Horus Trolls the Atheists Again

Horus Trolls the Atheists Again October 21, 2013

A colleague of mine shared this bit of internet nonsense on Facebook:

I am disappointed when anyone repeats bogus information without fact-checking it, but I am even more disappointed when it is an educator.

I sometimes think that young-earth creationists might be atheists pretending to be delusional and dishonest Christians in order to make Christianity look bad.

And when I see these lists of mostly fabricated parallels betwee Horus and Jesus, I suspect that they are created by Christians who post them in atheist forums and then make fun of the gullible atheists who believe it.

There are plenty of tricksters and charlatans out there, and they are by no means on one side of any given divide. Fact check everything – especially stuff that you are inclined to believe, or want to believe!


"The discussion is not about changing weather but about the climate. I wonder how many ..."

Not Liberal, Just Literate
"You believe the sky is falling? Why? The weather has always changed."

Not Liberal, Just Literate
"I pulled out an old book from my dad's bookshelf: "Those Incredible Christians" and its ..."

Peer Reviews, Pseudoscience, and Denialism
"Thanks for the preview James. I'm very excited about the book and the anticipation is ..."

Preview the Mandaean Book of John

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Yep, even a quick Wikipedia check would reveal the nonsense of the Christ Horus comparison. Unfortunately, atheists can be just as intellectually lazy as Christians and the internet makes it way too easy for stupidity to spread to the ends of the earth. There are plenty of legitimate things to critisize in Christianity. I wish some my fellow atheists would raise their criticism above the level of a Jack Chick tract. I am tired of the cutesy memes and graphics. Makes me want to re-convert. 🙂

    • I’d much rather you be a voice for balance, level-headed and well-informed rather than distorting polemics, amd critical thinking in atheism – although having said that, if you ever feel drawn to progressive or liberal Christianity, we’ll be glad to have you! 🙂

    • DKeane123

      A lot of this comes from the movie Zeitgeist, which has been shown to have a bunch of inaccuracies. Once something gets into the collective consciousness, it is tough to get out. A human trait more than anything.

    • newenglandsun

      I’m converting to Eastern Catholicism. Eastern Orthodoxy is also fairly easy to defend as well. Father John Hollowell has good videos on YT about Catholic doctrines. A lot of secularists are actually starting to see the Catholic Church as one of the most progressive movements on Earth since we value respect of the human and only are strict about the stuff they do when they are Catholic only.

      Peter Berger says of Protestantism that…

      “The history of mainline Protestantism since the mid-twentieth century demonstrates that the excision of the supernatural from the Christian message is radically counter-productive, and in the long run disastrous.”

      I would have to agree. Because the Catholic Church always has a moral issue reflect on the supernatural, it is actually much better equipped to dealing with tough issues such as abortion, homosexuality, war, gender inequality, etc. Protestantism kind of lost it IMHO.

      • A lot of secularists are actually starting to see the Catholic Church as
        one of the most progressive movements on Earth since we value respect
        of the human and only are strict about the stuff they do when they are
        Catholic only.

        -Serious [citation needed]. I have seen never a trace of sympathy for the Catholic church from atheists.

        • newenglandsun

          LOL. I was talking about the educated secularists.

          That, and I think what Peter Berger tries to argue for is the Catholic Church is more equipped to handle modernity without supernaturalism dying out.

          Secular pro-life institutions of course have very little issues with the Catholic Church.

          • Are you calling the dozen or so atheists with PhDs whose blogs I read uneducated?

            Secular pro-life institutions of course have very little issues with the Catholic Church.

            -Wait… unless you are using “secular” to mean “not exclusively Catholic, but still over 90% Christian”, where are these mysterious “secular pro-life institutions”?

          • newenglandsun

            I don’t know. You tell me if you think “from Atheists to Zoroastrians” is religious.

            I don’t know which atheists you read so I really can’t say if they are uneducated or not.

            I read Ken Ham sometimes and he has a Ph.D. in science. And so does Henry Morris so they must know what they’re talking about when they say the Earth is young, right? And Jonathan Sarfati is a chemist. And Hugh Ross is well-educated. And so is Michael Behe. So they must know what they are talking about.

            Pragmatism – “a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value”
            Sounds modern to me.

          • arcseconds

            I don’t think Ken Ham has a Ph.D…

          • newenglandsun

            Whoops, yeah. You’re right. But the other guys certainly do.

        • newenglandsun

          “The Catholic Church has a long history of accommodation and compromise with deviant groups, from the radical Franciscans centuries ago who despised the worldly splendor of Rome and thus its civilization, to the Anglican converts of our own time who want to retain married priests and the use of the Book of Common Prayer. What the Church can never compromise on is obedience to the authority of pope andmagisterium: If the Roman Catholic Church compromised on that, it would give up the very core of its identity—it would cease to be itself.”


          • This is not “starting to see the Catholic Church as one of the most progressive movements on Earth”. It is merely recognizing the church as pragmatic.

      • I’ve never been sure whether Peter Berger is actually a Roman Catholic or is only a social rather than a religious one because he doesn’t believe in the supernatural. Either way “Catholic claims that Catholicism is better than protestantism” is hardly something to shout about.

        As for a sexist (male priests only), homophobic (you need a citation?), transphobic, hierarchical institution headquartered in one of the few remaining literal working palaces in the world being one of the most progressive movements on earth, I’m not sure whether that’s a deliberate joke or an accidental one. And you might have got away with the idea Catholics were strict about what they do in Catholic-only organisations, but the sheer volumes of child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church upend any claim to strictness on moral as opposed to discipline grounds.

        And Secularprolife started with a 19 year old and almost all of the adherents are religious – just sinking their differences in a cause. I think you’re using “Educated secularist” to mean “Social Catholic/Lapsed Catholic”.

        • newenglandsun

          I’m sorry, I can’t understand what you’re talking about?

          Sexist? Catholic Church? Hardly. Mary, a woman, is the Queen of Heaven and has a much higher status than any male priest that’s for certain. In fact, the priest’s role in the Catholic Church is to serve not be served. The Saints are the highest ranking.

          Homophobic? Define homophobic. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. So in order for the Catholic Church to be homophobic, it must possess an irrational fear of homosexual acts. It does not. It provides reasons.

          As for transgender, it seems like the Catholic Church is moving toward a position like that held by the Shi’ite Muslims which is hardly transphobic.

          As for secular pro-life being founded by a Catholic, I’m not sure where you got that piece of evidence from. And Peter Berger being a Catholic, he certainly wasn’t when he wrote The Sacred Canopy.

          Besides, even I’d argue that even if the only people who are pro-life in this world are Catholics, that’s still a hell of a lot more progressive than any institution in this world.

          My advice for you would be to do some fact-checking. I don’t talk to idiots. 🙂

    • I wish some my fellow atheists would raise their criticism above the level of a Jack Chick tract.

      -Aw. Here’s Coyne on Haught.

  • Adrian

    Why should atheists have to “fact” check either myth?

    • Atheists don’t have to do fact checking on either myth.

      However, if atheists (or anyone else) make claims based on the alleged similarities between the two myths, don’t you that it might be neat if they first checked that the information was actually correct?

      • Adrian

        I don’t “fact” check fiction, do you ? There are no “facts” to check, they are made up stories. You can add any “facts” you want, just like they have done with the Bible in the past.

        • Brian P.

          Indeed. “Fact checking” may not be the best way of suggesting a remedy to the ignorance at hand. Indeed Dr McGrath brings up a kind of laziness and its implications, but getting the stories (and their varying permutations…) “correct” is not a matter of fact checking. It’s more of a literary awareness.

        • Well, if somebody claimed that Harry Potter was a direct rip-off of Luke Skywalker because both were orphans, both were born on Tattoine, both had an elder mentor who dies in Episode IV, both destroyed the Death Eaters in a Y-Wing, and both were played in films by Harrison Ford, then yes, I might want to check some of those “facts”. That the claim “Harry Potter is a direct rip off of Luke Skywalker” relates to two fictitious characters does not mean that the claim itself could not (or should not) be fact checked.

          Moreover, if an atheist wanted to argue that because of the close similarities between the story of Horus and the story of Jesus, it’s reasonable to think that Jesus is a purely mythical being (which seems to be the implication of these sorts of memes), then again – don’t you think that it’s sensible to check that the similarities are real rather than invented?

          • newenglandsun

            Harry Potter is a well-known rip-off of Luke Skywalker. Duh…

        • arcseconds

          The date of composition is a fact, is it not?

          If you think otherwise, perhaps you should consider writing the story of Larry Bokker, a young magus saving the world from Baron Ford La Monte, state that you wrote it in the 80s, and sue J.K. Rowling for squillions?

        • newenglandsun

          You are unfortunately assuming that they are both fictional. They might both be historical. They might have parts which are historical and parts which are not.

          FYI, a prophet who doesn’t know when he is going to return is fairly embarassing. Which is an historical critical method to establish historicity. Along with repetition (and that phrase is shockingly *repeated*).

          • FYI, a prophet who doesn’t know when he is going to return is fairly embarassing.

            -Not really. It’s apologetic -it explains why Jesus supposedly told no one of when he would return.

          • newenglandsun

            It’s embarrassing. If I was looking to exaggerate my prophet like that, I would not have mentioned he had no clue when he was returning.

          • If I was looking to exaggerate my prophet like that, I would not have mentioned he had no clue when he was returning.

            -If I was a Christian, I would use it as a watertight and very convenient excuse when cornered by someone pointing out the lack of my precision on the date of Jesus’s return.

          • newenglandsun

            Actually, you misunderstand my position on the historical Jesus. I would probably be more on par with Bart Ehrman. I acknowledge a Jesus of theology that is different than the Jesus of history.

            The Jesus of history is a *failed* eschatological prophet.

            Matthew 24:34 – “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.”

            Matthew 24:36 is referring to the *precise* time and hour.

            Aside from that though, N.T. Wright’s works perhaps cover more in depth a defense of the position that Jesus is not just a failed prophet by also arguing in favor of the theological school of thought known as *preterism*. But again, I think that while this position is well-thought, I do not hold to this position on the historical Jesus.

          • newenglandsun

            Note also earlier in the chapter.

            Matthew 24:30 – then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and *they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven* with power and great glory;

    • newenglandsun

      Three dislikes…
      no likes…
      eat worms.

    • NoDakNative

      Do you believe that Julius Caesar was a historical figure or is he just a myth created from stories about other great Roman leaders with other pieces completely fictional?

      Those statues and coins of Julius Caesar? Nothing more than fictional representations, just like statues and such of of Zeus and other pagan gods.

      If you think that what I have said above is crazy, congratulations. You now know what Atheists look like when they try to claim the same about Jesus never existing as a historical person.

      There is an intellectual price to pay for claiming that a person of the description of Jesus of Nazareth did not exist and I don’t think some Atheists realize just how steep that price is.

      If you’re going to dismiss Jesus of Nazareth as mythical then you’re gonna have to throw away just about EVERYTHING we know about ANYONE in the ancient world because the evidence for their existence is even worse than the evidence for a man from Nazareth in first century Palestine claiming to be the Messiah.

  • Meechy

    Everything that’s in America Came From The Walls Of Egypt, But Yall Wouldn’t Know That.

    • newenglandsun

      America is the most fictional land in all of history. It comes from Rome, Greece, and Egypt simultaneously. Silly “Americans” who think they live in an actual country.

  • Sincere delusion is much more powerful than mere lies.

  • $41348855

    The best argument against using parallels to support mythicism comes, ironically, from Richard Carrier. In Proving History, Carrier shows extensive parallels between the story of Daniel in the lion’s den and Matthew’s account of the empty tomb. The problem is that we know Matthew copied and embellished Mark’s account of the empty tomb and the parallels with Daniel aren’t in Mark’s account. So Matthew imposed the parallels on a story which originally didn’t have them. That’s the problem with what James has called parallelomania. It is just as easy to impose parallels on an existing story as it is to invent a story with parallels. The presence of parallels is not a reliable criterion of ahistoricity.