on Zeitgeist the movie... (stop recommending it!!!)
ok, guys, we need to stop talking about this movie. we need to stop recommending that people watch it. in the last week i've seen mention of the movie contributing to one member's abandonment of their faith and another person recommending that a Christian watch it. why am i saying that we need to stop? because the film is total bullshit and rarely, if at ever, intersects with scholarly consensus or reality at any time. you recommend this movie, and someone takes the suggestion and watches it, and you will shoot yourself in the foot if your aim is to convince them of anything, much less to get them to begin a process of questioning anything. if a person, after watching the movie, does what everyone should do, actually do some research into whether or not the film's claims are verifiable, they would find that the claims are absolutely not. the movie is filled with exaggerations, half-truths, and, best case scenario, poor research or, worst case scenario, outright lies and dishonest picking and choosing of source material that backed up the film-maker's presuppositions.
i won't even attend to the crackpot conspiracy theories about the Fed and 9/11- giving that silliness attention only serves to raise its credibility, something no one should be interested in doing. but since this is an atheist community and the film is being relied on and recommended i would like to provide some critical information i've found about the first part of the film, that of the comparisons between Jesus and pagan mythology.
first, the film's sources:
an honest appraisal of the evidence for anything naturally includes both the evidence for your assertion and against your assertion. stacking the deck by not including any mention whatsoever of the vast amount of scholarship that flatly denies your claims is dishonest and should make us extremely cautious of the conclusions.
the movie relies largely on the work of two persons, Gerald Massey and "Acharya S", that name being the pen name of Dorothy M. Murdock.
Massey was born, lived, and wrote between 1828 and 1907. he was NOT a trained Egyptologist and his work was and still is ignored by Egyptologists. in fact, his name doesn't appear in M. L. Bierbrier’s Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995) and none of his work appears in Ida B. Pratt’s very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942)[1]. taking your information from a source such as this calls into question the entire premise. we must ask why the film-maker has to resort to this kind of source- from the 19th and early 20th century, non-scholarly, totally ignored work- if there are respectable sources available to rely on?
Ms. Murdock at least, according to her website, is trained in the subject matter. but her conclusions too are totally rejected by the scholarly consensus. W. Ward Gasque, in investigating similar claims made by the author Tom Harpur, sent an email to twenty leading Egyptologists from Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria. he included a sample of Harpur's (and by extension and similarity, Murdock's) claims and asked these Egyptologists their opinion on the conclusions. Gasque writes, "The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ." Robert M. Price, himself a "mythicist" believing that Jesus Christ never existed and is a total myth, reviewed Murdock's book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, and laments that "Those of us who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. And it causes us chagrin to be lumped together with certain writers with whom we share the Christ Myth but little else. even though he himself is a mythicist he finds her scholarship on the subject lacking- "She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations... The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney." Price's review is not a kind one. we should mention that "Acharya" means "guru" or "teacher" and that Ms. Murdock is apparently a follower of "New Age Spirituality" and its attending pseudo-scientific tripe. is it any wonder then that in her book she cites as sources James Churchward, promoter of the imaginary lost continent of Mu; Charles Berlitz, apologist for sunken Atlantis; Zechariah Sitchin, advocate of flying saucers in ancient Akkadia.
i could go into more of the film's sources but they are all of the same character- dated and eclipsed by more recent scholarship, of the type that's been called "fringe nonsense", or both. it's worth mentioning too that the attribution of the sources on the movie's page is just poor- no page citations to enable someone to verify the specific statements that are being attributed to these authors. you'd have to read the entire book to verify that the statements made by the film-maker are accurate and in context. as i began, a fair and honest treatment of the evidence would have included the evidence against the film-maker's assertions as well as that for his assertions. here we find none of that whatsoever.
as for the specific claims the film makes...
Bruce Metzger on the difficulties of making comparisons between Jes...
Richard Carrier on the Luxor inscription referred to in the movie.
Edward Winston on the film's sources.
Tim Callahan on the movie's claims.
Jim Lippard on the movie (including the 2nd and 3rd parts).
Jay Kinney on the movie.
a reasonable and well researched refutation of Ms. Murdock's claims...
an answer to Ms. Murdock's response to the above refutation.
another Christian site addressing the idea of Jesus as a copy cat m...
Rook Hawkins on some problems in Ms. Murdock's work.
