It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 44
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:05 PM
reply to post by undo

I was talking about the 8 hour PVP battle

Again, i don't discourage academic study into the bible or ancient civilisation/scripture, many of the historical events have been confirmed, while many have not, and in some cases claims are contradictory, archaeological evidence negates some claims, or lack thereof suggests it is inaccurate.

This is exactly what happens when you commit to a theory without evidence. Because there is no fossil records for horses, people just assume they were created, even we can prove animals evolve via natural selection/mutation.

Here's a an extract from a critique of an "academic" text book being taught to GCSE kids:-

The FAIL is obvious again: check out the second box, “Interpretation of the fossil record”, which says, and I quote:

* Some scientists use the fossil record to show how animals and plants have evolved. Other scientists have used the gaps in the fossil record to argue against evolution.
* Many complex organisms in the fossil record appear and disappear which Creationists interpret to mean that organisms were created and did not evolve.

Exactly which “scientists” use the gaps to argue against evolution? It can’t be those who espouse punctuated equilibrium, for while those folks argue against smooth and imperceptible gradualism in evolution, they fully accept evolution itself. No, both of these points simply present creationism as an viable alternative to evolution, without any mention that creationism is not science but disguised religion.

Old-earth creationists still believe the earth is only 6,000 years despite the irrefutable evidence that it is billions of years old.

This is the type of ignorance religious ideology and dogma can cause. And people criticise my concerns, and pass them off as "stereotyping" or "disrespect"
edit on 13/3/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

doesn't matter what young earth creationists think or what old earth creationists think. all that matters is that they are free will individuals, with their own reasons for believing what they believe, just as you are.

you are currently studying under the same "know-it-alls" that were in charge of the "knowledge" for the past 3000 years at least. the only difference is now, the focal point's changed. instead of worshipping men in robes with tall hats, you are worshipping men with pocket protectors and scientific calculators.
not that it's bad to have a pocket protector, calculator or to admire men of learning, just that to suggest future generations will look upon the knowledge of today and the way it's being used, and wonder why you were so sure you had the real deal when you only know a smidgen of what there is to know, as does everyone else (including religious people).

famous saying: we see in a glass darkly.
edit on 13-3-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by undo

you are currently studying under the same "know-it-alls" that were in charge of the "knowledge" for the past 3000 years at least. the only difference is now, the focal point's changed. instead of worshipping men in robes with tall hats, you are worshipping men with pocket protectors and scientific calculators

Awww yeah, we're exactly the same, arn't we? Thanks for highlighting that.

.......Actually, there's one slight difference:-

the "men with pocket protectors and scientific calculators" actuallly have convincing evidence, and they can use their studies and apply it to the real world, for practicallity. (i.e. how you came to be typing on your machine)

I can trust them to find the best medicines for the human body, based on study. If it doesn't help the human body, it doesn't get public funding. I'm not forced to trust them, there evidence speaks for their claims.

"worshipping men in robes with tall hats" - Yeah - what have they got to offer? They don't attempt to offer evidence, only bribe you with uncertainties.

Definetly the same type of ignorance, definately, you're so right there. I'm definetly a know-it-all - I definetly know all the answers to the universe, Religion know it all too - We're just one big happy family.

Good luck with your adventure of life.


edit on 13/3/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

there's alot of wiggle room in there, and although i agree that the quality of the data about the physical world has increased a great deal, we still have only a smidgen of the information, and some of that is sure to be wrong. and one place i think it's wrong is the insistence that anything old is also unscientific AND there's nothing of scientific value to discover from the last 6000 years of history. especially history that predates 300 years ago.

i'm telling ya, you're gonna find out, just how much has been hidden from everyone, including you. and just how much that hidden information verifies the ancient texts. at that point, i imagine you'll be remembering back to ths conversation and thinking... "yeah, why DID i think the ancient world was a bunch of fairy tales???" it's so obvious that it isn't. but my friend, aware_and_awake, you are only kinda awake. they won't let you wake up the rest of the way. in fact, i think we are all currently semi sleeping lol

just wait you'll see what i'm saying.

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by undo

I'm done here. That last comment did it for me - The know-it-all nonsense.

I'm only aware of what knowledge man currently has. Science is always at the edge of the known, always probing deeper and discovering more. I don't claim to be aware of anything more than i could be aware of. If i have a claim to knowledge, i will provide evidence not mystery.

Again, good luck.

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:47 PM
Alot of bad apples here..

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

correct and that's exactly what the vatican professors thought...
that they were only providing people with the knowledge that they had.
and then when they ruled ancient greek texts unhistorical because "they couldn't write when their epics and histories were said to be written," and found out they were wrong, they never recanted. there's a reason
why those professors (all of them devout servants of the vatican which was in danger of losing its grasp as purveyors of truth due to people making their own discoveries (such as galileo)) suddenly tossed out ancient history. and it wasn't even remotely based on empirical process.

connect the dots. think think. how can 5000 years of history suddenly become invalid?
imagine if they did something like that today.

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by Ost33

Cool story bro - coming from the "apple" with a part-Obama part-reptilian in the avatar.

edit on 13/3/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:53 AM
reply to post by awake_and_aware

awake & aware ?

Turning into a bad apple?

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by Ost33

Riveting tale, fellow.

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:04 PM
reply to post by undo

The problem with religion & the vatican in particular, is that they witheld or destroyed countless artifacts & papers, destroyed temples & statues of other gods, & so put us back 1000 years-they are a bit like the presidents of today

I don't have a problem with religion per se, everybody is entitled to their beliefs & to debate them freely, it's when they start getting into big groups a.k.a. the church they suddenly think they know what is right & wrong for others. Then they want to enforce that view.
Any religion that tries to enforce it's will on people without their consent is bad for you, just as politics is.
I consider myself a 'spiritual' person, i have had an out-of-body experience, & it showed me that we are much more than this shell of flesh & bone.
I did not see God (i was not looking for him) but i did realise how small a cog we are in the big machine of the universe.
BTW, you can travel REAL fast in the astral plane

'imagine if they did something like that today.'
They do, they are trying to control the internet, if they can't they will pull the plug.

edit on 14-3-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:31 PM
OR. Not a single one of us has a single freakin clue why? how? who? what? brought us here. We have questions, and opinions, thats it, thats all. Its a big mystery, We will never figure it out, science, religion etc... NEVER. I have been to the psych ward twice over this #, done years of study, the list goes on and on and on... Comes down to this, do you wanna be right, or do you want to be happy and peaceful. The only way to do this is acceptance of death, because that is the underlying form to every question about life...

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:11 PM

Originally posted by madscientistintraining
bs or not, at least...five, religions I can think of off the top of my head are basically sun cults, the documentary has a valid point, even if they did fail epically to back up their findings with solid facts instead of...trying to get the point across and failing epically...

ed: before you ask, christianity, paganism, islam, the ancient egyptian religion (horus and those guys) and...the maya believe it or not xD all obsessed with solar phenomena.
edit on 16-2-2011 by madscientistintraining because: (no reason given)

Not only obsessed with Solar phenomena, they are simply a representation of everything observed in the night sky, the Heavens, everything is a metaphorical overlay of what is observed in the night sky.

This does bring up one problem however,

We have no metaphorical overlay for the Devil, ooops

If you convert our single star system to a binary system, ie you add another Sun, then suddenly you have your devil.

This then creates another problem, this binary brother is not visable, so how did they know it was there, if the devil exists within religion, then he must have some representation in the solar system.

perhaps I am just crazy, or deluded, both are possible, and I am not religous in any way shape or form, but this lack of a representation of the Devil in our solar system, is starting to convince me that we do infact exist in a binary system, and out there in space our sun is in fact orbiting a campanion star in an elliptical orbit.

But we cant see it, oops, well the Devil is known as the "Deceiver"

Black Dwarf, Brown Dwarf theory, anyone ?,

Ramble over, sorry

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:18 PM
I don't have time to read through all the comments, but I have read roughly 20+ pages here...and it seems to contain much of the same arguments in other Zeitgeist / Religion threads. I did some research myself, and learned some things will I was at it...this is something that I posted on another one of these threads, and I thought it might be helpful reposting the information here. I tried to use primary sources as much as possible. What I found was a pattern that emerged, that many of the mythologies and religions from around the world are similar. I also thought it was just a well known fact that Christianity borrowed much from prior belief systems (here, here, here). And for the record, contrary to what some Christians have claimed on here, there is very little evidence for the historical Jesus. Jewish scholars believe him to be a "cult leader" / "magician" or "charlatan/fraud", that is if he did exist at all, and most of them are doubtful at best, regardless of what the various religions think, scientists, historians, and secular sources find little to no evidence supporting the idea that Jesus was a real person. I'd be interested in seeing the Christians who claim there is historical evidence of Jesus being a real person, to post their evidence, because I have seen none so far. Anyways, hopefully some of you will find this helpful...Regardless, my point is still the same, even if there are some details that the movie got wrong, this is not reason to throw out the entire film and all the other correct evidence it presents...the hypothesis presented in Zeitgeist is still sound, that Christianity shares many similarities with the world mythologies and religions that came before it, specifically that it is a resurrection / sun worshiping cult like many other before it...and to a large degree, all modern religions are, systems of control. Below, my research. (also, sorry it's so long, and late to the game...I know this topic is old and tired...personally I try not to engage in threads with bible thumpers and others who like to use scripture as "proof" and tell everyone else things like "X is true because 'god' says so" just becomes exhausting and these people are too blinded by their "faith" and don't even try to differentiate between actual science/facts and matters of opinion/"faith"/religious propaganda...especially since the first step in "denying ignorance" is the ability and willingness to look inward and reevaluate one's own belief systems when evidence presents itself that these belief systems are based on fraud and malevolence.) Anyway, without any further ado:


The Sun
This is the sun. As far back as 10 thousand BC., history is abundant with carvings and writings reflecting peoples respect and adoration for this object. And it is simple to understand why as every morning the sun would rise, bringing vision, warmth, and security, saving man from the cold, blind, predator-filled darkness of night. Without it, the cultures understood, the crops would not grow, and life on the planet would not survive. These realities made the sun the most adorned object of all time. Likewise, they were also very aware of the stars. The tracking of the stars allowed them to recognize and anticipate events which occurred over long periods of time, such as eclipses and full moons. They in turn cataloged celestial groups into what we know today as constellations."

The Zodiac
This is the cross of the Zodiac, one of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the 12 major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the 12 months of the year, the 4 seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes . The term Zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified, as figures, or animals.

This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC. He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky. From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night. And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.

Actually Horus was a sky god, he is said to contain the sun and the moon. The sun being his right eye, and the moon being his left. I found a couple sources talking about the battle with set that seems to confirm it is an allegory of the night vs. the light...for the most part however, the battle does occur as it is talked about in the movie "trans versing across the sky" "light vs darkness". The source also talks about how for this battle, the god Thoth transformed Horus into a "sun disc with splendid outstretched wings". So it seems that there are many connections between Horus and the sun. It's also interesting to note that at the end of the battle it is sometimes said that Set may have been transformed into a snake and gone to the again this seems to be another parallel to Christianity with the snake representing the "underground" "darkness" or "evil".
And something else to consider:

One of the more controversial theories -- sometimes called the "copycat thesis" -- suggests that many of the miracles, other life events, and beliefs about the supernatural status of Horus, an ancient Egyptian God, were incorporated into stories about Jesus as recorded in Gospels and other books in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). The copycat thesis is strongly rejected by the vast majority of Christians but accepted by many skeptics. bullet Most conservative Christians look upon the Bible as a "top-down" document: one revealed by God to humans. Since fraud, deceit, and lying are not attributes normally associated with God, they believe that the Bible -- as God's Word -- is truthful and accurate. bullet Many skeptics view the Bible as a "bottom-up" document: one written by human authors to promote their religious and spiritual beliefs. Such authors are quite capable of adopting religious concepts of other cultures and incorporating them into their literary works.

Originally posted by Lucifer777 Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected."

I can find no evidence that Horus was born on Dec. 25th. His mother was not certainly "not" a virgin; she allegedly impregnated herself with Osiris' (her dead husband) penis, though this was certainly a miraculous conception. Neither was Horus crucified, though he does appear in Egyptian art on a cross. With regards to the "star in the east," the "three kings," the "new-born savior," "teacher when he was 12 years old," "baptized at age 30," "walked on water," and "12 disciples," I cannot find a historical source for any of the above. Perhaps others here could research the matter and find sources.

Here's what I found: It is unknown as to whether or not Isis was a virgin it only says that she was married to Osiris. However I did find reference to the Dec. 25th birthday: "Horus was given three different birthdates in mythology, one of which does correspond to December 25th" however it has never been known the date of Christ's birthday, Christian celebrate the birthday on the 25th so it is often assumed that this was the day he was born, however it cannot be proven.

In the Book of the Dead Horus says this:

"I have clothed the naked. I have sailed up the river to Abydos. I have performed the ceremonies of Hu and Sa. I have entered the house of Astes. I have made supplication to the Khati gods and to Sekhmet in the temple of Net (Neith), or the Aged Ones. I have entered Ra-stau. I have made myself invisible. I have found the frontier. I have approached Nerutef. I have clothed the naked. I have sailed up the river to Abydos. I have performed the ceremonies of Hu and Sa. I have received. I have risen like a king crowned. I fill my seat on the throne in the place of my father, the God Who was at the beginning. I have praised the Meskhen of Ta-tchesert. My mouth is full of Maat (Truth). I have overwhelmed the Akhekhau serpents"

I am no expert, however it does seem that some of these things can be considered "miracles" others "ministry" there could be similarities to what Christ did in his teachings, there may not. I would need someone with an expertise in Egyptology to translate this further. However, it does seem to confirm that Horus had "risen" and defeated "evil" (serpents) it seems there are some similarities.
Egyptian Book of the Dead

Regarding the wise men and the gifts, it has already been established that the number of wise men is unknown, just that they brought gifts. Again from the Book of the Dead:

"He (Horus) whose transformations are many hath had offerings made unto him at the moment, and he hath made an end of the storm which is in the face of the Osiris, Auf-ankh, whose word is truth. Verily, he cometh, and he is Ra in journeying, and he is the four celestial gods in the heavens above."

So it makes reference to "offerings", a reference to Ra "journeying" and a reference to the "four celestial gods in heavens above".

Again, to me this seems similar, but we would need an egyptologist to translate exactly what this all refers to.

Originally posted by Lucifer777 Attis
Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

Here's what I found:

"Nana who was a daughter of the river-god Sangarius picked an almond and laid it in her bosom. The almond disappeared, and she became pregnant." (wikipedia)

Seems it was a virgin birth

Attis was not crucified, it is unknown how he died, some myths say he was killed by a boar, another says he self-mutilated himself. The source I found says that both versions are aetiological in origin--a case in which the ritual comes first and the myth is developed at a later period to explain the rites. Thus we cannot say for certain how he died.

However Attis was resurrected (wikipedia) and the myth says that he came back as a pine tree (interestingly a common christian/christmas symbol) Interestingly I also found this quote from the previous source:

"His annual birth, death, and resurrection not only symbolized, but actually realized, for ancient man the recurrent cycle of the seasons"

Which does fits with the astrological, sun worship theme pointed out in the movie.

Originally posted by Lucifer777 Krishna
Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected.

Here's what I found:
the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB) speaking to Devaki, calling her chaste -

SB 10.3.43: "O supremely chaste mother ..... "

The very end of SB 10.3.17 "You never entered the womb of Devaki; rather, You existed there already."


Reference to crucifiction comes from:
Bhagavad Gita and Brahminical traditions," states that the body of Krishna: "was suspended to the branches of a tree by his murderer, that it might become the prey of the vultures...[Later] the mortal frame of the Redeemer had disappeared--no doubt it had regained the celestial abodes..."

Regarding resurection (aside from the above), there is reference to "many births" from the Bhagavad Gita

"The Personality of Godhead said: Many, many births both you and I have passed. I can remember all of them, but you cannot, O subduer of the enemy! (4.5)
Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.(4.6).
Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion—at that time I descend Myself.(4.7)
To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.(4.8)"

So again, some correlations fit, others don't (can't find anything about the star). However, there still are many observations made by authors and researchers over the years including:
Krishna is the second person of the Hindu Trinity. He is considered to be one of the incarnations of the God Vishnu (son of god).
Jesus and Krishna were both said to have been placed in a manger basket after birth.
among others (sourcewith links to sources)

I am not going to go on and do the whole thing...I think the point is still worth taking, which, if the bible thumpers actually wanted, they could do honest fact-based research for's not that hard, already I learned quite a bit, and from the pattern emerging, it does seem that the theory of Christianity being based on a sun worshiping/ressurection cult is sound, as was already said, just because a few details are wrong, doesn't mean you throw out the whole book (which seems what you and many others try to do).

And in case you haven't seen this, here's something on "debunking" of which I consider this to be a "debunking" thread, or as you say "refuting"...and I have to say I totally agree with what Stanton has to say in "debunking the debunkers"
He gives four basic rules for debunkers:
"1. what the public doesn't know, I'm not going to tell them
2. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind's already made up
3. If you can't attack the data, attack the people, it's easier
4. Do your "research" by proclamation because research is too much trouble."

Hope this helps.

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:38 PM

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by awake_and_aware

i can provide objective claims (Based on the current standards of objectivity) for what the bible claims, but only what it claims, not traditions established by the vatican 1000 years ago.

Saying that one can provide objective claims for what the bible says is like saying they can provide objective claims for what "Alice in Wonderland" says. It's still a fantasy, a story. It's not real...maybe it's based on human emotion and society and things that humans didn't understand and were thus trying to assign an explanation to, but, again, it's still not's mythology...just like every human culture before had mythologies about beasts coming down from the sky, virgin births, resurrection, fire and brimstone and claims about moral absolutes and the like. Just saying something like "I can 'prove' the bible" shows me you have a profound lack of understanding of what "facts" "truth" and "objective evidence" actually are.

