Rob.

  435. Rachel hi!
    You write:
    1) “Wow…I had some doubts about Zeitgeists’ part I until I watched this. This is the worst refutation I’ve ever encountered.”
    ---You had doubts and those were cleared up when you watched Zeitgeist Exposed?? This is the worst refutation?? This is so bizarre, I sincerely don’t believe you.

    2) “It throws a ton of citations and recitation against Zeitgeist I, which, by the way, did a very good job at making its point entertaining *and* accurate.
    This refutation is a recycling of the most boring of Zeitgeist film clips and tons of verbage which reflects obscure citations without much organization.”
    ---It’s not even worth commenting, it’s just ridiculous, or should I openly say: a lie?

    3) “I could write a research paper that would give every citation I want to prove a point. But a good paper tells a story people want to read, and cites sources that are not obscure.”
    ---a) What are you talking about?? This is a refutation, not a novel! It’s purpose is to present facts that refute/expose, not make someone feel better or amaze them with science fiction.
    b) What’s obscure about the sources? Give us one such source (along with where to find it [which film of the two and the particular minute it is said]). Was it too much to give us one example at least?? I mean, all the time accusations without any cause!
    c) Acharia S. is not obscure???????????????????????????????

    4) “Zeitgeist and the Addendum are superior films, because they tell a story that I want to hear and they source information and people that I consider relevant.”
    ---a) This is why they are “superior films”? Real objective of you! :) b) Does this sound like an honest -thinking- researcher: “because they tell a story that I want to hear and they source information and people that I consider relevant”. Talk about putting your head in the ground! It doesn’t get any worse. Real unfair of you.
    My opinion Rachel is that your comment was just a waste of space here. Even an atheist can agree with me. I was wondering: Did you comment against Zeitgeist part 1 as well, or was all you saw there great?? (It sounds that to you it was… imagine that!!!!)
    You are just proof that there are people who just love fairytales instead of objective truth; the truth to them is just an inconvenience.
    Read my comment above on: June 19th, 2009 at 17:22 and on Addendum (go to that page) June 20th, 2009 at 04:47
    Real sad.

    Steve,
    1) ...what movie are you commenting on???...
    2) What does Bush have to do with this refutation film???????
    3) Havving seen (rather, heard...)5 minutes of the movie (about an hour and a half!), you are indeed an objective source, one we really can respect and learn from, one we can trust when it comes to the truth :) :) :) :) :) I can put my soul on the line just because of your credibility :) :)
    What a shame! Can't hide the fact.
    God bless you!

  436. Wow...I had some doubts about Zeitgeists' part I until I watched this. This is the worst refutation I've ever encountered. I was ready to hear some opposing point of view about Zeitgeist part I, and I think this is about the best refutation possible. It throws a ton of citations and recitation against Zeitgeist I, which, by the way, did a very good job at making its point entertaining *and* accurate.

    This refutation is a recycling of the most boring of Zeitgeist film clips and tons of verbage which reflects obscure citations without much organization.

    I could write a research paper that would give every citation I want to prove a point. But a good paper tells a story people want to read, and cites sources that are not obscure.

    Zeitgeist and the Addendum are superior films, because they tell a story that I want to hear and they source information and people that I consider relevant.

  437. ha, ha ,ha
    charly brooker actually watched 5 mins of this drivel,i just had it running in the background while i read the mails,George bush, biggest murderer from the last 30 years,gets messages from god nightly,need i go on,have a listen to SCRUBIOUS PIP (LETTER FROM GOD)on utube,better than zietgiest.............

  438. The FACT that i dont really get involved in this "forum" is that I currently know why i think the way I do, and i dont have the time to come and expose everything I have learnt. And yes, god bless us all!.. Anyone is free to believe in whatever we want... I only watched the first minutes of the documentary above (not the one below) and it was far from the ones I like best to spend my time with.

    Anyway, thanks for commenting on my comment. I do not preach nor do i accept being preached at, I rather sticking to my own conclusions, and sometimes they defer from what other people expect.

    I think that as long as i have freedom, i can think, express and behave in every way i like to..

    and so do you.. just please dont bug others trying to preach something to them.. expose your ideas and let us decide for ourselves.

    and for me every thing that tries to BRAINWASH me, is a mock..

  439. Gordon hi!
    You write:
    1) “The closest mention of Lucifer in the bible is revelations, where Christ refers to himself as the bright morning star (Venus???)a long shot there perhaps.”
    --- This is not correct. The word is mentioned in Isaiah to symbolically speak of the fall of Nebuchadnezzar:
    Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
    a) As correctly translated here in the King James Bible, in the Greek Septuagint (translation of the O.T.) the word used is “????????” (hope it showed up in Greek = Eosforos - Light bearer) not (!) “morning star”, although both can refer to Venus as well and do so.
    b) To be accurate, note that in Rev.22:16 Christ is symbolically -in a good way- calls Himself “the bright and morning start” and again not “light bearer” (Lucifer). Nowhere is Christ directly called Lucifer (Light bearer). This distinction should be kept in mind.
    c) It seems that throughout history, the word Lucifer is applied to Satan. One reason can be an interpretation of the “thrown down” in Isaiah (above) and Ezekiel 28, where it is said that Nebuchadnezzar in the first case and the King of Tyre in the second, are spoken of as if Lucifer himself (the fallen angel).

    This being a fact (the interpretation), could be the reason why masons and satanists use this word (Lucifer), that is based prior interpretations.
    Having said that, a head mason, Albert Pike, uses this word to describe what “God” they follow. Masonry thus, has a “God” (hence is a religion), and -by the way- is against Adonai (The God of the Bible)! But who could that be??? Could this be my opinion? No. From WIKIPEDIA:
    “Leo Taxil (1854-1907) originated a theory that Freemasonry is associated with worshipping Lucifer. In what is known as the Taxil hoax, he claimed that leading Freemason Alebert Pike had addressed "The 23 Supreme Confederated Councils of the world" (allegedly an invention of Taxil), instructing them that Lucifer was God, and was in opposition to the evil god Adonai. Apologists of Freemasonry contend that, when Albert Pike and other Masonic scholars spoke about the "Luciferian path," or the "energies of Lucifer," they were referring to the morning star, the light bearer, the search for light; the very antithesis of dark, satanic evil. However, this thesis is redundant, in that it only serves to accentuate that Luciferianism —the worship of superior knowledge and wisdom—does indeed form an integral part of Freemasonry. Taxil promoted a book by Diana Vaughan (actually written by himself, as he later confessed publicly) that purported to reveal a highly secret ruling body called the Palladium which controlled the organization and had a Satanic agenda.”
    And later down on “occult beliefs”:
    “In the Satanic Bible of 1969, Lucifer is acknowledged as one of the Four Crown Princes of Hell, particularly that of the East. Lord of the Air, Lucifer has been named "Bringer of Light, the Morning Star, Intellectualism, Enlightenment."”
    So Masonry and Satanism use the same name not to refer to Christ, but to the Devil.
    There’s more to be said about “Lucifer” but this is enough.

    2) “In light of the Edgar Cayce ( A Christian ) readings, The soul Known as Jesus had over a dozen lifetimes on the planet, Starting in Atlantis where he led a type of “rescue mission” to save a freshly fallen humanity ( fallen from a spiritual state to earthly flesh/ animal forms( btw maybe genesis is an allegorical story of that ) . SO who knows how many different names He goes by.”
    ---So you believe him?? Edgar Cayce WAS -according to The Bible- NOT a Christian! But was a (“new age”) heretic and false teacher.
    But you check it all out Gordon,
    God bless you!

  440. Dear Gordon

    Sorry but I am baffled by your comments.

    Free Mason, Illuminati, New World Order, and Matrix?

    I know I am not versed in these topics (except Matrix) and what I do know only comes from skimping few docs. How do they relate to each other. I thought these were conspiracy theories with circumstantial evidences. Although they are entertaining, aren't theories are just theories unless supported by irrefutable evidences? And don't atheists use same arguments to discredit religious beliefs? At glance, your comments seem self defeating but I am sure I misunderstood.

    Have a great time at woods. I, myself, also an avid nature hiker.

  441. Alex, I'm sorta half way out the door but I've got time for one last reply- Lucifer, Latin word meaning "bringer of light"
    (Lux- light, Fer- to bear/bring)... I don't associate this quality with a self-serving fallen angel or whatever the devil may be. Actually also the Romans called the planet Venus Lucifer.

    The closest mention of Lucifer in the bible is revelations, where Christ refers to himself as the bright morning star (Venus???)a long shot there perhaps.

    In light of the Edgar Cayce ( A Christian ) readings, The soul Known as Jesus had over a dozen lifetimes on the planet,
    Starting in Atlantis where he led a type of "rescue mission" to save a freshly fallen humanity ( fallen from a spiritual state to earthly flesh/ animal forms( btw maybe genesis is an allegorical story of that ) . SO who knows how many different names He goes by.

    I think that Whoever wrote the Matrix Knew a thing or 2 about this... as Neo was the "one" who "freed the first of us" & will be reborn in the end times to cancel the present world age & take on the "agents" , those shadowy gatekeepers... speculation ?? or something else...

  442. Dear Alex

    "There is no museum that can have it!"
    There is an abandoned warehouse in Elizabeth, NJ, that can house 10 jumbo planes. Certainly can fit the Ark in and I am more than sure local people would not object to it because Elizabeth has been hit hard with recession and they can surely use the tourism. In fact if it is the true ark then many nations and religions would be pouring money to have their claims on the ark. Just because CNN reported it that dosn't mean Saddam have WMD. Turks built a visitor's center and not a museum that looked like typical diner from Brooklyn. For god sake, Alex, it's your link. Look at it closely and use it carefully what you find in internet.

    Ron Wyatt and Tom Fenner(geologist in the video)
    Every one can free google these two characters and find out on their own.
    Interesting link below by a christian website debunking ark theory in Turkey.

    "But, again you didn’t read the article, nor did you grasp what I said."
    I read the article - twice, because of its absurdity.
    If you give me something to grasp I surely will grasp.

    "I feel I am wasting my time trying to help"
    Please - don't kid yourself. Perhaps you should help yourself first.
    You see, Alex, this is the problem. You THINK you can help others. No one asked for your help here...none whatsoever.
    If you truly want to help then I suggest you make donation or volunteer for some humanitarian causes.

    "From this statement I see (again) that your sources were never (read)the Bible"
    Because I enjoy your comments(okay, I admit it) and wanted to refresh my memory of the bible I reread 4 gospels again 2 nights ago.
    Please don't call me a liar. If you go around calling people liars just because you don't agree with them then what kind of world we would be living in.

    "Jesus NEVER “told his followers to question and to challenge the norms”!! "
    Jesus never told Alex to help others in this website(kidding).
    Jesus turned Old Testaments upside down. Jews were appalled and killed him. In modern times Jesus would have been called an anti-government/social/religious extremist. Jesus issued gentiles memberships into the exclusive jewish country club.
    Let me give you an example. I car pool. I choose the passengers because it's my car. And there are many days when my car isn't full. Wouldn't it be a radical idea if one day if a someone tells me to just pickup anybody who needs ride so my car would be full? It certainly makes sense because we get to be more efficient. How about this one. God tells to go kill your enemies. Jesus tells to love your enemies. In my book this is just RAD!!!!!!!!!

    "And of course yes Christians should do the same. Most of the ones I know do. But shouldn’t atheists and the rest do the same as well?? Most of the ones I know don’t! But yes, they should…."
    One of the reason I love you, Alex, is whenever I think you are unreachable I see a glimmer of light in you. You are absolutely right that atheists should never stop questioning.

  443. Hey guys can someone recommend docs on Zionism?
    Lately, I became fascinated with middle eastern conflict and so far from what docs I have seen it seems like Zionism is playing a big role.

  444. Just read the Amazon reviews on "Mere Christianity". Looks interesting. Will read this weekend.
    Thanks Dan

  445. Dan hi!
    1) “There is a book by CS Lewis, “Mere Christianity,” which Alex would be wise to refamiliarize himself with.”
    ---I am familiar with the book and it is a petty good one, and?

    2) “Modern fundies, are actually a modern phenomena.”
    ---If their modern… yes! :) If their not… no!
    Joking aside, the problem is not being a fundamentalist, since everyone cherishes some views which he thinks are a fundamental necessity, and hence is “a fundamentalist” whether he/she likes it or not. I mean, even an atheist is a fundamentalist. Think about it. So calling someone a “fundamentalist” says nothing in itself if we are to be objective about it. The problem arises if the fundamental aspects he views as necessary, are correct, are real, or not; this is another issue that need to be proven.

    3) “Arch Statists from Sun Myung Moon to George Bush, have used the Bible to further an agenda that is decidedly antithetical to the alleged “teachings of Christ.””
    ---This Dan, is true. It is as proclaimed by God in The Bible as well, concerning some of His followers: “Your leaders are misleading you!” The problem is that:
    a) Christians, all people, vote, “for a better tomorrow”. So they pick the candidate that "advances" to be closer to what they consider a better tomorrow (many times in the absence of a better choice). And when he is elected, he doesn’t pay up! So these Christians are conned, and he rules! But to be fair this is not a Christian phenomena (though this is how propaganda has it) since people of all religions as well as so many non-religious ones, vote for the same guy! This is a silenced reality.
    b) Christianity pays for it around the world because of some American Christians (in the case you mentioned) who in good faith chose someone who had a hidden agenda to go blow up people for oil and control (not even for terrorism as it was made to seem…). Tragic indeed. Note that Christian denominations from countries all over the world, took a stand against Bush and his pals addressing congress about him. But this -from what I know- was apparently “not intersting”.

    God bless you!

  446. Anyway, I realize I'm starting to crap on like the "oracle of all knowledge".... I'm not, I'm just a reader .Opinions expressed may not be the whole truth.
    I'm off into the wilderness for the next week or so, so I'll leave it with you & cannot reply ( whatever.. bye! LOL)
    If I've helped anyone think outside the box a little then thats a good thing.
    BTW Dan thats a good point.

  447. Nameless, The illuminati, ( founded in Germany in the 1700's )
    were modelled after the freemasonic lodges- which were of the western mystery traditions ( the knowledge of which dates back to ancient Khem( now known as Egypt) I've read masonic literature & I believe they had the noblest of intentions.
    They talk about purifying oneself of selfish & the baser instincts etc. much the same as Christ or Buddha & there secrecy was to avoid the same sort of mass confusion & mis-judgement we see today.

    I think the NWO was originally a noble ideal, set forth by high-minded & spiritual people but has been Intercepted by those of The dark side, those - as Edgar Cayce called them-
    THe Sons of Belial....note the dead sea scrolls also talk about the "sons of light" warring against the " Sons of Belial" Cayce described them once as those who- "have no moral standard but self aggrandizement"

  448. There is a book by CS Lewis, "Mere Christianity," which Alex would be wise to refamiliarize himself with. Modern fundies, are actually a modern phenomena. They read the 13th Chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans and weirdly conclude that Mussolini had it right all the time. Arch Statists from Sun Myung Moon to George Bush, have used the Bible to further an agenda that is decidedly antithetical to the alleged "teachings of Christ."

  449. To Gordon: "The founding Fathers of America were all freemasons, who new more of the “deeper things of God” than any mere Christian."

    Correct me if I am wrong but when you say deeper things of God Are you talking about the illuminati here ?? Just a curious thing that struck me.

  450. it was certainly a mockumentary , blind foraging christians trying to refute what they don't understand. SImply cos it threatens there religious "fire"(hell) insurance.
    How can they judge when all they'll read ( and not even understand) is the bible....from such a narrow minded perch the try to condemn broad minded & more mindful & intelligent people like Manly P Hall,Tim Freke & peter Gandy, Blavatsky etc. ohhhh satanists, Lucifer blah blah blah.
    funny how the bible never even uses those names anywhere.

