Horus is a non-sequitur to the claim that Christianity's claims are not authentic. Can you grasp that?
I feel like I am talking to a child, because you obviously don't understand what a
non sequitur means. A
non sequitur is a fallacy of logic by which a person draws conclusions that do not follow from the given premise. So given this, it makes no sense to say "Horus is" or isn't a
non sequitur. I have said nothing about Horus other than to point out that none of the claims the film maker attributes to him are supported by scholarship. You're just pissed off because I broke the nose of one of your favorite movies so all you're left with is to accuse me of focusing on the irrelevant Horus and dodging the more important gods.... why? Because that is all you have left to offer.
Horus was an important element to the myther's argument, which is why 260 words are devoted to Horus while the rest of the gods received a collective 140 words. By refuting the characteristics these film makers attributed to him, I essentially destroyed whatever credibility you wished they had. These people are jokes.
You'd like to keep fighting this straw man you've made (because Horus is easier to argue with, due to the lack of complete evidence)
Oh my God you sound like an apologist. Proud of yourself? When something about Book of Mormon history is refuted, they usually respond with something lame like this: "You're drawing a conclusion when we don't know everything yet." The only "lack of evidence" is that which is needed to support the arguments by this film maker. And you obviously don't know what a straw man is either. How old are you?
when this movie isn't even about Horus.
I never said the movie was about Horus. That is a perfect example of a straw man. It wasn't my idea for the movie to start its ridiculous rant with a bullet point presentation of false characteristics of Horus.
Anyone that has watched the movie can explain to you that Horus wasn't an important point. But then again people are gullible.
The only one doing that "explaining" is you, and you do so from an admitting to ignorance. You haven't read their books and you haven't even begun to research their claims. Talk about
non sequitur. It doesn't logically follow that Horus
wasn't an important element to their argument, especially when we consider that they decided to open the movie with commentary about Horus, dedicating twice as much commentary to him than they did the rest of the gods, except Jesus.
If you are correct about the time, Horus constitutes 2% of the entire movie. Go figure!
All this proves is that if 2% of the movie contained 11 errors, then how many more are likely to be contained in the whole.
I can hear the apologists now. Joseph Smith lying about polygamy only constituted about .0001% of his life. Until you prove he lied about the rest of the 99.9999%, you haven't proved anything!!
You sound like a babbling idiot, you know that right?
Please don't think you have demonstrated anything else, until you actually do.
I have demonstrated that:
1) The author of this film relied heavily on an author who has been roundly rejected by scholarship as a crackpot.
2) The authors do not provide references to their claims other than to refer readers to book (no page numbers) from other crackpots who wrote similar books.
3) No scholarly source supports their claims, including articles on Horus by wikipedia, etc. There are numerous scholarly treatments on the subject online, yet none refer to Horus' "virgin" birth and crucifixion, etc.
4) The authors have not presented any credible scholar in the field to back up their claims.
5) The authors base their entire thesis on the translations by a 19th century poet who had no formal training in Egyptian.
6) Even this source refuses to reference his claims by noting what exactly it is he claims to be "translating."
7) After a century, the mythers still refuse to provide direct references to these so-called translations from ancient sources.
8) No credible Egyptologist supports these idiots.
I think this is enough for most intelligent people to draw the obvious conclusions, namely, that I am not the one with a burden of proof here. I'm sorry if you don't fall into that camp, but most here do I believe.
You want to label something about this movie false, so you don't have to deal with the truths of it
Thanks for showing your true colors. You admitted already that you have researched nothing, yet here you are insisting it contains truths? What truths? You can't say. All you know is that you love the movie, and you want it to be true really badly. I used to want Santa Claus to be true too. That's life.
You, have taken a huge issue with it
Based on years of experience in dealing with this crap. Yes.
chosen the laziest way to go about expressing this issue while pretending to have the facts on your side.
I am the only one between the two of us who has done any primary research on this matter. You're still scrolling the internet hoping to find something relating Horus to a baptism or a crucifixion, because you are the one who is lazy to go do some real research.
No one said you are supposed to.
Some Shmoe did. He requested that I present some examples of falsehoods. It was an easy task to accomplish, and I did so. you have been howling at the moon ever since.
Fine, just stop beating your chest and yelling about how false the movie is.
Why? Does it hurt your feelings? I know it is false, so why would I not say it? I didn't create this thread, you did. You asked for perspectives but it seems it was just a ruse. Apparently you thought it would be embraced by teh lot of us and everyone would clap our hands and join you in your little moment.
Especially when you will only focus on the one part of the movie your "friend" has challenged.
