Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave31 · 10-04-2012, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

... a bit about Acharya S/Diane Murdock: she is not an academic and has spent more time interacting with New Age and pagan sources than standard academics. I find her frustrating - she raises interesting ideas, but refuses to correct blatant errors, and acts as if every criticism is a personal attack.

Toto, you merely prove my previous point by 'poisoning the well' with such blatantly dishonest comments that you KNOW is just not true. The derogatory comments calling her a "New Ager" is and always has been false.

She certainly cites Pagan sources as well as highly respected and credentialed academics. It's an utter falsehood to claim that she refuses to correct errors, for example, she's had an errata page for her first book up for many years and you KNOW that fact.

Plus, many of the criticisms of her work DO contain personal attacks, malicious smears; case in point is the entire blogspot by 'Miekko' / 'Zwaarddijk' is just another perfect example of that, full of derogatory comments, patronizing tone and animosity, which is precisely why it fits-in just fine around here at this forum as there are many jealous peeps here that drool over anything anti-Acharya and it is as transparent as glass. 'Miekko' / 'Zwaarddijk' or whoever he is has ruined his own credibility with his anti-Acharya blog of hatred exposing his own prejudice for all to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And another thing - there are some overly combative posters here. Don't get too involved with them. It's just internet drama.

The somerationalism. blogspot by 'Miekko' / 'Zwaarddijk' is just another perfect example of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Acharya S has stated that the source of her inquiry was the Bodhi Tree bookstore, a Los Angeles institution for many years. I am personally familiar with that bookstore and the sort of New Age thought that it promoted.

I notice that Acharya S gives interviews to XZone podcast, which focuses on psychic phenomena, UFOs, and similar topics, and on Stench of Truth

Quote:

Ted Torbich of the Stench of Truth Radio Show covers the paranormal , UFO’s, government coverups, secret history of the illuminati, MKUltra, mind control, aliens, dimensions, occult, para-politics, and more

WTF?, pure 'guilt by association', none of her interviews have anything to do with "psychic phenomena, UFOs" etc. and you KNOW that.

Dave31 · 10-04-2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratel

Thanks, great resource, and I hope Acharya will take some of the criticisms to heart and revise some of the mistakes he points out, like her claim that the Polynesians were navigating the Pacific 30,000 years ago and the like.

Ratel, there's actually very little in these blogs by 'Miekko' / 'Zwaarddijk' to take seriously as his claims are not reliable, for example, Polynesians were navigating the Pacific 30,000 years ago as highly respected scholars have said. So, be very cautious in taking 'Miekko' / 'Zwaarddijk,' or whoever he is, seriously as we've seen absolutely no reason to believe he is reliable or credible, quite the opposite as his entire blogspot tirade against Acharya shows his biases for all to see.

http://arf.berkeley.edu/projects/oal...pacislands.htm

Acharya S has been published in a scholarly journal on this issue

A comment posted in the blog: Suns of God, Chapter 1: Astrotheology of the Ancients

Quote:

"This Miekko is particularly pompous.

I just posted the following

Miekko, I've read your critique of Suns of God, and found it extremely thin. You adopt a patronising tone, and fail to respect that Suns of God is arguing a case for the systematic evolution of supernatural myth out of natural observation. I checked a few of your assertions, which you throw off with such condescension as supposedly putting Acharya beneath contempt. What a surprise, your claims turn out to be empty.

["The first error to leap out of the text is that ... Pacific voyages have been estimated to have begun at least 30,000 years ago."] http://arf.berkeley.edu/projects/oal...pacislands.htm states "Early Human Settlement of Near Oceania
The oldest known occupation sites are radiocarbon dated to ca. 36,000 years ago (the late Pleistocene), on the large island of New Guinea and in the adjacent Bismarck Archipelago [and] ... would have required open ocean transport, suggesting the presence of some form of watercraft." Now you may say Acharya was talking about Polynesia, but this quote on the settlement of New Britain and Bougainville can reasonably be considered the beginning of the long Pacific voyages.

["there doesn't really exist any reason to posit that Sicily means anything along the lines of "sun". A claim such as the one she's making does require some kind of backing up - reference to an etymological dictionary, a paper on the meanings of names of locations, or anything really along those lines."]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_Odyssey states "the Island of the Sun was Sicily... [a view] taken as standard in the 1959 Atlas of the Classical World." Again, this is contestable, but you make it sound like Acharya plucked it from thin air.

When you put out such easily corrected howlers, even though admittedly the detail is contestable, you destroy your credibility.

Your conclusion of hostility to astrotheology is just ignorant. You appear to have opened with prejudicial assumptions, and the case you have constructed to support your first impressions is weak."

- Robert Tulip

Toto · 10-04-2012, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

... a bit about Acharya S/Diane Murdock: she is not an academic and has spent more time interacting with New Age and pagan sources than standard academics. I find her frustrating - she raises interesting ideas, but refuses to correct blatant errors, and acts as if every criticism is a personal attack.

Toto, you merely prove my previous point by 'poisoning the well' with such blatantly dishonest comments that you KNOW is just not true. The derogatory comments calling her a "New Ager" is and always has been false.

I don't think that New Age is necessarily derogatory. I think it is descriptive, and accurate. She has avoided some of the worst lunacy of the New Age, which is to her credit.

Quote:

She certainly cites Pagan sources as well as highly respected and credentialed academics. It's an utter falsehood to claim that she refuses to correct errors, for example, she's had an errata page for her first book up for many years and you KNOW that fact.

Then why does she cling to the Pygmy theory of the origins of everything? She has correctly quoted her sources, but those sources are not credible.

Quote:

Plus, many of the criticisms of her work DO contain personal attacks, malicious smears; case in point is the entire blogspot by 'Miekko' / 'Zwaarddijk' ...

Funny, I didn't see anything there that was a personal attack. I think you make my point about being unable to distinguish criticism of ideas form personal attacks.

Quote:

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Acharya S has stated that the source of her inquiry was the Bodhi Tree bookstore, a Los Angeles institution for many years. I am personally familiar with that bookstore and the sort of New Age thought that it promoted.

I notice that Acharya S gives interviews to XZone podcast, which focuses on psychic phenomena, UFOs, and similar topics, and on Stench of Truth

WTF?, pure 'guilt by association', none of her interviews have anything to do with "psychic phenomena, UFOs" etc. and you KNOW that.

There is an association, isn't there? I don't see any evidence that Acharya S believes in psychic phenomena, but she likes to talk to people who do. Has she ever criticized this sort of thinking?

tanya · 10-05-2012, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Funny, I didn't see anything there that was a personal attack. I think you make my point about being unable to distinguish criticism of ideas form personal attacks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miekko

Acharya makes several claims that are not of a theological nature. She especially likes to use claims that are of a linguistic nature. I do not expect theologians to know when her use of linguistics is shoddy or misleading. Considering she claims to be a Greek scholar, it's interesting how ignorant she is of linguistic methodology and of how language actually works. It seems she subscribes to some kind of very anglo-centric view where also the English names of things somehow say something essential about the thing. As if English is a magic lens into an underlying reality behind every concept.
Her reasoning also often fails at being logical. Now, as a computer science student, logic is kind of a central tool I end up using every now and then, and I understand a fair bit of this illustrious topic. Some of her flawed reasoning may not be as readily obvious to someone more into subjects such as theology. Not saying that theologians are illogical, but some illogical things may on occasion escape theologians. However, in the interest of completeness, I've decided to include flawed reasoning wherever I see it, even though others have pointed out the same flawed reasoning. (emphasis by tanya)

You consider this "criticism of ideas", and not "personal attack"?

Can you please identify upon which particular idea of Acharya S, this bit of "criticism" is focused?

In my opinion, this type of writing is not only useless, it is derogatory, inflammatory, condescending, and unsubstantiated gossip, unworthy of discusssion. I am frankly perplexed, Toto, why you would argue with me on this point: it is transparent. It is obvious.