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by kallisti36

And nearly everyone knows that The Bible was almost all rubbish...Zeitgeist is no different.

I treat them the same way I see David Icke a few years back - he used to spout some amount of BS in the late 80's (?) but most definitely the 90's. Now he seems to be more relaxed and reasonable in what he speaks about. Much like Zeitgeist. I personally like the Zeitgeist movement and it's affiliation with The Venus Project. Many people share this opinion too. It is gathering momentum because people see it as a better alternative to life now.

You cannot dispute something in its entirety due to inaccuracies in some parts...The Bible?

Try spending time criticising TVP and get out of the past and look to the future and the better quality of life that can come out of it.

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by EQUlNOX

I can't agree with you more. I think Zeitgeist is pretty close to the truth. Sure there are some irregularities but other than that it is pretty much on the button. There is more to the BS story of religion than meets the eye. The bible is full of crap stories and misinterpretations. And don't get me started on the Quran. If you want to talk about control of the masses through religion the Islam is the best.

Ok I agree that some of the teachings in the bible and the quaran are going for keeping social order and morality but don't brain wash your followers into believing BS stories. For example: What are Shooting Stars? Well out in the real world we know exactly what they are. Comets, Meteors and Asteroids bouncing off and entering the Earth's atmosphere. What does the Quaran say they are? And remember, every self respecting Muslim believes this to be gospel (excuse the pun). The Quran has their followers believing that Shooting Stars are of the result of God throwing rocks and stars at Satan when he comes up to heaven to spy on him.

Helllloooo????? What in the hell?

Thanks Christ I'm an Aethiest!! (Sorry about that pun too.)

The human race has lost it's true spirituality in this universe. Mostly by crap from religion!!

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:11 AM

Originally posted by EQUlNOX
reply to post by kallisti36

And nearly everyone knows that The Bible was almost all rubbish.

How do you go from there being, at latest estimate, a global population of 2,000,000,000 Christians to "nearly everyone knows that The Bible was almost all rubbish"? Applying a "the only people who count are people who agree with me" filter to it?

Heck, the number of avowed atheists is pretty small compared to that:

For the year 2000, David B. Barrett (Encyclopedia Britannica and World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001) classified 150,089,508 (2.5% of world's population) as atheists, and 768,158,954 people as "Nonreligious" (12.7% of the world) for a total of 918,248,462 (15.2% of the world). These calculations by Barrett include all agnostics and others in our "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" category.
-- Source

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:05 PM

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by EQUlNOX
reply to post by kallisti36

And nearly everyone knows that The Bible was almost all rubbish.

How do you go from there being, at latest estimate, a global population of 2,000,000,000 Christians to "nearly everyone knows that The Bible was almost all rubbish"? Applying a "the only people who count are people who agree with me" filter to it?

Heck, the number of avowed atheists is pretty small compared to that:

For the year 2000, David B. Barrett (Encyclopedia Britannica and World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001) classified 150,089,508 (2.5% of world's population) as atheists, and 768,158,954 people as "Nonreligious" (12.7% of the world) for a total of 918,248,462 (15.2% of the world). These calculations by Barrett include all agnostics and others in our "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" category.
-- Source

Ah, the 'ol "Appeal to Popularity" fallacy:

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim....It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persuasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it.

Nice try, but no cigar...the bible is a story, a fantasy, a mythology, just like hundreds of other mythologies from around the world, and the hundreds of other various cultural versions that came before it. Saying that "there are lots of Christians around the world, more Christians than atheists" does not mean that what the majority believes is true.

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by meeneecat
Ah, the 'ol "Appeal to Popularity" fallacy

Ah, the 'ol "I can't read" error laden reply.

What was claimed?

And nearly everyone knows that The Bible was almost all rubbish

"Nearly everyone" indicates a vast majority, let's call it 90%. "Knows" means that there is no doubt. "almost all rubbish" means that it is fiction.

So, in simple language that you can understand:

Ninety percent of the world's population is certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Bible is a work of fiction.

Which seems unlikely, given that a third of the world's population is Christian. Ergo, the statement made is either flat out wrong, or is predicated on "nearly everyone" being limited to a census of people that the poster agrees with.

Contrary to your knee-jerk reply, my refutation of that post was addressed to that inaccurate exaggeration, it had nothing to do with the veracity of the Bible.

new topics

top topics

<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in