I will never say that their aren't fanatics out there....I would be lying if I said there weren't. But blaming religion isn't any better than me blaming testosterone.

I don't think it's either. I think there are mental problems and some people use the religion to hide behind. IMO that is a coward because they won't own up to their bad actions.

frank2bad,

but who is to say God told people to do these atrocities and that they weren't just wanting to hurt people and blaming religion?

I was brought up in the church and it was always my choice to go or stay or whatever I felt. I brought my son up the same way...to decide for himself what is best for him. So the argument of brainwashing or whatever doesn't hold water either since not all people that believe in a religion commit these things.

I, personally, don't like extremists because they don't tend to want to respect other's beliefs. And that goes for all beliefs (including Atheists)

you and I could probably have a great discussion about what we each believe, but if one of us crossing into the "I'm right and you are wrong" "My belief is better than your belief"....kinda silly isn't it?

which is your belief....I have no problem with that.

But just as Christians have a right to their beliefs (and I don't believe in pushing it down people's throats) others have the right to their own beliefs (without pushing it down people's throats.

I see people doing the same things that they complain about.

I can respect someone for their beliefs and I actually enjoy discussing different beliefs....but just as you don't like to be told you (as in general people) are wrong....others don't like to be told they are wrong for their beliefs either.


all of this...I'm right and you are wrong is crazy to me and that goes for all sides that do it.


ok....off my soap box now


But is the argument of being a man just as equally as valid as blaming religion? Maybe the Y chromosome is really evil....who knows

which is your belief....I have no problem with that.

But just as Christians have a right to their beliefs (and I don't believe in pushing it down people's throats) others have the right to their own beliefs (without pushing it down people's throats.

I see people doing the same things that they complain about.

I can respect someone for their beliefs and I actually enjoy discussing different beliefs....but just as you don't like to be told you (as in general people) are wrong....others don't like to be told they are wrong for their beliefs either.


all of this...I'm right and you are wrong is crazy to me and that goes for all sides that do it.


ok....off my soap box now


But is the argument of being a man just as equally as valid as blaming religion? Maybe the Y chromosome is really evil....who knows

ok...so he is excused but the reasons for others can ONLY be because of religion????? It's ok for Stalin but not others?

The Y chromosome argument is just as valid as blaming religion, especially since not all who are religious do these things either.

Can you tell me that Atheists can't be extremists too?????

Maybe it's not the person's beliefs that make them do it, but instead they hide behind it as an excuse

blaming religion for atrocities committed is the same as blaming the Y chromosome for it. Stalin committed atrocities...what was his excuse?

old news



References to "Zeitgeist: The Movie" in the mainstream media are relatively few and mostly negative. "Zeitgeist Addendum" has mostly been ignored. As far as "the Movie", commonly the film’s factual accuracy has been challenged. A review in the Irish Times entitled “Zeitgeist: the Nonsense” wrote that “these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalization—there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones."[22] Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan criticizes the first part of the film on the origins of Christianity:

Some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally—and sloppily—mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. […] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids.[23]

Other reviews assert that it is "conspiracy crap",[24] “based solely on anecdotal evidence” and “fiction couched in a few facts”,[25] or disparaging reference is made to its part in "the 9/11 truth movement.[14]

Academic coverage of Zeitgeist has also been sparse, mainly lumping the movie in with other conspiracy movies, although at least one academic has made a more detailed (and highly critical) analysis of the scholarship (see below). Again, the coverage has been largely negative, and typically treated as part of a contemporary phenomenon of “truth” movies. According to Scientific American

“The postmodernist belief in the relativism of truth, coupled to the clicker culture of mass media where attention spans are measured in New York minutes, leaves us with a bewildering array of truth claims packaged in infotainment units. It must be true—I saw it on television, at the movies, on the Internet, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, That's Incredible, The Sixth Sense, Poltergeist, Loose Change, Zeitgeist the Movie.”[26]

A more severe overall treatment is given by Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, who analyzes Zeitgeist (“A fast-paced assemblage of agitprop”) as an example of unethical film-making.[27] She accuses Joseph of deceit through the use of unsourced and unreferenced assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, “comically” self-defeating, the nature of “twisted evidence” and the false attribution of Madrid bomb footage as being in London (which she calls a “lie”) amount to ethical abuse in sourcing (in later versions of the movie, a subtitle is added to this footage identifying it as from the Madrid bombings). She finishes her analysis with the comment:

Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film’s determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.

Dr Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, has severely criticized Part I of the movie as having no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, relying on amateur sources that "borrow ideas from each other, and who recycle the same silly stuff" and "not a single serious source" can be found in official reference lists attached to the movie.[28] Of the film he says "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[28]

Forbes claims there is no evidence in Egyptian sources saying that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin. Similarly, neither Krishna (the eighth son), Dionysus (whose mother had slept with Zeus) nor Attis were ever supposed born of virgins. He points out that "son" and "sun" are not homophonic words in either Latin, Ancient Egyptian, or Greek, and therefore no such misunderstanding would occur; that the December 25 birth is not part of any of the myths—including that of Jesus, for whom Christmas Day was appointed as a festival day in open knowledge that the real date was not known.

Dr. Forbes also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, noting that a long list flashed across the screen of supposed contemporary historians that did not mention Jesus is actually comprised of geographers, gardening writers, poets and philosophers, who should not be expected to mention him. The allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was added later is criticized as misleading. Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, with only one reference believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages but to change an already existing mention of him. He also argues that the film misrepresents Constantine when it presents him as making Christianity compulsory (when he only legalized it) and inventing the historical Jesus (when early church records show that the historicity of Jesus had been a key element of faith from early on).

-wiki

some people are obsessed with religion

and some people are obsessed against religion

either way is still just an obsession