It is currently Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:21 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:15 pm 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:11 am
Posts: 19
Well, this wasn't really the kind of post I had wished to make my entrance with, but, hello!

I'm one of the many people who got to know Acharya's works through the first Zeitgeist film, whose run-through of religions was intriguing to me. Although I've been meaning to at least read various religious scriptures and signed up here for some eventual discussion, I have for the time being gotten stuck in the whole pro-Zeitgeist vs anti-Zeitgeist debate. In my exploration of people's views on matters presented in the film I ran across a certain site.

Just now I ran a search for "conspiracyscience" to see if anyone had brought up the site
Code:
http://www.conspiracyscience.com
. It makes various claims to having refuted this and that, most of which I guess you've all heard before, and I see you've got a FAQ which partly brings up such things, and that Acharya has a few books that are said to clear up some possible misunderstandings/provide further evidence. However --

-- The site I'm talking about is pretty much one of the go-to sites when it comes people looking for debunkings of Zeitgeist, and as such, many will probably end up on the page on which the author gives his take on Acharya
Code:
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/movie-sources/#acharyas
. Here's just a couple of snippets:

Quote:
Who is Acharya S? That is what I wanted to know when I stumbled upon her official web site. On her "Who is Acharya S?" and "Credentials" pages she goes in length talking about herself and her credentials. Immediately I had to call many of these into question, and I will discuss them here. In short she is a mystic and conspiracy theorist with no professional training what so ever. She goes on and on about how she traveled in Europe and has read works of various philosophers such as Cicero and Chaucer, and she actually claims that she has "sat down with the Bible - in English, as well as in the original Hebrew and Greek - long enough to understand it more than most clergy."[1] She claims to also be a "member" of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. A thorough staff and directory search turned up nothing. I emailed various people on the web site, and yet nobody has ever heard of her[2].

It really strikes me, someone who considers herself to be more knowledgeable about Christianity than any other person, is never quoted by anyone other than herself or Zeitgeist, the movie. Not only that but in her various works, even this youtube video, she repeatedly claims or illudes to "Sun" and "Son" being the same word and thus of the same origin, while this is only true in English not in any other language (I discussed this in Part I). I would think that someone who is well versed in many languages, especially Hebrew and Greek, would realize that you cannot make connections this way.


I saw a post in which Acharya "admitted" that it the son-sun bit was meant as a play on words, so that's not anything I'm putting up for debate - though I do wonder, why make such a play on words when people like this are destined to tear it to pieces? Anyway --

-- I wonder what people he e-mailed; I went to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens website ( http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/ , which the Conspiracy Science site author links to). If there's any e-mail adress on the site, it is well hidden for me (contact information for regular mail, phone, and fax is easily spotted at the bottom - I'm not native to to either locations so I'm not about to call them up or anything), and google hardly turned up anything obviously useful.

Unless his claims / speculations are true (which I hope not - otherwise I wouldn't have alerted any of you about it), this really is some libel, and should be cleared up, because, as said above, this is a go-to source for Zeitgeist refuters, and the first part of the film has, through the course of debate, become intimately tied to Acharya. Chances are anyone just being introduced to her will soon disregard her works because of such "character assassination". They might not even bother checking out counter-arguments, such as those made by you here and others (on YouTube, etc.)

Now, I thought of just e-mailing Acharya about this, but since she seems to have some fervent fans, well, here's a site you all could have a go at, if you like!
Code:
Zeitgeist - Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:29 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Welcome Belse!

Do be careful about bringing in the trash from kids who have absolutely no clue what they're talking about ... from the "about" section at the "conspiracyscience" website you mentioned, which I have seen long ago:

Quote:
"...my name is Edward L Winston, I am a 20-something software engineer with an affinity for astronomy, history, politics, and crazy theories. While I do have a college education, it was not at Yale or anything like that, just some community college."
Code:
http://www.conspiracyscience.com/site/about/

So basically just because this kid has an uneducated opinion concerning part 1 of Zeitgeist and is able to create a website posting his opinion doesn't mean he has any clue what he's talking about. In fact, he doesn't. He's never seriously studied Acharya's works either.

He's just another Anti-Zeitgeist and Anti-Acharya obsessed cultist who goes around posting his opinion pretending to be some kind of authority when he's just a "20's something" kid with an opinion about a subject he knows nothing about. He, like so many others, are utterly unaware that their arguments, which tend to be scans from encyclopedias, were already refuted throughout all of Acharya's works before they ever started.

Quote:
"I saw a post in which Acharya "admitted" that it the son-sun bit was meant as a play on words, so that's not anything I'm putting up for debate - though I do wonder, why make such a play on words when people like this are destined to tear it to pieces?"

The Son of God is the Sun of God issue was addressed long before Edward ever created his website.

It is a play on words in the video as the video never made any claims about that - so that's a false assumption to begin with. However, there are actually several languages where sun and son are either spelled similar or sound similar. Those who know no other languages aren't in any position to have a valid opinion on this matter for obvious reasons. So, some may THINK they've torn it to pieces but they haven't - in fact, they've put their foot in their mouth.

Quote:
"member" of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. A thorough staff and directory search turned up nothing."

Her information is kept private for personal safety reasons. She is an alumna of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens just as she stated in her credentials page. With kids like this and others who would viciously share private information that could potentially cause harm, one can see why.

FAQ's: Why does Acharya S use a pen name?

You're right Belse - all this kid has to offer in regards to Acharya is libelous character assassinations. This kid is a Christian I think - he never quite admits it. If you want to contact him to find out his religious affiliation that would be great. Nevertheless, those freethinkers using his site as any kind of authority are embarrassing themselves.

So, not only does Acharya have to fight back against vicious religious fundamentalists but now she also has to fight back against Atheists and other so-called Freethinkers due to libelous character assassinations, lies, smears etc by them - certainly not all. Those who've actually studied her works tend to "get it" and appreciate her work. Read the latest FAQ about other atheists and freethinkers who DO agree.

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked? Acharya Responds - VIDEO

Besides, her latest book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection proves all of the claims in Zeitgeist part 1 pertaining to Egypt and many more. Check out the new video

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection - VIDEO

:wink:

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:57 pm 
Offline
Apollo
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:53 am
Posts: 384
Location: near London
The audio on the 1st link has been disabled by YT unfortunately :(

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:37 pm 
Offline
Bast
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 115
Location: Warrnambool, Australia
I don't really want to discuss all this because I've 'heard it all'.
But the conspiracyscience.com guy has an agenda, it's clear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:18 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
I wanted to reiterate that the stuff about the American School of Classical Studies not having a record of Acharya is a complete lie. This dumb kid probably called them and asked if they knew who "Acharya S" was. Well, of course, they don't have an "Acharya S" on record, because that's a pseudonym.

And what business is it of his to be going around harassing her school and professors? Is he stalking her? First of all, he couldn't have emailed all of them, because many of them have been retired for a long time. So, he's lying again. Secondly, if he asked them about "Acharya S," again, they wouldn't have known who she is, because that's not her real name.

I've seen correspondence between her and some of those professors, as well as the American School. She's an alumna of that school, and she's telling the truth in her credentials page.

This kid is a liar, period. And so are many others in this anti-ZG, anti-Acharya cult, like Keith "Truth"/TRASH and Chris White. They've got no real retort about the FACTS in ZG1, so they have to resort to libel, slander, character assassination of the scholars and researchers behind it.

Also, the remarks about the sun-son thing are just silly. Nobody set out to create a play on words. It just happens to be the case that the sun isthe son of God in solar mythology. That's not too hard to understand. It's only the imbeciles who can't comprehend it who make a big deal out of it. People give them way too much credit by taking their foolishness seriously.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:15 am 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:11 am
Posts: 19
I usually find it hard to believe that someone would be comfortable living a lie, as the guy is claiming that Acharya is essentially doing, but these days there seem to be so many pranskters and hoaxes around. I do, however, find it easier to believe that someone could just invest some of his time attempting to debunk "conspiracies" just for the heck of it (perhaps not minding if he lies or half-lies here and there).

The Conspiracy Science guy claims to be non-religious, IIRC, and I don't know what to think about that -- He has stated that he's been working on debunking films made by Alex Jones, whom many here may know of as being (or appearing to be, anyway) a firm believer in the god of the bible (although not really liking religious institutions, or so I believe he's said). Of course, Christian or not, one may still dislike Jones and his works, but the CS guy also claims to appreciate what is presented in the latter half of Zeitgeist: Addendum, a vision which, at least on the internet, a whole lot of Christians (including Jones) are rallying against because they fear it to be part of the purported Luciferian, NWO agenda or something like that...

I doubt I'd have a fruitful conversation with him. For now, I think he's just someone who's made it his "thing" to debunk "conspiracy theories" for no real reason other than that he gets fun out it, as well as some amount of fame/infamy for it - though perhaps Brenton, or someone else here, has an idea of what his agenda could be, if any other than this?

Now, Acharya shouldn't have to give minute details of her entire life to prove her general background, but there ought to be something she could show, be it as simple as a photograph of her at the school in Athens/America and/or with her fellows there. Just something that could shut people up. =)

Anyway, ordered 'Christ in Egypt' a couple of days ago, so I'll be getting more of an own view on Acharya, who, having seen/heard her in interviews, seems to be a cool, knowledgeable person to me.

PS. I've seen CheLevSara's youtube videos before. He's also got a pretty funny read-through of the Bible going on now, which I watch some of from time to time. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:37 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
Acharya shouldn't have to give minute details of her entire life to prove her general background, but there ought to be something she could show, be it as simple as a photograph of her at the school in Athens/America and/or with her fellows there. Just something that could shut people up.

She has had this pic of an alumni newsletter up for several years now. Nothing will stop the vicious detractors from smears and lies.

Letter from the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:58 pm 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:11 am
Posts: 19
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Nothing will stop the vicious detractors from smears and lies.

Hm, maybe not, but displaying something like that letter (and/or something like the photos of her around what appeared to be a dig) in a more easy-to-find spot might stop others, newly-introduced, from falling for the lies.

Anyhow, thanks. Now I have something to show in case people come to doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
That alumni letter scan and those archaeology dig pics have been up online since 2004. The archaeology pics are even in her book "Suns of God" published in 2004 on page 26. Obviously the pics are far older than 2004.

It's funny how the detractors are unable to find things like sources and citations and photos etc when it's inconvenient to their arguments.

All this Conspiracy Science guy Edward has to offer in regards to Acharya are smears, libel and a constant stream of hateful remarks calling Acharya S "a liar." He sets himself up as an atheist, as if that should give him superiority and credibility, and from there he juxtaposes the transcript from ZG1 and offers his hateful OPINION and quote mines for whatever is convenient to his argument. He really comes off as extremely jealous and misogynistic from where I stand.

Quote:
Edwards scientific and objective review of Acharya's Companion Guide can be summarized:

"Reading her work makes me want to stab out my eyes."

"she blatantly lies"

"Essentially she's a liar and fraud"

In conclusion:

"She's a liar, and of story."

conspiracyscience. com /articles/zeitgeist/companion-guide/

People on the net can spread around whatever trash they want - smearing, libeling people however they wish and they take absolutely no responsibility for it. This Conspiracy Science guy Edward has obviously not been held accountable for anything.

Acharya S/Murdock should not be required to address every little smart-ass punk that comes along just because they have an opinion or because they found something on Wikipedia that differs. It appears that the only thing this guy has read of hers is the companion guide that he probably stole from the net.

It's much easier to go around attacking specific individuals and their work than it is to create your own. These people are scum off the bottom of the barrel doing whatever they can just to bring everybody else down to their low level and ruin any decent level of discourse for everybody else.

This Conspiracy Science guy Edward has no relevant qualifications or credentials, he has no linguistic skills. Edward has lost all credibility and cannot be taken seriously nor should we waste any time on him.

Besides, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, proves Edward has no clue what he's talking about regarding ZG1 or Acharya's works.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:25 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 20
I actually am going to debunk the "debunkings" of R from conspiracy "science", though I think if we can deconstruct some of his libel together, things will go more smoothly and quickly. I will start by posting his "debunking" of the companion guide, and maybe if some of you have things to add, you can do so. I will put things I'd like clarified in bold:

Code:
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/companion-guide/


And before going on to his "debunking" of Zeitgeist pt. 1, I'd like to post his commentary on the sources:

Code:
http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/movie-sources/#acharyas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:46 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2301
Location: Everywhere
Let's list the points that you've highlighted that need to be addressed in the refutation:

1) The book starts with taking two quotes out of context

2) She claims to be a "member" of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, but this is complete farce, and nobody there has heard of her. Not to mention she claims that she has a higher biblical knowledge than "that of most clergy", yet seems to be more guilty of buffet picking versus from the bible than most fundamentalist Christians.

3) the author says that Greek writing is "word-based", implying to me that Egyptian writing was not, that it was simply pictograms. This is a common misconception, in fact the symbols used were consonants much like Arabic or Hebrew, followed by symbols showing the action of the word written, its function, and many other things[1].

4) Massey is really no one of consequence outside of the circles of Christian conspiracies. He is not considered an Egyptologist, or someone knowledgeable of ancient texts by anyone but himself and Christian conspiracists.

5) While Acharya S may consider herself and Gerald Massey to be knowledgeable about Egyptology, no one else on earth does, except followers of theirs.

6) The "Sun of God" thing does not make sense. I would like to remind you that Acharya S considers herself to be very knowledgeable in at least Hebrew and Greek, so how could she connect "Son" and "Sun", when they are not linguistically similar, and in English they just sound similar, but are not related.

7) It even alludes to a fact that "horizon" has something to do with "Horus", when in fact horizon originates from Old French orizon, originally from Greek horos meaning "boundry".

8) Set was not evil until nearly 100 AD when the Romans turned him into a demonic figure.

9) The worst part is she blatantly lies about "birthdays" of deities to make different dates important, when most of them never had birth dates.

