Geetarmoore

Anything like this can only be expressed and evaluated as personal speculation, I'd say.

Maybe in the end, a final conclusion might be that her claims constitutes 30% supported and corroborated fact, 20% unsubstantiated/uncorroborated evidence, 25% incorrect or otherwise refuted information, and 25% speculation; or whatever the numbers end up being.

I can't remember how much of Christ Conspiracy was purely speculative, any more than any research book might contain 'speculation' by the author when drawing sources together to lead to a final conclusion about them.

I just think that it's time we've seen a full-on review of her stuff, rather than an instant and automatic rejection of it like I've always seen. I'm not a fan, and I'm not an enemy. I'm just a guy who would like to understand the truth.

Geetarmoore

Roger,

This is exactly the strategy I had envisioned. Thanks.

Yellum Notnef

I think that refutation itself is something that needs to be checked out as well. Here are just two dubious statements that I recall from the last time I read it, but there are many more that raise ones brow.

Polycarp knew the apostles?

Grouping the constellations into shapes is a modern idea?

Geetarmoore

Agreed. It just can't stand as an impartial review.

Geetarmoore

Does Aharya promote this idea? From what book does this come? I don't think Acharya believes the Apostles were even real people, let alone to promote the fact that Polycarp knew them. I apologize if I've misunderstood.

Malachi151

I'm reading Suns of God now. It's over 500 pages and somewhat difficult to dissect on a point by point basis due to how it is written.

A lot of it is just a rolling string of innuendo.

A few things off the top of my head that stood out were claims that we know that people over 30,000 years ago had a "scientific knowledge" of the stars because Polynesian were major seafarers over 30,000 years ago, which must mean that they navigated using the stars.

Umm.. this is totally bogus, no one was a doing seafaring 30,000 years ago.

Here is another:

Umm... totally bogus. The ancient couldn't predict eclipses. It doesn't take much to figure out the lunar cycle. Calling ancient religious astrology a science is bogus, which is what she is doing in this chapter, though there was ancient astronomical science among the Greeks and Persians, it wasn't advanced along religious lines, rather it was largely advanced along mathematical and philosophical lines. Modern astronomy is so far beyond Maya astronomy that the claim that we are just beginning to catch up to the Maya is laughable. Yes, the Maya had a small set of highly accurate astronomical calculations, which is impressive given that they along with all of the other American cultures were practically a stone age civilization, but Western astronomy has nevertheless superseded Mayan astronomy for hundreds of years.

Here is another good one:

Umm.. where to begin, total rubbish all of it. There is no such thing as an Egyptian Bible. The Book of the Dead, not actually the real name of the various papyri that contain the afterlife descriptions, is not a Bible of any sort, and there is no single version of it, there are just many different and unique scrolls that serve the same ceremonial role.

The claims about "Osiris' scribe" being called Mattiu are not cited, and I doubt are even true, but even if this were the case, its totally meaningless. This is how a lot of her stuff goes. She just goes along and says "oh, so and so was named so and so, and also this other guy was named something similar, therefore we know that this is a legend based on the other older legend."

LOL

Geetarmoore

Oh, I apologize. I understand now that you were questioning the refutation for unsupportable ideas.... Sorry.

Freethinkaluva

"Malachi151" who is also "rationalrevolution" at the Dawkins & Harris forums is R.G. Price who admits he's never actually read anything by Acharya at all. This person has absolutely no business posting threads about Acharya or her work or commenting on it at all <edit>. He' never seen a book of hers and he wasn't even aware that Acharya was a female until someone told him at the Dawkins forum - it's not totally relevant except that she has a photo on her website and on her books - had he seen anything by her, he'd know this. He knows NOTHING about Acharya's work and gets his false assumptions from others who haven't actually studied her work either.

There is no "cult" following, that's something that has been made-up by Malachi151/Price - it's simply that folks who HAVE actually read her work know for a fact that you haven't and <edit> you know nothing about her work. Which means you know nothing of the evidence she presence in them. The online articles do *NOT* contain all of the details - that is what the books are for. And "Suns of God" addresses the criticisms of "Christ Conspiracy". Again, you'd know this already if you actually open her books. Besides that, it is totally un-necessary for you to attack her so viciously in other threads & forums I've seen you post in like:

Malachi151/rationalrevolution/Price from the Dawkins forum. Note that at this time Price hadn't read a thing of Acharya's -
"Pagan" vs. Jewish origins of Jesus story (Acharya)”
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...=18865&start=0

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...&sd=a&start=50

<edit> - if you had legitimate disagreements, you could do it respectfully and that is the issue folks who have read Acharya's work have with folks like you R.G. Price is that you're obnoxious, rude, disrespectful and dishonest about it, as can be seen in the threads.

In the Harris forum you've gone to great lengths to dig-up whatever dirt on her you can. R.G. Price, your opinion simply cannot be trusted.

Malachi151/Price starts his load of BS from post #9 on -
http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/2458/
Notice he says criticism of Acharya AND her works - so he has to attack her personally as well - so that is part of the plan.
So again, he admits recently that he hasn't read any of her work and loathes the Idea of reading them - yet, he has had no problem launching his smear campaigns in several forums and threads. Intellectual honesty is not on the mind of Malachi151/Price it's the furtherest thing from him.

From the Harris forum responding to "rational revolution" "Again, you (Malachi151/Price) go trolling around launching preemptive attacks on the work of others you’ve never read, use an assortment of straw man fallacies in a derogatory fashion to make your own work (based on a house of cards) look good. Your only goal here is to Hi-jack the threads of others in order to promote your own work since it can’t be found anywhere else as everybody figured this out at the Dawkins forum. All this is done under the disguise of “rational revolution” which is anything but."

"there is a cache of Price's critique of Acharya S here"

- That review has been removed by Dr. Robert M. Price for a few years now. It is really low to dig it up having been removed for so long. It was written in a fit of professional jealousy which is why it has been removed by him. And Dr. Price has since gone on to write a positive review of "Suns of God" and he even wrote the foreword to Acharya's recent book "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ"

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

Amazon - Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk)

- Here again we have someone "ApostateAbe" pretending to be an expert on Acharya's work who has admitted elsewhere at this very forum that he has never actually read it. See this what pisses people off. <edit> And he has been informed of these errors yet continues repeating false information.

"Suns of God" is nearly 600 pages, contains over 1,800 footnotes, over 100 separate images with a bibliography of over 250 books and articles, MOST OF WHICH ARE FROM CONSERVATIVE AND RESPECTED SOURCES AND MANY OF WHICH ARE CHRISTIAN, dating back to the earliest times. Acharya has presented this enormous amount of resources in order to provide a consensus of opinion, precisely because the subject matter is so contentious.

- And someone else who hasn't read Acharya's work but goes around the net posting any false information he can dig-up taking quotes from folks on different forums - anything bad about her or her work he can find.

Thing is, GakuseiDon has been informed on Acharya's rebuttal to this before - see how he will share any info to make Acharya look bad but refuse to share her response? Same with ApostateAbe his false assumptions have been addressed right here at IIDB - yet he continues on posting false information. Others do the same even after being shown to be in error. They refuse to make the necessary adjustments <edit>. And this has been going on for years now. This would irritate anyone.

"Rebuttal to Mike Licona"
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewt...hp?p=6051#6051

"Astrotheology of the Ancients"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

* I see on page 2 here Malachi151/Price for the first time actually went to the library to get "Suns of God". I am surprised because he hasn't even read any of her online articles before yet posts all kinds of things about her leading folks to believe he has studied her work.

So, Malachi151/Price you've already admitted your biased against Acharya and her work. It's clear that your only point in going through "Suns of God" now is to find whatever dirt you can muster up. You've NEVER said a kind word about her or her work so far so you can't possibly expect anyone to consider any "review" of yours to be anything other than more of the same.

This issue of spreading false information needs to be addressed. I can't even count how many times over the years I've seen folks go out of their way to post horrible lies about Acharya or her work and when they are confronted and simply asked "what of Acharya's specifically have you read", many times the answer is nothing at all or just a skim through an online article - which as I said before do not contain all of the details - that is what the books are for. Or just someone else's opinion or review who may have not actually read the work either.

<edit> Folks are not even aware of what you are doing to the LIFE of a fantastic comparative religious scholar, astrotheologist, mythicist when they spread their lies. Clearly they don't care but we're talking about a REAL LIVING HUMAN BEING here.

Criticism and skepticism are always welcome but for Christ sakes, at least be rational and intellectually honest about it. Or is that too much to ask?

Roger Pearse

Um, but the views expressed by this Acharya are available on the web -- very widely available, actually -- and are endlessly reposted. Can you explain to us why we are not allowed to comment on what we see unless we buy the book?

Surely we've all seen this before, in the form of a particularly stale publishers' trick? -- publish a book designed to be controversial or dishonest, publicise it widely in order to gain notoriety and, when criticised, demand that no-one express any disagreement unless they have 'read the book/seen the film', i.e. bought the product.

Don't we all look at each other and smile when we see this old scam trotted out?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Freethinkaluva

Again, ad hom attacks out of ignorance should not replace actually studying the material and the evidence Acharya has presented in her books. I thought intellectual honesty was important here. What of Acharya's have you read specifically Roger?

Malachi151/rationalrevolution/Price asked why does Acharya have a cult following - which is false, however, my question back to him is why are you so OBSESSED with Acharya <edit>? Jealous?