    THe founding Fathers of America were all freemasons, who new more of the "deeper things of God" than any mere Cristian.
    THe constitution, bill of rights etc.(evil???) even the statue of liberty was setn to the USA by a secret society whom silly Christians would condemn.... Statue of liberty (evil????).....no of course not.
    Christians like you Alex are Ignorance & Arrogance of the worst kind.
    That is definetly it for me with this thread.

  451. Joe hi!
    You write: (the first parts are not comment worth. “Sorry.” But let’s see the rest.)
    1) “Ron Wyatt – If true then ark would have been excavated and displayed around the museums.”
    ---a) Joe you sound funny. Let me explain. The sad thing is, that you did not even see 3-4 film on youtube, because if you did, you wouldn’t be saying things like this. 1) First of all, excavate what? Did you see its condition?? “and displayed around the museums”??? I mean it wasn’t built today! And besides have you any idea how big it is?? There is no museum that can have it!! 2) The Turks built a museum close by to it, so people can see it. 3) The discoverer was interviewed on television, (I don’t remember whether on CNN or not; it’s in the film though). But unforunately you shrugged your shoulder at it.

    2) INCEST – Alex, don’t you dare try to have sex with your family just to prove a point. You win this one…please don’t. (just kidding – incest is physically, genetically, and mentally wrong).
    ---Best advice I’ve heard so far, I’ll follow it ? ! -But, again you didn’t read the article, nor did you grasp what I said. I feel I am wasting my time trying to help, thinking that you are really interested in the other side, since you were once “born again”…

    3) “Jesus practiced radicalism and told his followers to question and to challenge the norms. Shouldn’t all christians do the same?”
    a) From this statement I see (again) that your sources were never the Bible, I mean you never even read The New Testament...! If you had, you’d never say such a thing. Jesus NEVER “told his followers to question and to challenge the norms”!! This is hearsay! Although this is (!), what He (!) did, although not “question”, since He already knew the answers. And He didn’t really have to teach his followers what you say, because, it goes without saying for those who are to be follower of the truth!
    b) And of course yes Christians should do the same. Most of the ones I know do. But shouldn’t atheists and the rest do the same as well?? Most of the ones I know don’t! But yes, they should….

    4) I appreciate the thumbs up Joe concerning the moderator part. But I have never done such a thing (wonder what it’s about [practically I mean]), nor will I probably have the time for it; when I get my hands on something, I try to put my all in it or I don’t deal with it at all (I don’t like messy jobs, nor does God Whom I serve). Maybe in the future, if I have more free time, I’ll tell Vlatco, and give it a try, if the offer still stands. At this time, I am trying to make my own website (something I have to also fit in), where I will deal with the theological misinformation mainly in “Christianity” (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism), that is among “Christians” (in and out of quotes). Yes, you heard right. It will be in Greek, but there will be some articles by me in English.
    But again, thank you!

    Miho Hi!
    Just a few words.
    a) “Fiction” and “fact” is getting to be all the more a perspective type of thing don’t you think (one of the many examples is -as I have provided- Noah’s ark).
    b) You are talking about others not giving time to read the other side, but the question is, is what you’re saying “fact” or “fiction”? I mean, how do you know what everybody does? Why generalize so easy? Can you realize that there are people of all religions (and prior atheists) that have read extensively and do read, and can see no truth in atheism or agnosticism? Then, what is the point.
    God bless you!
    c) By openly calling this film a “mockumentary” (Did you see Refuted of Exposed [the first one on top]?), is simply arrogance and ignorance of the worst kind I must say. You write as someone who is afraid: “I have seen the first minutes of this mockumentary.. and decided that the extreme use of “lucifer” in it made it worthy not seeing it.”
    ---All the scientific effort put into it, especially in Exposed, down the drain because, you… heard the word “Lucifer” (!)… Real objective and opened minded and… frivolous of you! You who supposedly “preach” (I say it in a good way): “keep on studying, reading, sharing.. and stop just being there using imagination”
    I advise you to follow your advise: “stop being naive and believing in everything ANYONE throws at us.”, rather than accusing others (composers of Exposed and Refuted) who disagree with you, of having given into “blind faith”.
    In closing, I will parrot (yes I will) the beginning statement in Exposed, since it just fits the bill.:
    “The right to be heard doesn’t automatically include the right to be taken seriously”.
    So please be serious. No offence.
    God bless you Miho!

    Ps. Looking back to all the comments I wonder don’t people get tired of repeating the same comments (e.g. religion is evil, and other “ornaments”) that were previously repeated (!) again and again, without ever giving adding at least some beneficial comment/thought, answer, whatever?? Emotions/sentimentality at best. Unfortunately.

  452. I have seen the first minutes of this mockumentary.. and decided that the extreme use of "lucifer" in it made it worthy not seeing it. Lucifer is actually based on Baal, Baal was a man who lived many many years before Christ was even thought of. Then the content in this piece is way out from being informative and else, it tries to brainwash you to feel guilty of thinking about explanations other than those inside the bible. I belive that if Lucifer from the bible is based on this man they say lived many many years before the roman empire (Baal), this whole "documentary" is just a useless piece of missinformation.

    Many of use should try to really get into science and stop being naive and believing in everythin ANYONE throws at us.

    In an age like ours, where information is available within clicks.. it's just annoying to see how many people rather give into blind faith instead of go read something.

    As long as we stay ignorant, ANYONE can sell us bull..

    so go on guys... keep on studying, reading, sharing.. and stop just being there using imagination. FACTS are the only real and plausible things.. the bible is full of stories with which they try to teach moral lessons to us all, but there is more fiction on it than facts. Sad but true. So stop waiting for the holy spirit to come in front of you and start reading and getting acquainted with facts....

    lovely page by the way Vlatko.. I have just recently discovered it and have been sharing with lots of friends ever since.

  453. Dear Alex

    1. STRANGE - Lord of the Rings is a strange fiction as in not real and only made up.
    2. MYTHICAL - Things that are supernatural and superhuman. All mythical things are fabricated.
    3. ANCIENT RELIGION - All dead with a few exceptions.
    4. Biblical god = Mythical = Strange = Not real
    5. Ron Wyatt - If true then ark would have been excavated and displayed around the museums.
    6. INCEST - Alex, don't you dare try to have sex with your family just to prove a point. You win this one...please don't. (just kidding - incest is physically, genetically, and mentally wrong)
    7. RELIGIOUS DECEPTION - I was. After reading the bible few times NO MORE.

    Jesus practiced radicalism and told his followers to question and to challenge the norms. Shouldn't all christians do the same?

    Dear Vlatko

    Sounds like a good idea...Docs should have discussions. That is why they are called documentaries.
    I nominate Alex as a moderator - Neutrality is one of the hardest thing a person can strive to be - look at Swiss and Canada.

  454. Gordon hi!
    You write:
    1) “Alex, I read said post, You quote various belief sentences from the bible… don’t you think that is a little naive, considering its proven fact that the new testament was modified- Nay virtually re-written by the council of Nicea?? & who knows who else.”
    ---I am really amazed and amused how you can say “a proven fact”. That, to me, is what seems naïve. Why?
    Do you know that we can make a new New Testament (the same one we have!) just by using passages quoted by the so called “fathers” of the church, many of which predate that Synod??
    “It is estimated by experts that 97-99% of the original text of the Gospels is known to us in its original wording. In the remaining verses the uncertainties do not affect any fundamental aspects of the Christian faith. We may explain this accuracy by remembering that the Christians who copied the manuscripts through the ages themselves thought that the text they were reproducing was the very words of God himself, which would be enough to make anyone work carefully.”(By Garry Williams, Ph.D. , Tutor in Church History and Doctrine at Oak Hill Theological College in London.)

    But I have a question. What was taken out of The New Testament and why? And most importantly, WHERE IS THE PROOF?? If you want somebody to drop out of Christianity, oh you definitely need proof!

    2) “There have always been tyrants who sink to any low to get more power.”
    ---This is true.

    3) Your civilized enough criticism of me is accepted.

    4) The way you compose your comments Gordon, really needs help… fast!...

    5) “If Christ returns he won’t help mere “believers” but rather those who took His( & other guides for different cultures) example & lived UNselfishly & with humility.”
    ---You wish my friend! This is just a lie. I have warned you, laugh all you want. Save yourself in time.
    Stop trusting atheistic literature. It will lead to you to hell. At least do research on what the other side has to say afterwards.
    God bless you!

  455. I'll have to add a forum to this website where people can engage in deeper, longer and wider debates on various topics triggered by the docs. Maybe some of the loyal visitors can be moderators? Anyone volunteers?

  456. Mickey, critisim accepted- i agree & i will leave it at that.

  457. Alex, I read said post, You quote various belief sentences from the bible... don't you think that is a little naive, considering its proven fact that the new testament was modified- Nay virtually re-written by the council of Nicea?? & who knows who else. There have always been tyrants who sink to any low to get more power.

    Regarding 2.. idid read that from your words , to me you sound SOMEWHAT pompous & condescending- from that & other posts( but of course many Zeolous Cristians do- GOD's chosen & all... LOL)

    Re 3.. fair nuff , " both sides" though , i hope you don't divide the world into these 2 camps , stone age stuff that.

    look about 4 ...lol , Hell??? its here turn on yer evenin' news. Man kind has NO EQUILIBRIUM we've just about stuffed this entire planet. Prophecies from all cultures concur that Massive Earth changes & Cataclysms are due. the times of the great purification are indeed nigh. Its a universal law - CAUSE & EFFECT the ripples are heading back , so we must do all we can to be better people.
    If Christ returns he won't help mere "believers" but rather those who took His( & other guides for different cultures) example & lived UNselfishly & with humility.

  458. Dear Alex

    It was a sincere question. Reason I asked was because I find many so called fundamentalists never read the bible cover to cover and they tend to be stubborn about their religion. However; those few who did read the bible are more open minded imo.

    Alex, since you read and studied the bible, don't you find book of Genesis strange? Something about it it's very mythical.
    As if someone made it up to explain the beginning of time.
    First time I read it it was more than 20 years ago. Back then I just accepted word for word even though some of the stories were puzzling.
    For example - Noah's Ark
    This used to be one of my favorite sunday school story.
    Alex, without getting all religious, think about it. All those animals cramped in the Ark (Please spare me of any band-aid explanations). Does it make sense to you? Another one is "incest". C'mon Alex, even a third grader would know something is not right. I could go on and on about Genesis. Once Genesis fails then rest of the old testaments become impossible to stomach. I truly believe book of Genesis was fabricated just like any other mythical books.

