Christianity is Sun Worship: Theist Response?

doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Christianity is Sun Worship: Theist Response?

I have seen NUMEROUS sources recently that expose Christianity as nothing more than altered paganistic sun worship.

There are several key videos that make the case. I cannot figure how to embed them, but I welcome any help.

My favorite is very short and to the point. It has no publicized authorship, and appears to be very “underground.” Nonetheless, most of the information is factual and difficult to dispute. It can be found here (26 minutes):
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8461754114455236037&hl=en

Secondly, Reginald Finley interviews a woman who wrote a book about this issue (48 minutes):
http://www.youtube.com/v/ELoN3OSY6hA

Finally, the first video I saw on this topic is called “The Naked Truth”, and it lasts for about 2 hours.

Mod: What is it with people breaking our pages with over-sized links? Puzzled
Anyway, fixed it: Click here.

You can watch all of those videos to understand the arguments.

To put it in a nutshell:

1. Jesus is not a deity. He may or may not have been a real person.

2. The story of Jesus is plagiarized from other religions far more ancient than Christianity. This goes beyond Judaism. The bulk can be directly traced to Egyptian religion and worship of the sun god, Horus, who happens to share many important features with Jesus. These features are so identical, the issue cannot be due to coincidence. This is not to say that Horus is the only Pagan god with similar features, but he is one of the most identical to Jesus. Others might be Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, or Zoroaster.

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm http://ask.metafilter.com/54488/First-Century-Jesus-References http://www.geocities.com/nephilimnot/horus.html http://englishatheist.org/indexz31.shtml

Armed with a few good search words, your studies may yield better and more abundant sources.

3. All of the story of Jesus is astrology. He dies on a cross. The sun in the winter solstice on December 25 hangs in a constellation known as the crux. Then it is “born” after 3 days of seemingly hanging in the same spot and starts to set in a different place going further North each night. People were so fearful in the winter that the sun would not came back that they celebrated its return, and the end of the continual shortening of days. When it is born, the North star lines up with Orion’s belt, composed of three stars known as the “three kings”. In sum, this is all that the resurrection is. Nothing more. There was no real cross and no real dying savior. All of that mumbo jumbo was a template for other theological ideas, such as sin and salvation, to take root.

4. If Jesus WAS real, then it is highly likely that he was groomed to recycle myths from the past in order to become a tool of social control. In any event, the real or fictional Jesus was a tool of political control when he became historicized. Some scholars, I believe, may claim that Chrsitian gnosticism never intended for Jesus to be a real person and that the rituals and religious concepts of gnosticism were borrowed from other Pagan religions. I believe that the most plausible version is one in which religious gnostics made up the religion truly believing that it was something great, but that there was no real Jesus. Later, people like Paul (who never eyewitnessed Jesus) possibly either mistakenly thought Jesus was historical or concocted the historical Jesus. Being a skeptic, I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories. So once again, I would favor the church fathers mistakenly believing in a historical Jesus after years of the birth of non-historical Jesus Christian gnosticism.

How do Christians respond to the claim that Christianity is sun worship?


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Chretien wrote: Alot of

Chretien wrote:
Alot of people don't know that the theory postulated by the author of this thread has been utterly rejected not only by Christian scholars, but my skeptics. Jesus mythicist Richard Carrier had this to say about this theory:

 Hmmm...  So Richard Carrier is a reliable source?


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
stillmatic wrote: Chretien

stillmatic wrote:
Chretien wrote:
SamSexton wrote:

wow, you've just summed up your intelligence right there. I vote the quoted post should be labelled under "theists say the stupidest things" (not generallising theists ofcourse, some are capable of well thought out arguments)

Uusually when people engage in character assasination it means they have no answers. Please show me one Christian in antiquity or modern times who worshiped the Sun. Please show me one ancient Christian creed that endordsed Sun worship. Please show me one passage from the New Testament endorsing Sun worship. You people make up such silly arguments that would be refuted if you simply thought them through.

Well, if you actually watched the video, any passage that has "Jesus" in it would be Sun worship.

At the moment I'm lead to believe the video is  a lie. And even if it is telling the truth it still doesn't support that Christianity is Sun worship. That you have no proof of. All of the so called similarities can be disputed by 1) reading a history book or 2) using the more likely event that the events in Jesus' life are based on Judaism not sun worship.


SamSexton
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
stillmatic wrote:
Chretien wrote:
SamSexton wrote:

wow, you've just summed up your intelligence right there. I vote the quoted post should be labelled under "theists say the stupidest things" (not generallising theists ofcourse, some are capable of well thought out arguments)

Uusually when people engage in character assasination it means they have no answers. Please show me one Christian in antiquity or modern times who worshiped the Sun. Please show me one ancient Christian creed that endordsed Sun worship. Please show me one passage from the New Testament endorsing Sun worship. You people make up such silly arguments that would be refuted if you simply thought them through.

Well, if you actually watched the video, any passage that has "Jesus" in it would be Sun worship.

