Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Dagda · 12-03-2009, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

The rage?? Are you saying that proclamations about Jesus being true God and true man such as we find being issued at Chalcedon were merely the result of a fad?

In any case, may I take you then as saying that Joe is wrong in his (implied) assertion that the NT proclaims "that god sacrificed himself to himself", let alone "in order to put an end to an eternal law and conquer death by dying"?

Jeffrey

No Joe is not wrong, but Christians, whose argument he is spoofing, obviously are.

Tell me about it! :huh:

Free will more trouble than it's worth!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41687

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28151

How can you have commandments and free will?

ApostateAbe · 12-03-2009, 09:54 AM

Dave31, I posted a critical review on the FreethoughNation bulletin board, she replied back very defensively, and my latest submission awaits her approval. In case she doesn't approve it, here is what I wrote. It is a challenge to you.

Quote:

Acharya S, thank you for your reply. I shouldn't have been so hostile, my apologies. I challenge your readers to do the same as I have done: to follow one of your relevant citations to the original evidence. They should go on the Internet--Wikipedia, Google books--or go to libraries, and follow the chain of references backward. Yes, there are thousands of books about various gods and mythical men, but your claims are specific and unusual--i.e. that gods share important qualities with Jesus--and that is an example of what needs evidence. Back when I believed your theory, I tried to find original evidence for that claim, and I emerged with only the words of 19th century ideologues who don't provide evidence. You may say that is my fault, but that is why I make that challenge to your readers. I would like your readers to know the truth.

ApostateAbe · 12-03-2009, 12:19 PM

She did approve it and reply--wonderful!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acharya S

All you have done with your renewed complaint is to verify that you have not studied the work in depth at all. If you had, you would know that I have continued to provide THOUSANDS of citations from the widest spectrum of sources, including the most ancient to the most modern.

Yes, by all means, people should be encouraged to actually read my books, note the many thousands of citations therein, including a 900-source bibliography for Christ in Egypt alone, and then proceed from there.

Good luck sifting through all the sources - I have already done all that work, but please continue to do so on your own. But you would actually need to do it, rather than pretending to do so and then complaining when you have failed, making spurious and libelous remarks about my work instead.

Here is yet another case in point, in which I cite two LIVING scholars for contentions regarding Buddha:

The "crucifixion" of Buddha?

My readers can be assured that many of the rest of my thousands of citations are in like kind, including primary sources, some of which have been very difficult to dig up, and as can be found in abundance in Christ in Egypt, for one.

Notice the implications of what she is saying. She is saying that people should read her work, and take good notice of the LONG bibliography, but sifting through those sources, well, that is a lot of hard work that she has already done for you. Here is my reply:

Quote:

Acharya S, thanks again. I am not challenging your readers to verify ALL of your claims. I am asking them to pick only one of the claims, one of the many unusual claims essential to your main conclusions, and then try to go confirm it starting at one of your footnotes. It is not a lot of hard work, or at least it shouldn't be. It involves only a few publications, or maybe even just one.

Dave31 · 12-03-2009, 01:20 PM

ApostateAbe, if recall correctly you admitted here that you skimmed Christ Conspiracy years ago. From there, you just read online articles which do not contain all of the details since that is what the books are for.

ApostateAbe, Acharya was correct on several points...

Quote:

1. "...you have been relentlessly dishonest and derogatory at IIDB/freeratio over the past number of years. As you have made clear from your numerous derisive comments at that forum, you really are not interested in the material but only in harassing me in a sustained smear campaign that you are continuing here."

2. "As you do there, you make such ridiculous remarks here that I must address them. It is really absurd that I am raked over the coals by that bunch of hornets at IIDB/freeratio for every little detail, when individuals such as you can make repeated ludicrous contentions demonstrating your utter lack of knowledge of the subject, without a peep from the critics."

3. "In the first place, what you are claiming to have read, i.e., the article that is the subject of this thread, is an EXCERPT from a larger work - as it says right on the front page. As such, I do not provide all the citations or details. Nor am I obliged to do so in a freely given article, as I do not need to post it on the internet in the first place. Moreover, the bulk of these figures are easily findable both on and offline - do you mean to tell me that you need a citation about Buddha? Prometheus? Zoroaster? There are thousands of books on these figures - you can even look them up quickly and easily on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no need to cite these commonly known figures, as any scholar would know."

4. "Furthermore, in the body of the article and in my forthcoming book, I go into details about some of the better known figures such as Buddha, Krishna and Prometheus. Each of the contentions concerning these figures is carefully cited, mainly from highly credentialed, respectable sources."

