Fuck you, Mark Burnett, Roma Downey, and the History Channel, for perpetuating made-up bullshit!

I saw this on Nikki Finke’s Deadline.

Mark-Burnett-Roma-Downey_20110524052843-150x150.jpg

For those who don’t know, Burnett built a very lucrative career creating, among others, CBS’ Survivor, which, as we all know, pretty much single-handedly created what’s now known as reality TV. His wife, Downey, according to Finke, was the executive producer of Touched by an Angel.

I get the profit motive of exploiting, what Finke (and everyone else) calls, “…the most popular book in human history…” especially given that there are at least, I think, 80 million Evangelical Christians in the country.

But this: Holy-Bible_20110524052238.jpg

does not = this:

history_logo-300x276.jpg

In fact, not only do we now know that Noah’s Ark didn’t happen, but there’s also zero evidence that the Exodus happened, or that Jesus even existed.

If you’re gonna call something “history,” it sure would be nice if it were actual, proven, non-made-up bullshit history.

18 Responses to “Fuck you, Mark Burnett, Roma Downey, and the History Channel, for perpetuating made-up bullshit!”

  1. I was going to counter your foolish and angry rant with sound FAITH and scientific proof. But instead I prayed first then GOD open my eyes and reminded me of scripture that says “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Therefore according to my faith since you are a fool I should not even waste my breath (or time typeing) for “Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.” Then I considered giving you the references to to these scriptures I just quoted to you but again I am reminded “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

    So I leave you to your own senslessnes, as it was DEFINITELY written about 2000yrs ago… “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    “Good day, sir! I said, GOOD DAY, SIR!”
    Willy Wonka, circa 1971

    • Hi Daryll,

      What did you think was foolish and angry about my “rant”? You cite no examples, so I can’t be sure. What effect did you expect your scripture quotes to have on me? Since I don’t care about the bible, I don’t care about its quotes.

      What do you mean by “faith”? I ask because right after you mention it, you mention “scientific proof,” though for what you don’t mention. I assume this means that you find the two ideas compatible even though, according to most people, faith means to believe either without evidence to support the belief or even with evidence to the contrary of that belief? So which is it? Do you think it’s important to believe without evidence or to rely on scientific proof?

      I’m not sure what the point of the “fool hath said in his hear” quote is. It’s a little weird that scripture which preaches a concept will say that anything counter to that concept is foolish. It’s so blatantly self-serving. A conflict of interest. Of course it’s going to call anything counter to its preached concept foolish. At the same time, if the bible is the literal Word of God, why would God bother telling people that it’s foolish not to believe in Him? Doesn’t that seem a little petty for an omnipotent god to do?

      Interesting what you claim about what you should or shouldn’t do as from what I’ve heard, if you’re a Christian, it’s your duty to convince of me of the claims of Christianity. That’s the purpose of missions, isn’t it? Why else would they be sent all over the world?

      I’m not sure why you say ‘DEFINITELY” written about 2000 tears ago. Did I make a claim about that? How do you know what you quote was written then? Did you have evidence for that or were you just parroting what you’ve been told?

      Good day to you as well.

      Best,

      Anton.

    • One more thing. I just re-read the post and not only was it not angry, unless you want to count my usage of “bullshit,” but it also wasn’t exactly a rant. It was pretty brief. So I’ll ask you what I’ve asked even fellow atheists, do you give a shit about the definitions of words, or do you just throw them around and hope they stick? ๐Ÿ™‚

  2. For someone who claims to know what is and isn’t history, you apparently do not know your history. There is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was, in fact, a carpenter. He lived in Galilee and Judea. The only thing about Jesus of Nazareth that is disputed is whether or not he is the Messiah. Well, some religions believe he is not the Messiah, but was a “great teacher” and/or a “prophet.” I say, he is either the Messiah, the Risen Savior, the Son of God, the Christ, OR he was a raving lunatic and a liar – there is no inbetween; there is no “great teacher” or “prophet” status. Whatever you choose to believe about Jesus of Nazareth, there is certainly historical evidence that he existed.

    • Hi Tim,

      Since you say I don’t know my history, I’m happy to be educated. Go ahead. ๐Ÿ™‚ You say there’s historical evidence that Jesus existed and was a carpenter. That’s great. What is that evidence? How do you know where he lived? Actually, I think a number of things about his life are disputed, not just whether he was the messiah. That he lived at all is one, that he performed miracles is another, and that he was killed and rose from the dead is still another. I challenge you to prove that these are undisputed facts.

      You’re right, some religions teach that he was a “great teacher” or “prophet” and some religions teach nothing of him at all. Your opinion on Jesus seems to have been lifted from C.S. Lewis Apologetics 101 and is a false dichotomy. Another choice could be that he was simply made up, or that he was embellished. That there is no “inbetween” or “great teacher” or “prophet” status is only your opinion.

      Again, you claim that there’s historical evidence to support Jesus’ existence and yet you don’t cite it.

      Best,

      Anton.