Please identify which component, of this text from Miekko's blog, you found meritorious. After reading his diatribe, have you acquired even the tiniest glimpse of new perspective in assessing the scholarly imperfection of her publications?

:huh:

aa5874 · 10-05-2012, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Then why does she cling to the Pygmy theory of the origins of everything? She has correctly quoted her sources, but those sources are not credible.

How do you know her sources are not credible?? Please name all of her sources and the means by which you determined her sources are not credible??

What sources do Doherty use to claim Jesus was crucified in the sub-lunar??

The Bible??? Is the Bible a credible source.

What source does Ehrman use to claim there was a human Jesus??? The Bible??

Is the Bible a credible source??

What sources are Scholars using to claim the Pauline writings were composed since 50-60 CE??

The Bible??? Is the Bible a credible source??

The very same so-called Scholars like Ehrman who are blatantly using Admitted known sources of fiction, discrepancies and contradictions to support their human Jesus are ridiculing those who use Credible sources.

Ehrman ADMITS his NT sources are historically problematic--See Did Jesus Exist??

Where does Acharya S admit her "pigmy source" is NOT credible???

Ehrman ADMITS "the Gospels are riddled with historical problems" but use them for his Jesus---See Did Jesus Exist? page 183.

Ehrman uses sources of Perjury for the history of his Jesus

Where does Acharya S use PERJURED sources for history.

The very same NT from which Ehrman assembled his Jesus is the very source that Ehrman has Discredited.

Ehrman BOASTED that his Source--" the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small". See Did Jesus Exist? page 182.

It is clear to me that Zwaarddijk and even Toto do NOT intend to Expose that Ehrman Acknowledged that his Primary Source, the New Testament, is NOT historically credible.

Zwaarddijk may not be credible.

Toto · 10-05-2012, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Funny, I didn't see anything there that was a personal attack. I think you make my point about being unable to distinguish criticism of ideas form personal attacks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miekko

Acharya makes several claims that are not of a theological nature. She especially likes to use claims that are of a linguistic nature. I do not expect theologians to know when her use of linguistics is shoddy or misleading. Considering she claims to be a Greek scholar, it's interesting how ignorant she is of linguistic methodology and of how language actually works. It seems she subscribes to some kind of very anglo-centric view where also the English names of things somehow say something essential about the thing. As if English is a magic lens into an underlying reality behind every concept.
Her reasoning also often fails at being logical. Now, as a computer science student, logic is kind of a central tool I end up using every now and then, and I understand a fair bit of this illustrious topic. Some of her flawed reasoning may not be as readily obvious to someone more into subjects such as theology. Not saying that theologians are illogical, but some illogical things may on occasion escape theologians. However, in the interest of completeness, I've decided to include flawed reasoning wherever I see it, even though others have pointed out the same flawed reasoning. (emphasis by tanya)

You consider this "criticism of ideas", and not "personal attack"?

By definition, criticizing her logic is criticizing her ideas. Nothing there says that she is a bad person. The accusation is that she uses bad logic, and she can answer this charge by showing that her logic is not bad, or that linguists agree with her.

aa5874 · 10-05-2012, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

By definition, criticizing her logic is criticizing her ideas. Nothing there says that she is a bad person. The accusation is that she uses bad logic, and she can answer this charge by showing that her logic is not bad, or that linguists agree with her.

What bad logic does Acharya use?? You MUST identify the bad logic or else you are just making unsubstantiated claims.

Which book?? What page?? What are you talking about???

Is Ehrman a good person when he admitted his NT sources are historically problematic in Did Jesus Exist? page 183 and still relied on them for the history of his Jesus???

Sheshbazzar · 10-05-2012, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Is Ehrman a good person when he admitted his NT sources are historically problematic in Did Jesus Exist? page 183 and still relied on them for the history of his Jesus???

But but! ......Ehrman's opinion is the mainstream! one, so its gotta be respected and accepted!

Anyone that would dare to disagree with blessed mainstream opinion and its anointed spokespersons has got to be a UFO believing member of the 'New Age' lunatic fringe.

Not impressed. I prefer to make my stand with the lunatic fringe rather than with those that have to admit that their prime 'source' book, the un-credible Holey Bible, is "filled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small".

.

aa5874 · 10-05-2012, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Is Ehrman a good person when he admitted his NT sources are historically problematic in Did Jesus Exist? page 183 and still relied on them for the history of his Jesus???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

But but! ......Ehrman's opinion is the mainstream! one, so its gotta be respected and accepted!

Anyone that would dare to disagree with blessed mainstream opinion and its anointed spokespersons has got to be a UFO believing member of the 'New Age' lunatic fringe...

This reminds me of the 4th century under Constantine. If you do NOT accept Constantine's History of the Church you must be a Lunatic or a criminal and deserve to die.

This is the 21st century. We can't go back to the 4th century under Constantine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Not impressed. I prefer to make my stand with the lunatic fringe rather than with those that have to admit that their prime 'source' book, the un-credible Holey Bible, is "filled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small".
.

Please, tell me if these are the words of a lunatic fringe or mainstream??

Did Jesus Exist? page 182 by Bart Ehrman

Quote:

" It is absolutely true, in my judgment, that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions in matters both large and small.

Did Jesus Exist? page 184 by Bart Ehrman

Quote:

"It is true that the Gospels are riddled with other kinds of historical problems and that they relate events that almost certainly did not happen"

.

Something has gone radically wrong. Is Lunacy now mainstream??? Supposed Scholars are Publicly admitting that their Jesus was derived from Sources of Perjury.

So-called historians like Ehrman are using Admitted Myth Fables for their Jesus.

In effect, a pack of lies, are the primary sources for HJ.

Ehrman has CONFIRMED what Julian wrote 1600 years ago.

Against the Galileans attributed to Julian the Emperor.

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

Where did Acharya S admit her "pigmy sources" were a pack of lies.

Ehrman admitted the Gospels and NT contain events that almost certainly did NOT happen but he still used them for the history of his Jesus.

Who are the Lunatic fringe???

tanya · 10-05-2012, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

By definition, criticizing her logic is criticizing her ideas. Nothing there says that she is a bad person. The accusation is that she uses bad logic, and she can answer this charge by showing that her logic is not bad, or that linguists agree with her.

Apologies, but, here I must emphatically disagree with you.

Sorry.

If we think of any member of this forum, and I write, as a description of that member's recent submission to the forum, something like this:

Quote:

Oh, joe blfstk just wrote the most god-awful message here on the forum. Not only is it shoddy and misleading, but this ignorant blfstk person has such wretchedly illogical thinking that it is just onerous to read.

How would you respond? Wouldn't you send a reply suggesting that it would be more constructive to explain HOW the post demonstrated a lack of logic, and WHICH aspects of the post ought to be modified so as to render it less misleading?

Did not Chaucer commence this thread by praising the scholarly character of Miekko's blog?

What's "scholarly" about writing "shoddy, misleading, ignorant, illogical...." Couldn't Miekko have written precisely the same paragraph, without having read a single word of Acharya S' publications?

Moreover, those descriptors aren't simply inadequate, insulting, and injurious. They err. Her work is not shoddy or misleading. Yes, maybe one or more of her books, requires revision. Yes, maybe she has gone overboard on some points, with undue emphasis on scholarly research which is viewed by the academic community as far fetched. Yes, some of her articles may be less erudite than other folks'. I fail to understand why that should be important.

How do such platitudes, whether critical or adulatory, contribute one iota to better understanding the issues surrounding genesis of earliest Christianity?

Absent the crucial element of data, Miekko's blog is simply another bit of foolish nonsense. If I submitted a post to this forum, writing how spectacular Acharya S' several most recent blogs and books were, without offering any evidence, demonstrating that spectacular improvement, would any forum member bother to respond?

In computer science terms, Miekko has defined a couple of arrays of data, without offering an algorithm enabling the arrays to receive data. Right now, the arrays are simply sitting there, devoid of information, and quite useless.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.