SharpTilt “clint, you really have a good grasp on why this is, in a word, lacking”

No Clint has no clue about this subject at all - his entire argument is simply against use of the suffix “ism.” Which is an embarrassing argument to make. It’s nothing more than a hand-waving dismissal without having any clue what the arguments or substance here even is about. Would you dismiss all the arguments and points put forth by Sam Harris just because he may have called it Reasonism & referred to himself as a Reasonist?

Reasonism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonism

Reasonist
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Reasonist

http://www.reasonism.org

SharpTilt “i dont think mr. harris is going to take this up when hes already on the next step of it.”

Actually, he’s not even coming close to discussing the substance provided here. It would be a great compliment to what Sam Harris is already discussing though.

It’s probably wise to actually read the articles, watch the videos and the other links first before jumping to false assumptions that there’s nothing significant here based in ignorance on the subject.

and they do get refered to as that,(it even addresses it in that link, maybe you should read it too)
but its by other people, who they come into direct conflict with
but thats only to detract from their creditablilty, not because the idea isnt sound enough to stand on its own
also pretty much in that definition, how is that different from what your proposing?
(i am talking about the third to last one, if i wasnt being clear, but you haveing read them would know anyways)

i read all of them,(thank you)
and they all center around the idea of using reason as a logical dissension in deciding what is right and what is wrong
it is being done
just not your way,
because they already got past that

I really enjoyed every word by Sam Harris here

Sam Harris Interviewed on MSNBC’s ‘The Last Word’ with Lawrence O’Donnell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pxN0DuMAE

However, I’ve never seen him even come close to discussing the below:

The Origins of Islam
http://www.truthbeknown.com/islam.htm

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997

The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf

I’m not trying to pit one against the other - I’m pointing out that they compliment one another. I find it very sad that people like Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and many others fail to mention Acharya S & her fantastic work on these issues. Bill Maher’s movie, “Religulous” utilized much of her work.

Bill Maher, Colbert & more should be having her on their shows for an interview.

So, to claim “it is being done just not your way, because they already got past that” is merely a claim made out of utter ignorance on this topic.

I’m confused,
What makes you think what sam says in your first link isn’t completely based off the ideas expressed in the second?

Also, project venus and project reason differ heavily in both focus and end goal.
If you don’t see, how what is being pushed by project reason is a next step extension of what your proposing,
I guess ill let you figure it out. But I do not rfefute, they are doing exactly what you are suggesting as “new”. Just more improved terminology, better references, and with less arguable holes
Which as it stands are your only real problems.

I made no mention of any Venus Project. You are welcome to start your own thread as you have nothing to offer here because you still don’t understand what this thread is even about. You are just trolling up the thread at this point.

Zeitgiest is a branch of the venus project(you cornstick)
So read up on the shit your telling everyone one else too
On that note
I wasn’t being vindictive, just pointing out your redundancies
Just saying the same thing that every other person on this thread has said to you
They weren’t trollin, and neither was I

No need to get nasty or start with juvenile name-calling as it just shows the weakness of your arguments.

The Zeitgeist movie creator Peter Joseph has made it clear that the Venus Project (VP) is a branch of ‘The Zeitgeist Movement’ (TZGM) however, they are both separate from the Zeitgeist movies. It was posted at TZGM forum long ago - here’s just one post but there are other posts making it even more clear:

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=8&id=212188

The Venus Project certainly has nothing to do with Zeitgeist part 1 so, bringing that up here is completely irrelevant.

”your redundancies” ??? 

LOL, so, you decided to be redundant yourself by posting more of what another person already said who also didn’t understand what the topic of this thread was about??? Genius!!!

eudemonia - 21 November 2009 06:46 AM

Mythicism=Joseph Campbelliism.

Whatever you need to make your life interesting I guess.

Yes, eudemonia, I think we understand each other. Nonetheless, in this case it’s harmless enough.

Veronica95 - 26 May 2010 01:36 PM

The old theist tactic of trying to paint all atheists as people who have never read the bible, don’t know Jesus, hate god etc just fails utterly when mythicists turn out to be people who are fascinated with the origins, history and evolution of religion based on valid evidence.

Recent polls suggest that atheists typically know more about religion than religious believers.

Veronica95 - 26 May 2010 01:36 PM

Mythicists HAVE spent years studying the bible as well as other religious texts - many are former religious devotees.

  Too bad for them, what an enormous waste of time. I could understand such a study from an anthropological perspective, but not as a philosophical position. We all know that religions evolved.

Veronica95 - 26 May 2010 01:36 PM

[So, theists can’t dismiss them as ignorant god hating atheists when they know what they’re talking about based on experience and sound evidence.

Who cares? Why do you want to argue with theists? Don’t forget, atheism is the ism that isn’t. There’s nothing to convert anyone to. No one cares.

Says the person who started the name calling(more redundancy)
I’m not going to educate you on that project, I don’t care enough to, but part one was just viral,a toe in the pool to see how things were, it was not meant to stand alone at all, that has also been said,(in just as many forums)
Maybe after enough people tell you the same thing you’ll get it. I wasn’t nice enough, I see that now, I apologize.
Only for the delivery, the message was very sincere.

Mithra: The Pagan Christ
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

Veronica95 - 26 November 2010 07:45 AM

Mithra: The Pagan Christ
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

Ok, I went to her blog and watched her video. I love the made up words she invents, like “mythicism” and “Astrotheology”, “arheoastronomy”. Her point appears to be that religion is based on made up stories with fictional characters. Ok. so what? What else is new?

Is the whole idea of mythology new to you? Do you understand how evolution works? I might recommend Dan Dennett, Breaking the Spell for a good introduction to the idea that religions are evolved things.

I also noted that she appeared on the “X zone”, “paranormal” radio show. So this is her audience. Of course she changed her name, I suspect that she’ll soon be channelling Horus, eh?

I also note that you seem rather obsessed with this stuff. Don’t believe everything you think. And don’t be surprised at the reaction you get from a bunch of skeptics.

Oh, LOL, you thought my last post sharing the Mithra article was a response to you or SharpTilt? No, that was me IGNORING the trolls here who have shown repeatedly that they have no clue what this thread is even about. You merely dig deeper holes for yourselves with every post. I’m just going to have to ignore you after I explain how you’re making clowns of yourselves once again. So, just because I may share an article here doesn’t mean it has anything to do with you - got it? Try to ease off the arrogance and conceit.

eucaryote “I love the made up words she invents, like “mythicism” and “Astrotheology”, “arheoastronomy”.”

Here you prove your own ignorance - she didn’t “invent” any of those terms. These types of SMEARS are unacceptable and intolerable - how do these ad hom attacks and smears make you any better than the fundamentalist Christians or Muslims?  You seem to have learned nothing from Sam Harris at all. What books of Acharya’s have you even actually read - none?

“Theology founded on observation or knowledge of the celestial bodies.”
- The Astro-Theology by William Derham, published 1714
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Astrotheology

Sir Dr. Norman Lockyer: Father of Archaeoastronomy
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=3173

“Here are a few definitions to help understand what we’re talking about regarding the Mythicist Position.”
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=14420#p14420

eucaryote “Her point appears to be that religion is based on made up stories with fictional characters. Ok. so what? What else is new?”

Actually, we know much more than just that nowadays - thanks to Acharya’s relentless work in this area. These “made up stories with fictional characters” are actually based on natural phenomena, which gives the most REASONABLE explanation. Which is precisely why the mythicist position is a wise position.

- skipping the inflaming/trolling comments -

eucaryote “don’t be surprised at the reaction you get from a bunch of skeptics.”

I AM a skeptic, I enjoy what Sam Harris, Dawkins and others have to say and I have made that clear here. However, most of what they offer is based in philosophy, while Acharya offers the evidence that demonstrates that the origins of these “made up stories with fictional characters” are actually based on natural phenomena, which gives the most REASONABLE explanation.

Harris and Dawkins don’t even come close to making these revelations - and that’s fine, all I’m saying is they would be wise to defer to the work by Acharya S who does.  And one reason why I say that is exemplified by the ignorance in one of Dawkins own comments about Christmas/winter solstice: http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21425#p21425

It’s quite easy to understand when you actually read through the links provided here and when one actually read her books. All I see from you & a couple others here is a juvenile attitude, ignorant of the subject matter at hand, possibly with some misogyny too. You are trolling and making inflammatory comments that bring down the level of discourse. I’ll waste no more time on you or any other trolls.

Scholars who’ve actually read the work of Acharya S have this to say:

“Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration.”
—Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Professor of Archaeology, Central Connecticut State University, Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience In Archaeology

“Acharya S is an amazing researcher with a tremendous amount of energy and appetite for constant discovery of newer horizons. ”
—Dr. O.P. Sudrania

http://www.freethoughtnation.com

I already explained how phenomena such as archeya suggests is perfectly reasonable, and also an extension of the thohght process being pushed here,
I said that in the first post I put up on this thread, that she supports it is all the better, but the thought process behind it
Is.not.new.

SharpTilt “I already explained how phenomena such as archeya suggests is perfectly reasonable, and also an extension of the thohght process being pushed here,
I said that in the first post I put up on this thread, that she supports it is all the better, but the thought process behind it
Is.not.new.

Uhh? Oh pleez, You made no such concession. However, your posts are largely incomprehensible still, I see nothing of the sort in your first post #33 or your second #35 or any of your posts - all I see is a troll who knows nothing about the subject at hand yet pretends to be an expert. Now, you’re just backtracking in an attempt to hide your errors here. You would be better off to just stop posting; you clearly have absolutely nothing to offer here in this thread.

Your last post #47 is just starts out preaching to the chior then goes on to show that you’re still missing the point of this thread. Those who’ve actually read Acharya’s work already know that she has compiled the history for the case for mythicism. And you still don’t seem to be capable of grasping the fact that the mythicist position IS a new creation organized by HER due to her experience on the subject matter - what part of this comment do you not understand?:

“Never before has there been such a succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists. You should be made aware that the mythicist position outlined above is the very first clear outline of the mythicist position throughout history.”
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12409#p12409

P.S. The hateful nastiness from ‘eucaryote’ above in post #48 just proves he’s a nasty troll - not worthy of a response.