“It may sound odd at first, maybe even a bit preposterous, but Christianity has a lot more connections to mankind’s long tradition of sun worship than the average Christian would be comfortable admitting.
Since the earliest time of man, people have witnessed the sunrise anew each day to give light, warmth, and life to the world. To even the most unenlightened observer, this cycle of seeming death and resurrection has profound implications. After all, without the sun to provide us with it’s energy, our existence as we know it would not be possible. Of course, most people today know that the sun isn’t a god. This doesn’t change the fact that it was once - and to some extent still is - worshiped as the god of gods, the life-giver; the (mostly) benevolent source of light and warmth. From here, the overarching theme gets only slightly more complex.
Apart from the discovery of mathematics, the first truly prolific science was undoubtedly astrology. People began to take notice of patterns in the heavens and learned that they could use this knowledge to predict eclipses, the change of seasons, the behavior of their prey, and later tell the precise times it was best to plant and harvest their crops. To help communicate and keep track of these patterns, particular star formations were given names and stories were formed around them to aid in remembrance. There were, and still are, twelve such constellations in what we now call the zodiac, perhaps the first truly universal calendar.
Twelve, with the sun as the central figure.
Over time, science became religion, as stories became myth and then belief. To those that knew better, the ones who believed the myths must have seemed foolish and ignorant. However, though there were many variations in the myths and beliefs they had, the people had become largely uniform in their faith whether they realized it or not. This was due to the fact that it was all centered around a single element: astrology. This, it turned out, was incredibly useful in unifying people into the first civilizations. Religion gave those who were wise enough a powerful force with which to bind peoples together, and when it was suitable, even a wedge with which to divide them against each other. The key as it turned out, was to unify or centralize beliefs into one set, and in many cases, one dominant god among many, and then later, one god only. The people charged with this task were the first true missionaries, and as it turned out, the most logical and effective central god figure to proselytize with was a solar god.
So where does Christianity fit into all of this? It turns out that to the academic eye, Christ appears to be yet another solar deity in a long line of them. The evidence is in your Bible. One only needs to examine the divine attributes of Jesus in light of the other solar gods - most of whom came before Him. A few of the most well-known such figures are Horace, Mithra, and Krishna, but there are a great deal many others. Common elements include a virgin birth, death and resurrection, and being called king of kings, light of the world, etc. The existence of these attributes – present among all such figures - are in actuality largely symbolic references to a common source: the sun’s role in the astrological zodiac.
The evidence is presented much better than I could have hoped to do myself, here in a clip from the film ‘Zeitgeist’. Don’t worry, you’re not a pirate if you watch it; it’s perfectly legal.”
–Arktis
Related posts:
- Christians Should Walk Their Talk And Not Squawk
- Pope Surrenders To Darwin; Quickly Changes Subject
- Christians Trying to Hijack Yoga
- Dave Represents The Old School Christians
- Christians Put The Smackdown On Their Kids
June 26th, 2007 at 10:41 am
This is a very interesting video that seems to have good comparative analysis of religious ideas.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:42 am
What can I say? Thanks for posting this to you site, gasmonso.
I would ask that people PLEASE watch the clip linked at the end of the article BEFORE posting.
The entry submitted consists of one interpretation of the historical data. I acknowledge the possibility that I and the others who share this interpretation could be wrong, however, I don’t think it likely so. ;)
June 26th, 2007 at 11:06 am
I don’t have time to watch the whole video right now, as I am at work, but the first little bit of it I’ve seen smacks of bullshit. “Horizon” comes from the phrase “Horus is risen?” What? I thought our word “horizon” came from the Greek word οÏίζων*, meaning “to limit,” or something similar. I realize that’s probably just a small thing compared to what the video as a whole has to say, but…damn.
*http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Horizon
June 26th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
This is a wiki you’re sourcing from. Wikis aren’t always spot-on-the-ball.
The name “Horus” itself is actually Greek, not Egyptian. The original name was actually closer to something like “Haru” and then later in what would be considered ‘old Egyptian’, “Hor”. You can start to see how words can change phonetically over time, not to mention their meaning, which is based on practical application - in this case, geometry, which the Greeks were know for pioneering.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Oh crap! When I said ‘old Egyptian’, I meant “late”. Crap, sorry. It would be younger in comparison, not older! Stupid mistake. :(
June 26th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“” Apart from the discovery of mathematics, the first truly prolific science was undoubtedly astrology.”"
Astrology is what now??
First, Nice movie but there’s quite a few ‘mistakes’ in it. Also, I wonder what the christians here think, now that they hear it from another source.
secondly to respond the horus crap, EGYPTIAN SOUNDS NOTHING LIKE ENGLISH! stop making these assumptions people.
thridly, hieroglyphics as well as other symbolism in languages that are very different, are very open to multiple interpretation.
Fourthly, Look long anough and you’ll find whatever you want, whereever you want it
fifthly, “mistranslation” Is a dubious term, as it is most common for a word to have two meanings. For instance, the hebrew word ‘cross’ is the same as that for ‘wood’.
It’s not a huge surprise religions are inspired on eachother. Theologists have known this for hundreds of years and anyone with eyes and the willingness to look at other cultures could know (the willingness is often lacking, after all, “What I believe is right”) So, unlike what christians like to believe, you’re not quite so unique. Why all the similar symbolism? Easy, to get people to convert, you need subtle changes.
It’s simple really, even back then, a good ripoff is better then a bad idea, so if you want people to have another religion (yours, so you can controll them), just copy and paste whatever you want from other religions, take their stories and allegories and edit in your own rules (obey thy masters, you don’t need wealth).
ps. Every time someone says Anthropomorphic personification, I think of Discworld.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Grr… it cut off a large section of my post (post 4)! I had said that the meaning in greek was not simply “limit”, but either “limit of knowledge” or “limiting circle”, which makes sense from a geometric and/or symbolic way (light=knowledge), both applicable to solar astronomy. This of course relates to my point about changing phonetics and meanings due to common application. I also had said that neither one of us are expert linguists and that you may very well have a good point.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Let’s see, part II of that ‘movie’ was in support of the thoroughly debunked 911 conspiracy theory (see the last issue in 2006 of Skeptics Magazine), I don’t put much trust in the source. Who made this piece of misinformation anyway?
Also, those more knowledgeable can correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Christianity adapted to local pagan religions to make it more palatable to various locals? Some of the similarities are likely due to this fact, especially the holiday dates. The video clip suggests that these similarities existed since the beginning.
In short, while interesting, I waiting to see corroborating sources.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
“Astrology is what now??”
Well, duh. Astronomy has replaced it as the legitimate stellar science, and of course when people think of astrology they think of horoscopes and all that nonsense, but really, all it started off as was a way to track the movement of the stars and the sun.
I understand your gut reaction, but sheesh.
“secondly to respond the horus crap, EGYPTIAN SOUNDS NOTHING LIKE ENGLISH!”
egyptian words into -> greek -> latin -> all the latin based european languages -> english.
“thridly, hieroglyphics as well as other symbolism in languages that are very different, are very open to multiple interpretation.”
Two words: Rosetta Stone.
No objection to the rest.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“Let’s see, part II of that ‘movie’ was in support of the thoroughly debunked 911 conspiracy theory (see the last issue in 2006 of Skeptics Magazine), I don’t put much trust in the source. Who made this piece of misinformation anyway?”
Ugh… I can see this was a mistake, now. Look, I don’t care what you think about 9/11, please keep it out of this, okay?
Just.. forget it. You’re going to think what you want to. I don’t know why I submitted this… what was I thinking?
Everyone, I’m just sorry for bothering. It is clear to me now that this was all a mistake on my part. I’m sorry for wasting my time.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Hello Arktis,
Such is the nature of posting.
The video was very interesting and I enjoyed watching it. I’m also sure it got some things right. I just pointed out that the source may not be trustworthy. I’d like to see their sources.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I second that, Arktis. From what I have seen of the video, I think it is interesting, but a shattering debunking of my faith it is not.
Like sidfaiwu said, christianity has “borrowed” quite a bit from other religions, especially with respect to holidays and what not. For instance, I’ve known since I was a child that December 25th being Christ’s birthday was most likely bullshit incorporated into the christian traditions in order to make some recently converted pagans happy…and I grew up a southern baptist!
So yeah, interesting video…no need to apologize.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I posted before I saw part 2 and thereafter….
The rest of the movie is bunk….
And I noticed on second viewing that the movie said that allof the other sun gods had been crucified…?!?!?
I thought crucifixion was a uniquely roman phenomenon?
June 26th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
No, the romans saw it elsewhere and thought it was a pretty good idea. Though it’s not usually a cross, the practice of nailing people to wood or trees is not uniquely roman. If you want to call nailing to a board ‘crucifiction’ then it might be right, I’m not that knowledgable in acient persian religion.
Also, the tracking of stars and planets has always been astronomy, astrology is how they ‘influence life’
“egyptian words into -> greek -> latin -> all the latin based european languages -> english.”
Erm, yeah, that’s my point. I was forced to learn both ancient greek and latin, I speak english, and must point out how there are small similarities, but they really are quite different. Completely different grammar rules, verbs different etc etc.
The rosetta stone might have helped us understand hieroglypics, that doens’t take away the fact symbolism and texts in general are usually very open to multiple interpretation. That even aplies to english, try reading a random peom, you can fit a dozen alegories to it.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
“Like sidfaiwu said, christianity has “borrowed†quite a bit from other religions, especially with respect to holidays and what not. For instance, I’ve known since I was a child that December 25th being Christ’s birthday was most likely bullshit incorporated into the christian traditions in order to make some recently converted pagans happy…and I grew up a southern baptist!”
If memory serves me right, Mithras’ “special day” was December 25th in the days of Rome’s pagan height. “Hey guys, you can convert to Christianity and keep your holidays! What’s not to like?”
June 26th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
As a disclaimer, I only watched part one of the movie. Being a former Christian myself, I always enjoy a little debunking. My main qualm with this movie, however, is not so much the careless handling of facts but rather that it seems to have the goal of debunking Christianity in favor of Astrology rather than simply looking to expose the flaws in the religion. *shrug Maybe I’m missing the point or just being nit-picky, but despite being mildly interesting, I think that the movie is too flawed, content and presentation-wise, to have any clout outside the realm of a small group of internet enthusiasts who have no doubt latched on to it.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
shut up people talk to much
June 26th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I really have to apologize for this. It turns out that a lot of this stuff came from a guy called Jordan Maxwell. Just look him up… you’ll see. He mixes a lot of highly questionable nonsense with truthful stuff and the end product is.. well, me being pissed off and embarrassed, for one.
Sorry, gasmonso. This one is my fault. (It really is)
Anyways, alcari said: “Also, the tracking of stars and planets has always been astronomy, astrology is how they ‘influence life”
Wikipedia says: “Historically, astrology and astronomy were often indistinguishable, with the desire for predictive and divinatory knowledge one of the primary motivating factors for astronomical observation. Astronomy began to diverge from astrology after a long period of gradual separation in the 18th century, and has since distinguished itself as the scientific study of astronomical objects and phenomena without any concern for their supposed astrological correlation.”
Basically, it supports what I wrote, that astrology started off as a way to predict certain things by using the patterns in the sky. It worked of course, but then all that horoscope tarot card bull crap came along. This is basically the 3rd time I’ve said this…
It’s fine that you have a knee-jerk reaction to the word “astrology”, but that doesn’t mean what I wrote is wrong.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
… but I guess a lot of the stuff in that vid is pretty questionable. :(
Damn you, Maxwell, and damn me.
Alright, I think I am through kicking myself.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
sidfaiwu:
Yep. In fact, I’ll go further. There are two things going on here, as far as I can tell.
The first is the Carl Jung/Joseph Campbell point, that the fact that two religions are so similar doesn’t necessarily imply that one borrowed from the other, or that they even have a common ancestor. Rather, it could be that religions fit a psychological niche, and the underlying psychology is the same regardless of the religion.
The other is that Christianity was indeed a truly innovative religion in one respect: It was the first religion that, from its earliest days, wasn’t tied to a single people or culture.
Christianity has done this by adapting to new places and new people by adopting whatever is useful. That’s how Paul of Tarsus could take Christianity to the Greek world, and it’s why a Chinese Christian church looks pretty much like a Joss house.
Today, Christianity is even adapting to postmodernism, via modern liberal Christianity and the “emerging church” movement.
So no, Christians are not worshipping the Sun. They do, however, have a religion which, if you are a Sun worshipper, could provide a decent alternative. You can even keep your festivals if you like…
June 26th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Just to further drive my point home, alcari: “From the classical period through the scientific revolution, astrological training played a critical role in advancing astronomical, mathematical, medical and psychological knowledge. Astrological influences included the observation and long-term tracking of celestial objects. It was astrologers who provided the first systematic documentation of the movements of the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars. The differentiation between astronomy and astrology varied from place to place; they were indistinguishable in ancient Babylonia and for most of the Middle Ages, but separated to a greater degree in ancient Greece (see astrology and astronomy).”
So, THERE. >:S
June 27th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Let me try to reconcile the two points. I think that technically, alcari is right, the non-bull part of observing the stars has always been astronomy. Astrology has never been a real science (neither has alchemy). However, it were astrologers who did the star-gazing and tracking before pure astronomy came into being. So, you could says that astronomy owes a lot to the early astrologers but little to the field of astrology.
Hmkey? :-)
June 27th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Mmm, this crow tastes good.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
“”It’s fine that you have a knee-jerk reaction to the word “astrologyâ€, but that doesn’t mean what I wrote is wrong.”"
hehe, I read the exact same article before posting, but I sort of concluded from the part “Astrology made great contribitions to astronomy” (paraphrasing here, i’m in a hurry) that they were seperate. But, I get the point, let’s leave it at that.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:02 am
I think we may be missing the point here. While the video undoubtly makes some questionable assertions, the main point seems to me something that we all know to be true, “Religion is the opium of the masses,” as Marx put it. The Judeo-Christian religions have been used to pacify and mollify the public for centuries. Scholarly works on the origins of the Jesus mythology convincingly support the historical perspective that there never was a Jesus Christ. In fact the purveyors of gnosticism in the first 100 years CE explicity referred to Jesus as a mythological character rather then a historical one. Perhaps it is unfortunate for us that they were eventually beaten down by the Catholic church, which subsequently made every attempt to destroy any writings that smacked of gnostic beliefs.
Over the past several days, I have watched the entire movie and while skeptical of many of the assertions presented as facts, it seems to me even if only a fraction is true, the conclusion is the same: we should be very, very angry. Angry for the lies, the murders and all the injustices perpetuated by those in power in the quest for even more power. We aren’t religious, so what is our opium? What has made us so ambivalent in the face of forces trying to manipulate our perceptions and undermine our freedoms? Why are we not willing to stand up and fight for what we do believe in?
June 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I liked this clip, as I am prone towards liking anything with an anti-religious message, particularly anti-Christian.
After seeing the second clip, I don’t hold this filmmaker in much esteem. However, the overarching theme I took away from it is exactly what The Devout Atheist says in post 25. To answer his ending questions, the answers are quite simple.
“We aren’t religious, so what is our opium?”
For me, it’s anger. I find myself constantly surrounded by religious freaks who are all too willing to give up their own ability to reason for false comfort. What’s worse, they are EAGER to push the same affliction upon the rest of us. Thus the anger. Obviously, not everyone reacts in this way, as individual perception, cultural upbringing and whatnot, each of us will have a unique set of circumstances leading to an atheistic/agnostic life. Thus, there is no overarching opiate for the non-religious.
“What has made us so ambivalent in the face of forces trying to manipulate our perceptions and undermine our freedoms?”
I am entirely in agreement with what is suggested in this question, but the answer is again, simple. The religious freaks have the power, through the propagation of their faith, to harness the ignorance of the masses and convert that into political power. Be it through the vote in Democratic nations, theocracy in some Middle Eastern nations, or other such means. Thus, they continue to be able to control what issues lead to the selection of political figures, such as elections with ‘pro-life’ agendas at the fore in American politics, which easily ensnare the faithful into voting for whoever is spewing the same nonsense as they are.
Reasoned, non-theistic thinking has no place in the power structure of any such society. We may be free to choose not to be religious, but in doing so we give up any real possibility of our opinions having any real weight in political matters. Thus, the ambivalence. Christians have the power in America because there are far too many of them, and Atheists have little to no power, as their opposition of religiosity in government clashes with the will of the ignorant majority.
“Why are we not willing to stand up and fight for what we do believe in?”