At the moment I'm lead to believe the video is a lie. And even if it is telling the truth it still doesn't support that Christianity is Sun worship. That you have no proof of. All of the so called similarities can be disputed by 1) reading a history book or 2) using the more likely event that the events in Jesus' life are based on Judaism not sun worship.

 

You can't dismiss the video as a lie because of a few weak arguments. The fact is, and this can be researched. sun worship was the most popular religion in the mederterrainian at the time of Jesus' birth and Jesus has many many similarities to known sun gods of the time, specifically Horus (despite what your biast web sites might say). There is no way to get around it. the catholic church even admit in their online encyclopedia that Jesus is associated with the sun. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I see

simple theist wrote:

I see little need to refute anything. So far all I've read is that Christianity is Sun worship because Jesus was born on Dec. 25th.

Problem #1: Jesus was not born on Dec. 25th, but sometime in March/April.

Problem #2: It was because of all these Pagan gods being celebrated on Dec. 25th that the Catholic Church decided to celerate Jesus' birth on this day.

 

Also I'll try to watch the video tomorrow during the day. I'll leave myself a note. However, if the video makes the same pointless claims that this thread has so far made, I will become more certain that the Flying spegetti monster is more likely to exist then anything claimed by an atheist is true.

And you are missing the point still. Based on the weather and time claims in the bible we'd agree that based on the claims that would be the case.

BUT most Christians believe it was December 25 wich would defy the human reproductive cycle. But who cares if Jesus was alleged to have been born in April or June or Ocober or March. There still is no justification or explination for HOW a ghost knocks up a girl.

The December 25th date demonstrates that humans are capable of taking motifs and cultural ideas from other prior religions and incorperating them into their own. December 25 was adapted by Christianity to compete with the other winter socstice celibrations.

THAT is what we are talking about.

You miss the point that the overlap in ideas and motifs are not an indicator of something divine by any name. We have the same criticisms of the other Abrahamic religions as well.

Holy books by any label are nothing but human inventions which have a central theme that a "chosen people" will be saved by a super natural hero.

To deny that religion is immune to human influance and to deny that it competes just like business, is absurd. It is nothing more than a human invention no different than Coke and Pepsi.

Coke comes out with a Cherry product and Pepsi looks at it and says, "I like that idea, we'll make our own version, call it something else, give it a different color can and market it differently to make it sound better than Coke's version."

Saying that your deity is original is like sayink that Pepsi was the first beverage because it's can has a unique logo.

Humans are capable of making up fiction and believing it as fact. If a human can "truely" believe in Nerviana no matter how false the concept is. If a human can "truely" believe that Allah picks the sex of the baby, If a human can faslely believe that multiple armed deities exist, what makes you think that a disimbodied being can get a girl pregnant? What makes you immune to that human error?

December 25th is a demonstration that people are capable of adapting other religious rituals and adapting it to newer ones. In the Caribiean Voodooism has been mixed with Christianity. If that is possible today, what makes you think the first Hebrews weren't merely a splinter sect of polytheism trying to start a new monotheism?

I think humans are quite predictable in this. The Hebrews stole names and motifs from the surrounding competing polytheism they were competing with. They used marketing of popular deities to draw people in and streemlined it into monotheism.

El, Baal, Asurah are all Caananited polytheist names. Hebrews today would say, "Those are not the same". They are right, not according to how Hebrews interpret it today, but that misses the point of WHERE the names came from.

I can go to a court and change my name, but that doesnt change me or where I came from. I can switch jobs but that doesnt change the jobs I had in the past.

Theism teaches the believer that their religion is unique and the greatest thing in the world. The reality is that it is not a magical dad in the sky, but ordinary mundain human behaivor of making up stories and believing them to be fact even if they are not.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Theism

Brian37 wrote:

Theism teaches the believer that their religion is unique and the greatest thing in the world. The reality is that it is not a magical dad in the sky, but ordinary mundain human behaivor of making up stories and believing them to be fact even if they are not.

Too broad a generalization. Some theim puts forth the idea that the only thing that is unique is our individual understanding of reality. We all percieve the same universe and it is what it is. If god does not exist, all the belief I can muster will not change that fact. If god does exist, all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.   


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Astronomy, when used as a

Astronomy, when used as a tool to find similarities in things such as religion, daily life, etc... is terribly flawed. It's no different than looking at a cloud, a piece of toast, or Mars and finding something that makes you say "HEY, that's a possibility!" ESPECIALLY when looking into a night sky which has such a large number of stars.

It's no different than running matrix's through any book and finding keywords that can relate to important events, such as 9/11, assassinations, etc.

Using stuff like this to find answers for questions you have regarding religion is illogical.


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
stillmatic wrote:
Chretien wrote:
SamSexton wrote:

wow, you've just summed up your intelligence right there. I vote the quoted post should be labelled under "theists say the stupidest things" (not generallising theists ofcourse, some are capable of well thought out arguments)

Uusually when people engage in character assasination it means they have no answers. Please show me one Christian in antiquity or modern times who worshiped the Sun. Please show me one ancient Christian creed that endordsed Sun worship. Please show me one passage from the New Testament endorsing Sun worship. You people make up such silly arguments that would be refuted if you simply thought them through.

