MCalavera

Uh, I already answered that ...

MCalavera

Gee, you mean we're the unholy Trinity? :P

Yeah, as soon as I saw her very sad response, I just shrugged it off and decided not to make any further posts there. You can't really reason with such people.

Toto

If Acharya S is correct, everything traditional is linked.

aa5874

You mean if EVOLUTION is true then Acharya S may be correct?

Ancient religious BELIEFS may have derived from an ORIGINAL source???

Dave31

Thanks for finally admitting that you have no interest in Pygmies or their history and that this is really all about trashing Acharya S. You don't care enough to actually read their books or their sources either. You have refused to read the books of her sources such as Dr. Jean-Pierre Hallet, Dr. John Jackson or anything else regarding Pygmies. The utterly "bizarre and wacko theories proposed" throughout the bible don't seem to bother GakuseiDon one bit. You refuse to turn a critical eye towards the bible or your own beliefs. The whole invisible Jewish zombie with a long white beard in the sky doesn't bother you at all. You're okay with that. So, you seem to have a hypocritical double-standard when it comes to "bizarre and wacko theories" - there are some throughout the bible that you apparently like and agree with.

GakuseiDon, you've trashed Acharya's work for several years long BEFORE you ever claimed to have finally read the book, which was not very long ago. Little has changed. It seems you only read her book to look for whatever else you could find to trash her with. That's where your obsession with Acharya S has gone onto the topic of Pygmies. Your article includes blatant falsehoods in it that you still have not corrected. Accuracy and honesty are not of interest to you when it comes to Acharya's work. You appear to believe it's your religious duty to trash her however you can. Every thread you have posted across the internet about Acharya S has 'poisoned the well' &/or incorporated other assorted fallacies. So the agenda from GakuseiDon regarding Acharya's work is always one of biases and disingenuousness.

Instead of telling us what you don't believe how about telling us what you DO believe? It seems hypocritical in my view for you to constantly attack others for putting their cards on the table while you never show your own.

Is that your evasion tactic? The God of the bible certainly DOES care what you believe. That's an absurd comment I doubt Christians would agree with. Ever heard of the 10 Commandments and the bible? John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

I'm guessing that your comment probably didn't get passed through due to the fact that it is way off topic. That blog has nothing to do with Pygmies.

LOL, I know how much you love to quote-mine selected quotes and twist their meanings with your bold emphasis but, no, your post is off topic. I realize it's convincing to those across the net who don't actually look at the material for themselves to see how disingenuous you are though.

In this case of trying to connect the Pygmies with Quetzalcoatl is just more of you making it up as you go along. Yes, you consistently misrepresent her with your bold emphasis trying to claim she's saying something that she did not say. Are you getting paid for this?

She's talking about the astrotheological connections based on natural phenomena. Notice she made no mention of Pygmies in her blog on Quetzalcoatl? I suppose it's possible but, that's not what she says. She has never made that claim. You're just putting words in her mouth, as usual, in order to create more straw man arguments.

Again, Acharya's book is not about Pygmies. And, for the umpteenth time, she points these things out in the back of her first book to raise the questions and essentially say more research in this area is needed. You repeatedly omit all these facts and merely use this topic to bludgeon her to death.

Notice how GD omits "However it got there,"? Then, he goes on to take his bold emphasis and discuss Pygmies in his attempt to make connections with leaps of faith while putting words in her mouth that she never said. Simply take all the bold emphasis by GakuseiDon and compare it to the full quote and it's easy to see how he's trying to mislead people into believing that she's saying something that she simply does not say.

It's blatantly obvious that she does not claim to know the answer. That is what she's trying to find out.

Pygmies in 'The Christ Conspiracy'

Earl Doherty chewing out GakuseiDon at IIDB post 23:

That's GakuseiDon's M.O. and he incorporates that same tactic towards the work by Acharya S. It's extremely disingenuous to say the least. When GakuseiDon emphasizes phrases in bold he tries to turn what she actually said into something she did not say - and he's fully aware of it. He also loves trying to dupe others into agreeing with him such as asking if he's quoted her correctly, meanwhile, using his own bold to try to dupe others into agreeing that she's saying something that she is not saying. Don't be duped.

Again, she seems to have brought up several topics towards the end of her first book as areas of interest. The point being that more research on those topics is needed. So, instead of thanking her for raising the questions, you smear her with falsehoods claiming that she makes claims that she didn't actually make - same as you do with Earl Doherty's work.

Toto

Dave31: GDon can be annoying, but there's no sense in harping on that. He is actually paying you some respect by trying to find some coherent sense in Acharya S's theories. This is how peer review is supposed to work.

I think that the basis of her work is that astrotheology is part of the human psyche, just as pyramids can arise because of the inherent nature of building materials. But if this is the case, the idea of an advanced Pygmy civilization is a diversion. Since it appears to be based on an uncritical, or one might say, gullible acceptance of Pygmy legends, why has she doubled down on the issue?

Does respect for Pygmies and their culture require this sort of uncritical acceptance of legends that anyone would reject if they were recounted by modern white people?

aa5874

That is NOT how "peer" review works. Whose "PEER" is Gakuseidon?

Dave31

"Doubling down"? It's really disappointing to see your uncritical acceptance of GakuseiDon's BS. She hasn't made the bold claims GDon would like everyone to believe.

She's simply sharing the information saying more research needs to be done in that area. The claim that she's making "gullible acceptance of Pygmy legends" is false. We've gone through this several times - she cites other scholars bringing this issue up and she raises the question basically saying more research is needed on this topic. You guys are attempting to ridicule her into submission just for bringing it up and shining a light on it. None of you have read Dr. Hallet's book - if you cared about this topic that would be a good place to start.

Gakuseidon is certainly no "peer" of Acharya S, unless by "peer" you mean someone with utter biases and prejudice. He never shown anything else but contempt and disrespect for her work both before and after he actually skimmed her first book. He simply cannot be trusted on issues of her work. His only agenda is to trash it however he can in order to shore up his faith at all costs. Accuracy or intellectual honesty have never been on his list when it comes to Acharya's work but, you already know that. If he treated Carrier's work the same way GDon would've been banned years ago.

It's really not difficult to understand her theories ... it's quite simple when one actually reads her books. She's simply saying that based on the evidence that actually exists the origins of religious concepts seem to come from observations of natural phenomena. It's an Occam's razor explanation and I have yet to see a better one. She's simply trying to track down these origins and their evolution. The differences and similarities having much to do with the surrounding environment, culture and era - seems like basic common sense to me. The evidence is certainly on her side.

stephan huller

Why not just admit this pygmy thing is stupid and move on?

GakuseiDon

I start by assuming Acharya S and her sources are CORRECT. I then ask: what are the implications of this? And then I go back to Acharya S with questions about the implications. I've done the same with Doherty's theories. It's a productive approach when looking at the cohesiveness of new theories. Are they internally consistent? Do they fit in with what we understand already?

As for the rest of your post: If I have misrepresented Acharya S, then QUOTE me doing it. Fringe thinkers who claim misrepresentation of their genius are a dime-a-dozen. Otherwise: I have quoted Acharya S in my research, and I have extrapolated from that. I'm not putting words into her mouth, I'm ASKING her about the implications.

All she has to say is that it is or isn't possible for the Pygmies to influence -- directly or indirectly -- Mexican myths, and the reason why she thinks that. How hard can it be?

Correct, they don't.

"Invisible Jewish zombie with a long white beard"? :lol: I think you are having a stroke Dave31.

Anyway, those who have seen me post on the topic know that I love the Bible. It is a unique time-capsule of ancient beliefs. But it is a myth, a story. It is no more necessarily true than Homer's work.

Thank you. But it is only off-topic if there was no influence by Pygmies. Is it possible that Pygmies influenced the Mexican myths?

I'm not putting words into her mouth, I'm ASKING her.

If, as you say, it is possible that Pygmies were influences on the Quetzalcoatl myth, then isn't this something that should be investigated???

You see, Acharya S is standing on the scoop of the century: evidence for an ancient advanced global civilization that is the possible source of religious traditions from Egypt to India to Tibet to Mexico!

But as soon as anyone tries to investigate further, they are shot down as smearing Acharya S!

Dave31, don't you have any curiosity at all? Don't you think "This is fantastic! This needs to be investigated further!" And then ACTUALLY investigate things further???

I don't understand that mindset Dave31. And I have to admit, it appears to be the same mindset as those convinced by other fringe theories as well. It's like the natural curiosity centres of your brain have been burnt out. On the one hand, you think she has provided sufficient evidence to mount a case and expect people to investigate, but on the other hand, you won't do it yourself. I make no secret that I think Acharya S's theories are wacko and bizarre, but it looks like I am more excited by them than you are!!!

I don't omit it. See it right there, Dave31? I don't bold it because I then go on to ASK her "how it got there".

And what is that, Dave31? I'm asking her for the implications about what she has written. See the questions after the quotes?

Acharya suggests that the Pygmies may have had an ancient advanced global civilization AND the "Sky People" may be the remnants of an ancient advanced global civilization. She hasn't said that the Pygmies are the "Sky People", but isn't it a natural inference, and one that I think any reasonable person would ask?

Dave31, let me ask you:

IF, as Acharya suggests:
(1) The Pygmies may have had an ancient advanced global civilization AND
(2) The "Sky People" may be the remnants of an ancient advanced global civilization

THEN don't you wonder that there might not be a connection between the two?

Add further that the myth of Quetzalcoatl has elements similar to that proposed by the Pygmies, then wouldn't YOU PERSONALLY wonder about this connection? Isn't it an OBVIOUS question? WHY AREN'T YOU ASKING HER THIS? (I'm starting to write like aa__!)

I agree that there are disturbing similarities between how Acharya S and Earl Doherty deal with those who critique their theories: accuse the detractors of all sorts of biases, accuse the critic of misrepresentation without actually quoting the critic, imply their genius is not appreciated, and rely on their supporters to be convinced that their work is ground-breaking without actually being excited enough to follow up on it themselves.

Dave31, if, as you say, it is possible for the Pygmies to have influenced the beliefs of people in Mexico with regards to Quetzalcoatl, what would be the next steps? How do we proceed in validate whether it is possible or not? You say that she is raising these questions for more research; but what should that research be? And why isn't she doing it herself?