The answer to this is a continuation of the previous paragraphs. Some are, some are not. There are many who fight against religion, and while we may win a few small victories on occasion, the fight is inevitably a long defeat until we are able to pull more people away from the allure of religion. However, awareness of atheism is slowly seeping into the popular culture of my own nation. Appearances by many openly atheistic individuals discussing their reasons for not being religious are becoming increasingly common. Unfortunately, the religious right is steadily increasing its grip on politics, primarily through the oh-so-corrupt Executive branch’s endorsement of Christianity.
The answer to the dilemma is simple. Don’t hide your atheism, and don’t back down. Don’t just sit content in the knowledge that all of those religious freaks will be extremely disappointed when they die, or rather, would be disappointed if they didn’t simply cease to exist entirely upon death. When someone brings up religion in any context, do your utmost to debunk said faith. Make them feel foolish, ignorant, and gullible because that is exactly what they are, and it is high time they began to be shown the extent of how worthless their faith is.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Adding to Blasphemaster’s post: (great screen name by the way)
If you are a US citizen, PLEASE register with a party affiliation (if you are required to in your state) so that you can vote in the presidential primaries. We have a unique opportunity this season, because there are so many candidates. If an underdog candidate is going to have a chance, now is the time. Please view the voting records and read about each candidate. The front-runners of both parties are pushing the same old “moral” agendas while ignoring useful policy. But there are a couple of underdogs that could come to America’s rescue if we take a stand.
If you are a Republican, I would look at Ron Paul.
If you are a Democrat, I would check out Mike Gravel.
A good starting point is Wikipedia.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I’d prefer not to get involved prior to the actually election, actually. I despise the entire political process, as it is in all respects a popularity contest. Popularity, which is judged by a nation of fools who, by simply being capable of being amused by the drivel on American daytime TV, prove themselves to be woefully unqualified to vote in nationally consequential elections.
I’ll cast my vote in the form of emigration to Norway once I have the funds. :p
June 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I certainly understand your sentiment, and you are, of course, entitled to it. I would just urge you to reconsider. The primaries are the time for non-fools to attempt to take over the political process. You can choose to vote for a candidate whose voting record is most in line with your beliefs. Just because others may vote for popularity does not mean you have to. If you wait until the general election then you are forced to choose between candidates whom the fools picked while you weren’t looking.
If non-fools get involved I truly believe we could have a Ron Paul vs Mike Gravel (read Republican vs Democrat) election instead of a Rudy McRomney vs Hillary O’Edwards (read Imperialist vs Wet Blanket) farce.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:19 am
http://www.unity08.com/ - Check it out, it’s registered to be on the ballot and they let the people select the candidates for each position. Seems a more desirable alternative to Republicans and Democrats in the meantime.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I checked out the link and signed up. I hope it works. Right now it seems like no candidates have put themselves on the Unity ticket. I would love it if they did, but I am not very hopeful. Either way, since they are doing their primary online, you can also still register with a party to participate in that party’s primary in your state.
Which raises a question to which I don’t know the answer; can a candidate be on more than one ticket in a general election? In other words, can the Republicans run Smith / Jones and the Unity Party run Smith / Brown ?
Also, sorry to all for hijacking this thread. The tenuous connection is that we are discussing ways to counteract the religious movement taking over the US government.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I doubt it, as it would go against political methodology used in the electoral system. if a candidate is on TWO tickets, then the votes for one take away from the votes for the other, and in the end there are not enough for either to win any states.
Stupid electoral system.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am
UncleMidriff,
yes… That was a debunking of your faith.
I could debunk your faith in one word.
“zeus” OMG
look, i debunked it. So stfu and stop acting like your “faith” has some ironclad seal on it. Your faith has nothing. absolutely nothing. So stop acting like it does. Since you have no evidence, your faith has already been debunked. Get over it, live with it, admit it, and then shut the fuck up.
I’m so goddamn tired of you assholes thinking the burden of proof is on the secularist. Stfu, get off your high-horse, and either find some evidence, or shut your fucking mouth.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:14 am
oh, and this a very popular theory, it has much evidence backing it. As far as the other parts go..
Specifically the 9-11 part. No, they are full of shit. But the first part is more than supported by the evidence.
Google Scholar..
July 1st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Politics and 9/11 aside, a few more notes on the movie. I just finished watching all of Part I and I first want to tell Arktis to stop beating himself up about posting this. It was not a mistake - as long as his purpose was to elicited interesting discourse between individuals about religion. However if his purpose was to have the forum blindly agree, than yes, posting this video was foolish.
Now, what I liked: at the very end of the video (if you can sit through 26 odd minutes of one cheesy narrator) they do mention that those who create and control religious myths can become dangerously powerful - True.
I also really liked the sped-up corny re-enactments of Jesus’ life AND the part where they compare the pope’s hat to a fish head - hee hee I laughed out-loud at that part.
Okay so now what I didn’t like:
1. Where are the references for these correlations? I appreciate that Sidfaiwu checked into the group’s other productions but what about the facts themselves.
Here are just a few that annoyed me -
a. Three Kings = Three stars on Dec. 25th well according to astronomy scholars that term is only used in post 1930s African Bibles since the name “Orion” was not in their language if you want more on that click here.
b. The papal hat was designed such that large crowds could see his eminence especially since the average height was much smaller during those that “age” - sorry no secret fish conspiracy
c. The video made a big deal about the symbols found in art - many pieces during that time were full of allegory and symbols this is how stories were passed on - through images not text. But if we really want to get technical, if Jesus is suppose to be Horus and it is a big cover up, in Egyptian art Horus is always show with only one eye(due to a different myth) why then are all of the depictions of Jesus shown with two eyes? - spooky
I could go on and on about this DaVinci Code crap but I am more likely to believe seeing the virgin Mary’s face in my breakfast cereal than believe this lame attempt to connect Christianity and sun-worshiping.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
blah said:
“UncleMidriff,
yes… That was a debunking of your faith.
I could debunk your faith in one word.
“zeus†OMG
look, i debunked it. So stfu and stop acting like your “faith†has some ironclad seal on it. Your faith has nothing. absolutely nothing. So stop acting like it does. Since you have no evidence, your faith has already been debunked. Get over it, live with it, admit it, and then shut the fuck up.
I’m so goddamn tired of you assholes thinking the burden of proof is on the secularist. Stfu, get off your high-horse, and either find some evidence, or shut your fucking mouth.”
Holy shitting Moses, grumpy today, aren’t we?
No, that wasn’t a debunking of my faith. See my faith here? Right here…I’m pointing to it…yeah, that one. It’s still here. Watching a video that points out that “horizon” sounds a little bit like “Horus has risen” if said by a person with a speech-impediment AND a mouth full of Saltines didn’t do much to shake it. Neither does “zeus.”
Furthermore, I’m not currently nor have I ever in recent memory acted like my faith has an “ironclad seal on it.” If I felt that way, why would I frequent this site?
As for admonition to “shut the fuck up,” no thanks. I’d rather discuss various religious freakery in a calm, enlightening manner with the other people on this site.
Also, I’m not sure when I have, from a high horse or otherwise, placed a burden of proof on a secularist. If I have, I apologize…that was not my intention.
July 4th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Eh… Maybe I overreacted. Alright. I did overreact. But at least you say “not a debunking of your faith”, as opposed to n”ot a debunking of your religion.” Because the religion, well, this video doesn’t do debunking much justice. However, a quick search on Google Scholar can bring up many peer reviewed sources and points of interest for you to further study into your myth. Sun worship, IMO, seems to be the hidden motif and cornerstone of most savior type religions.
No need to apologize, I know that your faith is simply part of your human condition. Some hope for you grab on to.
As for me, well, truth is more important than quick answers.
It definitely would do you more justice to research into these topics with the presumption that they are myths. It will be easier for you once you hear the foundation of your ‘faith’ crackling from beneath you.
dogma breeds ignorance, stupidity, tyranny, oppression, etc.
reason breeds knowledge, aka the sciences, philosophy, etc.
faith in the pink unicorn… breeds, well, nothing… useless.. overrated “virtue.”
July 9th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
The core difference between the Faithful and the Sane.
Uncertainty -> Search for Explanation -> Reason -> Knowledge -> Pursuit of More Knowledge -> Develop System of Rational Observation and Experimentation -> Realization of Factual Information about the Universe Based Upon What can be Perceived -> Gradual Testing and Retesting of Scientific Theory to Preserve Validity -> Applicable Data and Methodology -> Technological, Social, Political, Medical, and Economic Progress
Uncertainty -> Runaway Imagination -> Make Up an Unprovable Idea to Keep the Populace in Check -> Ignore Contradicting Evidence -> Keep Idea Forever -> Stagnation -> Strife Between Faiths -> Persistent Source of Conflict and Social Backwardness; False Hope
July 9th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
That looks like fun, Blasphemaster. Though I’d be a bit more generous to religious thought.
Scientific method (simplified)
Observation –> Hypothesis –> More Observations –> Fit with Hypothesis?
–>No: Adjust or Replace Hypothesis and repeat
–>Yes: Replace ‘Hypothesis’ with ‘Theory’ and repeat
This endless loop provides a framework for continuously improving our understanding of what we observe (our universe)
Religious Method
Observation –> Skip Straight to Theory –> Link morality to theory –> More Observations –> Fit with Theory?
–>Yes: Proclaim the power and moral goodness of the Theory
–>No: Two Possibilities
1: Reinterpret, but do not change Theory (moderates)
2: Vilify, oppress, torture, or even kill all who accept new evidence. Since morality is linked to the Theory, acceptors of this evidence are ‘evil’ or at least responsible for evil, corruption of the youth, or depredation of the family, society, etc (fundamentalists)
July 9th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Sid,
There is big difference between the religion and how people receive the religion, Muslims after Islam was trying to be good at science, so there was not contrdication between Islam and science. Now I agree with you that some Muslims country igonre science, but that has nothing to do with the religion its self, it’s about this people agenda.
So as you see above the first group of Muslims who they came after our prophet and they know the religion better than the current Muslims, they were interested in science, and people now are not, so can you tell me how the rligion was against science.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Hello Mohamed,
I never really said the two methods are mutually exclusive. One can, and many do, use both the scientific method and religious method, but apply them to different observations. Disagreement and inconsistency between the two only occur when both methods are used to explain the same observation but do not agree.
While the two can coexist, I find the scientific method much more compelling because it is open-ended and it has utility. The only utility I can see for religion is that it dumbs down morality so that it is easy to understand for the common person. Okay, maybe it makes people feel better as well. But so does morphine.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:13 am
And massive amounts of booze. :)
July 10th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Hell, even small amounts of booze, if it’s good. Like say Macallan’s 1986 Sherry Oak Single Malt Scotch that I had the good fortune of enjoying two ounces of over the weekend. Nah, no religious experience can be that good.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Actually, I’d think that the booze would be a prerequisite for a lot of the crazy ideas religion comes up with. Christians DO love their wine, after all….
July 11th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Hey, thats not wine you insensitive clod. That is the blood of jesus!
How disgusting is that tradition anyway? Drinking the blood of jesus and eating his flesh. Damn catholics are cannibals!
July 20th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Been absent for a while. Just saw this while poking around at symbols.com:
http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/03/031.html
Haven’t read all the comments here yet.
July 20th, 2007 at 5:51 am
Thanks for not being too hard on me, fellas. You really could have ripped into me, but it seems you’d rather sort out whatever truth is to be found out of this. I’m actually impressed…
August 10th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Arktis:
I actually liked the video in that it pulls a lot of threads together:
1) Religion: Used by the elites to control the masses.
2) World Trade Center: False Flag operations or deliberate provocations to get the “enemy” to attack us have been used by the elites to drag the masses into wars for at least a century. There certainly are a lot of very troubling aspects to the Lusitania, Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, and 9/11 (explain WTC 7 to me) - just to mention a few.
The Lusitania : Unravelling the Mysteries
Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor
Assault on the Liberty
By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer
The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA,
3) Federal Reserve: Internatonal bankers and the military/industrial complex want wars which only profit themselves at the expense of the masses. Central bankers manipulate the money supply to create bubbles and crashes where they consolidate their power.
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
The Empire of “The City”: The Secret History of British Financial Power
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich
There may some aspect you disagree with, but overall I think it’s pretty good for a single DVD covering a wide span of history.
August 26th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
The information presented here comes from many sources, one of which being http://www.GnosticMedia.com.
They have a similar movie to the Zeitgeist film and offer even more in depth answers to your questions and of which you speak. Please check it out.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:42 am
Gnosticism is a plague; just look at scientology.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
It’s actually a bit ironic that the 2 major world religions Christianity and Islam worship the Sun and the Moon respectively.
Anybody knows a movie of the same fashion about Islam?
Or.. oh wait.. its producers would receive death threats..