    Funny thing is I used to be like you and I don't entirely dismiss you. Nor am I trying to convert you..no no no

    "As long as you speak from heart then your bs is my bs….."
    Personally, I find too many fundamentalists speak out of their asses than their mouths. And as long as you are honest then I will reciprocate.

  459. stop arguing about things, it's a waste of energy.

    you believe one thing, and another believes another. it will always be that way... do something more constructive with your time!

  460. Joe
    You write:
    1) "Have you read the bible cover to cover?"
    ---Although you say your question is sincere, it still sounds like a belittling question, but maybe it isn't, so I'll entertain it. If you happened to read my comments on this thread, and on all other Zeitgeist related threads you'd pretty much get the idea that I have read the Bible a great many times (haven’t counted them), and continue to do so… every day!
    I am Greek and I read the New Testament directly from the Nestle-Aland Critical Apparatus, and the Old Testament from both the Septuagint (Hebrew translated into Greek) and Hebrew Version called Vamvas (named after its translator).
    2) I don’t get this comment: “As long as you speak from heart then your bs is my bs…..” But let’s go on.

    Gordon hi!
    You write:
    1) “What the hell is a “reasonable & logical faith”
    ---To begin with, please calm down. If you’re actually interested in an answer, read my comments on: June 20th, 2009 at 21:42, July 6th, 2009 at 18:52, also on Addendum July 17th, 2009 at 12:06 and maybe elsewhere. I can’t keep repeating myself and be answering to everybody at the same time.

    2) “why pull this guy down cos he wants to use his intellect & reason to look into & test things out for his own???,
    instead of just believing what others give him as most do.”
    ---How nice of you (…) to want to protect Joe… but against who?? This is what you got… FROM MY WORDS?? I never said to him not to do his research and just believe. Why would I??

    3) “One thing, you use the word ” atheist” a lot, some of the most kindest & considerate people I know are such.”
    ---Of course, I agree! I’ve already mentioned somewhere that there are good people on both sides!! When I am referring to atheists I make it clear in the context of my words that I am referring to the ignorant ones or the arrogant ones, or both in one. Just as I make clear that many Christians are at fault as well for the misunderstandings of many atheists.

    4) “Are they going to “hell” cos they don’t “believe” … NO!”
    ---Well, do you believe in hell? If so, where do you get your teaching on hell?? If from the Bible, then you know that YES they WILL end up in hell. On the other hand, if you don’t actually believe in the existence of hell then…. what’s it to you? (Don’t take it the wrong way.)
    Also, being a good person when in contact with people, doesn’t mean you are indeed good since it can be superficial. A person who is truly good, is so, in The Eyes of God as well, not just people. The Lord God has his own standards in who is good. I add that there are many atheist who devoted themselves to Christ.
    God bless you.

  461. Dear Alex

    Before I refute every comment you made I need to ask you a sincere question.

    Have you read the bible cover to cover?
    If yes then which version(s), how many times, and how many different languages?

    ps
    I apologize.
    As long as you speak from heart then your bs is my bs.....
    Yes-I do love your comment.

  462. "Reason and logic never prevails over a reasonable and logical faith. NEVER.
    What actually happened is that your “reason and logic” prevailed over your very weak in foundation faith, unless you can prove otherwise."

    What the hell is a "reasonable & logical faith" There is seldom ever such a thing, you either KNOW from direct contact(meditation etc),observance of the cosmos should convince the intelligent... or you "believe"/"have faith"- which is typically always either fear-based, peer-pressured or "cultured", or just a sentimental fancy built on sandy shores.

    why pull this guy down cos he wants to use his intellect & reason to look into & test things out for his own???,
    instead of just believing what others give him as most do.

    One thing, you use the word " atheist" a lot, some of the most kindest & considerate people I know are such. Are they going to "hell" cos they don't "believe" ... NO!

  463. Joe,
    In point 9 a) 2nd sentence, I meant to write: Ok, but you did not realize that there just as many books countering them. I think that if you were aware of them, you’d be a different you now.
    Sorry.

  464. Joe hi! (again?)
    Are you the same Joe I’ve already responded to above?
    You write:
    1) “Dear Alex
    As long as you not b/shitting I would love to read your comments.”
    ---a) You’re not doing me any favour you know! So what's with the attitude? With what right do you address me in this manner?? Have I done anything to you?? Where did you see “b/shitting” in any of my comments?? If someone disagrees with you he must be “b/shitting”?? Or maybe you think you can intimidate me???????????? YOU CAN’T!! How old are you? 20-23? Please!
    b) It sounds like: “Dear Alex, As long as you not b/shitting I would love to attack you like most others! Just give me a chance!” Take your best shot!
    c) I see your hate as well.

    2) “…there are people like myself that appreciate frank and passionate discussions”.
    I do too (as you can see), but respectful frank and passionate. If someone wants to get in a “fist fight”, this is not the place to do it, that is, if the purpose of discussion is truth not disrespect in order to hide ignorance.

    3) “It seems like there are many against a lone fundamentalist. I hope more people can join in to even out the ratio.”
    ---I don’t need anyone’s help. All I ask for is honesty and a civilized discussion, and we can disagree on anything! No problem!

    4) “I, myself, is 90% Christian, 2% atheist, 2% Buddhist, 2% spiritual, 2% Muslim, and 100% logical.”
    ---Please clarify what a 90% Christian is….

    5) “First time I saw Zeitgeist was 5 years ago. It was absolutely eye opening. Since I was a born again christian the doc had hit a very sensitive cord.”
    ---a)You were “a born again Christian” and now you are 90% Christian 2% Buddhist, etc.?? I have news for you Joe, that I’m probably going to pay for, but no problem: You were never born again by God. At most your church made you think you were “born again” (maybe you agree). Think about it please. I have seen too many of those. This is the pseudo Christianity that so many churches today cultivate. The reasons is false theologies. Hence, they make “Christians”, instead of The Holy Spirit making them. Just for the record Joe, being “born again” is a process completed by receiving The Holy Spirit in you. Having repented and believed and maybe even seen God’s Hand occasionally and going to church, reading the Bible, is not being born again.
    b) I was wondering, how old were you 5 years ago? I ask because it does matter. Answer if you want of course.

    6) “I asked many fundamentalists around me about my new found knowledge. Suddenly, I became a devil worshiper. Even my own mother seemed very troubled by me and I tried to convince myself that the doc is a work of satan.”
    ---a) Joe, someone being a fundamentalist pastor or teacher, doesn’t mean he knows how to answer issues such as Zeitgeist. So, they just throw at you what silly (many times) little they know. I mean, there are apologists for such issues. To them Zeitgeist (the first part) is an “case closed” topic.
    b) I understand though, that you were surprised with the reactions of others, but I believe their intentions were good (although that’s not enough).
    c) Have you seen “Zeitgeist exposed”? It’s the first one on top of the page of Zeitgeist Refuted. Vlatko changed the order. Zeitgeist refuted is good too, but “Exposed” is more complete. Do see it if you haven’t.
    d) Since you believe the first part of Zeitgeist, what to you is Jesus Christ and the apostles?

    7) “You see, it is very hard, if not impossible, to “un-faith” oneself when all your life you been taught to just accept and believe and if you don’t you will go to hell for eternity.”
    ---a) Not really. If one’s faith, does not have a strong foundation in truth (it has many aspects/parameters), it becomes “shaken” pretty easy. One must understand that most Christians work on improving their understanding of God and His will, rather than improving their understanding of -let’s say- the atheists’ amo (if you know what I mean). This is COMPLETELY normal! So, when someone confronts them with “ideas” like Zeitgeist, they are not in a position to answer. This though, doesn’t mean they are stupid, or that their belief is wrong, it just means they have not searched to find answers on such issues, simply because they don’t care about it and this because they have seen the God of Christianity in their life so many times, that ideas like Zeitgeist seem to be irrelevant, absurd. Some Christians though, do both: understand God and His will as well as understand “the other side of the story”.
    b) Although it usually doesn’t happen that way (…) in reality, being “taught to just accept and believe and if you don’t you will go to hell for eternity.” is not a Christian way of dealing with anything I must insist!!! Most of the times, from my experience, this is just how atheists smother Christians. O.k. maybe this is how one’s family deals with things they can’t answer, but to generalize and say that all the elders and pastors and teachers do this, is just a suspicious injustice. Even if the leaders of a church don’t care much about such issues, they will never prevent (by rule) prevent someone from doing his own research.

    8) “But, slowly, my hunger for reason and logic prevailed over my “faith”.”
    Reason and logic never prevails over a reasonable and logical faith. NEVER.
    What actually happened is that your “reason and logic” prevailed over your very weak in foundation faith, unless you can prove otherwise.

    9) “As I dug for more information I realized there were all these books that I had to read – being an atheist is a hard work.”
    a) Ok, but you did not realize that there just as many books countering them. think that if you, you’d be a different you now.
    b) Being a Christian is hard work too.

    10) “One day I discovered a doc by Richard Dawkins. It was brilliant and less time consuming.
    RD really challenges your mind to investigate; both science and religion.”
    ---If you don’t mind I’d like for you to give me the best -according to you- principle from Richard Dawkin’s book/s which may have made you “less of a Christian” after reading it.

    Well Joe, these were my comments that you’d “love to here” .
    Do what you have to do, but at least try to be “100% logical” while you’re at it; if respectful as well, it would be much appreciated.
    God bless you!

  465. Dear Vlatko

    Please do not close. Even though it seems like it is deteriorating into one-sided badgering there are people like myself who appreciate frank and passionate discussions.
    It seems like there are many against a lone fundamentalist. I hope more people can join in to even out the ratio.

    I, myself, is 90% Christian, 2% atheist, 2% Buddhist, 2% spiritual, 2% Muslim, and 100% logical. And I live under a fundamentalist government, enforced by idealists, and surrounded by liberals.

    First time I saw Zeitgeist was 5 years ago. It was absolutely eye opening. Since I was a born again christian the doc had hit a very sensitive cord. I asked many fundamentalists around me about my new found knowledge. Suddenly, I became a devil worshiper. Even my own mother seemed very troubled by me and I tried to convince myself that the doc is a work of satan. You see, it is very hard, if not impossible, to "un-faith" oneself when all your life you been taught to just accept and believe and if you don't you will go to hell for eternity. But, slowly, my hunger for reason and logic prevailed over my "faith". As I dug for more information I realized there were all these books that I had to read - being an atheist is a hard work. One day I discovered a doc by Richard Dawkins. It was brilliant and less time consuming.

    RD really challenges your mind to investigate; both science and religion. I was angry at religion but through websites and forums such as yours now I try to be a more open minded person.

    Keep up the good work here!

    Dear Alex

    As long as you not b/shitting I would love to read your comments.

  466. This is a joke, just face it, religion and facts will never be compatible. What a waste of everyones time.

    "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winner and world renound physicist)

    I'm sorry if you're religious.

    I'm not sorry if I've offended you.
    I'm just sorry if you're religious

  467. Hmmm. I thought the number one most commented Doc would be a good one. This was a waste of my time. The narrator even sounded mentally i'll. It was a challenge to listen to him drone for an hour and a half. Also if you actually think about it, you'll find that most of you that are arguing to support the same side of the story in your comments. So thank you Top Documentary Films for a real gem.

  468. Achem's razor,
    sorry about my comment on August 15th. It was to a degree irrelevant. I had something else in mind when I saw your link. Again, sorry.

  469. Vlatko hi!
    From my perspective, most readers and participators do not go to the trouble of reading all previous comments. If they read the last ones and see the discussion deteriorating then this will turn them off, that is, it will make them be afraid of posting a comment since they see a lot of “trampling over” already, something that is a waste of precious time and space. Especially if he is a Christian or from another religion he will think it twice or three times before commenting (maybe this is their agenda...). Even if he is just an honest person with dignity and respect for others, searching for answers, again, this kind of “filthy war” will tire him out eventually. I mean I find this thread a complete waste of time if “it becomes restricted” only to atheists and others who curse, lie, and just don’t want to hear the other side. If the people who participate promote civilized discussion then this can benefit all sides in the long run. So my opinion, is just give a test run for a little while and if it continues to deteriorate, then -I agree with you- do what you have to do, but at least don’t take off the comments already posted or even just those you think represent the kind of civilized material you want to be read on this thread. I disagree with Nameless when he says: “But still as an honest feedback , I will suggest you to keep all the posts coming (whether they are stupid,vulgar,irrational or rationally debate intensive)……………. Let the discussions deteriorate.”
    No. Honesty is not enough. People have to learn to respect those who hear them and those who respond to them. They can't just enforce their language on others, especially since this is not done in their "house", but in somebody else's (Vlatko's). They can say anything (!) but in a wise measured manner. Then He adds:
    “This way it helps the reader to make up their own minds when they start following a thread. Let them see all the sides irrespective of the gravity or the seriousness of the posts.”
    I disagree. The reader can “make up his mind” when listening and taking part in a civilized conversation. The fact that I choose not to curse at anybody or make them to be trash, doesn’t mean my arguments are less interesting or accurate or passionate or helpful. People who resort to trash talk need to resort to it (!) because they are uncivilized or immature or hate filled or just want to win a discussion by projecting their emotions with out sound arguments in order to fog what is actually happening. Why should they -at the expense of others- be given the right to?? Anyway Vlatko, I hope my view has been of help to you. As I said, the "house" is yours. God bless you!

  470. Alex: I am not exactly illiterate, but I have no idea what you are talking about! Nor do I want to know! If you have concerns, ask "You Tube" It is their Video's. End of discussion!

  471. Achem's razor,
    1) Would you write a book and it mention another book in a good way, when you want that book "banned"?
    2) If others after you, way later, wanted that book definitely "banned" but not yours, wouldn't they try to erase any mention of that book from your boook as well?
    3) If some wanted these books banned from the Bible, would they allow these books to be circulating among the people (as they did!)? These books were always around!
    4) Why would you "ban" a book that does not contradict or add anything of special importance to the rest of what is said in the Bible? The fact that angels came in contact with humans is mentioned in the Bible as well!
    5) Could there be a more simple answer, instead of conspiracy to hide (...?) something?
    A simple thought: There are already 50 books in the Old Testament, what would the reason be to add more? On the other hand if you believe these books were inspired by God, then could it be that God didn't want them to be included, simply because they didn't add anything needed for all times, but were inpired for purposes of a particular period, not for all ages?
    6) Is it possible that God wanted those books to be included, but He -ooops!- couldn't manage it? Please people! Be sensible, not gullible.
    ...Much much more can be said!
    I told you to watch yourself with that razor! :)
    God bless you!

  472. Yeap. This discussion begins to deteriorate and if it continues I will have to close the comments on this post.

  473. I love you too guys!
    You are really intelligent, objective, kind, considerate, mature, "believers in a god". Anyone can see that from your comments :)
    I had a feeling this was a set up. But anyway those who are truely intelligent will realize that you did this just because you couldn't handle me. You JUST COULDN'T handle me, that is, your arrogance and ignorance couldn't.
    Are you from the same "religious club" by the way?

    Vlatco,
    these guys are really trashing this thread. They are a real turn off to serious discussion.
    Now garbage aside...
    could it be that WTC7, Nameless, Achem's razor, and Vilya, are the same person?????????????? This is my hunch(...), I gotta to check it out...

    Pity just pity.
    May God forgive you (I have)
    ...but all liars will end up in