• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST

Dave31

Banned
D
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
105
Short critique of Zeitgeist: horrible editing.
Elaborated critique of Zeitgeist: horrible editing, and lots of lies and half-truths.

Seriously, I hate to butcher another person's work like this, but it's just bad. I had to watch it for 30 minutes to figure out what it was about, and just as I started to determine that it was an attack on Christianity with stuff on eons thrown in for some reason, it switched for no apparent reason to 9/11, at which point I gave up and went to fetch myself aspirins.
 
Last edited:
[x] "No, I do not want to order Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection at all!"
 
Ugh, yeah, Zeitgeist is pretty bad. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to flub an attack on the factuality of Christianity?
 
Dr. Fascism said:
Ugh, yeah, Zeitgeist is pretty bad. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to flub an attack on the factuality of Christianity?
Click to expand...

I have heard it's pretty bad but have not seen it yet. I guess when I know someone is purposely trying to knock Christianity I tend to not want to deal with them but then I guess I should so I can have my own insights on the matter.

I do like what alwaysbeready.com has to say about it. Here's a link to the article
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?id=124&option=com_content&task=view
 
This thread is spam. One of Dorothy's other acolytes made pretty much the same post on my own website. link
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is Tim Callahan. While I've posted my reply to Dorothy Murdock / Acharya S on my own forum, I'm happy to answer her objections to my review of Zeitgeist here as well.

As to the "three kings" in Orion's belt, the myth behind Matthew's Nativity is messianic and political, not solar / astrological. That gospel, the only one to mention the magi, nowhere says how many came from the east. The reason they came from the east is that they would have come out of the Parthian Empire. During the civil war between Octavian and Mark Antony on one side and Brutus and Cassius on the other, there was a Parthian incursion into Syria and the Levant, during which they enthroned the last scion of the Hasmonean kings, Antigonas Matathias. Antony later returned, drove out the Parthians and executed Antigonus Matathias. For the political myth of Matthew, it was important that Parthian Magi acknowledged Jesus as king.

The tradition of there being three wise men probably comes from their bringing three gifts, gold frankincense and myrrh. This reflects another political / messianic myth. The Queen of Sheba (or Saba, i.e. Yemen) brought gifts to Solomon, including gold and, by implication, frankincense and myrrh, since they would have come from her kingdom. So Jesus was getting the gifts the Queen of Sheba brought Solomon (this, by the way, should not be construed as my sayng that either of those two personages were historical).

Since the Matthean myth wasn't astrological in origin, the stars in Orion's belt are irrelivant.
 
a lull in the wars

For now, the flap over the Dorothy Murdock / Acharya S response to my review of Part I of "Zeitgeist" seems to have died down, though I found a website that said of her rebuttal, "She mopped the floor with him." Another labeled me a "hack." I expect a resumption of verbal hostilities once the article in e-Skeptic is published in Skeptic Magazine.

Many people in the skeptic community seem incensed that I attacked Murdock's solar / astrotheological theory of the origin of Christianity. Certainly, the Christ myth owes much to pagan dying and rising gods. However, it also owes much to the messianic / apocalyptic myth of first century Judaism, Old Testament mythology, particularly that relating to Elijah and Elisha, and Cynic philosophy strained through the filter of Hellenistic Judaism. You wouldn't know any of that from watching "Zeitgeist," which not only makes the whole thing a solar cult, but presents erroneous information on the solar and dying / rising gods, saying each was born on Dec. 25, had 12 disciples and was crucified.

I've also taken a fair amount of flack for saying that I think there was a historical Jesus. (One letter writer even accused me of being an evangelical apologist!) I see him as a minor messianic pretender who had complicity in his own death, since he had faith in a delusional belief that God would raise him from the dead. I believe that messianic / apocalyptic belief, Old Testament miracle-worker tales, and, finally, myths of dying and rising gods were attached to this minor figure to create the gospel narratives and the Christ myth.

Aside from the errors in "Zeitgeist" Part I, which derive from Murdock's views, there is the problem that these veiws are now married to Parts II and III of "Zeitgeist." which are pure conspiracey theory pap and crap. Part II claims that nefarious elements in our own government planted explosives in the twin towers of the WTC, that brought them down, and that the airliners flying into them was only a ruse. Part III claims that the income tax is unconstitutional and part of a plot by major financiers to rob us of our wealth and freedom.
 
TimCallahan said:
For now, the flap over the Dorothy Murdock / Acharya S response to my review of Part I of "Zeitgeist" seems to have died down, though I found a website that said of her rebuttal, "She mopped the floor with him." Another labeled me a "hack." I expect a resumption of verbal hostilities once the article in e-Skeptic is published in Skeptic Magazine.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if this is the same website that you are referring to, but in a thread on - wossnamenow? - freeratio (formerly IIDB) it is asserted that "he mops the floor with" you as well:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=5826937#post5826937
But that is just the same Dave31 who started this thread here to advertize Acharya. Reminds me of something ...
 
Tim Callahan "I expect a resumption of verbal hostilities once the article in e-Skeptic is published in Skeptic Magazine."
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST article by D.M. Murdock is going to be published in Skeptic magazine? If so, has she been informed of this?

Tim Callahan "You wouldn't know any of that from watching "Zeitgeist,"
Click to expand...

Tim, as made clear by Murdock, "The 25-minute segment was not meant to serve as a thorough scholarly analysis."

And by the creator of Zeitgeist
"Zeitgeist came into existence as a personal project which was shown in New York as a free public awareness expression. After the event was over, "The Movie" was tossed online with little thought given to a public response. Within a month, the film was getting record views. Months later, the "Final Edition" was completed. In total, the views for "Zeitgeist, The Movie" have exceeded 50,000,000 on Google video alone. Considering the other posts in different formats, along with public screenings, it is estimated that the total world views are well over 100 Million."
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/q&a.htm
Click to expand...

So Zeitgeist not being a thorough scholarly documentary (especially the non-official version) that never expected to go viral online is a target for some who want to display their own erudition; but, such objections are all for naught.

Also, Murdock made clear that in her own works she quite thoroughly addresses the JEWISH aspects of the creation of Christianity. This is especially so in her book "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ," which has gotten rave reviews from religionists and atheists alike.

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus1.html

Your own article contains egregious errors and admits ignorance on the topic of the astrotheological aspects as pointed out by Murdock's response to it. As she says there:

"When Callahan makes such comments as, "I have absolutely no idea where Joseph got the notion that Horus had 12 disciples or that he was ever crucified," he is revealing again that he did not even look at the sources for ZEITGEIST before presenting himself an expert on the subject."
Click to expand...

It's probably best for you to let it go until you've actually studied her works and sources.

Tim "I've also taken a fair amount of flack for saying that I think there was a historical Jesus."
Click to expand...

Rightly so! It's about time the historical Jesus crowd feet be held to the fire for making claims for which there is no evidence whatsoever and requires a giant leap of faith in and of itself - from so-called skeptics. As Murdock also points out, without any evidence you're just devising a Jesus of your own making.

Tim "Aside from the errors in "Zeitgeist" Part I, which derive from Murdock's views, there is the problem that these veiws are now married to Parts II and III of "Zeitgeist."
Click to expand...

First of all, those "errors" have been shown to be non-errors. Secondly, they are not "derived from [solely] Murdock's views." If you knew her work, you would know where all of these contentions come from, as she carefully cites them. MANY people over the centuries have made these claims.

Again, your article contains egregious errors and admits ignorance on the topic, as pointed out by Murdock's response to it. It's probably best for you to let it go until you've actually studied her works and sources.

And, you should know that Acharya had no part in the creation of Zeitgeist beyond providing a few pictures and a last minute consultation for PART 1 ONLY, resulting in the official version of Zeitgeist. She had absolutely nothing to do with Parts 2 & 3, so bringing them up here is irrelevant and could be considered poisoning the well.

You should also know that she has never used the name "Dorothy" - it is considered disrespectful since that name comes from detractors out to get whatever private information about her they can. The intention of those who use it here and elsewhere is evidently to be disrespectful. She never uses that name. She uses Acharya or D.M. Murdock or just Murdock.
 
Dave31 said:
So Zeitgeist not being a thorough scholarly documentary (especially the non-official version) that never expected to go viral online is a target for some who want to display their own erudition; but, such objections are all for naught.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Peter Joseph had no idea that a 9-11 conspiracy theory video might go viral. Give me a break, the Loose Change phenomenon was well-known by the time he released his film, reported in USA Today, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Hustler, etc. I can't imagine how he missed the possibility.

And as for Joseph's supposed erudition, he pronounced "colonel" as "cologne-el" in the first version of the film. The 9-11 conspiracy theory section is hilariously bad. I am not an expert on religion or the Fed, but I am an expert on the 9-11 nonsense. Joseph repeats all the debunked claims, as I noted when I first watched it in June 2007:

Unfortunately, the 9-11 nuttiness is the same old, same old. Lots of clips of people talking about explosions, lots of talk about all the warnings the administration supposedly received, lots of talk about how the hijackers are alive. Fat Bin Laden gets wheeled out. We hear griping about the Citgo video (apparently the filmmakers are unaware that video has been released). Wally Miller comes in for the usual bit of quote-mining.

Hilariously, they claim there has been "extraordinary secrecy" surrounding the collapse of WTC 7. Yeah, it was so sooper-sekret that they announced it on the BBC prior to the collapse. We get the claims of molten steel, we get the claim that WTC 7 didn't damage other buildings (like Fiterman Hall or the Verizon building). We get the nutty claims that all three buildings collapsed like a classical controlled demolition (then why did the two towers fall apart from the top?).
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't know much about religion or the Fed, but given how badly Joseph did on the 9-11 conspiracy theories section I'm not surprised he was wrong on those sections as well.
 
kurious_kathy said:
I have heard it's pretty bad but have not seen it yet.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the movie either, but there are enough clips on you tube to show you how bad it is. For example, one clip is pure old fashioned 9/11 conspiracy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnx-e3Wyayo

On the other hand, I did use one good clip, featuring George Carlin, in my ramblings about my own view of the Zeitgeist (the word not the movie):

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2009/03/zeitgeist-its-darker-than-you-think.html
 
Lord Emsworth said:
But that is just the same Dave31 who started this thread here to advertize Acharya. Reminds me of something ...
Click to expand...

Probably because he starts spam threads with copy-pastes from Dorothy's newsletters. Here are some other examples of people doing the exact same thing, using the exact same newsletter:

http://talkskeptic.tribe.net/thread/f37cbf8b-8860-49c9-90c1-8536cb3abff1

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=844531&postcount=4

http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=7345.0

http://www.danielle-movie.com/forums/showpost.php?p=41747&postcount=8
Click to expand...

At least the last link has more text in it than just the newsletter text, but the pattern is unsurprising in its lack of imagination. These are the types of activities that Dorothy promotes to her followers in order to raise her page rank (though she accuses Google of conspiring against her). They qualify as spam, and according to the MA agreement for this forum such posts are an obvious breach of the agreement.

If that reminds you of something, then it's probably because it works like typical graffiti, plastered throughout the web on various forums and message boards with the express purpose of driving traffic to a site with many affiliate networking links and click-through advertisements. In other words, it's a pretty common internet 'business' model.
 
Actually, I did read some Acharya S material. One of the points in her rebuttal was that a certain ancient Egyptian papyrus, the Book of Amduat, showed Horus with his 12 diisciples. What I found was Horus facing 12 beings who represented the "12 hours." As to "Zeitgeist" not representing all of her thesis, what I was reviewing, after all, was the movie. I can't review what isn't there. At the time I didn't even know who Acharya S was. What the movie says is that everything about the Christ myth derives from astrotheological religion. It also claims that Horus, Mithra and a lot of other solar deities were crucified. This simply isn't true. To the degree Horus was conflated with his father, Osiris, he was dismembered. Mithra doesn't seem to have suffered the usual gruesome death of dying and rising gods. None of the other gods mentioned in the film were killed in quite the way Jesus was. Yes, the Passion narratives do draw heavily on pagan dying and rising gods; but that is far from the entire story.

As to Jesus being historical, this doesn't mean - as I have taken care to say - that I accept anything in the Gospels as historical. The narrtives are a mix of miracle stories taken from the Old Testament (you wouldn't know this from watching "Zeitgeist" Part I), Jewish messianism and apocalypticism, pagan dying and rising gods and Cynic philosophy. I believe that there was a real character - as I said, a minor mesianic pretender - who served as a focus for all these myths - much as there probably was a warlord rallying the Romanized Britons in their resistance to the invading Anglo-Saxons, upon whom the myth of Arthur was based. If it turns out Jesus didn't exist after all, it's not a major problem for me.

I still maintain that, while the Christ myth drew heavily from myths solar dying and rising gods, it was not simply just another solar cult. The contempt shown for Christianity and Christians in the writings of Pliny the Younger, for example - he didn't even call it a religion, only a "mischevious superstition" - along with the fact that he put Christians to death. doesn't fit a solar cult.
 
GreNME

We get it - your PURE HATRED for Acharya spews from every comment about her you make including your calling her "Dorothy" which remains just as disrespectful now as the last time I requested that you stop doing that. She has never used that name - it came about essentially from STALKERS trying to get whatever private information they could in order to cause her harm - HER 2 YEAR OLD CHILD WAS ABDUCTED by obtaining her private information. So, just STOP. You need to CEASE and DESIST repeating that name over and over spamming it across many forums everywhere you can.

I know, you're really brave going after a single female author but make at least some effort to have the minimum conscience at some point to realize how close you are to causing physical harm to a real living person everytime you do that.

There are several other problems with your comment.

1. Acharya doesn't have "followers" - just more libelous remarks due to your hatred. What you call "followers" is simply people who have actually read her work - for which you have not as you've admitted several times.

2. Your comment that she promotes "these types of activities" is another lie about her you've just made up. You'll need to provide the evidence for that "newsletter text" - for which there is none, btw.

3. Yes, you'd love to censor any threads that discuss her work - especially those about her new 600 page book "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection" as it proves you wrong many times over.

4. Rather than jumping to the preconceived "spammy business model" it may actually be due to the fact that many people are interested in the articles between Callahan/Murdock. Many find it fairly easy to copy/paste a brief message & link, ya know. You could also do a search for about any other topic and get those results but you'd rather bring it here as just more of your same smear campaign. You're as transparent as glass, GreNME. You haven't changed a bit. If you don't like this thread it's very simple - don't read it and don't post in it otherwise you're just trolling.

If you're the expert that you'd like everyone believe you are (even though you're education seems to be from a local community college and had very little to do with this subject) then, where is your inerrant masterpiece - where's your book?

Actually, I'm not interested in your opinions. All I've ever seen from you are libelous remarks, smears and defamation of others works that you have never actually studied. That tells me all I need to know about you & your opinion. I'm not going to waste my time with you again.

:D
 
Dave31 said:
GreNME

We get it - your PURE HATRED for Acharya spews from every comment about her you make including your calling her "Dorothy" which remains just as disrespectful now as the last time I requested that you stop doing that. She has never used that name - it came about essentially from STALKERS trying to get whatever private information they could in order to cause her harm - HER 2 YEAR OLD CHILD WAS ABDUCTED by obtaining her private information. So, just STOP. You need to CEASE and DESIST repeating that name over and over spamming it across many forums everywhere you can.

I know, you're really brave going after a single female author but make at least some effort to have the minimum conscience at some point to realize how close you are to causing physical harm to a real living person everytime you do that.

There are several other problems with your comment.

1. Acharya doesn't have "followers" - just more libelous remarks due to your hatred. What you call "followers" is simply people who have actually read her work - for which you have not as you've admitted several times.

2. Your comment that she promotes "these types of activities" is another lie about her you've just made up. You'll need to provide the evidence for that "newsletter text" - for which there is none, btw.

3. Yes, you'd love to censor any threads that discuss her work - especially those about her new 600 page book "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection" as it proves you wrong many times over.

4. Rather than jumping to the preconceived "spammy business model" it may actually be due to the fact that many people are interested in the articles between Callahan/Murdock. Many find it fairly easy to copy/paste a brief message & link, ya know. You could also do a search for about any other topic and get those results but you'd rather bring it here as just more of your same smear campaign. You're as transparent as glass, GreNME. You haven't changed a bit. If you don't like this thread it's very simple - don't read it and don't post in it otherwise you're just trolling.

If you're the expert that you'd like everyone believe you are (even though you're education seems to be from a local community college and had very little to do with this subject) then, where is your inerrant masterpiece - where's your book?

Actually, I'm not interested in your opinions. All I've ever seen from you are libelous remarks, smears and defamation of others works that you have never actually studied. That tells me all I need to know about you & your opinion. I'm not going to waste my time with you again.

:D
Click to expand...

On the True Believer Rant Scale, I'd have to give you a 6 out of 10. Although you remembered the RANDOM ALL CAP SHOUTING, personal attacks and totally out of place end smiley, you forgot the multiple exclamation points and the the use of other colors to show how mad you realllllly are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom