Does God Exist?

[baku36]

well i got spared on watching it  cuz it froze but all it seems to me like most xtains i have met that they want to attack if ppl dont think the way they do this is my point and i will say nothing more pl have a right to believe and think they way they want to as for me i believe in the duality of all things and as for the bible its a good refrence to the past and thats is all and it not to be taken so literally.  sorry bout the spelling.  with that said and yes prolly a little off topic blessed be

[acelink]

What I got from Zietgeist:
-A large majority of people were farmers and relied heavily on the sun.  The December solstice and vernal equinox was something to be looked forward to and rejoiced over.  Without looking at history, I can say they praised those times. 
-A fairly large chunk of Astrology fits in.  3 Kings + rise of the Sun.  12 zodiac things and passing through each one with the procession of the Earth.  Tied in with a mistranslation of Aeon/Age.
-A lot of stories roughly fit.  The main section I cared for was Moses mountain/hill story.

Also, Vrt, please watch this before making your next post. At the very least, it should completely make Zeitgeist seem really stupid and false and just another conspiracy theory (which it is). http://www.publicchristianity.com/Videos/zeitgeist.html - watch it all; it's only 7 minutes long.

And if you still don't think Zeitgeist is really stupid, read this: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25/#feature

It will probably take you a bit longer, maybe not that hour and fifty minutes of utter nonsense you made me watch though .

I watched the video you linked Puppy and I have no problem saying some of the history is off.  I didn't care for the Egyptian God speech or most of the God comparisons in Zeitgeist; it was irrelevant to the point and turned out to be false in places (but still loosely fit).  The major points about Zeitgeist that got me was the importance of the Sun/Astrology that Forbes barely touched that at all... 

Forbes sounds like a dumbass. He said something similar to 'He [an Egyptian] was not even born on December 25th... Egyptians had their own calender. December is Latin.'  That does NOT add any creditable information nor is it relevant that December is Latin.  The relevance of December 25th is that the sun starts to rise again after the Winter solstice.  (Dr. Forbes could not identify how arbitrary a name of a date is... I really find that discouraging.  It leads me to conclude he is less scholarly and more biased upon what he wants to hear)


I also read parts of the article you linked... I couldn't finish it... It was just so 'beat around the bush'.  The first thing the writer would say is:  "There is some truth to that but..."  then go in depth about each subject, saying how it does not work by finding small details.  Well NO SHIT SHURLOCK-- it is not going to fit 100% and definitely not the minute details.  The writer fails to disprove anything that way and continues to ramble. 

Later on he says something similar to 'People try to rationalize something other than the apocalypse with that Zeitgeist quote but that is impossible with the following quote...'  I looked at both quotes... I still do not see how he came to reasoning that ensuring the end of days.

The article does point out some of the "factoids" in Zeitgeist that were obscured in Egyptian history.  That does not disprove the correlations between Good/Bad and Life/Death in both of Egyptian/Christian beliefs.


There is no right/wrong answer.  Puppy if you believe Zeitgeist is a total conspiracy... good for you.  There are some obscured facts in Zeitgeist but that does not disprove its arguement.  I chose to stay more along the lines of agreeing with Zeitgeist; religion is more about politics/semantics and is tool used to control people. 

Zeitgeist does not come out and say there is no God but shows the roots of some religious foundations and how they are not 'divine'.  I do believe in a god but I do not associate myself with any religion/label.

[vrt]

Some of Zeitgeist's references are wrong - I'm fully aware of that. I also figured you'd come up with that video as a response.

I must say that the eSkeptic read was an entertaining one, albeit biased and in some area's just as wrong as Zeitgeist. It went pretty downhill at the end, even quoting Josephus, a source that hasn't been considered genuine for several decades. The Tacitus reference, well, that's been debated for a long time, mostly due to the fact that no other historian ever refers to him in regards to the persecution of Christians. He also only mentions the death of 'a' Christ, not the resurrection. I'd think the latter would make more of an impact. There's also the matter of his bad handwriting, he could be saying 'Christians', he could be saying 'the useful'.


The point I'm trying to make, in the end, is that Zeitgeist is right - to a degree. Christianity, in its current form, is nothing more than a nice big stew made out of all kinds of ingredients, from astrology to old myths, from politics to legend. This, coupled with the fact that the Bible has to be the most mistranslated book ever, makes me wonder; why do people bother with it?

[PuppyChow]

The point I'm trying to make, in the end, is that Zeitgeist is right - to a degree. Christianity, in its current form, is nothing more than a nice big stew made out of all kinds of ingredients, from astrology to old myths, from politics to legend. This, coupled with the fact that the Bible has to be the most mistranslated book ever, makes me wonder; why do people bother with it?

Wait, so if Zeitgeist is right to a degree, can I say that the Bible is right to a degree? Because someone earlier said that if I did, why should he believe it at all?

Since the man really has no true references, I'm forced to believe he made it all up.

As to the 3 kings, the man in Zeitgeist doesn't know much about the Bible. They weren't kings. They were magi (Zoroastrian scholars). There wasn't three of them. That's just a song. The Bible doesn't even say how many there were.

So he probably should have studied the Bible a bit more before he went off and made that video.

Zeitgeist has too many holes. A person taking your stance is being hypocritical: believing the Zeitgeist but not believing the Bible. I'm not believing the Zeitgeist but believing the Bible for this reason: Bible hasn't been proven wrong, the Zeitgeist has.

He said something similar to 'He [an Egyptian] was not even born on December 25th... Egyptians had their own calender. December is Latin.'  That does NOT add any creditable information nor is it relevant that December is Latin.  The relevance of December 25th is that the sun starts to rise again after the Winter solstice.

You're right here: Forbes does show only an arbitrary difference. But here's the real kicker:

Nowhere in the Bible does it say when Jesus was born.

So you can claim Horus (but all his stuff isn't right anyway since the film maker is an idiot) was born on December 25th all you want. That doesn't mean Jesus was. Dec. 25th is just the date the Church set after it was well established.

Jesus not even being real? Lol. I go to a public school, and in my AP World History class, we talk of Jesus as if he were real. They don't say he was the son of God, but at least the AP textbook (or curriculum, I haven't combed my textbook) admits that Jesus was real.

[vrt]

Wait, so if Zeitgeist is right to a degree, can I say that the Bible is right to a degree? Because someone earlier said that if I did, why should he believe it at all?

If this is the way you read everything, wow. There's a few valid points in the video, and even though you're refusing to admit it, it doesn't mean they're not still there and proven. The Bible has nothing like this. I take the information I see in such a video and check it myself. The proven, documented points stand.

Since the man really has no true references, I'm forced to believe he made it all up.

Let's apply this logic to your Bible, too?

Zeitgeist has too many holes. A person taking your stance is being hypocritical: believing the Zeitgeist but not believing the Bible. I'm not believing the Zeitgeist but believing the Bible for this reason: Bible hasn't been proven wrong, the Zeitgeist has.

The Bible has been proven wrong on various accounts, you're just too stubborn to actually figure it out. Christianity always has an explanation handy, and failing that: The devil did it. Zeitgeist, unlike the Bible, actually got some of its facts straight.

Jesus not even being real? Lol. I go to a public school, and in my AP World History class, we talk of Jesus as if he were real. They don't say he was the son of God, but at least the AP textbook (or curriculum, I haven't combed my textbook) admits that Jesus was real.

I know a few Mexicans by that name, doesn't mean I claim them to be the new Christ. There's a few hundred textbooks denying his existence, and barely any evidence supports it. Sure, there's 5 main sources documenting him. One of which has been proven not genuine, three of which heavily doubted, and a latter, mentioning him in only three lines. This is not enough historical evidence to justify stating his existence as fact, especially not with such a debated figure.

As for using American textbooks as a reference.. Use some actual sources.

[acelink]

He said something similar to 'He [an Egyptian] was not even born on December 25th... Egyptians had their own calender. December is Latin.'  That does NOT add any creditable information nor is it relevant that December is Latin.  The relevance of December 25th is that the sun starts to rise again after the Winter solstice.

You're right here: Forbes does show only an arbitrary difference. But here's the real kicker:

Nowhere in the Bible does it say when Jesus was born.

It is assumed Jesus was born on December 25th... I have no clue where that derived from but it is widely believed Jesus was conceived on that day.  As for me, I am more curious about how December 25th and Easter align up with the winter solstice and spring equinox.  How the age, or rather aeon, of the Bull, Ram, Pieces & Aquarius all align within the Bible.  And how their are similar stories of massive floods and tales all throughout ancient history-- not just in the Bible.

So you can claim Horus (but all his stuff isn't right anyway since the film maker is an idiot) was born on December 25th all you want. That doesn't mean Jesus was. Dec. 25th is just the date the Church set after it was well established.

I never claimed he was born on the 25th or anything similar.  I just found it stupid that the historian never bothered to check.  I doubt he checked any of his other sources in detail... He would rather shun the non-believers!

A calender around months is rather useless.  I find that most specific dates are arbitrary and I don't understand why certain religions have important religious days.  (ffs how does leap year affect things and was there even a leap year back then...)  What makes a New Year new? January first?  I think not,  Equinoxes and solstices were the major measuring points.  Like I said earlier... i find it interesting how there is some correlation there.

Jesus not even being real? Lol. I go to a public school, and in my AP World History class, we talk of Jesus as if he were real. They don't say he was the son of God, but at least the AP textbook (or curriculum, I haven't combed my textbook) admits that Jesus was real.

Textbooks do not make anything absolute.  My stats teacher bashes the hell out of our text book and all the others he's used.  They often mislabel, mistake and define things wrong.  Textbooks are fallible especially when it comes to discrete facts in a broad textbook.

I understand talking about Christianity in world history but I am not sure why your class is talked about Jesus (at least in depth).  And I find it really scary that Jesus was included in your curriculum-- something tells me it is not.  I believe your class came to the assumption that Jesus was real and held a side discussion on what his life was like.


Zeitgeist was a little angsty when it came to Christianity.  It mocked Christianity calling it "plagiarized" when there are only signs of plagiarism and close resemblances to other religions/beliefs.  Aside from that... Zeitgeist makes a lot of valid points and shows facts.

I find it stupid to blindly believe in a religion because of the outcome. 'Worst case if you believe is nothing happens'  'Best case, you go to hevean' -- That is not a reason believe in any religion.  Those people that follow a religion with those thoughts in mind are blind and deserve to be smitten.

[PuppyChow]

I find it stupid to blindly believe in a religion because of the outcome. 'Worst case if you believe is nothing happens'  'Best case, you go to hevean' -- That is not a reason believe in any religion.  Those people that follow a religion with those thoughts in mind are blind and deserve to be smitten.

That's not why I believe in God . I was just wondering how people would respond to that. Even as I was writing it, I knew that it would be wrong to believe for such a reason. I wanted to know if you guys would.

It is assumed Jesus was born on December 25th... I have no clue where that derived from but it is widely believed Jesus was conceived on that day.  As for me, I am more curious about how December 25th and Easter align up with the winter solstice and spring equinox.

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/was-jesus-born-on-december-25-faq.htm

So actually, the Church goes with December 25th SO it will line up with the winter solstice and get those pagans converted. Even though he wasn't really born then.

As for using American textbooks as a reference.. Use some actual sources.

Um, do I even need to respond to that? XD.

The Bible has been proven wrong on various accounts, you're just too stubborn to actually figure it out. Christianity always has an explanation handy, and failing that: The devil did it. Zeitgeist, unlike the Bible, actually got some of its facts straight.

Tell me where the Bible has been proven wrong. Not just something that hasn't been proved.

And don't say the creation story, since there's very few fundamentalists today and I'm not one of them.

As to the Zeitgeist getting some of its facts straight, sure. If you blindly throw hundreds of darts at a dart board, you're bound to hit the bulls eye sometime. Does that mean you actually aimed for it (ie, researched)? No.

Let's apply this logic to your Bible, too?

Oh sure, you can say you believe in the Zeitgeist. It can be your new religion! Just don't go masquerading it as fact. I'm not masquerading Christianity as fact, just that I believe it is.

There's a few valid points in the video, and even though you're refusing to admit it, it doesn't mean they're not still there and proven. The Bible has nothing like this. I take the information I see in such a video and check it myself. The proven, documented points stand.

I'm not going to go digging up the valid points myself. You tell them to me and I'll respond. I already spent two hours watching the video.

[Demagog]

Honestly guys, I don't think a god's existence depends on religious texts being correct. Every religious text could be proven to be 100% false and it would still be possible that a god exists. So I think yall are a tad off topic, in the sense that your discussion doesn't address the question this thread poses.

If yall disagree though, feel free to change my mind.

[PuppyChow]

Honestly guys, I don't think a god's existence depends on religious texts being correct. Every religious text could be proven to be 100% false and it would still be possible that a god exists. So I think yall are a tad off topic, in the sense that your discussion doesn't address the question this thread poses.

If yall disagree though, feel free to change my mind.

I completely agree. Now we're just discussing Christianity . But no mods have thread split us yet, so until then I'm going to keep responding here since it's easier and easier to access.

[vrt]

Tell me where the Bible has been proven wrong. Not just something that hasn't been proved.

And don't say the creation story, since there's very few fundamentalists today and I'm not one of them.

The time of Joseph and Mary travelling to Bethlehem would be a nice one to mention. Even taking in all statements made from the Bible to get an idea of when it happened; the timeline just doesn't allow for it to be near the same time as Jesus' supposed birth. It does fit the Messiah prophecy that way, though. Hint. Hint.


Next to that, the circumstancial evidence against the Bible is staggering, and you know that as well as anyone who's debated religion. Dinosaurs would be a popular example.


And you'd be surprised at the amount of fundamentalist still in this world. There's still people protesting against Spongebob because it offends Christianity.

Oh sure, you can say you believe in the Zeitgeist. It can be your new religion! Just don't go masquerading it as fact. I'm not masquerading Christianity as fact, just that I believe it is.

Not my point. My point is that the author(s) of the Bible never used any valid references either. Yet you take it as fact, while by the same logic, you denounce something else. See what I'm trying to say?

I'm not going to go digging up the valid points myself. You tell them to me and I'll respond. I already spent two hours watching the video.

I was merely referring to the 'Jesus Myth' part. Sorry if you went to watch the rest of that crap.

The valid points are found in that he sums up a lot of Gods, or prophets, that have similarities to Jesus. I know these aren't all true (in fact, some of them are complete bogus in that movie), but you'll find that religions from all over the world, quite a few predating Christianity, have similar elements. Combine that with other, pagan influences (the Ark of Noah), political ones (the number '666' as a reference to Nero), and parts of the astrology references mentioned in Zeitgeist, and you may see why I consider it to have a core of truth somewhere.


Also, I must commend you for being one of the first people to walk into the defending side of a Christianity debate and not immediately get offended. Hats off.


Hasty edit since Demagog posted: Agreed, but the Bible is relevant to the existence of the God we typically mean when saying 'God'. It's the only way we know this figure to exist, and will be the most referenced book when you're talking about him.

[acelink]

It is assumed Jesus was born on December 25th... I have no clue where that derived from but it is widely believed Jesus was conceived on that day.  As for me, I am more curious about how December 25th and Easter align up with the winter solstice and spring equinox.

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/was-jesus-born-on-december-25-faq.htm
So actually, the Church goes with December 25th SO it will line up with the winter solstice and get those pagans converted. Even though he wasn't really born then.

That has to be by far the stupidest reason for creating a Christian celebration on the 25th.  They basically used it as a political machine to help pagans convert...  Sweet.  Christianity just went down another step in my book.

Honestly guys, I don't think a god's existence depends on religious texts being correct. Every religious text could be proven to be 100% false and it would still be possible that a god exists. So I think yall are a tad off topic, in the sense that your discussion doesn't address the question this thread poses.

If yall disagree though, feel free to change my mind.

It is a little off topic but still loosely fits.  A lot of people believe in God because their religion says so.  The purpose of these recent posts is mostly questioning  religion.  If religious roots were found to be false it would change a lot of peoples stance that there is (a) God.

[Demagog]

I see how it loosely fits; I just don't want the thread to turn into a debate over religions. There is a line between religious debate and debate over supernatural beings, even if it is a fine one. Another way of saying what I said in my previous post, religions don't need to exist for a god to exist. So focusing on religions in particular won't get us anywhere if our original intent was to answer the question "Does God Exist?" (the word "god" is only capitalized in the title because it is part of the title, it is not in reference to the Christian God).