Bart Ehrman commenting on Christ Myth theorists.
to finish up this post i'll let the film-maker himself give us all some advice. there's a "Statement" page on the movie's page. though the statement has been changed from what it once read there are places on the internet where the original statement has been preserved. the original statement finished by saying, "...it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves..."- i couldn't agree more and i urge everyone to do just that.
i won't even attend to the crackpot conspiracy theories about the Fed and 9/11- giving that silliness attention only serves to raise its credibility, something no one should be interested in doing. but since this is an atheist community and the film is being relied on and recommended i would like to provide some critical information i've found about the first part of the film, that of the comparisons between Jesus and pagan mythology.
first, the film's sources:
an honest appraisal of the evidence for anything naturally includes both the evidence for your assertion and against your assertion. stacking the deck by not including any mention whatsoever of the vast amount of scholarship that flatly denies your claims is dishonest and should make us extremely cautious of the conclusions.
the movie relies largely on the work of two persons, Gerald Massey and "Acharya S", that name being the pen name of Dorothy M. Murdock.
Massey was born, lived, and wrote between 1828 and 1907. he was NOT a trained Egyptologist and his work was and still is ignored by Egyptologists. in fact, his name doesn't appear in M. L. Bierbrier’s Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995) and none of his work appears in Ida B. Pratt’s very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942)[1]. taking your information from a source such as this calls into question the entire premise. we must ask why the film-maker has to resort to this kind of source- from the 19th and early 20th century, non-scholarly, totally ignored work- if there are respectable sources available to rely on?
Ms. Murdock at least, according to her website, is trained in the subject matter. but her conclusions too are totally rejected by the scholarly consensus. W. Ward Gasque, in investigating similar claims made by the author Tom Harpur, sent an email to twenty leading Egyptologists from Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria. he included a sample of Harpur's (and by extension and similarity, Murdock's) claims and asked these Egyptologists their opinion on the conclusions. Gasque writes, "The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ." Robert M. Price, himself a "mythicist" believing that Jesus Christ never existed and is a total myth, reviewed Murdock's book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, and laments that "Those of us who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. And it causes us chagrin to be lumped together with certain writers with whom we share the Christ Myth but little else. even though he himself is a mythicist he finds her scholarship on the subject lacking- "She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations... The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney." Price's review is not a kind one. we should mention that "Acharya" means "guru" or "teacher" and that Ms. Murdock is apparently a follower of "New Age Spirituality" and its attending pseudo-scientific tripe. is it any wonder then that in her book she cites as sources James Churchward, promoter of the imaginary lost continent of Mu; Charles Berlitz, apologist for sunken Atlantis; Zechariah Sitchin, advocate of flying saucers in ancient Akkadia.
i could go into more of the film's sources but they are all of the same character- dated and eclipsed by more recent scholarship, of the type that's been called "fringe nonsense", or both. it's worth mentioning too that the attribution of the sources on the movie's page is just poor- no page citations to enable someone to verify the specific statements that are being attributed to these authors. you'd have to read the entire book to verify that the statements made by the film-maker are accurate and in context. as i began, a fair and honest treatment of the evidence would have included the evidence against the film-maker's assertions as well as that for his assertions. here we find none of that whatsoever.
as for the specific claims the film makes...
Bruce Metzger on the difficulties of making comparisons between Jes...
Richard Carrier on the Luxor inscription referred to in the movie.
Edward Winston on the film's sources.
Tim Callahan on the movie's claims.
Jim Lippard on the movie (including the 2nd and 3rd parts).
Jay Kinney on the movie.
a reasonable and well researched refutation of Ms. Murdock's claims...
an answer to Ms. Murdock's response to the above refutation.
another Christian site addressing the idea of Jesus as a copy cat m...
Rook Hawkins on some problems in Ms. Murdock's work.
Bart Ehrman commenting on Christ Myth theorists.
to finish up this post i'll let the film-maker himself give us all some advice. there's a "Statement" page on the movie's page. though the statement has been changed from what it once read there are places on the internet where the original statement has been preserved. the original statement finished by saying, "...it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves..."- i couldn't agree more and i urge everyone to do just that.
-
Comment by Nelson on May 26, 2010 at 8:55pm -
first of all, i'll call your attention to the Debate Guidelines for TA Discussions and warn you that if you can't engage in an appropriate way you won't be allowed to remain a member of Think Atheist. should you have any questions about this or anything else you're welcome to leave a message on my page or any of the other moderators.
now, i didn't say my opinion was fact. i said that the evidence directs us to what is or is not fact. i offered innumerable links to resources where the facts are on display for anyone to read. i didn't tell anyone not to watch Zeitgeist. i simply said that they should stop recommending it to people as a way to engender skepticism of religion in general and of Christianity in particular when to do so would end up backfiring given the absurdity of the claims the film makes.
watch the film! by all means, watch the film. watch the film so that you can learn the mistakes it passes off as fact so that you don't make the same mistakes yourself or lead others to make them as well.