I didn't "focus" on anything. I started from the beginning as any astute critic would. If I jumped to the middle of the flick before naming errors, you might have a point. But how much crap does one have to mow through before saying, "I can't stand the stink any longer"? Refuting every stupid comment in that two hour movie isn't that important to me. I know it is horse crap, and most others do as well. The fact that some nimrods remain fixated in their fantasy, is really irrelevant to me. The game you're playing is so obvious. You think that just because I didn't address the rest of 120 minutes, that this somehow shows it is all probably true. You're an idiot.
Well then, I certainly hope you are not a Christian. Otherwise you could be considered gullible and a hypocrite.
I guess now is a good time to continue your education on logical fallacies. GoodK, meet Mr.
Ignoratio elenchi.
This is the fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid but doesn't address the issue in question.
[qute]I don't take something as fact without doing the necessary research[/quote]
Now you're just being duplicitous. You already said you researched nothing, yet you refer to the movie as consisting of "truths." Now you think you're going to be able to convince us that the above claim is true? You've already shown your true colors. You love this movie,a nd hope everything it says is true. Your only complaint is that a Baptist refuted it, further showing your unfamiliarity with logical fallacies, in the sense that you cannot avoid them.
You should really do a better job of keeping track of your own comments. Looking like a baboon must get tiring.
I don't know what you mean by anti-critical.
Why am I not surprised?
I think this movie is very critical.
But the people who swallow it whole are not. They accept it uncritically. They don't even check the sources. You're a case inpoint. You're spending hours defending it and attacking me, when you still haven't lifted a finger in researching the veracity of any of its claims.
I was also troubled by the lack of page numbers for his sources, more work for me.
Uh huh. I'm sure that really bothered you. So we are to understand that you will scour every page of these books until you find the alleged source? And what happens when that footnote directs you to another book written by another myther? What matters here is teh original ancient documents that allegedly attribute to Horus, all the characteristics described in the film.
But you just haven't read very many books if you think that this is uncommon
Well, you just destroyed whatever credibility you thought you had. In real scholarship, it is not only uncommon, it is virtually unheard of for scholars to present arguments without page numbers. This is the sloppiest form of referencing known to man. Although I'm sure this is a common phenomenon with the books you're used to reading (The Cat in the Hat?)
I'm beginning to take you less seriously, I hope you step it up a bit...
Uh huh.
I said there is. About a half hour of research demonstrates that there is conflicting stories and a lack of evidence.
And which stories corroborate the descriptions provided in the movie? Come on, stop beating about the bush and just say it. You don't know anything about what you're talking about. And you sound more and more like an LDS apologist who argues that the conflicting stories of Horus proves they were sometimes dressed up in drag, therefopre Joseph Smith's description of the facsimiles are plausible. Except in their case, they have somewhat of a point since the apologists can at least point us to at least one documents that suggests this. You cannot point us to any documents that say Horus was baptized. None. So stop the posturing and just come clean already. Stop pretending to have something when we both know you have nothing.
Really... please do tell what type of literature is fraught with commentaries about Horus that support or refute the parallels with Jesus. (prediction: this request will be ignored)
The Book of the Dead, the Pyramid texts, Egyptian funerary papyri often mention him, good grief, are you this ignorant? He even shows up in the Joseph Smith collection, that is how popular he was. But listen to what you're doing. You're excusing the film maker's inability to produce verifiable sources for its claims, and when I note that they have not substantiated their claims, you turn around and tell me to go find something that contradicts them. Presumably, until I do, we should give the film a break and assume that maybe there are sources out there that prove their point, even if they aren't aware of which ones they are!
Well, if you consider birth and death stories that say nothing about the Zeitgeist version, a contradition, then I already have provided. I mean what else are you looking for anyway, a direct statement in an ancient text that says, "Oh by the way, Horus was never baptized." The film maker claimed he was baptized. Where is the evidence? You don't care about that part. You just want me to prove a negative, which is again, another fallacy.
Since your education is strictly limited to whatever your right clicking finger can produce, try this online archive of sacred texts relating to Horus.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg03.htmKnock yourself out.
I said, "What is completely absent is the support for the claims made by these authors."
I don't know about that
Why not? Do you know what absence means? It isn't the same as non-existence. You can howl at the moon about the possibility that some ancient texts point to what they are talking about, but you cannot change the fact that these texts are not referenced in the movie or in the books the movie directs us to. So what I said is correct. Support for their claims are completely absent. They are not found. If you think they exist, then go ahead and take the $100 challenge that has been posted online for months now:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread317689/pg1I'm sure you have no problems taking money from a Baptist.
you seem too certain and too emotionally involved.
Me? You're the one rambling on and on about something you say you know nothing about, and then defend it to the death. I am defending what I know to be true. You are defending what you hope to be true. Who is being less emotional here?
I do notice that evidence is completely absent for all of your claims.
Then you're an idiot who doesn't understand the concept of evidence.
Good God I feel like I'm back at MADB.
Someone that had the facts on their side would. Plain and simple.
It isn't about having facts. It is a question of a simple cost/benefit analysis. What is the benefit of me spending hours on end, with a point by point refutation of every single stupid claim in that movie? I think I have done enough already to prove my point, and justify my reasons for rejecting the movie as a joke. That was the reason I provided what I did. So far you seem to be the only idiot still head strong about your stance, while the rest seem to have crawled away. I have no reason to think trying to convince you of anything would be a fruitful endeavor. But I think I have done enough damage to this film's credibility, and will dissuade most intelligent onlookers.
Then stop pretending like the entire film is false
The film is false. It is a crackpot film that attracts other crackpots. That's it. Reasonable, intelligent people don't accept its claims uncritically without verifying the facts. The first third of the movie was a smack against Christianity, and it has been proved false already.
But to pretend like the whole movie is false, because of what you claim is a misrepresentation regarding the Horus myth, now that is just plain dishonest.
It is based on what I know, not just on what I claim. I claim what I know. You're job is to prove that what I know really isn't true. But that would require some research of your own. Tough luck for you huh?
Where was I when this was demonstrated?
With your head in the sand probably.
No offense, but you vouching for someone just doesn't do it for me.
No offense, but this means nothing to me since I know him well enough to know the uninformed opinion of an angry atheist who dismisses someone simply because he is baptist, is about as useful as tits on a man.
Where are his sources?
Well why don't you look at the bottom of the pages. Do I have to walk you through everything?
Real scholars don't need people to vouch for them
He isn't a scholar and I never said he was. He is an expert in research however, receiving a graduate degree in library science. Thus, he knows how to use sources appropriately and he knows when sources are abused. This makes him a qualified critic of polemical literature.
nor do they need their readers to take anything on faith.
Stop blathering. You know very well that I never asked anyone to take something on faith.
But how can you so unequivocablly state that they are "fabricated" or "exagerrated" (I noticed you were hesitant to call them lies).
Because I know they are. And yes, they are lies. Happy now? Who are you to say otherwise when you admittedly haven't studied a damn thing about this?
Did you really just offer the same source?
I offered articles which contain scholarly sources within. But since you don't read scholarly articles, and prefer spooky music and flashy pictures, I guess you wouldn't know that.
I thought I already demonstrated that this site was ran by a Southern Baptist.
This bit of stupidity speaks for itself. So anything you produce will be coming from an atheist/agnostic/hindu or whatever you are. Does that mean I can dismiss it out of hand without dealing with the arguments? JP Holding provides the most thorough and scholarly refutation of all this nonsense, available today on the web. If you want to ignore him then you are only "pretending" to study ths issues. I'm sure it ticks you off that a Baptist managed to man handle one of your heroes, but such is life.
You are so certain because you have done all the research, yet I admit to being uncertain because I haven't done the research
Yet, you are certain my conclusions are not true - hence, your long winded dismissals and attacks against my refutation - despite the fact that you've researched nothing. That makes you a bonafide moron.
You don't have any idea what you are talking about.
But you just said you researched nothing. What happens when you eventually decide to get off your lazy butt and research the issues, and are compelled to conclude the same things I have already stated? Will you then admit I knew all along what I was talking about?
Of course not. You'll come up with some other excuse from left field.
You can prove they lied. That is not a negative. You are dense, aren't you?
When proving they lied can only be accomplished by proving a negative, you're creating a distinction without a difference. You're still asking me to prove a negative. Save your trix for some the kids. You're such a lightweight.
The sources that are listed are more in depth on the interactive transcript page than on the sources page.
You are either being careless or illiterate.
And none of them provide direct references of source documents alluding to the claims made about Horus' so-called baptism. His resurrection, crucifixion, etc.
Precisely. It is business, and he cannot afford to be wrong.
And that is why he only fights teh battles he knows he can win. He doesn't defend the indefensible.
You won't even read the articles you're so afraid of the truth. Because he attends a Baptist Church!!! Ha, what a joke you are.
Please stop flapping your gums and pretending like you've done the homework.
I have done the relevant homework, even if you haven't. I tackled this issue many years ago. I never wrote up an article because too many already existed refuting this nonsense, and at the time I was an LDS apologist, and this didn't directly pertain to LDS apologetics. But I do recall siting in the library scouring every book I could find on the subject, looking for some kind of justification for these claims.
I'm not the lazy one here. You are.
Baptists are of the more bellicose, yet intellectually dishonest of the Christian faith. He is a Baptist. His bias should be known.
Intellectual bankruptcy wouldn't be true without a touch of bigotry I suppose. You just dismissed millions of viewpoints because of religious affiliation. You won't read what is said because of that. Yet, you think it is
ad hominem for me to note the agenda of the film makers?
Your idiocy is surpassed only by your hypocrisy.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein