Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-30-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

And why exactly should anyone ever listen to anything you have to say Jeffrey Gibson?

Are you saying that AS is wrong to claim, as she does, that it's only those who "know" (i.e., are experts in) mythology and Egyptology who are qualified to evaluate Massey's work?

Jeffrey

Toto · 01-30-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Robert M. Schock, Ph.D. ...

He seems to be of the same stock as Acharya S. He notices similarities in the world's pyramids that would seem explainable to a normal person by the fact that pyramids are the most stable basic symmetrical rectangular-base structures, but he takes it as evidence that ancient peoples must have shared their ideas through some kind of far-fetched means. I bet it fits right in with the theories of Acharya S, since she needs an explanation for how the god-men myths got from Asia to the Americas. Must have been that sea-level rise through the comet's gravitational effect.

Robert_M._Schoch is a tenured professor who is willing to entertain ideas outside the conventional wisdom. It sounds like he is careful to label his speculation as speculation.

Speaking as a moderator, I thought that we were making some progress here on having a rational discussion, as opposed to trading insults. I would ask everyone to refrain from group generalizations ("folks at IIDB") or one-liner put downs. Okay?

Thanks.

Species8472 · 01-30-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freethinkaluva

LOL, that "Link" would be known as the "DONATE" button.

mmmm... donates... what?

Anyway

That whole movie stinks of conspiracy-theory-craft, including the first part. I am not ready to take it very seriously. Some of the "facts" from the first part I have heard before, but they blow everything way out of proportions.

ApostateAbe · 01-30-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Wrong as per usual A.Abe. what about the comment brought in from Acharya's F.A.Q. is incorrect? Where's the ad hom? Rather, she was addressing an ad hom. I guess you didn't pick up on that as is typical of your selective perception from what I've observed of you here.

Ad homimem arguments are not false character attacks. Ad hominem arguments are a recommendation to disregard claims or arguments based on a quality of the person. She was not addressing ad hominem arguments against her. If she were, then it would be a good excuse. But, no, she was giving ad hominem attacks as an excuse to refuse to address the criticisms. She said, "When Christian apologists and other detractors actually study the works of the brilliant and erudite Gerald Massey - and can prove their study with intelligent remarks and, if possible, refutations - then I will take notice of their opinions. Until then, not." That is an ad hominem argument dressed up as a legitimate refutation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

I see you're also trying to find whatever dirt you can muster up on Dr. Schoch as well. You couldn't stop yourself from making some derogatory comment at the end there could you. That's most all ever I see from folks here at IIDB like yourself (you haven't read any of Acharya's works including this one either but you're always one of the first to dive in on the pile on taking stabs at every opportunity as it seem to be the modus vivendi at IIDB). And then the folks at IIDB wonder why nobody wants to be an atheist. Same with Solitary Man. I guess S.man pretends not to be aware of what students think of Gibson. S.man thinks more of Gibson's doctorate at Oxford than do Gibson's students as made clear in their statements. Where are Jeffrey Gibson's books which I'm sure are inerrant and interesting at the same time.

You brought in a positive reviews from Dr. Schoch as though it is a significant point of defense of Christ Conspiracy. But Dr. Schoch is no more credible on the subject.

ApostateAbe · 01-30-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Robert M. Schock, Ph.D. ...

He seems to be of the same stock as Acharya S. He notices similarities in the world's pyramids that would seem explainable to a normal person by the fact that pyramids are the most stable basic symmetrical rectangular-base structures, but he takes it as evidence that ancient peoples must have shared their ideas through some kind of far-fetched means. I bet it fits right in with the theories of Acharya S, since she needs an explanation for how the god-men myths got from Asia to the Americas. Must have been that sea-level rise through the comet's gravitational effect.

Robert_M._Schoch is a tenured professor who is willing to entertain ideas outside the conventional wisdom. It sounds like he is careful to label his speculation as speculation.

Speaking as a moderator, I thought that we were making some progress here on having a rational discussion, as opposed to trading insults. I would ask everyone to refrain from group generalizations ("folks at IIDB") or one-liner put downs. Okay?

Thanks.

Yeah, that is good advice. I should have replaced "must" with "may."

Toto · 01-30-2008, 04:32 PM

Abe: Please be more careful. Schoch's review was of Acharya's Companion Guide to the Zeitgeist part I, not her Christ Conspiracy.

Why is Schoch not credible? He is a tenured professor who has published on Egyptology. The Companion Guide is a discussion of Egyptian religion, and, as I tried to explain, is much more nuanced and pays more attention to detail than the movie.

youngalexander · 01-30-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Companion Guide is a discussion of Egyptian religion, and, as I tried to explain, is much more nuanced and pays more attention to detail than the movie.

Might it be sed to be copacetic?

Toto · 01-30-2008, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Companion Guide is a discussion of Egyptian religion, and, as I tried to explain, is much more nuanced and pays more attention to detail than the movie.

Might it be sed to be copacetic?

Hm. I think of copacetic as somehow more applicable to a summer day, or to Jiminy Cricket.

I don't have the technical background to know if everything is absolutely correct, but there are no glaring misstatements, there are quotes from a modern Egyptologist, and the basic premise makes sense. And she doesn't claim that Horus was crucified, just "crucified". So while Acharya S may poo-poo anal academic fact-checkers and their picky objections, it sounds like she has taken some criticisms to heart.

I think you could find more questionable claims from the current Bishop of Durham. But I don't see Jeffrey Gibson obsessing over NT Wright's unsupportable statements.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-30-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Might it be sed to be copacetic?

Hm. I think of copacetic as somehow more applicable to a summer day, or to Jiminy Cricket.

I don't have the technical background to know if everything is absolutely correct, but there are no glaring misstatements,

If, as you admit, you are not an expert in Egyptology, how then do you know there are no misstatements, glaring or otherwise?

Quote:

I think you could find more questionable claims from the current Bishop of Durham. But I don't see Jeffrey Gibson obsessing over NT Wright's unsupportable statements.

You think one could find these, do you?

And might I ask you not to use such prejudicial and inaccurate language ("obsessing"??) when you speak of what I've been writing with respect to AS's claims?

Jeffrey

Toto · 01-30-2008, 05:18 PM

I am not an expert in Egyptology, so I can only say that there are no glaring errors. I can't say that an expert would not find an error.

As to NT Wright, just follow Stephen Carr. His latest is here. Or just seach this forum for "carr bishop durham" to find more threads where Stephen Carr finds some absurdity in a pronouncement by his favorite Anglican. It is only Stephen's obvious glee and good humor in this enterprise that prevents it from being an obsession, but I do sometimes think of him as stalking Wright (in a good way, of course.)

As to how "prejudicial and inaccurate" my use of the term "obsessing" is, I'll let the readers decide for themselves.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-30-2008, 04:32 PM	#26
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Abe: Please be more careful. Schoch's review was of Acharya's Companion Guide to the Zeitgeist part I, not her Christ Conspiracy. Why is Schoch not credible? He is a tenured professor who has published on Egyptology. The Companion Guide is a discussion of Egyptian religion, and, as I tried to explain, is much more nuanced and pays more attention to detail than the movie.

01-30-2008, 05:18 PM	#30
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I am not an expert in Egyptology, so I can only say that there are no glaring errors. I can't say that an expert would not find an error. As to NT Wright, just follow Stephen Carr. His latest is here. Or just seach this forum for "carr bishop durham" to find more threads where Stephen Carr finds some absurdity in a pronouncement by his favorite Anglican. It is only Stephen's obvious glee and good humor in this enterprise that prevents it from being an obsession, but I do sometimes think of him as stalking Wright (in a good way, of course.) As to how "prejudicial and inaccurate" my use of the term "obsessing" is, I'll let the readers decide for themselves.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.