10) What is most interesting is that they refer to Chapter 17 of the Book of the Dead to talk about how Set is listed as essentially a demonic figure, but in the same chapter, it also talks about how Horus lived and how Ra was the Sun God, not Horus. It also talks about how Set and Horus only battled one time, not every night, nor was it a battle of "good and evil", more of a battle over who should look over humanity. No where in this chapter does it describe Set as "that god who steals souls, who laps up corruption, who lives on what is putrid, who is in charge of darkness, who is immersed in gloom, of whom those who are among the languid ones are afraid.", or anything even close[3]

11) Horus' birthday was on the 5th day of the Epagomenal Days, which takes place in late August or sometimes in late July.

12) making such claims as that Horus and Isis try to escape Set as Jesus and Mary tried to escape Herod. This is something that makes no sense, considering as we discussed in the Horus section and also above, Set and Horus were in battle over who controlled humanity, a single time, when Set cut off one of his testicles -- this is hardly even remotely close to anything like the story of Jesus as a child.

13) She claims to also be a "member" of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. A thorough staff and directory search turned up nothing. I emailed various people on the web site, and yet nobody has ever heard of her[2].

14) In Buddhism there is no enemy, except potentially yourself, but short of declaring everyone Satan, the concept does not exist[3]

15) Her web site is geared more towards selling books that question religions ideologies, rather than actually investigating them. You can take a look and find her making various claims about Islam (same kind she did about Christianity and others). It even brings up how "Allah" is actually the moon goddess. I'll save refuting this some other time, because it requires some in-depth explanation of history and language. Her web site also goes on about how Junk food (such as candy bars and hamburgers) are essentially drugs and there are roaming gangs involved in "bloody orgies of criminality and depravity".

16) Maybe it is also worth mentioning that she could not get her books published anywhere except Stellar House Publishing, a company which she runs.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
1) The book starts with taking two quotes out of context

She starts off with 3 quotes actually:

Quote:
"For what is now called the Christian religion existed of old and was never absent from the beginning of the human race until Christ came in the flesh. Then true religion which already existed began to be called Christian."
- Saint Augustine, Retractiones (I, xiii)

"The Religion proclaimed by him to All Nations was neither New nor Strange."
- Bishop Eusebius, The History of the Church (II, iv)

"There can be no doubt that the oldest Egyptian writings contain some vestiges of primeval faith. Egyptians in very remote areas believed in the immortality of man, with reward or punishment in the future state. They believed in the existence of good and evil powers in this life, and were not without a sense of personal responsibility..."
- Rev. Dr. W.H. Rule, The Horus Myth and Its Relation to Christianity (66)

These are all at the top just as you see here, so how they are "taken out of context" when she simply provides the quote?

Quote:
the author says that Greek writing is "word-based", implying to me that Egyptian writing was not, that it was simply pictograms. This is a common misconception, in fact the symbols used were consonants much like Arabic or Hebrew, followed by symbols showing the action of the word written, its function, and many other things.

His understanding of what Acharya said is just wrong, and he makes no sense. I don't know why you think this nonsensical remark is worth responding to - what does it prove? Only that he likes to misrepresent Acharya's work and position in order to make people think he's smart.

Quote:
Edward "Essentially she's a liar and fraud, who claims to have superior knowledge of language (Greek, Hebrew, English, for starters), when in reality her knowledge of language seems to be child-like at best -- making comparisons to the words "Sun" and "Son" meaning the same thing and being the same words in other languages."

Quote:
6) The "Sun of God" thing does not make sense. I would like to remind you that Acharya S considers herself to be very knowledgeable in at least Hebrew and Greek, so how could she connect "Son" and "Sun", when they are not linguistically similar, and in English they just sound similar, but are not related.

Edward is quick to toss out the "liar and fraud" accusation before he even knows what the hell he's talking about. The sun/son issue has been addressed long ago and it appears that the PUN went over his head as did nearly everything else. It is a play on words - so that's a false assumption to begin with. However, there are actually several languages where sun and son are either spelled similar or sound similar. Those who know no other languages aren't in any position to have a valid opinion on this matter for obvious reasons. So, some may THINK they've torn it to pieces but they haven't - in fact, they've put their foot in their mouth.

And Acharya has NEVER said anything about the words being the same in Hebrew and English - that is a complete and total lie.

Acharya's major in college was Greek Classics. She's been to Greece several times even as an archaeology student - they spoke Greek often. Acharya has always excelled in linguistics.

Quote:
2) She claims to be a "member" of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens

Edward probably called them and asked if they knew who "Acharya S" was. Well, of course, they don't have an "Acharya S" on record, because that's a pseudonym. And what business is it of his to be going around harassing her professors? Is he stalking her? First of all, he couldn't have emailed all of them, because many of them have been retired for a long time. So, he's lying again. Secondly, if he asked them about "Acharya S," again, they wouldn't have known who she is, because that's not her name.

She's got a thread here that proves she's an alumna of ASCSA, so once again Edward is shown to be a completely incompetent researcher who does not know what he is talking about. In fact, it's quite obvious from his repeated falsehoods about Acharya's work and life that he is the "liar and fraud" as well as jealous and misogynistic.

F&M, CCSU and ASCSA Buddies

Quote:
4) Massey is really no one of consequence outside of the circles of Christian conspiracies. He is not considered an Egyptologist, or someone knowledgeable of ancient texts by anyone but himself and Christian conspiracists.

Edward has no clue how peer reviewed Gerald Massey was. Plus the fact that his sources were the top Egyptologists of his day. Who Is Gerald Massey? In any case, Acharya doesn't rely on Gerald Massey at all, so this incompetent ignoramus gets this one wrong too.

Quote:
7) It even alludes to a fact that "horizon" has something to do with "Horus", when in fact horizon originates from Old French orizon, originally from Greek horos meaning "boundry".

His understanding of what Acharya said is just wrong. Acharya never makes any such claim, so that's just another ridiculous straw man that he's raising up in order to attack her. Seriously, this guy Edward is really confused.

Quote:
No where in this chapter [17] does it describe Set as "that god who steals souls, who laps up corruption, who lives on what is putrid, who is in charge of darkness, who is immersed in gloom, of whom those who are among the languid ones are afraid.", or anything even close

Quote:
8 ) Set was not evil until nearly 100 AD when the Romans turned him into a demonic figure.

Well, once again Edward is completely wrong in the first quote, because he didn't bother to check Acharya's sources and is just pretending to know what he's talking about.

Here's the link to Dr. Raymond Faulkner's translation of the Book of the Dead, with the relevant part highlighted.

Quote:
9) The worst part is she blatantly lies about "birthdays" of deities to make different dates important, when most of them never had birth dates.

He just makes these ridiculous sweeping statements and then calls her a liar. What the hell is he talking about? What dates? What gods?

Quote:
11) Horus' birthday was on the 5th day of the Epagomenal Days, which takes place in late August or sometimes in late July.

First of all, there is more than one Horus, but this guy knows almost nothing about this subject and obviously doesn't even know that basic fact. The Horus who was born during the five epagomenal days is the brother of Osiris, while the Horus who is born at the winter solstice is the son of Osiris. Again, he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he just lies repeatedly. He's actually incredibly pathetic - and so are the people who are citing this incompetent ignoramus.

Quote:
14) In Buddhism there is no enemy, except potentially yourself, but short of declaring everyone Satan, the concept does not exist

Another straw man - I guess he's talking about the temptation of Buddha by Mara. So, maybe he needs to go lecture the Buddhists who made up that story centuries ago, instead of flailing at Acharya like some mad man.

Quote:
15) Her web site is geared more towards selling books that question religions ideologies, rather than actually investigating them. You can take a look and find her making various claims about Islam (same kind she did about Christianity and others). It even brings up how "Allah" is actually the moon goddess. I'll save refuting this some other time, because it requires some in-depth explanation of history and language. Her web site also goes on about how Junk food (such as candy bars and hamburgers) are essentially drugs and there are roaming gangs involved in "bloody orgies of criminality and depravity".

More lies - he obviously has a really big personal issue with Acharya - what is his problem? Again, he sounds like he's jealous and misogynistic. Which website? She's got THOUSANDS of pages of data on all her websites. So does Yahoo, the New York Time and so on - and, oh no! - they are making money with their websites! Look at all the ads! I guess only Acharya is not allowed to make a living. In fact, maybe she should be burned at the stake!

Acharya has one article about the Roots of Islam on her Truth Be Known website (this guy pretends he knows her work, but again his comments show he doesn't). In it, she quotes Barbara Walker discussing the origins of Allah - scholarly work, way over the head of this joker who pretends to be a scholar and expert.

"Goes on about?" She's got one short article about junk food from about 15 years ago - and it's since been proved to be correct. That's "going on about" something? What "roaming gangs?" Another lie. What she said is, "In examining history, it would appear that humanity has spent a great deal of time involved in bloody orgies of criminality and depravity." This guy is just nuts - he's told so many lies I can't even keep up. He's not held accountable, he doesn't have to prove any of his total trash, but Acharya's got to answer for every little thing, even complete and total bullshite people like this guy make up about her and her work! Why do people just assume that Acharya should be forced to address every punk kid who comes along with a bad attitude and maliciously smears her while totally ignorant of her work?

He says: "I'll save refuting this some other time, because it requires some in-depth explanation of history and language." Yeah, guess what? He's not the go-to guy for any of this information. But it's clear he wants to be - and that's his whole problem isn't it?

