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 Pam on May 18, 2009 at 12:23pm -
Thanks for this post. You've saved me from wasting a few hours of my life and a valuable spot in my Netflix queue.
-
Comment by Nelson on May 18, 2009 at 1:10pm -
thanks Johnny!
and yeah, like i was saying to Nikolas above, if the movie provides someone with the catalyst to do some investigating into the historicity of the gospel narrative then great. but i'm afraid that too many people don't do that. i think it's easy for people who are perhaps beginning to question things, people in a certain frame of mind, to see the movie and grab on to the idea that Jesus was made up out of thin air. if such a person is struggling on the question of whether Jesus exists, struggling with the guilt of questioning their faith, the movie presents an all too easy solution- Jesus is a myth! no need to worry about it any longer... he's a myth! like Nikolas said, that's atheism for the wrong reasons. the movie would have served people far better if it had discussed what we know of Jesus and his teachings using real historical and new testament scholarship- that he was an apocalyptic prophet in the Danielic apocalyptic tradition, that he wasn't the only apocalyptic prophet that was around at the time, that he didn't really teach an ethic but rather a penitential path, that following that penitential path was the only thing that would protect you when the Son of Man came to bring about the Kingdom of God, that his Kingdom was NOT a heaven above contrasted with a hell below, that the Kingdom was purely an earthly Kingdom where Jesus himself would reign and the 12 disciples would be his governors over the 12 tribes of Israel, that he never taught anything about a hell where eternal suffering would take place, rather the Son of Man would simply physically destroy all those who hadn't heeded Jesus' penitential path, and, finally, that the Kingdom was coming before the disciples had died, before the next Passover feast.
these teachings are in the mouth of Jesus in our earliest sources- the Q document, Mark, the M and L sources, and they get progressively softer and modified in later documents. they are glaringly obvious in the Q, M, and L sources, they are obvious in Mark, less so in Matthew, even less so in Luke, and almost non-existent in John- naturally the tradition evolved as the disciples, who weren't supposed to die before the Kingdom arrived, started dropping like flies! explaining that what everyone believes to be true about Jesus is in fact false and has been recognized as such for more than a hundred years would be just as eye-opening for viewers and would be in keeping with the scholarly consensus.
-
Comment by Nick on May 18, 2009 at 2:06pm -
From the about info on google video "What does Christianity, 911 and The Federal Reserve all have in common?"
When you put those three things in a sentence, I am going to have hard time taking anything you say seriously.
Unless that sentence is "Christianity, 9/11, and The Federal Reserve are not related in any surprising ways."
-
Comment by davesnothome on July 13, 2009 at 4:31pm -
After I read your post yesterday, I immediately hammered out my reply that I've pasted in below this. I've since read your reply to Johnny and I'm able to see your bigger point in regards to the "myth" of Jesus - I completely agree with everything you said in that reply and I applaud your presentation. But in regards to other parts of your post I'm including my original reply anyway.
There are a lot of web sites right now that conduct an open forum in various formats, that are discussing the questions regarding God and belief. As I'm sure you've been witness to, there are opinions from one extreme to the other arguing both sides of the debate. I have been embarrassed more than once when a misinformed "Atheist" engages a misguided "Christian" and they take the fight 30 leagues into the depths of ignorance. I'm sure there are Christians whom are just as embarrassed as me; but ultimately the real debate remains in the realm of belief versus reason. But for all their ridiculousness, both retards will occasionally say something that is correct - however, that doesn't make a pubic association with them any more desirable.
As an Atheist, I understand the desire to hug the center line as much as possible so that I can be taken serious in my stand against a status-quo. I'm familiar with that mentality because I was a Christian for at least 3 decades (can I subtract a decade of "backsliding"?) and I was just as desirous to be taken serious then. So I can certainly relate to your hard-nosed intellectually exclusive opinion regarding conspiracy theories. On the other hand, it's annoying to join a new community and have the leaders of that community (yes you are) start telling the group as a whole how to present themselves and their individual theories of disbelief. There are a lot paths that lead a person to leave the religion of their fathers, or their community, or their politicians - but regardless how they decided to jump off the cliff of delusion into the comforting arms of reason, they made it here.
The Zeitgeist movie: You did an excellent job of taking it apart and discrediting the makers. However, that doesn't immediately discredit all the ideas and theories presented there. [re: paragraph 1] We were just recently mugged by Wall Street, and the Fed and the international banking system were complicit. This country is awash in conspiracy and we as a whole have been negligent and lazy in identifying them and crushing them. Why? Because our leaders and intellectuals are standing on the sidelines calling us crackpots. The way I see it though is that there is no harm in allowing "patriots", or whatever you want to call them, the freedom, if not support, to look into every suspicious event that happens in our country. Thomas Jefferson said that "...every generation needs a new revolution." He didn't say that for any other reason than he knew that greed and a constant grappling for power are common in the people who are put into positions of trust. So if you're comfortable with the idea that everything is in order and that all our institutions are being run by honest people with out best interest in mind, then you should sit back and enjoy that benefit of you freedom. However, I would encourage you to resist the temptation of taking the easy shot of discrediting good intentioned citizens who are willing to risk their reputation, and even their lives, to get to the bottom of suspicious events and activities.
I'm like you, I don't think this is the right forum for discussing 9-11 or the Fed, but where as you call it "that silliness", I say that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
-
Comment by Nelson on July 13, 2009 at 5:07pm
-
i'm certainly not telling anyone how to think. in fact, the overriding theme of the post was that people need to examine everything critically as opposed to only examining critically that which we may find suspect already while accepting that which we find conforms with our preconceptions- the belief that Jesus is a complete myth being of that type.
that said, i'll only say that there's a difference between looking "into every suspicious event that happens in our country" and being a nutball conspiracy theorist. that something appears suspicious on its face doesn't mean it doesn't have a satisfactory answer that is in no way insidious.
sorry but, while there were some glaring lapses in our national security that allowed 9-11 to happen, the idea that the government was actively involved in, neigh even orchestrated, 9-11 is silliness. regarding the Fed, that the goings on at the Fed need to be transparent and under critical review is obvious but that the Fed was and/or is still the result of a secret cabal of men bent on taking over the world is also silliness.
i have never seen nor heard a conspiracy theorist or come across what is purported to be evidence of a conspiracy theory that did anything but disregard the most likely explanation while forming an alternate explanation that relies on the most tortured tendentious rationalizations. conspiracy theories appeal to us because they are compelling while the actual explanations are mundane, because they evoke high emotion, because, instead of giving us a feeling like shit happens and sometimes that's just how it goes, they give us an explanation that was entirely the result of intent- we want to believe that major events are the result of major causes; and if the result of intent then we can be made to feel like we can exhibit some control over what happens to us and those we care about.
i would urge anyone to not just critically examine the evidence for a specific conspiracy theory but to go one step further and read up on the psychology of conspiracy theories to see why they're attractive to people in the first place and to be able to spot their common elements. anyone interested in doing so can't go wrong with Timothy Melley's Empire of Conspiracy.
-
Comment by davesnothome on July 13, 2009 at 8:04pm
-
For the most part I agree with you, even on those 2 points; 9-11 was probably not orchestrated by the US government and the Fed is not likely the result of a secret cabal of men bent on taking over the world. My point is that I personally see that there is a problem with the Fed and it's more pernicious than faulty. I also have difficulty comprehending the physics of those buildings falling. But by me making either statement nudges me in the direction of being a crack pot and I'm not. It's like the congressman attempting to lift the ban on hemp, people automatically think he's a toker and he probably won't be up for re-election. It borders on dealing with a creationist who is completely incapable of comprehending natural selection because it doesn't jive with his unconscious prejudice of how he sincerely believes things are. I'm saying, whether I can explain it or not, there's something amiss and the media's presentation of 9-11 was incomplete; and that observation does not make me conclude that there is a coordinated conspiracy within the government that is being directed by Beelzebub in an effort to create a global demon empire; there are more conclusions that can be discovered than the ridiculous. I believe the problem lies with the truth getting thrown in the cesspool of conspiracy where it becomes indistinguishable from the crap - and then you have to deal with people saying, "hey buddy, isn't that crap?"
-
Comment by Nelson on July 13, 2009 at 8:41pm
-
that's part of the conspiracy theory surrounding 9-11. that you may have difficulty comprehending the physics of those buildings falling doesn't mean that they didn't fall as a result of perfectly explicable physical forces as a result of the planes hitting them and the subsequent fires. to assert otherwise without evidence is the same kind of argument from incredulity that creationists offer when they suggest that the eye is too complex to have evolved. just because you might find it hard to wrap your mind around doesn't mean that the idea that it didn't happen that way is any more valid. truth is distinguished from the cesspool of conspiracy crap by the weight of evidence.
as for the Fed, i have no doubt that there are people who have benefited and who are still benefiting from the opaque way in which the Fed operates and that those beneficiaries have in the past and are now making moves using political influence to protect the Fed from future transparent operations, and i don't think anyone would argue otherwise. if that is your contention then of course that's not a conspiracy theory. my remark in my post was regarding the conspiracy theories in Zeitgeist specifically and conspiracy theories more generally as well.
-
Comment by Wassabi on October 6, 2009 at 10:00am -
personally i related much more to the second movie- addendum. i didn't relate to the conspiracy theories- but rather to the statement that all ideologies to date were presented in order to solve the biggest problem in the world: shortage of resources, or "scarcity" - a problem which does not need to exist anymore since science and technology can end shortage and create abundance for the first time in history.
that to me was an eye opener- the fact that capitalism and socialism alike could become obsolete as a result of technology. the film convinced me that "science is our savior", and that funds now spent on achieving social justice (with questionable results) should instead be directed to scientific research, since only it can solve the problem of scarcity.
-
Comment by Nelson on March 11, 2010 at 1:32am
-
just came across this: a recent Reasonable Doubts podcast features Tim Callahan debunking Zeitgeist.
-
Comment by Nelson on May 26, 2010 at 8:24pm
-
@Studio: that's postmodern garbage. all information may be information but the question is whether or not the information is true or false and whether or not the information is worthy of being assimilated into our knowledge set.
that what i see as light blue may be dark blue to you but that comparison fails miserably because while we have no way of determining the truth of the statement "what i see as light blue is the same as what you see as light blue" we absolutely do have the means to determine the truth or falsity of most of the statements we can make.
yes, you can always find someone with an opinion contrary to yours or to the consensus but what matters is what the evidence says is likely to be true not whether some one person's opinion differs or how many persons maintain one or another opinion.
Comment
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
What's new today
Forum
Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?
Started by G in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Suzanne Olson-Hyde 8 minutes ago. 303 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
So the Pope said I can go to heaven...
Posted by Misty: Baytheist Living! on May 22, 2013 at 6:56pm 5 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