Well, if you actually watched the video, any passage that has "Jesus" in it would be Sun worship.

At the moment I'm lead to believe the video is  a lie. And even if it is telling the truth it still doesn't support that Christianity is Sun worship. That you have no proof of. All of the so called similarities can be disputed by 1) reading a history book or 2) using the more likely event that the events in Jesus' life are based on Judaism not sun worship.

I understand that. If you read through the quotations though you'll find that I was responding to a stupid question by Chretien who it seemed didn't bother to even watch the video before responding. He basically asked "what evidence is there that Christianity is about the sun" when the video was on the first fucking post.

I agree with you about looking at the video skeptically. I'm not an expert on Kemetic religions. I have done a little bit of research on some of the claims made in the video and it seems that some information has been convienently left out. For example the claim about astrological ages:

I learned that when the video says that the age of Pisces began in 1 AD and ends in 2150 AD, they fail to mention that this is the Neil Mann interpretation. The Heindel-Rosicrucian intrepretation has the age starting at 498 AD and ending in 2654 AD. As I'm definately not an astrology expert, I have no idea why these two claims differ. When they don't mention things like this, it makes me worry.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Theism teaches the believer that their religion is unique and the greatest thing in the world. The reality is that it is not a magical dad in the sky, but ordinary mundain human behaivor of making up stories and believing them to be fact even if they are not.

Too broad a generalization. Some theim puts forth the idea that the only thing that is unique is our individual understanding of reality. We all percieve the same universe and it is what it is. If god does not exist, all the belief I can muster will not change that fact. If god does exist, all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

 Thank you for yet another version of Pascal's Wadger. I do have to give you credit for dressing it up and repackaging it.

Quote:
If god does exist, all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality

I am quaking in my boots let me tell you.

"Please, Harry Potter, or Superman, or Lex Luthor, Mr Disimbodied Brain, Cosmic Force.....whatever you call yourself please dont hurt me for calling you fiction".

Dont worry I am not the slightest bit "impotant" against fiction.

Tell you what though, when you poney up with the evidence, better yet get "whatever" you call it to stop being a coward and show itself and let it present it's own evidence, then maybe I'll listen.

Pick a date, any date, dont worry I wont hold my breath.  

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: wavefreak

Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Theism teaches the believer that their religion is unique and the greatest thing in the world. The reality is that it is not a magical dad in the sky, but ordinary mundain human behaivor of making up stories and believing them to be fact even if they are not.

Too broad a generalization. Some theim puts forth the idea that the only thing that is unique is our individual understanding of reality. We all percieve the same universe and it is what it is. If god does not exist, all the belief I can muster will not change that fact. If god does exist, all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

Thank you for yet another version of Pascal's Wadger. I do have to give you credit for dressing it up and repackaging it.

How the fuck is this anything like Pascal's wager? You need to start thinking before you spew. Pascal's wager boils down to an appeal to consequences. There are no consequences in my statement.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
sapphen wrote:   i did not

sapphen wrote:
 

i did not mean to say that i had a "supernatural" experience. my computer did not set afire and give me wisdom. 

Aye if you don't overclock your PC. you may never achieve the deeply spiritual realization that your PC is on fire, and your never reach true enlightenment and wisdom of purchasing a decent cooling system

Sapphen hi there is an old saying "you see only what you wish to see and hear only what you wish to hear"

 May I suggest you should continue your research with an open yet skeptical mind. the truth will become overwhelmingly apparent. unless you choose to deny the truth

You may find early Egyptian religious beliefs absolutely fascinating

It's absolutely full of stuff like this

Precepts of Ptah-hetep (Vth dynasty)

1. The things which God, (neter), doeth cannot be known.

2. Terrify not men. God, (neter), is opposed thereto.

3. The daily bread is under the dispensation of God, (neter).

4. When thou ploughest, labour (?) in the field God, (neter), hath given thee.

5. If thou wouldst be a perfect man make thy son pleasing to God, (neter).

6. God, I 1, loveth obedience; disobedience I is hateful to God, (neter).

7. Verily a good (or, beautiful) son is the gift of God, (neter).

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Theism teaches the believer that their religion is unique and the greatest thing in the world. The reality is that it is not a magical dad in the sky, but ordinary mundain human behaivor of making up stories and believing them to be fact even if they are not.

Too broad a generalization. Some theim puts forth the idea that the only thing that is unique is our individual understanding of reality. We all percieve the same universe and it is what it is. If god does not exist, all the belief I can muster will not change that fact. If god does exist, all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

Thank you for yet another version of Pascal's Wadger. I do have to give you credit for dressing it up and repackaging it.

How the fuck is this anything like Pascal's wager? You need to start thinking before you spew. Pascal's wager boils down to an appeal to consequences. There are no consequences in my statement.

Who said I was claiming that? I said YOU repackaged Pascal's Wager. So you removed consiquences? So.

Actually there are conquences to your own intelect. If we are going to play the "If" game. The consiquence to your own intelect would be that you will have wasted your entire life chasing a pipe dream. THAT still holds even in your repackaged version. 

You are chasing a pipe dream wasting your life fluttering around an arbitrary concept YOU like believing. I cant help you out of that delusion if you dont want help.

 You merely wattered it down and it is Pascal. By claiming you were not talking about a bully tyrant in a white robe still doesnt change that you were. Maybe you didnt realize you were doing that. But, again so what?

"I will lose out on pondering the wonder of claimed entity"

Quote:
all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

Who is claiming that? You, or the diety you claim? So if your claimed diety is not a monster like the Abrahamic god, why would you even say I am impotant against your being's supposed infinant logic? UNLESS YOU WERE SAYING "You better believe or you will miss out"

That is what you are saying to me and is no different than Pascal. Again, you just repackaged it and attempted to water it down.

You are still making a "loss vs gain" argument. 

Loss vs gain.\ EXAMPLE:

"You really gotta try this ice cream"

"No I dont"

"If you dont you'll never know what it tastes like"

Still an appeal to emotion having nothing to do with evidence. And your claim of diety is a made up flavor of ice cream that doesnt even exist. "I'll have the garkengling flavored ice cream please, two scoops"

 Still a threat too, an attempt threaten the intelect of another based on emotional appeal.

Here is how valid evedence works.

"I say X is true"

"Here is my evidence"

NOT

"YOU GOTTA TRY THIS if YOU DONT YOU'LL MISS OUT" Which is what you are doing and is nothing but a watterd down repackaged version of Pascal.

 "

 

"My god's infinate logic"

So?

"My force's infinate logic"

"My pink unicorn's infinate logic"

"My purple snarfwidget's infinate logic"

I am not losing a thing by not buying your crap. Again, you have backpeddled away from ancient myth maybe, but are not claiming anything less than they are. You just baught the latest lie.


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: wavefreak

Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Theism teaches the believer that their religion is unique and the greatest thing in the world. The reality is that it is not a magical dad in the sky, but ordinary mundain human behaivor of making up stories and believing them to be fact even if they are not.

Too broad a generalization. Some theim puts forth the idea that the only thing that is unique is our individual understanding of reality. We all percieve the same universe and it is what it is. If god does not exist, all the belief I can muster will not change that fact. If god does exist, all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

Thank you for yet another version of Pascal's Wadger. I do have to give you credit for dressing it up and repackaging it.

How the fuck is this anything like Pascal's wager? You need to start thinking before you spew. Pascal's wager boils down to an appeal to consequences. There are no consequences in my statement.

Who said I was claiming that? I said YOU repackaged Pascal's Wager. So you removed consiquences? So.

Actually there are conquences to your own intelect. If we are going to play the "If" game. The consiquence to your own intelect would be that you will have wasted your entire life chasing a pipe dream. THAT still holds even in your repackaged version.

You are chasing a pipe dream wasting your life fluttering around an arbitrary concept YOU like believing. I cant help you out of that delusion if you dont want help.

You merely wattered it down and it is Pascal. By claiming you were not talking about a bully tyrant in a white robe still doesnt change that you were. Maybe you didnt realize you were doing that. But, again so what?

"I will lose out on pondering the wonder of claimed entity"

Quote:
all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

Who is claiming that? You, or the diety you claim? So if your claimed diety is not a monster like the Abrahamic god, why would you even say I am impotant against your being's supposed infinant logic? UNLESS YOU WERE SAYING "You better believe or you will miss out"

That is what you are saying to me and is no different than Pascal. Again, you just repackaged it and attempted to water it down.

You are still making a "loss vs gain" argument.

Loss vs gain.\ EXAMPLE:

"You really gotta try this ice cream"

"No I dont"

"If you dont you'll never know what it tastes like"

Still an appeal to emotion having nothing to do with evidence. And your claim of diety is a made up flavor of ice cream that doesnt even exist. "I'll have the garkengling flavored ice cream please, two scoops"

Still a threat too, an attempt threaten the intelect of another based on emotional appeal.

Here is how valid evedence works.

"I say X is true"

"Here is my evidence"

NOT

"YOU GOTTA TRY THIS if YOU DONT YOU'LL MISS OUT" Which is what you are doing and is nothing but a watterd down repackaged version of Pascal.

"

 

"My god's infinate logic"

So?

"My force's infinate logic"

"My pink unicorn's infinate logic"

"My purple snarfwidget's infinate logic"

I am not losing a thing by not buying your crap. Again, you have backpeddled away from ancient myth maybe, but are not claiming anything less than they are. You just baught the latest lie.


 

 

You can't quote me oput of context and expect me to accept you as anything less than intellectually dishonest.  Let be repeat exactly what I stated:

 

Too broad a generalization. Some theim puts forth the idea that the only thing that is unique is our individual understanding of reality. We all percieve the same universe and it is what it is. If god does not exist, all the belief I can muster will not change that fact. If god does exist, all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

 

Where is there any appeal to consequences in this? How is this statement like Pascal's Wager? It doesn even advocate taking a position. It only states an observation about a form of theism and another observation that a person's perception of reality does not determine what reality really is. 

 

You are projecting your own thoughts and feeling onto my statements.  


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Theism teaches the believer that their religion is unique and the greatest thing in the world. The reality is that it is not a magical dad in the sky, but ordinary mundain human behaivor of making up stories and believing them to be fact even if they are not.

Too broad a generalization. Some theim puts forth the idea that the only thing that is unique is our individual understanding of reality. We all percieve the same universe and it is what it is. If god does not exist, all the belief I can muster will not change that fact. If god does exist, all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

Thank you for yet another version of Pascal's Wadger. I do have to give you credit for dressing it up and repackaging it.

How the fuck is this anything like Pascal's wager? You need to start thinking before you spew. Pascal's wager boils down to an appeal to consequences. There are no consequences in my statement.

Who said I was claiming that? I said YOU repackaged Pascal's Wager. So you removed consiquences? So.

Actually there are conquences to your own intelect. If we are going to play the "If" game. The consiquence to your own intelect would be that you will have wasted your entire life chasing a pipe dream. THAT still holds even in your repackaged version.

You are chasing a pipe dream wasting your life fluttering around an arbitrary concept YOU like believing. I cant help you out of that delusion if you dont want help.

You merely wattered it down and it is Pascal. By claiming you were not talking about a bully tyrant in a white robe still doesnt change that you were. Maybe you didnt realize you were doing that. But, again so what?

"I will lose out on pondering the wonder of claimed entity"

Quote:
all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

Who is claiming that? You, or the diety you claim? So if your claimed diety is not a monster like the Abrahamic god, why would you even say I am impotant against your being's supposed infinant logic? UNLESS YOU WERE SAYING "You better believe or you will miss out"

That is what you are saying to me and is no different than Pascal. Again, you just repackaged it and attempted to water it down.

You are still making a "loss vs gain" argument.

Loss vs gain.\ EXAMPLE:

"You really gotta try this ice cream"

"No I dont"

"If you dont you'll never know what it tastes like"

Still an appeal to emotion having nothing to do with evidence. And your claim of diety is a made up flavor of ice cream that doesnt even exist. "I'll have the garkengling flavored ice cream please, two scoops"

Still a threat too, an attempt threaten the intelect of another based on emotional appeal.

Here is how valid evedence works.

"I say X is true"

"Here is my evidence"

NOT

"YOU GOTTA TRY THIS if YOU DONT YOU'LL MISS OUT" Which is what you are doing and is nothing but a watterd down repackaged version of Pascal.

"

 

"My god's infinate logic"

So?

"My force's infinate logic"

"My pink unicorn's infinate logic"

"My purple snarfwidget's infinate logic"

I am not losing a thing by not buying your crap. Again, you have backpeddled away from ancient myth maybe, but are not claiming anything less than they are. You just baught the latest lie.


 

 

You can't quote me oput of context and expect me to accept you as anything less than intellectually dishonest. Let be repeat exactly what I stated:

 

Too broad a generalization. Some theim puts forth the idea that the only thing that is unique is our individual understanding of reality. We all percieve the same universe and it is what it is. If god does not exist, all the belief I can muster will not change that fact. If god does exist, all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

 

Where is there any appeal to consequences in this? How is this statement like Pascal's Wager? It doesn even advocate taking a position. It only states an observation about a form of theism and another observation that a person's perception of reality does not determine what reality really is.

 

You are projecting your own thoughts and feeling onto my statements.

I am not projecting a damned thing. I am suggesting you go look at Pascal's wager vs your quote and LOOK FOR THE SIMILARITIES! I dont think you realize that you are making the same argument.

1. "If I believe this I get something"  Gain in intelectuall  knowlege.

2. "If you dont you will lose something" Meaning the loss of gaing intelectuall knowlege.

I am saying that is the same argument. LOOK AT THE PATTERN. Pascal says you will lose god. You say it too, but merely water it down to losing or gaining knowlege about god.

I went further and explained to you  fallacy of that argument.

First, this is  This is an appeal to emotion based on a naked assertion.

The danger to you is you spend your life believing in this god you will have wasted your life believing something that is not true. That to me is the worst consiquence to one's own life.

You basically said that if you are wrong then god being fiction wont change no matter how much you want it to be. I'd say that is a heafty price and a horrile consiquence to self inflict for the only life you have. You are a fool if you'd waste your life on such a frivalous venture. You mgiht as well be chasing Luke Skywaker's force, or spend your life  searching for a way to fight Klingons for the Federation. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
You cant possibly be as

You cant possibly be as dense as you appear.

 

Let's deconstruct what I said.

 

First sentence: 

Too broad a generalization.

 Here I take issue with a blanket generalization you applied to theism.

 

Second sentence:

Some theim puts forth the idea that the only thing that is unique is our individual understanding of reality.

Ignoring the misspelling of theism, this refutes your generalization.

 

Third sentence:

We all percieve the same universe and it is what it is.

 

 Basically, my belief that reality is unchanged by my perceptions and interpretations them

 

 Forth sentence:

If god does not exist, all the belief I can muster will not change that fact.

An explicit admission of the possibilty that I am wrong and that I cannot change reality by force of belief. 

 

Fifth sentence: 

If god does exist, all of your atheistic logic is impotent against that reality.

 

The same idea as the forth sentence applied to atheism.

 

So where is there any type of consequence? All these five sentences says is that reality is what it is regardless of anyone's perceptions or interpretations. 

 

 Show me Pascal's Wager in this.

 


Psalm 14 1
Theist
Psalm 14 1's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
I recently saw the zeitgeist

I recently saw the zeitgeist (revised version) video of this claim and it found it quite interesting, it's just I hated how it went straight from this to 9/11 conspiracies, then to the Federal Reserves. I haven't seen any of the other videos but I suppose I might check them out.


vexed
vexed's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
bzeurunkl

bzeurunkl wrote:

 

 

doctoro wrote:
2. The story of Jesus is plagiarized from other religions far more ancient than Christianity.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of "premonitions?"  Ever seen a movie where something that was "coming" was portended by some kind of sign?  Like the "devils mountain" in Close Encounters, or just pick about any sci-fi (Solaris) or horror flick that you'd care to mention (like HellRaiser).

We don't seem to question why evil has a foreshadowing.

Umm, you're talking about movies. I hope this isn't a serious attempt at making some kind of correlation.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Psalm 14 1 wrote: I

Psalm 14 1 wrote:
I recently saw the zeitgeist (revised version) video of this claim and it found it quite interesting, it's just I hated how it went straight from this to 9/11 conspiracies, then to the Federal Reserves. I haven't seen any of the other videos but I suppose I might check them out.

 You're not the only person who didn't like that.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 The Sun worship theory has

 The Sun worship theory has been discarded by scholars simply because there is no primary source material supporting it.  But there was certain truths in Greek philosophy.

The ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church attached great value even to pagan philosophy. In the words of Clement of Alexandria: “Ancient philosophy was the world of godly foresight [in the history of the preparation of the ancient world for Christianity]. It was a necessity for the Greeks as a guide to truth … a child guide of the Hellenes to Christ, reflecting in itself the truth even if obscurely and not completely, but in part.”

St. Basil the Great, who was a scholar, philosopher and a theologian, said: “In philosophical teaching there was a shadow of revealed truths, a pre-portrayal of Truth shown in the Holy Scripture, a reflection of the light of Christ’s truth, similar to the reflection of the sun in water.”

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 The sun god and copy cat

 The sun god and copy cat Christian theory is systematically shreded here.

 

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: The Sun

Apotheon wrote:
The Sun worship theory has been discarded by scholars simply because there is no primary source material supporting it. But there was certain truths in Greek philosophy.

The ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church attached great value even to pagan philosophy. In the words of Clement of Alexandria: “Ancient philosophy was the world of godly foresight [in the history of the preparation of the ancient world for Christianity]. It was a necessity for the Greeks as a guide to truth … a child guide of the Hellenes to Christ, reflecting in itself the truth even if obscurely and not completely, but in part.”

St. Basil the Great, who was a scholar, philosopher and a theologian, said: “In philosophical teaching there was a shadow of revealed truths, a pre-portrayal of Truth shown in the Holy Scripture, a reflection of the light of Christ’s truth, similar to the reflection of the sun in water.”

What does that quote have to do with the price of tea in china?

Do you even know where the word "bible" originated from? 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: The sun

Apotheon wrote:

The sun god and copy cat Christian theory is systematically shreded here.

 

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

I read this article, and Idon't agree that (anonymous Christian thinktank author) has shredded the copycat theory here.

Rather what he has done is cherrypick an arbitrary set of criteria for what counts as "borrowing," then exhaustively shown how the evidence doesn't precisely fit his personal definition.

 Although the author says that these criteria have "already been established," this is patently untrue.  His sources for the criteria are old-time early 20th century British historians.  Although the work these guys did collecting and recording myths was valuable, they did not work in the area of textual criticisms and probably would have been horrified that excerpts from their introductions and forwards were being used to construct a theoretical model of folklore methodology.

I can vouch from my own professional expertise that the argument for Christian myth being derivative of pagan sun worship  meets any legitimate scholarly standard.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Christian response to

Christian response to "Christianity is Sun worship"

 SON block.

 


Barl_S (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I wish I had been in on this

I wish I had been in on this discussion when it was happening.    I don't know where to start.

 

- I think that this 'video' does point out some common backgrounds to Christianity and other death/ressurrection stories. I'm not saying that Christianity was even aware of the astrological, but there is little doubt that many of these beliefs were established in the region at the time.  (I could argue that the age of pisces and the end of the 'ram'(the lamb?) would be difficult to be a coincidence). 