Here's yet another gem from this guy that shows he doesn't know Acharya's work: "Perhaps she copied some of her work from this guy?" Actually, Acharya cites Albert Churchward in Christ Con, and this "all-knowing expert" on her work would know that fact, if he had even bothered to check the bibliography of her best-known book. He hasn't, and he is no expert on her work. He needs to stop pretending, because all he has done is show that he is incredibly dishonest, poorly educated and ignorant.

And another instance where he's just making crap up in order to smear Acharya: "Maybe it is also worth mentioning that she could not get her books published anywhere except Stellar House Publishing, a company which she runs."

How does he know that? Did he canvas every publishing company on Earth to find out whether or Acharya had been rejected by them? Did she tell him that happened? Again, he just makes up what he wants in order to libel Acharya, which he has done over and over again. Acharya wanted her own publishing company and did not ask any publisher to publish her work. Therefore, she did not get rejected by any publishing company - that's just another malicious lie.

And another statement revealing his total ignorance of Acharya's work, this time about her book Who Was Jesus?: "This is another book by Acharya S, but is published under a different alias. It's the same as her other stuff." No, it's really not, but he wouldn't know that, because he's never read it. He just makes stuff up as he goes along, as we can see from what I've written here. In the meantime, while he is making all these dishonest comments about Acharya's work, other people who are actually qualified have made the following comments about the same book, Who Was Jesus?

Quote:
Who Was Jesus? is a fine work, characterized by your unique ability to spot neglected implications and aspects of debates... --Robert M. Price, Ph.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament

D.M. Murdock, aka "Acharya S," has written a really fine introduction to the problem of the Historical Jesus. She couches everything in the most basic terms, comprehensible to the layman, and lays out the problem and all the issues in a both really readable and digestible form. Her charts are insightful and extremely useful and presented in such a way as to make things immediately plausible to the general reader. I can recommend her work whole-heartedly for anyone on a world-wide basis who really wants to know what is at stake in approaching and coming to terms with the real person behind the literary image provided by those who created the story of "Jesus." --Robert H. Eisenman, Ph.D, The New Testament Code

I loved this book. It is absolutely superb in every way, from the eloquence of the writing to the integrity of the scholarship. This book should be required reading in every American classroom.... Ms. Murdock is one of only a tiny number of scholars with the richly diverse academic background (and the necessary courage) to adequately address the question of whether Jesus Christ truly existed as a walking-talking figure in first-century Palestine. This question, and many others related to New Testament reliability, are directly confronted and satisfyingly answered in Who Was Jesus? My personal recommendation is that Who Was Jesus? should be the first book purchased and studied by anyone, atheist or true believer, who wants to debate Jesus' existence and the Bible's veracity.... You should therefore make this book priority reading even over The God Delusion, God is Not Great and other excellent but, in my opinion, less important books than Murdock's! .... --David Mills, Atheist Universe

I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship here. I think I've read every popular alternative theory about Jesus that has come down the pike--with Who Was Jesus? I was very impressed. --Pastor David Bruce, M.Div Pastor David Bruce, M.Div Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, HollywoodJesus.com

Thirty years ago, when in divinity school, I might have had second thoughts about becoming an Episcopal priest if a book like D. M. Murdock's Who Was Jesus? had been available to me. Murdock's book, probably the best of this genre - written with clarity, precision, and conviction - unpacks most of the nonsense and mythology surrounding the ancient Hebrew figure called Jesus and presents a compelling picture of a mythological amalgam to counter most of the misinformation and wishful-thinking that passes for Christian apologetics today. -- Bob Semes, Retired Professor of History and Religion

And I can tell from his derogatory comments about the other books he's probably never read them either. So he's just pretending to know all about these books, without having read them - that is intellectually dishonest.

I can go on, because he's made one comment after another that shows his ignorance, but this guy Edward is really not worth responding to. He just has no clue what he's talking about. All he's done is throw up a bunch of lies and distortions and then attack Acharya personally, based on his own lies and totally poor understanding of the subject. I see his game as trying to knock Acharya down so people will think he's the real expert. He's not. It's a typical play for power from an ignorant kid. I would frankly be ashamed and embarrassed to post such ignorant trash as he has done. And anybody citing this guy as some credible "authority," whether theist or atheist, is obviously desperate. This incredibly dishonest character Edward, creator of the website conspiracy science. com, needs to be held accountable for all his malicious lies and utter ignorance.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 6:06 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 20
from
Code:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/topic-consp-sciencecom-a-case-study-in-intellectual-inhibition-s/page/6


Quote:
I read a post on her forum saying that she Carrier had given praise to her book Who is Jesus? and I'm trying to find that now.

Hey Kris, did you ever find this? I couldn't find it but I did find this interesting comment on Richard Carrier's blog:

GWWT suffers from the unavoidable problem of all entertaining documentaries: it oversimplifies things. But it's nowhere near as egregiously full of sh*t as Zeitgeist: The Movie, which has been thoroughly debunked as absolute garbage by several knowledgeable commentators (the best critiques are catalogued by Jim Lippard at the end of his own blog post on that awful doco). I wouldn't recommend Zeitgeist at all.

Code:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/03/god-who-wasnt-there.html


"the best critiques are catalogued by Jim Lippard at the end of his own blog post". Hey look, Mr. Lippard linked to conspiracyscience.com

Code:
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/06/zeitgeist-movie.html


Oh and Dr. Carrier also had this to say:

AIGBusted said... Have you seen Tim Callahan's article which debunks the Zeitgeist movie's attempt to link Jesus with earlier Sun Gods?

No, but I'm so glad he did. Thanks for the link. Until now I had to rely on fundamentalist rebuttals, which weren't terrible but not entirely recommendable. That crap movie has done more damage to serious Jesus myth scholarship than any fundamentalist treatise ever could. I'd like to kick the director in the crotch. That's right. Square in the crotch.

Code:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/02/not-impossible-faith.html
[in the comments]

hahaha!


This site (Con-Sci) is getting massively annoying. I am currently making a rebuttal of almost all the other content of the site, though I would really appreciate it if some of the people here would help to debunk some of his commentary regarding Zeitgeist pt. 1. I have limited time, and would probably need to tackle 2 of Acharya's books. I'm mostly concerned with economics, an it would be difficult for me to read over 1000 pages of comparative religion. s I would really appreciate it if you could help me out.

Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 11:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Richard Carrier has never read a single book by Acharya. If anyone said anything positive about Acharya over at the Carrier blog I'm sure they'd be maliciously attacked for it. Posters at Carrier's blog tend to have a knee-jerk reaction anytime her name is mentioned - even though they haven't read her work either from what I can tell.

BTW, Carrier made a monumental error in his Luxor article:
Quote:
"...in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)."

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

It looks to me like the Lippard Blog, regarding ZG part 1, has already been addressed by Vincent Harrison in the comment area .

Tim Callahan's article has already been responded to:

Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST (and Religious History)

It appears that Peter Joseph has recently addressed this conspiracy guy Ed at TZGM forum. I'll just pluck out a few pertinent quotes:

Quote:
Consp-Science.com: A Case Study in Intellectual Inhibition

"There are three points I would like to make in this regard:

1)The first we will call “Ideological Bigotry”- thus loosely defined as the dismissal/denouncing of a person, based on the mere presentation of conclusions which are outside of the other person's preferred reality.

In regard to Edward L Winston and many of the people participating in his community, a very common use of the derogatory term “Conspiracy Theorist” serves as a mantra of 'presupposed rejection' regarding certain forms of information. In other words, anyone who brings up a certain 'type' of information which might be susceptible to this “taboo” category, is often reduced to a “Conspiracy Theorist”.

What this really is, again, is Ideological Bigotry – a form of “opinion racism” if you will. Suddenly anyone who has questions about an historical act, which is contrary to the prevailing view, and beyond some biased, subjective threshold deemed “rational”- is likely just an nutty “Conspiracy Theorist”.

This is a powerful tool, which has been used by political propagandists since the dawn of time. The easiest way to stop people from investigating certain subject matters is to create fear. In a world driven by public image, many people today will not even consider alternative theories to certain events, such as 911 and like, because they simply don't want to be debased as a “Conspiracy Theorist.” This is a perfect tactic of social influence. As far as Edward L Winston, I don't feel he even understands what he is doing. It is a conditioned response. I think he is genuine in his disposition. It is, again, a form of mental illness, just like a racist feels when encountering what they might consider an “inferior” race.

So, if a prominent physicist stands up and claims contrary evidence to the current accepted reality of a certain phenomenon in this context, they are no longer a physicist- they are just a “Conspiracy Theorist”. This is similar to people who question the value of the Capitalist System who are thus denounced as “communists” in a artificial duality... or those who do not believe in god, who must then be “Satanists”, etc. If people are mere “Conspiracy Theorists” since they have different conclusions than the prevailing order in regard to some events, then it is only logical that all those who denounce such ideas be labeled “Coincidence Theorists”! Obviously, that is a joke, but I hope the point is clear.

Again, the best way to control people is to control thought through making “taboos” which, if explored, will demean the person's status. These social memes permeate peoples identity and, just like a racist, they project their biases into their environment, devoid of objective inquiry.

For more on this subject, in part, please see: #6 Does The Zeitgeist Movement support "Conspiracy Theories"?

2) Point two worthy of noting, has to do with a very common phenomenon of “Attacking the Messenger”, which is really just a variation of the aforementioned issue. Only this time it is more personal and based on finding some type of association which would serve to discredit a particular person directly. For example, I often hear: “Peter Joseph is just a a “college dropout” with “no credentials” – therefore there is no need to even regard his research in a serious way”.

As far as Con Sci, there is a whole article called “Cost of Movie”, dedicated to convincing the reader that I make tons of money off of the films I made and sell for 5$, as yet another attempt to discredit, this time by way a “red herring” that has nothing to do with anything related to the content of the works in question, or the self-proclaimed purpose of the website. The attack implies that I have stated that I make 'no money' off the films, when, in fact I have publicly talked about the money made and how it is used. To defend myself here for the sake of clarification, I have to survive in the financial system as well and must sell my work to do so. Given I allow my film to be downloaded for free, copied and given away... I have free internet streams of them, and I only charge a fraction of the commercial rate for a dvd, evidently I am still somehow the bad guy. Edward L Winston, choosing to lower himself to such irrational personal attacks, which have nothing to do with the debunking of the content of my film, further shows his presupposed biases and the mental limitation of his ability to be objective. “Attacking the Messenger” is always a dead give away when it comes to a compromised, biased disposition.

Other symptoms of what appear to be a pathological mental illness in this regard, is by creating a means which avoids having to research anything thoroughly. A statement such as 'Acharya S has been discredited by the academic community, therefore we don't have to followup on her sources.' is another variation.

As a case in point, Edward L Winston, in regard to his supposed refutation of the “Companion Guide” for Part 1 of Z1, states two things which reveal his bias:

He states:
“I have been getting many complaints from people who claim that I did not read the Companion Guide, so therefore I cannot debate the movie. My first argument against that is I was debating the facts in the movie, which does not include whatever is written in an e-book by another author.”

What is really being stated here is: “I refuse to research anything in regard to the sources of this information.”

You cannot debunk anything without reviewing the foundational info it was derived from, especially if it is a film which presents nothing more than a surface summery. Also, Acharya was the consultant for the first part and therefore a partial author.

Beyond the admission of an inherent dis-interest to 'get to the bottom' of the source for the work in question, the “refutation” he then does proceed with, which is based on a document that is 48 pages, with dozens of independent sources he would be inclined to review if there was any trace of scholarly vigor, ends up consisting of about 1 page, with only about 15, 7-10 line paragraphs with virtually no critical examination, only surface statements and dismissal. Since this document was created explicitly to support the quick general statements in Z1 Part 1, this laziness by way of a “denial of relevance” is profound.

He 'justifies' by stating:
“The problem is that she overloads readers with so much information, that it is hard to weed out what to believe and what not to believe, so naturally some people would just assume she knows what she's talking about. She's a liar, end of story.”

Too much information? This is an even more profound form of mental blocking, where the task of review is not met with the initiative, so the act is outright dismissed by way of excuse. In this case, there is “too much” to review. Too much what... EVIDENCE? As far as “She's a liar, end of story” it once again proves the presupposed, highly biased disposition - hence mental illness - and thus rationalized refusal to follow up and evaluate the dozens of independent sources presented within the text's documentation.

3) Now, Edward L Winston aside, the final point to be made, which has been brought to my attention too many times at this stage, is the “Red Herring Angle” used by many of the members of his forum, which transfers their biases in regard to the sections on “Conspiracy” in my early film, to The Zeitgeist Movement itself, often saying something like “they are all just a bunch of conspiracy theorists at the TZM”. There is no critical examination of any of my lectures, no critical examination of our 90 page Orientation Guide, etc. Nothing. It is dismissal by association in a profoundly biased way... which is yet another form of psychological denial...."

The conspiracy NON-science website gets passed around by a bunch of anti-ZG1 knuckle-dragging neanderthal militant atheists who have a knee-jerk reaction anytime Acharya's name is mentioned. Meanwhile, they tend to know almost nothing about her or her work. And, of course, Christians attempt to hold up the con-sci website as some sort of authority but, it's really just a convenient website for theists to get atheists and other non-religious groups against each other. Ask those theists who cite that website if they also agree with the websites views on Jesus and see what happens.

So, in the end, regarding ZG part 1, that con-sci website is an embarrassment to all atheists, freethinkers and other non-religious groups. Just because someone calls oneself an atheist doesn't mean they know what they're talking about when it comes to religion - this guy Ed Winston certainly does not.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 9:49 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 20
This gets even more disgusting. I am in an intensive rush to debunk other aspects of the site (9/11, banking, etc.), but I REALLY think Acharya should right a point by point primary source rebuttal to the detractors of Zeitgeist Part 1:

Code:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/the-mesoamerican-god-quetzalcoatl-was-also-a-sun-god-born-of-a-virgin


To digress though, in this light, Professor Barry Fell's book looks interesting: http://www.amazon.com/America-B-C-Ancie ... 607&sr=8-1


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support