-
Comment by Nelson on May 26, 2010 at 9:34pm
-
the title of the post goes with the content of the post. the post goes on to say that when the title says stop recommending the film it is because of the bankrupt nature of the film's truth claims and the problem that creates for people who recommend the film when trying to engender skepticism of religion.
again, i'm not saying that no one should watch it. i'm saying that people shouldn't recommend that others watch it in the context of an attempt to deconvert someone because it will fail utterly given the absurd nature of the film's claims! by all means recommend the movie to someone if you're doing so in order to warn them that the film's claims are absurd, as a way of saying "these are the kinds of laughable claims people are making so make sure you educate yourself!"
big words? c'mon man. are you really saying that because i used big words (which, i'm not even sure i used big words but i guess the notion of big words is relative) you won't consider what i'm saying?
regarding the inappropriate nature of your response above, i never said that i'm uninterested in reading what's on your mind. i simply pointed you to the guidelines for discussion on TA, letting you know that if you don't keep to those guidelines then you will be banned. surely you're not suggesting that you can't express what's on your mind without being abusive? i'm just warning you that TA has standards of discussion that, if unmet, will result in your being banned. tell us all what you think, oppose the viewpoint of others, of everyone if you must, but if you don't do it in an appropriate way you will be tossed forthwith and unceremoniously.
-
Comment by Reggie on May 27, 2010 at 7:00am -
Stating you opinion as a fact and telling someone to not go and see themselves is creating bias and skepticism.
Creating skepticism over a film proven to have it's facts wrong? Oh no! Nelson, you CAD!
Frankly, I thank you, Nelson, for your work and that of others in getting the word out about this travesty of a "documentary" that is being passed around as something "compelling" among uncritical atheists.
All info is valid whether you agree with it or not. the point is to take what is undeniable and build a truth based around your perception. What i see as dark blue might be light blue to you in comparison to what you know but the fact remains you see blue. no matter how things are put through any single person there will always be an opinion that counters. The point if anything was to get your mind working for itself and not just work from an opinion of others
Really? You do realize that there is an objective reality, right? And while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.
And I find it amusing that you are objecting to "propaganda" that counters a "propaganda" film. You don't mind opinions stated as fact in the film, but your panties twist when someone poo poos the film.
-
Comment by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on March 19, 2011 at 3:32pm -
I'm confused... is this movie REALLY called "The Zeitgiest?" The only documentary that states Jesus never existed that I'm aware of is "The God Who Wasn't There." Is this a different documentary? And what's this about "9/11 Conspiracy?" I thought that was put as untenable as the "no moon landing conspiracy?"
-
Comment by Reggie on March 19, 2011 at 3:46pm
-
The Zeitgeist is a documentary that is in three parts, I believe. The first deals with religion, the second with 9/11 conspiracy, and the third with the Federal Reserve. I have only watched the first part and after some fact checking, found it to be wholly unreliable. Others have panned this "documentary" for playing fast and loose with facts and being an ode to conspiracy theories.
-
Comment by Ron V on October 12, 2012 at 9:44am -
Personally, I am not convinced Jesus actually did exist (see http://www.infidels.org/search.html and http://beyondallreligion.net/2012/01/21/how-christianity-was-invented/ for starters).
Regardless, even if I accept Jesus existed, I then look at the claims about him and, personally, I think most, if not all, the claims in the Bible are ridiculous. And it is these specific claims and ideas - virgin birth, redemption via human sacrifice predicated on animal sacrifice, resurrections, heaven/hell, judgment day, supernatural beings, magical thinking, etc. - that I do not accept as credible or believable (and these are fundamental beliefs of Christianity).
-
Comment by SteveInCO on October 13, 2012 at 12:44am -
I do believe that, more than likely, there was a living, breathing pink almost-hairless ape that the whole legend was built upon. So in that sense I believe Jesus existed.
To a Xian, though, my conception of what Jesus actually was is so utterly different from theirs that I might as well be denying his existence, because I have dropped all the essential (to them) elements of what Jesus was. So I might as well just tell Xians I don't think he existed, because, really, I don't believe He existed (note I used upper case on the pronoun just that once).
-
Comment by James Cox on October 13, 2012 at 5:53pm -
Damn, I watched part of this film, but kept returning to my early evaluation,'WTF is this'. It is possible that I overly prejudged, should I skip to a time index about 50% through and look at it again?
I still have my damn horse barn to finish, I think I'll pass till, June 2013.
Comment
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
What's new today
Forum
Do Men have the right to a "financial abortion"
Started by Adam in Small Talk. Last reply by RockyShukura 3 minutes ago. 108 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Why Respect Relgion - A Post From FB.
Posted by Robert Karp on May 21, 2013 at 10:34am 2 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist