It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

page: 22
78
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


This post you quoted and the smiley thumbs up you gave it has convinced me of the absolute pointlessness of continuing this debate. I know the Xtian mindset. I was one for many years. But you have reminded me just how impossible it is for you to be impartial and objective, when the mind is so deeply compromised by 'faith' and emotion. Truly I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is to reason with a passionate religionist.

Good luck Goldenknight. You'll need it.


I'm out.
edit on 18-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
reply to post by The GUT
 


From her FAQ's:

Is Acharya a "New Ager" and part of the “New Age Movement”?
www.freethoughtnation.com...


Even reading that is pretty much a veritable indictment of my assertion. At least cause for a "Grand Jury" to convene.

Not trying to be a butt with the lol above. I'm just really laughing...I'm hoping with you. C'mon, you KNOW it's true.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 




.....Oh, btw. Don't EVER tell us what we can and can't do.



Yes, I hear that! Hooray for freedom of speech. I would also have to say the OP was mad because the movie Zeitgeist showed up some of their beliefs as wrong, of based on something else that the OP thought they were.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I like Zeitgeist. You really don't have any points that where even remotely good enough to try to challenge it. Think for yourself, Not how your Preacher tells you! What if I said
"Bible refuted once and for all! (So no more BS about it, case closed!)", Just because I can make a vague argument about the inconsistencies in it. Just make sure what YOU believe is really what YOU believe.
edit on 18-2-2011 by MrEuphoric1 because: I cant spell good




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrEuphoric1
 


i can refute one example: son does not equal sun
that was easy.
in fact, the word for sun in egyptian hieratic is not spelled the same as the word son.
AND the hieroglyph symbols for them are not the same either


that took just a couple minutes to figure out. i went to the egyptian hieroglyphics site
and checked it out for myself

kinda reminds me of the guy that emailed me one time with the big news that the Galactic Order of Deities (G.O.D. for short) was
incoming from another star system

let's ignore the fact, God is a german word and wasn't in the bible at all for THOUSANDS of years, and wasn't in the egyptian or sumerian texts either.

hehe

edit on 18-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Funny because the Zeitgeist MOVEMENT is one of the most "Christ-like" organizations I've ever seen. It's about equality, compassion, unconditional love, thinking for yourself, questioning authority, and non-materialism.

Can't say I've seen the same from the religious right!



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 


yer not looking

it's easy. i can sit here and say that no atheists ever did anything nice or loving for me. but i'd be lying



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
as for the cross being used by pagan deities.
I do not know of anything that predates mazzaroth.
The 1'st decan in the second constellation is crux or the cross.
pillar-of-enoch.com...
There, now we know where the original that all were claiming identity with.
Now all we have to do is weed out the posers.
Glad we can settle the cross issue.
Next
edit on 18-2-2011 by manna2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Reflection
 


I'm focusing on the false claims of Zeitgeist in this thread, but I will say that the Zeitgeist movement just does not sit well with me. I mean, they're not bad people anymore than any other utopian movement, but their ideals are eerily similar to Communism, Illuminism, and Luciferianism. On top of that, it just reaks of cult mentality. They do no research into the claims of Peter Joseph and friends and won't listen to anything outside of their insular movement. They're kind of like Mormons in that respect (who are absolutely certain that those Phoenician tablets supposedly found in Ohio are not forgeries), except Mormons have a much less malign philosophy (aside from extremists).



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Complete and utter poppycock. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about at all. Since I have actually read and own Acharya's books, I will decide on my own the meaning of these issues and when they were made. You are wrong when you claim that they invented the "perpetual virginity" concept to cover their butts. Here's Acharya's book "Suns of God" (2004) discussing perpetual virginity long before Zeitgeist was ever made:


Okay, okay I get it. I get it. Now I understand what you're saying. So, let me tell you what I'm gonna do. You just gave me a great idea.

You see, even though my mom has had sex before, it has just occurred to me that she's a perpetual virgin! It didn't occur to me before! But I was thinking about it today, and I'm like OMG. I just realized MY MOM is a perpetual virgin too!

We just have to write it down on a document that she was a perpetual virgin and she got her virginity back and it'll all check out right! Then we'll have Acharya S source it, just to make sure. Because you know, even though all mainstream sources completely refute Zeitgeist's sources, we know that if Acharya S sources it, then it still counts! Even though that wouldn't work for ANY other researcher, but Acharya S is different. So it counts.

That makes me a virgin birth!

So then, and then, yeah get this, and then what I'm gonna do is like right on December 24th, I'll WAIT for the three stars of Orion to align with Sirius! Yes that'll be perfect. I'll call them my three magi! THEN on the 25th I'll have a doctor stop my heart and start it right back up again!! It's great!

That would mean I technically would have died and been clinically dead and then was resurrected from the dead! And since it's a virgin rebirth on the 25th. THAT MAKES ME JESUS!

Well maybe not Jesus, but it would make me just like him. More importantly that would make me a GOD! Will you worship me?

EDIT:
Also kallisti36 was so kind to remind me. I forgot. Right before the doctor stops my heart I'm going to spread my arms and have a picture taken so that means I was in cruciform! Or no wait, it means I was crucified, cause those are the same things right!

I also have documentation to prove my father was a God. I mean it checks out. I mean, Acharya S hasn't sourced it yet, but I'm sure she will when she sees the documentation. And also, a quick check of my DNA compared to that of my half sister's will easily show we had different fathers. So, obviously my mysterious unknown father was God of course. Who else would it be? My mother was a perpetual virgin! It's not like she had two husbands or anything!

So yeah, I know the documents would be POST Christian and everything. But that's okay. All Acharya S's other sources documenting the resurrections of various Gods are post Christian too. So it works out right?
edit on 18-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Don't forget to take a picture of yourself with outstretched arms! Otherwise you won't meet the cruciform criteria



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
personally, i think acharya makes many fine points, as does zeitgeist. there are some big mistakes too. but we all make those. it's just their final conclusions that seem to be off the map, completely, as in, not there....at all. i don't understand why people who claim they want to learn the truth in the matter, would accept something as obvoius as the "sun" = "son" thing, based on egyptian data that doesn't depict that at all.

another problem, if the sumerian eniil is jupiter how does his son, enki, end up being the sun? he doesn't of course, and zeitgeist tends to ignore sumerian data, because most of the older material was not excavated yet during the enlightenment, when all this conjecture about how the ancient histories were lies based on planetary bodies.

it's all pointing back to the idea that these deities are not terrestrial, meaning they are extra-terrestrial. we don't know when they are likened to stars, if it means we should look at it as if they were actually stars, or from that star system, for example. we don't know if they call them stars because they are inside the stars, are similar to stars in that when they enter the earth's atmosphere, they glow like anything else of mass travelling thru the earth's atmosphere. etc etc. add to this that many people claim to have talked with, ate with, and gone up in vehicles with, these biblical entities. thousands of years ago. i just don't know you could call it all myths based on planets.

i think there's alot more to it. we're talking about 1000's of years of history



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


This seems to be a common misconception about the Zeitgeist Movement. It's not a cult, it's not communism, or marxism or socialism. It's only "agenda" is about creating a sustainable future and a healthy environment for our children and the planet as a whole. It recognizes the collision course we are on with nature, the limits nature puts on us and the value of science and technology to solve problems. It is a fact that our economic system is based on constant consumption. That's not sustainable on a finite planet. We constantly consume solely for the sake of profit and have total disregard for waste and efficiency. The types of resources we use are based on profit with out taking into consideration how long it will take for that particular resource to replenish.

These are FACTS and major problems that capitalism is making worse. Instead of trying to discredit Peter Joseph, I would like for someone to address the actual information that is presented. Like how can we have an infinite growth paradigm on a finite planet? How can we have an efficient society, minimizing waste, when efficiency is the enemy of profit? And why do societies with more income equality have fewer homicides, less crime, fewer drug addicts and more innovation? Instead of automatically playing the socialist/communist card, why don't we debate the actual information presented?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Now a Sumerian/Jewish connection actually holds water. The Sumerians had many legends that parallel Biblical stories. However, that doesn't mean that the Jews plagarized their entire religion from Sumeria. Abraham was called out of Sumeria and held the utmost contempt for them. It could be that Sumeria missed the mark and got bogged down in idolatry and worship of the Watchers. The case for worship of the Watchers can be made by comparing Enoch to Sumerian mythology and seeing that the Watchers and the Annunaki and Igrigi are basically mirror images of each other (meaning inverted). The parallels, I believe also lend credibility to the age of Enoch, because the Sumerians and their religion were forgotten by 300 B.C.. I think this implies that Enoch is older than 2300 years old.
edit on 18-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Fangula
How can you actually refute the claims that were made in Zeitgeist about these mythical beings, and the ancient history behind all this, anyway? It's all mythology and religion. You cannot possibly prove that what was said in Zeitgeist didn't happen, and I couldn't possibly prove that it did.


Are you completely unaware of the scholastic discipline called "history"?

Seriously, how can you make sure a ludicrous statement as that? If historical evidence, subjected to peer review and reviewed by scholars shows something, and some random filmmaker says something completely different, and cites an historian who was proven to simply make things up, do you not understand how one of those things is proven and the other is conjecture?


It's all conjecture, and history cannot be proven. A bunch of people got together and agreed that something happened many thousands of years ago, even though nobody currently alive was there. A bunch of people agreeing on something doesn't necessarily mean it's fact. But thanks for your condescending tone, it is much appreciated and goes well with your over-confident attitude as well.

Sincerely,
Fangula
Supreme Ruler and Great and Dark Lord of the Fangulite Empire, Fangutopia.
I win, k buy.
edit on 18-2-2011 by Fangula because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fangula

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Fangula
How can you actually refute the claims that were made in Zeitgeist about these mythical beings, and the ancient history behind all this, anyway? It's all mythology and religion. You cannot possibly prove that what was said in Zeitgeist didn't happen, and I couldn't possibly prove that it did.


Are you completely unaware of the scholastic discipline called "history"?

Seriously, how can you make sure a ludicrous statement as that? If historical evidence, subjected to peer review and reviewed by scholars shows something, and some random filmmaker says something completely different, and cites an historian who was proven to simply make things up, do you not understand how one of those things is proven and the other is conjecture?


It's all conjecture, and history cannot be proven. A bunch of people got together and agreed that something happened many thousands of years ago, even though nobody currently alive was there. A bunch of people agreeing on something doesn't necessarily mean it's fact. But thanks for your condescending tone, it is much appreciated and goes well with your over-confident attitude as well.

Sincerely,
Fangula
Supreme Ruler and Great and Dark Lord of the Fangulite Empire, Fangutopia.
I win, k buy.
edit on 18-2-2011 by Fangula because: (no reason given)



So what was the point of making Zeitgeist then? The people that made that movie weren't there either. But they go on claiming they know what happened and try to convince of us other things based on that. Why bother and why believe what they say? That's absurd to make that argument. If you're going to make that argument that means any religious and historical parts of Zeitgest really ARE debunked cause you can just go ahead and say, well the Zeitgeist people weren't there either.

The argument goes both ways. If you're going to say that all mainstream scholarly sources, evidence, and research is invalid because THEY WEREN'T THERE! The same applies to Zeitgeist and everyone else too. You can just turn around and say, well, THE ZEITGEIST PEOPLE WEREN'T THERE! THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!




edit on 19-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
This thread is like watching the captain of a paintball team argue strategic military tactics with the SecDef , kallisti36 you need to take this arguement to a likeminded christian website where you'll get responses that reinforce your belief system and won't harm your ego.

ATS for the most part is full of free thinkers and people that use logic , logic trumps fables everytime... just because A LOT of people believe in the fable doesn't make it fact , a lot of people at one time thought the earth was flat.

Some people that weren't indoctrinated at an early age into a particular cult have the gift of free thought and can look at things truthfully and logically. Others will argue to the death their views , however illogical they may be , because to do otherwise would force them to acknowledge the fact that they have been lied to or decieved their whole lives. (and no one wants to feel decieved) Your Ego will try to protect your belief system at all costs.

I've learned that you can't have debates with these people because they lack the simple comprehension that in fact they could be wrong, You can't argue with someone that already has their mind made up because learning simply cannot occur, it's an exercise in futility.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
i like how it was said that gilgamesh was a fictitious figure, after the scholars first found the epic of gilgamesh, then archaeologists found his ancient city, complete with monument that says that he was 2/3rds god

now that's what i call some very interesting discoveries.

the enlightenment trend was based on lack of science and lack of archaeology. now we have both. so the new trend now is based on lack of caring whether it's real or not lol i like studying and learning.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Another poster had a good point when they said that part of the problem here with this thread is that a religious person started it. Nothing against anyone's beliefs...but people will use it against you to support their own.

Someone without any 'belief' system of 'faith' could easily point out that there are lies in the zeitgeist. Not that its philosophy can be wrong or is wrong or should be wrong...this is not about its philosophy of 'life or being'.

Its about the things it has used to support its ideas and that many people take what it says as all facts which causes headache for those that know that Horus did not have 12 disciples or that no where so far is there evidence that alot of the 'comparisons' zeitgeist uses...have no grounds to really stand on.

THIS IS NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE NO COMMON GROUNDS between many beliefs....but its saying that many take it as fact when they here of certain things and its easy to believe that it al only makes sense when you hear that Horus had 12 disciples, was born on Dec. 25th...ect ect (only using Horus as example here).

There is a book that states (Im not saying its fact or fiction here) that Jesus had 12 disciples. There is no book or stone that says the same about Horus. This was completely 'made up' in the zeitgeist as well as some other things were completely made up...and that is all that the OP and others are trying to say.

I dont think anyone is trying to say their religion is right for everyone...but only saying that many take what they heard from zeitgeist at face value..then we see them arguing these so called 'facts' in other threads..I have seen this many many times where someone will come on and copy and paste what was said about Horus that has no historical evidence in book or stone or left behind knowledge from man in the past.

People are bashing the OP and others because of their beliefs in something a book from our history says....at least their belief has some sort of history period in that it has been around for a couple thousand years almost.

Someone could believe that Horus was real and was a savior...and if they did or do..they are likely going to use reason of what they have read about Horus from the knowledge left behind on the stone walls from Egypt. The stone walls does not prove that Horus was real....but if they are going to believe he was and believe he was a wise god or man or whatever...they are likely going to 'believe' in Horus due to what history has left to them to 'know ' of him.

Some of the ideas from zeitgeist are common grounds that seem to rotate through all belief systems....and this is not the issue here for those that are talking about the things it 'makes up out of the thin blue sky'. The issue is that people dont research themselves...and here Horus had 12 disciples...and they simply believe this as if there is some stone wall that says it somewhere when there is not. There is no reason to assume such a thing. Now sure...one can try to see it through the eyes of 'they were all not real for they were all allegories for the 'sun' and its path....but it does not seem all of those that accept what the zeitgeist has to say understand that alot of what it says, is not 'literal' things that history has left behind to tell us about in the pictures or words by man of our past.

I think if all of these 'past men/gods/whatever' were strictly about the sun and its path...then we would see more distinction in what was left behind to show that this is what it was all about. Yet we dont see clearly the number 12 tied to all of these 'men'....we dont clearly see a 'crucifixion' tied to all of these people, we dont clearly see a birth on December 25th for them all, we dont clearly see that they all have 3 stars (if any of them at all does) tied to them and their stories (and these are just a few things off of the list that they try to tie to all of these people to bring a common ground between them all).

Yes there are common grounds...but some of the ones that zeitgeist uses, are just assumptions and basically, totally made up. Even the one about Jesus being born on Dec. 25...lol....has no grounds to stand on really.

They took some ideas...and ran with them.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
osiris=nimrod, narmer, enmerkar, asir, osir, maybe even gilgamesh.
but for sure, osiris=nimrod. he was known as the egyptian narmer, before he died, and the akkadian enmerkar before he left akkad for egypt.

now narmer was a real pharaoh of egypt, unless we've decided even the pharaohs are make believe.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join