PERFECTIBILISTS: The 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati, by Terry Melanson
The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship, by Paul & Phillip Collins
Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, by Abbe Barruel
Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith, by James H. Billington
America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones, by Antony C. Sutton
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Well, it’s about time I did a response to all the Zeitgeist religious stuff…
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Yeah you should. These guys seem pretty tight in much of their refutation, but in this particular vid they seem to rely on the oft used Protestant argument of blaming all excesses in the name of Christ as products of the rotten old Catholic Church alone. For one thing we don’t “worship” Mary, as he accuses us of in the video, we venerate her as the mother of Christ and as a saint. Despite the recommendation of occult shrink Carl Jung, we don’t consider her the 4th person of the Holy Trinity or a goddess. If some pagans who converted to Christianity misconstrued her as another form of their mother goddess that was against the teachings of the church, but it does not invalidate her position as “the new Eve” or “Mother of the Church” or what have you, any more then Jesus’s status as God should be shaken just because some Viking synchrotists associated him with Thor. They neglect to mention that Catholics and other even of types of Protestant were persecuted by Protestant Christians also.
Of course, none of these facts in anyway support the ludicrous claims of Zeitgeist. Like they said none of the people burned at the stake, where being torched for believing in the whole Zeitgeist thesis. Plus, here’s an unpopular opinion for the emotion over logic crowd: Just because the followers of “belief A” torture the followers of “belief B”, it does not mean that “belief B” is true and “belief A” is false, it just means the followers of “belief A” are being dicks! If A says “1+1=2! Agree or die” and B says “No 1+1=3. Do what you will! I will not be moved!” B is still wrong. It doesn’t mean he should be tortured to death over it, but it does not automatically validate his belief. I hardly think any of the non-Christians of this world would accept the truth of our religion solely on the grounds that many Christian’s have been martyred for the faith. Therefore, even if people were burnt at the stake over the Zeitgeist thesis, (which they 100% weren’t cause no one had made it up yet) it wouldn’t serve as proof that any of their claims are true. I mean, for God’s sake, their were Nazi’s who were persecute for their beliefs, does that support their horrible claims?
Plus, why would the early Christians invent a god who was a synthesis of numerous Pagan deities and then suffer and die for this belief at the hands of Pagan authorities? If they originally thought Christ was the same as Horus why would anyone care to persecute them for this belief? Why would they rather die than worship any of these pagan gods they supposedly thought were one in the same with Jesus? Nobody was punished for believing Hermes to be one in the same with Thoth, or for thinking Zeus was the same as Ammon. Why do these New Age flakes sometimes act like occult mystery religions are an evil control tool of the elite and then at the same time promulgate the mystery religions as the key to some mass awakening or personal salvation? Is the answer, “because they are jack-assess”? Yes, yes it is.
Anyway, you should totally go for it dude! Take these Zeitgeist people to task! I’d offer to help even, but I guess that would mean I’d finally have to sit down and watch all the awful Zeitgeist crap. I don’t know if I could take it. How long is it anyway?
May 4th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Sounds like the same old song, Dan Brown and Archarie S. need to get married! and take a trip to Venus?!?! and leave us!
May 4th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
The early fathers dealt with the same accusations Acharya S gives, and they are the same accusations of modern, liberal critical scholars–that any similarity automatically means Christianity just blended a bunch of pagan myths with Judaism. This accusation assumes what it hasn’t proven–that Christianity borrowed from pagan myths. What if its the other way around? What if the reason for the elements of truth in paganism are because of what they had always done–even in the Old Testament–paganism borrowed from true religion, mixing in nonsense. That’s my view (and the Fathers’ views), and I think I can defend it.
May 4th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
There is no proof for any of it, any side of the religious argument, surely? Trying to ‘prove’ that Jesus is not an amalgamation of other deities/prophets/holy men would be as impossible as trying to prove that he was that amalgamation. I think Ross is correct in his proposition that someone being tortured for believeing 1+1=3 doesn’t make 1+1=3. My problem is that none of it can be proven one way or the other. In my opinion Zeitgeist are saying that 1+1=A, whereas Christians are saying 1+1=B. Give me some proof for either side.
There is no doubt that the early church DID use the dates of pagan festivals for religious festivals. Hallowe’en/All Saints, WinterSolstice/Christmas, SpringEquinox/ Easter. To add to that, is in my opinion, pure speculation. But you will never find ‘proof’, therefore the money will never have to be paid. James Randi’s million dollars anyone? If something supernatural can be demonstrated it stops being super natural and just becomes natural. This video is a waste of time.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Why do you think there is no proof?
May 6th, 2009 at 2:16 am
- James
I will perform sexual favours on James Randi, free of charge for the next hundred million “galactic alignments” if he can in anyway prove any of the following, without stepping outside of his own, long established, epistemic criteria of truth and falsehood:
A.) That all causality isn’t merely coincidental.
B.) That human life has an inherent, objective value and dignity.
C.) That Free Will isn’t illusionary.
I assume you replaced numbers with letters, to illustrate the opinion that neither Zeitgeist or Christianity are espousing factual data about reality but rather something unverifiable. In many ways this smacks of the same attitude as the atheist (I forget which one), who refused to debate his opponents on the grounds that “discussing God is like arguing what colour Tuesday is” (I’m probably paraphrasing). This is of course a positively ludicrous and immature cop out, betraying a complete unwillingness on the part of the debater to even risk the chance that he might be incorrect. Not that I’m saying you would disagree with my next statement, but it follows from your argument, that you must also admit that people denying the historicity of Jesus or denying any of the myriad theological opinions about him, are equally lacking evidence.
Critics of Christianity often accuse believers in a Historical Christ of operating under circle logic (ie: the bible’s true cause the bible says so), however there is a certain circular logical at work with the critics themselves. They start from the assumption that Christ is bunk then they demand primary source evidence that he existed, when it is explained that there are several primary sources; the four gospels and the apostolic letters, they say this doesn’t count because it is part of the Christian bible, not appreciating that any first hand writings about Christ that early Christian’s could get a hold of would be incorporated into their religious cannon. The critic refuses to except any of this as sufficient evidence since it doesn’t say what they want it to say, that he was just a man, or that he was completely made up or whatever. The fact of the matter is, the myths about the pagan gods in all the ancient cultures, were always set in a sort of ahistorical, age of fairytales, meant to have taken place “in the long, long ago” where as the story of Christ is set in a very clear place and historical period, involving several verifiable, real historical figures. Right off the bat this distinguishes Christ from the numerous other deities he is allegedly an amalgam of..
I’m not going to waste too much time building a case here, my point is merely that Christianity is making more than a subjective statement. Saying it amounts to no more than 1+1=B is like saying it’s claims about reality are no more than “I prefer pancakes to waffles.” If this were so it’s doubtful it would piss so many people off. One might respond by saying “No man it pisses people off because it’s saying ‘I prefer pancakes to waffles and so should you!’” However this would incomplete, it’s really saying I prefer pancakes to waffles, so should you, and here are some very good reasons as to why!” Both Zeitgeist and Christianity are making claims that involve the examination of a significant amount of historical evidence, that shouldn’t be underplayed.
Also to the notion that anything that can be demonstrated ceases to be supernatural, depends on your definition of the term “demonstrated”. If you mean observed and replicated under laboratory conditions then you are correct, in so much as only natural objects can be directly observed under those conditions, however, this does not disprove supernatural phenomena, it merely admits that empiricism as an epistemology, can only speak about the physical aspects of reality. It is no more capable of decrying the existence of the supernatural then it is of supporting it. I’m not saying this in some attempt to manufacture a climate of relativism to suit my own end, I’m merely stating a fact about the limitations of a certain type of knowing. This only closes the door to further debate if one then takes the position that empiricism is the only valid method for attaining knowledge. Not only does this censor discussion on numerous aspects of reality, it is a position that cannot even be properly backed up by empiricism itself. It can easily be shown that at a certain point in their reasoning empiricist themselves are employing other epistemic methodologies.
As I indicated above, empiricism is incapable of engaging the reality or unreality of Free Will. In truth, all it’s evidence essentially supports determinism, and yet for many of us (radical empiricist) included, I feel there is a strong internal conviction, that this isn’t the case. Regardless, the scientific method is essentially impotent in proving this one way or another.
Next there is the problem of the Infinity of the physical universe. If time is infinite, how did we get from one moment to the next. Yesterday to today can occur since it is only requires the passage of 24 hours, but how did we get from “infinity ago” to now? The time span is logically impossible, unless you’re Chuck Norris who has counted to infinity twice. If time isn’t finite, and all physical reality, space, time, etc (ie: Nature) just spontaneously popped into existence X number of years ago, we must postulate how. Anything we speak of after this point is effectively supernatural. Even if we say that it happened without any cause at all, we are now speaking outside of the purview of empiricism. This is where other philosophical approaches come in.
Oh yes, one more thing, the notion that “this video is a waste of time” is yet another thing that cannot be empirically backed up.
PS: Tell James Randi, I’ve changed the deal, he doesn’t have to prove anything! There’s just something so alluring about that beard… it’s like what if Cary Grant were a garden gnome. I mean, I’m not gay but I take on look at that sexy skeptic and I wanna prove him the existence of Heaven… IN BED!
I’m starting to wonder of I’m going skitzo, I really switched tone a lot throughout this thing. Oh well. G’night all.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Not wanting to start an argument on sexism. But my general view of what I have seen and experienced when confronted by Christians, although when I am challenged I have no violent temperament such as the majority of them do to me when I challenge. Is that the most extreme usually comes from women. Or family men.
A family is a possession to a man. The misunderstanding of love that generates the challenges for the couple of overcome. The misunderstanding of insecurities which cause jealousy, and one partner looking elsewhere. The tendency of our modern culture is to put marriage on the same level as having a career and childbirth.
What I’m trying to say is, people seek happiness in life which is often challenged by oppression in a monetary system, where we behave against better human nature. This is the paradox I see in Zeitgeist.
We shouldn’t just be asking, what made the thief steal. But arguing what made the Christian irrationally believe. After all, stealing for the rush in society has as little logic as believing in something irrationally.
Is the woman more susceptible to irrational behavior when oppressed to protect her from not finding a matched partner, she will believe she isn’t in a matrix so that she can be and feel suitable for raising a child.
There are strong differences in our behavior. Our mind comprehends humans as the same, when indeed there are many differences between the two sexes. A mans aggression could be seen as just an equal fault to a womans irrationality.
May 16th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Jimi, let me respond to your points one by one to the best of my ability.
POINT 1
“Not wanting to start an argument on sexism. But my general view of what I have seen and experienced when confronted by Christians, although when I am challenged I have no violent temperament such as the majority of them do to me when I challenge. Is that the most extreme usually comes from women. Or family men.”
Jimi, people often get angry when someone else attacks what they believe to be the truth. Though you might keep your cool in a debate and find that many Christians you encounter do not, I must tell you from a Christian perspective that I have had the same experience when debating people who disagree with Christianity, be they another religion, agnostic or atheist. People’s emotional reactions might make them bad debaters and poor embassador for their particular world view, but I think you will agree it neither proves not disproves the veracity of their claims.
POINT 2
“A family is a possession to a man. The misunderstanding of love that generates the challenges for the couple of overcome. The misunderstanding of insecurities which cause jealousy, and one partner looking elsewhere.”
What do you mean by “possession?” Do you mean to say that a man sees his wife and children as lifeless property? I hardly think so. Nor is this even true in a social or cultural sense. No man has the legal right to sell his wife like he might do with his car or pool table. Some unsavory types might do something like this but it is hardly the societal norm (except in really crappy countries). Or, do you mean a man expects from his wife certain loyalties, such as not cheating on him with the pool boy? If so, the wife expects this same loyalty from her husband (perhaps replace pool boy with babysitter). If this is what you class as possession, then do they not both equally possess each other?
I will not pretend that their haven’t been injustices done by husbands and fathers in the past but the choice to contextualize and critique marriage as a form of property ownership, whether you are aware of it or not, is (like the whole Zeitgeist argument), derivative of Marxist Communist theory. It is essentially just part of a political plan to destroy all private ownership altogether by undermining and dissolving the family unit since it is the means of transmission for inherited property. The word zeitgeist (spirit of the times) itself, is a term frequently used by the early 19th century German Philosopher Hegel, whose dialectic theory was highly influential on Carl Marx; the founder of modern Communism. The abolition of private property will, according to Communist theorist lead to an antinomian paradise in which all Men are Brothers, but thus far it has only lead to totalitarian government and mass genocide. And remember it has been tried by numerous countries in the last hundred years and overwhelming met with the same terrible results.
POINT 3
“The tendency of our modern culture is to put marriage on the same level as having a career and childbirth.”
Okay first of all, our modern society (as in the last 40 years of history or so) has, through feminist critics and the like, frequently attacked marriage and motherhood as forms of slavery that prevent women from having what they term “economic agency.” If you think the opposite is true we must have been watching different tv shows, reading different magazines, and being brainwashed in radically different state-run schools.
Even if what you said was true, what would that mean? “Having a career” is more important than marriage? If that were so then every husband who ever ignored his wife by being a workaholic must have been totally in the right. Of course I doubt you meant your statement to apply to the husband but rather to women. I assume you are trying to say that married women are effectively servile employees of their husband, who in this analogy is like their boss. First of all this isn’t true since numerous married women nowadays do have jobs. Secondly, why is it more dignified to toil away for some faceless corporation then it is to work towards a common goal (having and raising children) with someone you love (your spouse?) If you think marriage is slavery because it makes a women dependant on her husband, the alternative system merely replaces dependancy on a human husband with, dependancy on the almighty state. Which of these two (State or Husband) is more likely to love her?
Regarding childbirth, marriage is on the same level as childbirth because the former is taken as a prerequisite for the latter. A man and women meet, fall in love, get married, have sex, have a child and raise it, wash, rinse, repeat. Is some free love system where dead beat dads knock up a girl they don’t love and leave her to raise the child on her own, with John Q. Tax payer footing the child rearing bill, somehow a better way of doing things? Are these dead beats to be commended? I don’t say this to beat up on single moms, I’m merely pointing out that rasing a child is hard enough for two people so, while my hat goes off on those single parents who were able pull it off, ideally speaking two parents are better than one.
POINT 4
“What I’m trying to say is, people seek happiness in life which is often challenged by oppression in a monetary system, where we behave against better human nature. This is the paradox I see in Zeitgeist.”
While I agree that our monetary system is corrupt, to remove the onus of blame from individual people in all cases is naive. Money is not the root of all evil (it has no mind of its own), the love of money, a strictly human phenomena is the root of much evil. This money loving attitude is a form of materialism, which is one of the things bad old Christianity opposes. Oh don’t bother pointing out that there have been many greedy people who are Christians, or people who have used Christianity to swindle people of out their cash. My point here is that Christianity as an ideal is opposed to the love of money which has allowed the money masters to rip so many people off. Christianity, believes spirit precedes matter, whereas Communism and other materialist systems believe spirit is merely a product of matter, therefore, for a Communist, a person’s choices to do good or evil are merely products of environmental factors, thus no one is to blame for their bad deeds. Ironically, however, Communists and their ilk frequently blame Christian civilization for all its wrongs.
We should of course, try to be understanding and try to change the circumstances that breed crime (things like poverty and lack of education), and when a person is charged for a crime, their economic circumstances should be taken into consideration, however to pretend that they had no free will in the matter would be erroneous.
POINT 5
“We shouldn’t just be asking, what made the thief steal. But arguing what made the Christian irrationally believe. After all, stealing for the rush in society has as little logic as believing in something irrationally.”
Here, you make two mistakes. First off, you assume Christianity is an irrational belief. Secondly, you think that steeling for a rush is a little logical or at least more logical than Christianity. What is it that Christians believe that you find irrational? The existence of a transcendent God perhaps? I think this contention can be more convincingly argued than the highly irrational eternal universe model offered as an alternative by atheists. The existence of a unmoved prime mover, is at the core of the entire Western tradition of logic hammered out by Plato and Aristotle, so you’re on shaky ground if it is a belief in God that you are arguing to be less logical than thieving for thrills. Perhaps though you are talking about the belief in the historical existence of Jesus. Since we have documented evidence of his existence from the first century A.D, we have just as much a logical reason to believe he existed as we have to believe in Plato, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch or numerous other historically accepted figures. This debate could go on forever so perhaps it is better that you explain what it is specifically that you find to be irrational in Christianity, or what you find logical about someone steeling for a thrill.
POINT 6
“Is the woman more susceptible to irrational behavior when oppressed to protect her from not finding a matched partner, she will believe she isn’t in a matrix so that she can be and feel suitable for raising a child.”
Not to be rude, but I’m not sure what you mean by this. Once again not to insult you, but is English your first language? I find people posting on conspiracy sites, frequently speak in these rather bizarre sentences that make very little sense. I’m never sure if it’s bad grammar, the fact that they’re translating from another language or cause they are crazy (not that I’m calling you crazy). It’ll often be something like this: “Greetings and may much peace be onto with you my name is Noel but to friends it is first that I AM CALLED, AVATAR as the brothers of space demand that this necessitated by dictum of HIS WORD!! Much has the Illuminati or as we call these the Nephilim done in the wickedness ways of our world, but time for Revolutionism is at hand! The WHITE DEVIL and SECRET JEW, be head the Pope as to the Catholics will despite best efforts not hand in the victory! The PEOPLE have SPOKE!” Anyway, not to make fun, God knows I’m not above numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, no doubt there’ll be a few in here, but your above quotation seemed like one of those sentences to me.
POINT 7
“There are strong differences in our behavior. Our mind comprehends humans as the same, when indeed there are many differences between the two sexes. A mans aggression could be seen as just an equal fault to a womans irrationality.”
Ironically this last statement you made would be accused of being extremely conservative. Women and Men are different? They have different behaviors that when taken to extremes can become faults? Don’t disagree with you there, neither do the overwhelming majority of Christians. You know who does though, many, many, many ivory tower Commie academics, who despise Christianity and other traditional societies for suggesting that gender is anything more than a social construct.
Peace Out HOOOOOOOOME BOOOYYYEEEE!!! (what the hell was that?)
October 5th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Dear Fellow Christians,
you have been misled for 2000 years and all you follow and read is copied from other religions. I mean no offense to anybody, but the story of Jesus/OT is the greatest and wonderful story ever sold.
No wonder their is no evidence of a man named JESUS. He was a replica of ISIS, KRISHNA, etc. Actually, I was a Christian before and when I realized my “mistake” I did my own research and guess what? Hinduism is the oldest religion and all the stories from Egypt were copied into teh Book of the Dead. I am now a Hindu and is the TRUE religion of the World.
Peace be with you all.