5. "As is my custom, I will go into whatever other detail is necessary when I complete my Christ Myth Anthology. From your comments here and elsewhere, you obviously know very little about my work, although you dishonestly pretend to be an expert at it in order to make derogatory remarks."

6. "If you knew my work, you would know that I do not claim that the Jesus story copied that of Quetzalcoatl, but that there are some very important parallels, which is why I include the material there. You would also know these facts from my other works, which you so obviously have not read. For example, in Suns of God you would find a significant discussion of Quetzalcoatl, a study relevant to demonstrating a commonality found in various places on the globe that shows a possible astrotheological origin of this mythos."

7. "Therefore, your silly remark about the Aztecs crossing the Atlantic constitutes a typical straw man based on ignorance. If you were really interested in the subject, you would follow up on your own - it's really not hard - but that is clearly not your interest. Again, your interest is to be hostile and harassing."

8. "As concerns the Bali contention, my exact language in the footnote is:

"Apparently, this god is a manifestation of the Hindu deity Balarama. (See Perry, 17.)"

"As I say, this article represents an EXCERPT - freely given online - of a larger work. My citation here of Perry is not that he is saying Bali = Balarama, which is why I worded the note "See..." rather than simply citing him as the source of the contention. Moreover, it is I who have made the suggestion that the two gods are related, which is why I said "Apparently." A scholar would understand those fine points."

9. "The contentions in your last paragraph are absolutely absurd and demonstrate how little you know about the subject and my work. The relevant parts of the article - i.e., the "Characters" section - was substantially rewritten using almost entirely different sources that are carefully cited - I even included an extensive bibliography so you can look them up. If you actually did some research instead of being an armchair critic assailing people for not spoonfeeding you, you would know that the references I cited in many instances themselves contain the primary sources. For example, when I cite "Doniger" or "O'Flaherty," I am referring to the translations of Indian texts by the scholar Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty. Again, if you actually knew something about the subject, you would know that fact. Ditto with Carpenter, Thundy, et al. Not only have I used different sources - as you would know, if you knew my work, which, again, you obviously don't - but I have also changed the wording of the parallels where necessary."

10. "What you have demonstrated here is more of the same abusive nonsense you have been spewing at me for years now, and I grow very weary of it, especially when you and the others at that forum rarely police yourselves for your continual errors such as you have revealed here.

But thank you for this fine example of your absurdity and hypocrisy."

Now, maybe it's time for you to actually study Christ in Egypt, ApostateAbe.

Documented Sources for Zeitgeist Part One

ApostateAbe · 12-03-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

ApostateAbe, if recall correctly you admitted here that you skimmed Christ Conspiracy years ago. From there, you just read online articles which do not contain all of the details since that is what the books are for.

ApostateAbe, Acharya was correct on several points...

Quote:

SNIP

Now, maybe it's time for you to actually study Christ in Egypt, ApostateAbe.

Documented Sources for Zeitgeist Part One

Dave31, would you be willing to accept my challenge?

Dave31 · 12-03-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

ApostateAbe "Dave31, would you be willing to accept my challenge? "

LMAO! That's funny! You're not in any position to offer any challenges concerning Acharya's works. Work that you've admitted here you've never read beyond skimming Christ Conspiracy several years ago & skimming online articles that do not contain all the details because that is what the books are for.

I'll be accepting absolutely no challenge from you or anyone else who has not read Christ in Egypt from cover to cover.

The fact is, I've wasted too much time on you & others here already just trying to set the record straight with all the misinformation regarding Acharya's work.

I challenge you, ApostateAbe to make at least some attempt at having intellectually honesty and integrity to actually read the works BEFORE dishonestly trashing them out of ignorance. If you are incapable of doing that, then, find something or someone else to obsess over.

ApostateAbe · 12-03-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

ApostateAbe "Dave31, would you be willing to accept my challenge? "

LMAO! That's funny! You're not in any position to offer any challenges concerning Acharya's works. Work that you've admitted here you've never read beyond skimming Christ Conspiracy several years ago & skimming online articles that do not contain all the details because that is what the books are for.

I'll be accepting absolutely no challenge from you or anyone else who has not read Christ in Egypt from cover to cover.

The fact is, I've wasted too much time on you & others here already just trying to set the record straight with all the misinformation regarding Acharya's work.

I challenge you, ApostateAbe to make at least some attempt at having intellectually honesty and integrity to actually read the works BEFORE dishonestly trashing them out of ignorance. If you are incapable of doing that, then, find something or someone else to obsess over.

OK, have it your way. I was only trying to help you. I don't pretend to have an extensive knowledge of the writings of Acharya S, or at least I didn't mean to pretend such a thing. If you would be willing to send me the book, then I would be more than happy to read it--I'll give you my address. But you must understand that I am very hesitant to play into what seems to be Acharya S's method of marketing, which explains why I choose not to spend money on her material. I am not asking you to trust me. There have been many others who have taken the trouble to read her work, they give negative reviews that reflect my own opinions, but Acharya S says they are biased or they haven't read enough of her work or they are somehow illegitimate. My challenge stands. Trace just one of her significant and divisive claims back to the original evidence.

Dave31 · 12-03-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

ApostateAbe "OK, have it your way. I was only trying to help you. I don't pretend to have an extensive knowledge of the writings of Acharya S, or at least I didn't mean to pretend such a thing. If you would be willing to send me the book, then I would be more than happy to read it--I'll give you my address. But you must understand that I am very hesitant to play into what seems to be Acharya S's method of marketing, which explains why I choose not to spend money on her material. I am not asking you to trust me. There have been many others who have taken the trouble to read her work, they give negative reviews that reflect my own opinions, but Acharya S says they are biased or they haven't read enough of her work or they are somehow illegitimate. My challenge stands. Trace just one of her significant and divisive claims back to the original evidence."

I don't need your help. You confirm here as well as in many other posts that you have a clear bias against Acharya & her works by refusing to read them. No, I am not at liberty to send out copies of her books and even if I could I sure as hell wouldn't send one to you anyway due to your extreme prejudice & misogyny against her.

Quote:

ApostateAbe "Trace just one of her significant and divisive claims back to the original evidence."

It has already been done here Documented Sources for Zeitgeist Part One
where a mountain of primary sources and credible evidence has been compiled from her work demonstrating your biases, prejudice and that you're just plain wrong about the works of Acharya S.

Again, I challenge you, ApostateAbe, to make at least some attempt at having intellectually honesty and integrity to actually read the works BEFORE dishonestly trashing them out of ignorance as you've been doing for years. Is that too much to ask of you, ApostateAbe?

ApostateAbe · 12-03-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

ApostateAbe "OK, have it your way. I was only trying to help you. I don't pretend to have an extensive knowledge of the writings of Acharya S, or at least I didn't mean to pretend such a thing. If you would be willing to send me the book, then I would be more than happy to read it--I'll give you my address. But you must understand that I am very hesitant to play into what seems to be Acharya S's method of marketing, which explains why I choose not to spend money on her material. I am not asking you to trust me. There have been many others who have taken the trouble to read her work, they give negative reviews that reflect my own opinions, but Acharya S says they are biased or they haven't read enough of her work or they are somehow illegitimate. My challenge stands. Trace just one of her significant and divisive claims back to the original evidence."

I don't need your help. You confirm here as well as in many other posts that you have a clear bias against Acharya & her works by refusing to read them. No, I am not at liberty to send out copies of her books and even if I could I sure as hell wouldn't send one to you anyway due to your extreme prejudice & misogyny against her.

Quote:

ApostateAbe "Trace just one of her significant and divisive claims back to the original evidence."

It has already been done here Documented Sources for Zeitgeist Part One
where a mountain of primary sources and credible evidence has been compiled from her work demonstrating your biases, prejudice and that you're just plain wrong about the works of Acharya S.

Again, I challenge you, ApostateAbe, to make at least some attempt at having intellectually honesty and integrity to actually read the works BEFORE dishonestly trashing them out of ignorance as you've been doing for years. Is that too much to ask of you, ApostateAbe?

Dave31, I would accept your challenge if it didn't involve giving Acharya S a certain percentage of $24.95. What do you mean when you say that you are not at liberty to send out copies of her books? Are you working for her as a salesperson? If so, I didn't mean for you to take a book from her collection. I was only hoping that you would send me a copy that you own.

show_no_mercy · 12-03-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

I don't need your help. You confirm here as well as in many other posts that you have a clear bias against Acharya & her works by refusing to read them. No, I am not at liberty to send out copies of her books and even if I could I sure as hell wouldn't send one to you anyway due to your extreme prejudice & misogyny against her.

lol

I didn't even realize that this AS person was a woman until this. I read AS's response to Abe and it's full of virtrol. Your posts, as well, are full of virtrol. Abe seems to be responding in a polite, controlled manner.

Maybe you should drop the martyr/misogyny card and people might take your posts more seriously. Just a suggestion; feel free to ignore it.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.