 

- While the three kinds, sirius and the rising sun are correct, I don't think the writers of the new testement had intended 'christmas' to be on 12/25.  A coincidence, but could be constructed after the fact.. but the statement of astronomy is correct.

 

- The sun is ALWAYS in the elliptic! That means that it 'travels' through the zodiac, it is never EVER near Crux.  However, around 12/25, Crux, from the middle east in that time period DOES set just as the sun rises.

 

- The strongest case is the death, 3 days and ressurection... THAT i see as being a common theme througout the period. Sol Iviticus, which was the religion of favor in the time of Contantine follows this doctrine.   However, Jesus did NOT spend 3 days in the tomb... or 3 nights.  The gospels can't even agree on the day of the crucifiction. Do your math.  Most of us work during the week and are off on the weekend. How many of you feel that from sundown on Friday until you go back to work is 3 days..  it's not 3 days, but it's 3 nights and the start of the third day. But Jesus was 'risen' on Sunday... No way you can make the 3 days..l John even changed his story to that Jesus is the sacrificial passover lamb.. and so he'll rise on the third day. 

 

- Personally, after years of searching, I believe in a pre and post easter jesus. The pre-easter jesus was probably real. He walked from town to town teaching of how to live the way god intended.. to give up everything to live in God's way. He accepted those the temple rejected as unclean, he pointed out the priests corruption and hypocricy!  This eventually got him crucified.. as that's what they did to those who created unrest, espectiall in the temple at passover(overturning the tables).  His followers believed him to be the messiah, and his death, they intended to explain.   Something apparently happened to the body in some way... his followers were devistated and some said they 'saw' him(but note that in Mark Matthew and Like, he isn't physically ressurected, he's not recognized at first, and once he is, he dissapears. The physical ressurection with doubting thomas is in John if I'm not mistaken.. written much later after the dogma had grown.)    My point is.. that these people didn't know science, the universe was a mystery! They believed that mental illness was demon possession, etc... so when Jesus died, and they had 'sightings' (note there are people who say they see Elvis.. and that's today!)...  There were many 'mystery' religions that had a basis on the sun god... it fit pretty well... so it was borrowed.... Maybe they knew it's astological connections, maybe not.  But as the religion spread throughout the Roman world, it sort of aquired other pagan 'ways'...  Evidence is strong that the day of worship was changed to sunday as it was the roman day of rest for Sol Iviticus... who also died and was ressurrected on the third day... for their holiday that too place on december 25th.  Shoot, Easter is the first sunday after the first full moon after march 21st(usually the vernal equinox, but not always.. so the church used the date). Can you get anymore pagan?  So the pre-easter Jesus was the teachings of the man, the Post easter was the 'myth' was was built up around the life of the man.

 

- So is this video valid? In some respects I think it is, but it makes stretches that make sense if you don't know the full story behind christianity. However, it's a strong basis for multiple belief systems in the region... so there is little doubt to me that Christianity borrows some of this, if many many of it, if not from the astronomical/astrological, then via proxy from other beliefs in the region.

 

- What am I saying about Christianity? Nothing that Thomas Paine or Thomas Jeffereson wouldn't have said.  I take out the miracles, the demon casting and look at the teachings. While it's the same message that was tought by other holy men, it's worthy of respect as when you cut through the garbage, the message itself is TRUTH, whomever the messenger might have been. Jesus happens to be the messenger that delivers this message in my culture and it is worthy of striving for. God, Son of God, or Prophet or Man.. is teachings are worth following.

 

- To me, suggesting  Jesus as 'god incarnate' is blasphemy! I find it offensive deep down to my soul.. =.  When in church, I cannot read the the apostles creed(that jesus died, decended to hell and raised in three days). BUT.. if I say it in relation to the SUN... If I say that the SUN dies for three days and was ressurected...  as methephorically, it's true! Maybe I can deal with saying the creeds in my moderate/mainline protestant church.    Now I just don't sing the hymns that say God Incarnate.. how can I justify that? Eye-wink

 

 


Merlyn7704 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The truth of Christmas and Christianity

The true date of Christmas was heavily discussed among the Christian bishops, because they seen the festivals that were being celebrated for the "Birth of Mytherus", who was a roman god, a.k.a "the unbeatable son". The original christians had to choose a date for the supposed birth of jesus.

 

They decided to go with the december date versus the two march dates, that way they could get into the action of the ancient roman pagan celebrations. It is just like the celebration of Halloween, which is Pagan in origin.

 

The holiday of easter is just another example of ancient pagan celebrations that have been associated wrongfully by the people that are gullible enough to believe in a fictitious entity like jesus christ.

 

there have been scholars that used to work for brigham young university that lost their job/degree because of the research that they conducted to denounce the existance of jesus christ. i seen a documentary recently that showed that the christians have it wrong as to how jesus was hung on the cross.

 

if a body were to be hung the way that is seen in the christian religion epitaphs, depictions, and statuettes, the bones would separate and the body would fall off. the christians show jesus as being hung with nails through his hands and through of top of the feet. that is anatomically not possible. there is not enough muscle tension to withstand the amount of weight that would be exerted on those points.

 

If jesus was hung on a cross, the nails would have to go through above the wrist and above the ankles. the metatarsals and metacarpals would have separated due to the weight of a human body, even without the sword that was pushed through the torso from side to side.

 

with enough research anyone with half a brain will realize that the christian religion, no matter what "branch" (christian, mormon, jewish, judaism, etc.) are as ficticious as elvis is still alive. there has been extensive research done by archeologists and scholars that has proven that jesus did not exist. If he did exist, then he was actually black as the ace of spades. NOT WHITE! the christians changed his skin color because it was wrong then, and still is in my opinion, to worship a black man.

 

MOD edit:  added paragraphs.  Probably not where you intended, so why not try registering an account so that you can fix them yourself?


Anonymou (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jesus from a different perspective

   i will start at the beginning, i was looking into solar flares and the fact that they make the suns atmosphere called its corona hotter much hotter and more radiant as stated by nasa and went looking for something causing it at about 11 to 12 years apart and the only thing i could find was jupiter which has a 11.86 year elyptical orbit around the sun. nasa stated in one of their web sites that the expected solar flare peak was expected to be about 1 year later that they thought and my idea was that the sun has plasma on it and if it is affected by jupiters gravity, jupiter would drag the plasma toward the equator because its closer and then it would flow back to the poles and so on much the same as the earth has tides except the earth has continents that stop a similar flow except maybee the gulf stream. 

anyway when the plasma is affected by the gravity of jupiter it will be affected greater after jupiters closest pass. it would be like if you threw a lot of rocks in water at the same place,at some point after many rocks have been thrown in rapid sucsession the water would be the most turbilent.  one of nasas sites  state that jupiter closes in at about one third of its distance from the sun in six months before its closest point. i think the plasma seems to colide at or near the equator of the sun causing the flares and the spots are where the plasma came from. i also looked at some graphs on solar flare activity over hundreds of years as studied from something from the sun in earth ice cores realeased during solar flare activity and any correlation in earths tempature and found that during a period of almost no solar flare activity of about 70 years called the maunder minimum there was a mini ice age.  

then i thought that jupiter may actually be our savour  from freezing. then i realized that something else was called our savour. i looked up in google 'is jesus jupiter' and found that some bible study mob complaining that jesus the name is nothing more than jupiter zeus serapis some name from egyptian. so if christians are nothing more than sun worshipers who is jesus , i would have to say jupiter.

theres more,when someone has talked to god they come down from a mountain like astronimers would,  the suns atmosphere is about the same as jupiters just a smaller planet so the son of god also rings true. there was a bright star in the sky when jesus was born and the brightest star in our sky is jupiter. it looks like egyptian worshipers that worshiped multiple gods until one group decided to worship only one god and moved away and it spread to italy then through roman coquest spread to the rest of europe and then its colonies. god isnt called our savour. god is the creator as the sun is. that means that the ancient astronimers knew this. i for one would like to know how.

Mod edit: I made paragraphs.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Venus has almost the same

Venus has almost the same gravitational gradient at the Sun as Jupiter, which is 1/711,000 of that of the moon on the earth, or 1/7000 if you adjust for the relative size of the sun.

Jupiter's distance from the Sun varies by less than 5%, so you must have misread that part about its 'closest pass'.

So I doubt you have a strong case here.

 

Xianity may well have a strong link to Sun worship, though, but that doesn't need any arcane knowledge.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

OK, I am, among other things, an astronomer. I am going to skip over most of this thread because I am sure that there is just too much psuedo science to be worth covering. Than being said...

 

The last week in December is a popular time for the birth of Saviours in general. I am sure that there is a reason for that. Here is my take on the matter.

 

Primitive farmers needed a clear way to know when to plant. If they planted too early and then there was a cold snap a couple of weeks later, then they may have blown their load for the whole year and would be fucked. So someone needs to be in charge of keeping the calendar.

 

The only really good way to do that is to study the stars and pick specific days that can peg the calendar to certain alignments. Hence the last week in December.

 

That being said, I have actually used my software to check the supposed December 25th alignment and for me it is kind of a useless thing. On the other hand, it is probably good enough for bronze age farmers. A day or two to either side is good enough for knowing when to plant.

 

Here is how it works: Take one day when there is an annual alignment. For the agricultural zone that you happen to be in and count ahead some number of days and you know when to plant. Here in the great state of Connecticut, May 1st is the earliest day for a slam dunk for planting. So roughly speaking, 150 days from the Orion/Sirius/Rising Sun – day is just about right.

 

You just can't expect most bronze age farmers to be able to figure that crap out. So if someone is willing to take the time to worry about that stuff and it makes the general community more profitable, wow!

 

I am sure that all the farmers are willing to give that dude a chunk of the action. If he does his job well enough, he could probably eat for free for the whole year.

 

That being said, I doubt that that is the whole reason for a clerical social caste but it is probably the major reason which is relevant to this thread.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=