      • Mr. Hill,

        SInce you won’t regard the Bible as truth, maybe you will regard secular websites as proof of Jesus’ existence?

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

        • Hi Michael,

          I never said I don’t regard the Bible as truth. I don’t regard it as entirely truth. While it contains some facts, it also talks of things that we either know to be physically impossible (talking snakes) or for which there’s no evidence (Adam and Eve).

          If you consider Josephus’ references to Jesus as evidence of his existence, do you consider Homer’s references to Odysseus as evidence of his existence?

          Best,

          Anton.

      • Believing that Chris was the son of God is one thing, but to say that he didn’t exist is just plain nonsense.

        “I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.”

        Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

        “we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ….. In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

        Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

        “Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.”

        Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

        • Hi Zachary,

          I don’t think I’ve actually ever said “Jesus didn’t exist,” although I may have. If I did, what I should’ve said was “I doubt Jesus existed.” I have said the historicity is bullshit because it is.

          Yes, I’m aware of Dr. Ehrman, but even he’s admitted that we don’t know. The most he’s committed to is that there was likely someone whom we label as Jesus. And while Dr. Ehrman is an expert in Jesus and I’m not, that doesn’t make him right.

          Mr. Grant seems to be relying on an appeal to popularity and while he may go into specifics elsewhere, he merely asserts here. The number of “serious” scholars who think Jesus existed is irrelevant to the evidence. And what is the evidence? References in Josephus? Is that really the best anyone can do? If so, then by that same standard of evidence, we must believe that Odysseus was a historical figure.

          Your final citation is the weakest. Prof. Charlesworth most likely has an agenda being of a theological seminary. I have no more reason to trust his opinion than that of Coca-Cola’s advertising department on the alleged health benefits of Coke.

          Best,

          Anton.

  3. Hey Mr.Hill,

    I suppose you likely don’t believe that the nazi holocaust took place either? Do you live under a rock? Do some ACTUAL research before you make such a claim. ACTUAL credibility comes to those who question history with tact instead of flagrantly slapping it about in a blog.

    I have great respect for those that don’t believe in God and those that do. If science is your thing and you want to get into a creation discussion ask yourself this:

    Can “something” come from absolute nothing? Even if you believe in the big bang theory you must have matter to explode. You must have space. The greatest minds will try to sidestep this very question every day but can’t. When you allow yourself to read scripture with an open mind you will see that it is a solid document that has stood the test of time – starting with creation. If there was no substance to the bible it would have been disposed of hundreds or thousands of years ago. If you want to question something about it, read it, create an educated argument. If you don’t and you only generalize you will only illustrate yourself as a fool which I hate to say how you’re coming across right now.

    There are THOUSANDS of secular documents that parallel the historic events in the bible. I’m not going to point them out – if you’re convinced there isn’t do your own research – don’t take the lazy way out.

    There are countless people that claimed that the bible wasn’t true until they actually started to dilgently study it. There is a verse that sums it all up. “…Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened…” No one ever comes away disputing the entire document. They may dispute subtleties but nothing major.

    Do yourself a favour. Start actually reading the bible and stop reading it with a critical heart and mind.

    • Hi Mike,

      I’ll attempt to address each of your points.

      I’m not a Holocaust denier and I don’t know why you’d assume I am.

      1. The Holocaust is one of the best documented events in all of human history, including hours of footage, thousands of photographs, thousands of eyewitnesses, thousands of pages of records, etc.
      2. The Holocaust occurred within the last 100 years and has been alleged to have been associated with zero supernatural events or persons.
      3. As such, the Holocaust is comparable to much of the Bible only in that they’re both in the past.
      4. I’ve never stated anywhere on this site, on YouTube, or on Twitter that I’m unconvinced of verified historical events as having occurred; I have, however, stated my lack of being convinced with non-religious events and persons for which we either have little or no evidence.

      No, I don’t live under a rock.

      I have done some actual research. There is zero extra-biblical evidence that the Flood occurred and zero extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed, let alone that he performed miracles, was crucified, resurrected, and assumed bodily into Heaven. If you know of objectively verifiable evidence that either the Noah narrative is true or that the Jesus narrative is true, please cite it. If you don’t, then I stand by my skepticism of the alleged events and my criticism of the History Channel’s consideration of them as history.

      I’m unconcerned with having credibility in your eyes and I question your accusation of my “flagrantly slapping” about on this site. I don’t know what you consider tactless in my post.

      I don’t know why you consider a creation discussion relevant to my History Channel post, but I’d be happy to discuss it.

      Yours is a loaded question, “Can ‘something’ come from absolute nothing?”

      1. How do you define “something”?
      2. How do you define “absolute”?
      3. How do you define “nothing”?

      I’m not a cosmologist, so I don’t pretend to have the answers to your question, but from what I’ve heard from those like Lawrence Krauss, the short answer is “yes.” If you’d like to know more, feel free to do a search for him on my site or a google search. Lots of things will come up.

      I do accept the Big Bang theory as the currently best model to explain the origin of the universe; however, not being an expert, I rely on those who are and, as I understand their expertise, your statement is false. There is no need for matter to explode and there’s no need for space as the space is created (for lack of a better term) during that explosion. I don’t know whom you consider the “greatest minds” nor what you consider their sidesteps, so I can’t comment on that.

      Your implied conclusion from your questions and statements on the Big Bang seems to be that these facts necessitate a creator, but this is a conclusion you’d have to prove. Because we may not currently know the answer to your questions and concerns isn’t evidence for Creationism.

      What do you mean by “open mind” and “scripture”? If by “open mind” you mean to accept something as reality, then I only do that when the something has evidence to support it. If by “scripture” you mean Christian scripture, then I wonder if you apply the same suggestion to Jewish scripture, Muslim scripture, Hindu scripture, Buddhist scripture, etc.

      What do you mean by “a solid document that has stood the test of time”? The Odyssey has stood the test of time. Do you believe its claims of Zeus, Circe, and Hades to be true? There really is a Greece. There really was a Troy.

      What do you mean by “substance” to the Bible?

      I have created several educated arguments about the Bible. I won’t go into them all here. I fear that any discussion on that might lead to your pulling a Not a True Scotsman or Moving the Goal Post. Let’s say, for example, I were to criticize an omnipotent, omniscient god’s need to regulate what people did with their private parts. To me, such regulations (Lev. 18:22; 20:13) are absolutely useless and not indicative of an infinitely powerful, infinitely wise god. If you wanted to, though, you could claim that I weren’t reading those verses with the proper interpretation, or whatever. It could become an endless back-and-forth about what you consider valid interpretation and what I consider valid, etc. You could constantly claim that I’m not being studious enough, or serious enough, or deep enough, or whatever else enough. There would be no end to it.

      I generalized only a couple of things about the Bible. I stated that it was not history. Given that there’s zero evidence for the Noah narrative and the Jesus narrative, my criticism is valid.

      That, in your opinion, I come across as a fool is of zero importance to me.

      I never said there were zero historic events in the Bible. I said that the Noah narrative and Jesus narrative weren’t historic. If there are thousands of secular documents that parallel those events, name five that have been objectively verified as evidence of them. I’m not convinced there aren’t such documents, but I”ve not yet found them and I’ve not yet met a Christian who has. But I’m not the one making the positive claims about the Bible, therefore the burden of proof isn’t on my shoulders.

      What do you mean by “the bible wasn’t true until they actually started to diligently study it”? Do you mean that these “thousands” of people were unconvinced of the Bible’s supernatural claims, then after reading the Bible, they were convinced? If this is what you meant, so what? People being convinced of supernatural claims doens’t mean those supernatural events occurred; it only means that people were convinced that they occurred. Like I said, do you believe that the Odyssey’s claims of Zeus, Athena, and Hades are true? If not, perhaps you’ve not been diligent enough in your Odyssey study.

      Funny you should mention that verse as, when I was a Christian, I did seek, but I didn’t find.

      I never disputed the entire document. Wait a minute, now you’re conceding that people have disputed subtleties? Which is it, that the Bible is entirely, literally the absolute Word of God or it isn’t?

      Why should I not read the Bible with a critical mind? Do you read the Koran without a critical mind? What do you mean by “critical heart”?

      Best,

      Anton.

  4. […] I wrote about this when I first heard about it (and boy have the whiny, self-righteous, dishonest Christians come out of the woodwork since then!). The first episode has since premiered and, much to my dismay but complete lack of surprise, the ratings have been excellent. This of course means that more religious horseshit will most likely start pouring out of Hollywood. I actually have no real problem with that; H’wood’s a business and so will do what it thinks will make money, but I do have a number of problems with the series itself. […]

  5. Right on, man. All religions and especially Judeo-Christianity are based on one hundred percent myths.

    • Thanks! Yeah, like I’ve said before, it wouldn’t bother me so much if it just weren’t portrayed as history. But then they’d have to start the “Made-Up Bullshit” channel.

      • Everyone should know how to act like a proper person. And really, we don’t need religious books full of fantasy to believe in God. All the world’s religions, I think, have been devised to get people quarreling over trivial facts and divide humanity. We don’t need it.

        • I actually doubt that religion was devised to get people quarreling. I think in most cases it arose organically. Sure, at some point, some leader took any one religion in a direction counter to humanity, but I don’t think we could say much else definitively about anyone’s motivations beyond that. Unless of course there’s documentation to the fact.

  6. Dear Mr. Hill,
    Just been reading some of the other comments… I’m amazed at a) all the crap being foisted off as fact, b) all the non-argument arguments and b) how eloquent respectful and above all CALM you’ve been in your replies. Good on ya! Keep making the world safe for facts.

    • Hey Paul,

      Eh, crap-as-fact never takes much to foist off. Thanks, but it’s actually pretty easy to remain calm in these discussions. What’s harder is when fellow atheists say similar kinds of things about me or other facts. That’s when I really get annoyed.

      Best,

      Anton.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: