tinfoilman "There isn't a single usable source to back up anything in the first part of Zeitgeist."
LOL, then you've obviously made no effort to read anything about it and are instead relying on extreme biases to support your anti-Zeitgeist views in
order to shore up your faith at all costs even if it means being dishonest.
You obviously never read:
Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
Here we have a biblical scholar with two Ph.D.'s conceding to the points raised in Zeitgeist so, obviously your claims are false:
"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and
"[Horus] is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern."
"I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's; book review
tinfoilman "people are paying for sources to back up any of the Zeitgeist claims."
" the apologists claiming ZG1 is false seem oblivious to the fact that they have no CREDIBLE evidence to point to in order to substantiate their own
religion's supernatural or even many historical claims. I guess their religion is suppose to be true just because they say so and they have a book.
Notice how none of those books were actually written by any god - it's always by men. Where are the footnotes and what are the credentials of these
writers? Sometimes they attempt to claim that those books were written by men under the influence of or inspired by their god but, that's just
another way of saying "channeling" which is paganism, again.
If I were you I wouldn't expect to get any money from any of those apologists challenges. They have no intention of paying up. Still, if they're so
confident why can't they get all the churches throughout the world to chip into the pot? If they were so sure, they could put up $10 million. No, no
they started with $100 & raised it to $250. The other site offers $1000 but it's the same story:
1) They have no intention of paying
2) They will find any reason to dismiss the evidence
The standards for evidence is far, far higher than they subject their own belief systems to - which has no credible evidence at all. So there's a
hypocritical double-standard right out of the gate. Their only goal is to shore up their faith at all costs - even if it means smearing and libeling
living breathing humans."
Zeitgeist Challenge Debunked
Jesus & Horus Parallels and KingDavid8.com Exposed
tinfoilman "One of her claims is that Jesus never existed. Another claim of hers is that Jesus was a free mason"
Baahaha, ha, having actually read her work I know for a fact this isn't accurate. She never claims Jesus was a freemason she explains that many of
the concepts of the mysteries are freemasonic = big difference.
tinfoilman "You also know that Acharya is one of the Zeitgeist people right? Again they're just sourcing their own work in a circular way. It's the
same thing as when Christians use the Bible to prove the Bible. Don't fall for that trick just because someone flipped it around backwards on you.
This is also false. Acharya is not "one of the Zeitgeist people" Peter Joseph contacted her and she suggested a few simple changes ending up as the
official version only for part 1; you're attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill:
"Acharya S/D.M. Murdock had no part in the creation of any of the Zeitgeist movies beyond sharing some images for part 1. Peter Joseph did use a
significant amount of her work though and asked for a quick consultation (ONLY FOR PART 1) at the last minute, which resulted in the OFFICIAL version
of part 1."
tinfoilman "None of them have any actual pre-christian physical evidence that go back to before Jesus to show he was a myth"
LOL, it's official, you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about or you're blatantly lying. I see no reason to waste any more
time on you and neither should anybody else.
tinfoilman "And yeah, Richard Dawkins on Zeitgeist. WTF. This is your idea of proof? Did you read what he actually said?"
Humm, are you really that daft or are you pathologically dishonest? All you needed to do was actually read everything else below that comment, which
is what that post was all about, which you either didn't read or are lying about it.
Richard Dawkins on Zeitgeist, Part 1
Is that what religion has done to you - made you pathologically dishonest? Sure seems like it.