Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 08-04-2011, 08:46 PM

She is, at least, cautious on the question of reptilian shape-shifters here on Earth. As she writes in the link above: "... I may not "believe" in such beings (I'm not saying yes or no)..."

Dave31, what is your stance on reptilian shape-shifters here on Earth? Are you cautious on this topic as well? And do you think that it is feasible that an advanced ancient civilization still exists today and people misrepresent them and their crafts for aliens and flying saucers?

Toto · 08-04-2011, 09:30 PM

Robert M Price interviewed Acharya S on on Point of Inquiry, and she mentioned a bit about her New Age background, but did not go into it enough.

The thread on that link might be of interest.

Toto · 08-04-2011, 10:55 PM

I didn't realize the close connection between Biblical studies and the UFO movement.

Nine theories dominate discourse on Extraterrestrial Contact

But Acharya S is not part of this, as far as I can see.

GakuseiDon · 08-05-2011, 02:38 AM

Dr Price calls those kind of connections "Extreme Biblical Studies" :lol: It could perhaps have its own board.

ApostateAbe · 08-05-2011, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
She is uncritical of her sources, and she doesn't play any other game.

Actually, she has debunked Sitchen for her new age readers, and she has rejected Christianity. She can treat some sources critically. She seems to want academic credibility.

Everyone wants academic credibility, but they don't want to give up a fan base that was gained through hardly anything but uncritical acceptance of previous hack authors. That is what is found on literally almost every page of still-her-most-popular book The Christ Conspiracy, which Acharya S continues to promote, has never denounced and never stopped selling. If she wants to say something about Origen, well, then she does not cite the writings of Origen, but she cites Joseph Whelless who cites the Catholic Encyclopedia which cites Origen. She needed only one iteration of citation, but she chose three, because she needed opinionated distortions of the evidence in order to make her point. That is on almost every page, and it constitutes the book that made her a celebrity author within a niche. If she wanted to play any other game and if she wanted academic credibility, then she would denounce all of her publications as shams, stop selling them, go back to school (a good one), and get her Ph.D.

Dave31 · 08-05-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is no new information there. Acharya S plays the sympathy for poor pygmies card and does not deal with the criticisms of Hallet by the professional anthropologist.

It's unfortunate. Acharya S could be ahead of the game if she were just a little more critical of her sources.

Typical of Gakuseidon, ApostateAbe and even Toto to gloss over this comment:

Quote:

"...Hallet does a thorough job addressing criticisms that the Pygmies were influenced by other cultures, such as the Judeo-Christian - indeed, he addresses this contention throughout the book, which is seemingly written for just such a purpose. It is obvious that critics who continue to bring up this issue of possible influence have not read his book; hence, they cannot be deemed experts on the subject."

I also love how Gakuseidon purposely omits this part from his post above:

Quote:

"...relies not only on his own copious firsthand experiences but also the works of other scientists, such as the Jesuit missionary and anthropologist Dr. Paul Schebesta, who likewise lived among and visited the Ituri Forest people for many years from the 1920s to through the 1950s...."

Garden of Eden originally a Pygmy myth?

The falsehoods and smears need to stop. It's really old and about time for you guys to grow up a bit. You're still spreading the same falsehoods that have been debunked years ago such as the old Dr. Price review that he took down around 04. It's maliciously dishonest to even post it at all. The only purpose is for purely malevolent reasons to maliciously smear Acharya S and you should be ashamed. If you had any real, valid arguments none of this type of garbage would be necessary at all.

Quote:

"Dave31 has kindly informed me..."

Ahh? Sorry I don't follow ... are you making crap up again as usual? Your falsehoods give a clear indication that your intentions really are purely malevolent, proving that you simply are not to be trusted.

Toto · 08-05-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is no new information there. Acharya S plays the sympathy for poor pygmies card and does not deal with the criticisms of Hallet by the professional anthropologist.

It's unfortunate. Acharya S could be ahead of the game if she were just a little more critical of her sources.

Typical of Gakuseidon, ApostateAbe and even Toto to gloss over this comment:

Quote:

"...Hallet does a thorough job addressing criticisms that the Pygmies were influenced by other cultures, such as the Judeo-Christian - indeed, he addresses this contention throughout the book, which is seemingly written for just such a purpose. It is obvious that critics who continue to bring up this issue of possible influence have not read his book; hence, they cannot be deemed experts on the subject."

I saw that comment, and I cringed. You can read one book by a naive explorer who identified with the noble primitives he visited, or you can learn a bit more about how cultural anthropologists try to separate folklore from real history.

Quote:

...
The falsehoods and smears need to stop. It's really old and about time for you guys to grow up a bit. ...

Quote:

"Dave31 has kindly informed me..."

Ahh? Sorry I don't follow ... are you making crap up again as usual? Your falsehoods give a clear indication that your intentions really are purely malevolent, proving that you simply are not to be trusted.

Grow up a bit? I think you need to get a grip.

If there are falsehoods, you need to identify them and provide the specific rebuttal.

And not every criticism is a smear. You have to treat criticism as an invitation to a discussion.

Toto · 08-05-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
OK, thanks, I sent him an email.

Dear Dr. Price,

DM Murdock is a loony conspiracy theorist hack author who is damningly uncritical of all of her loony conspiracy theorist hack sources. I am curious--why do you give her your support?

Thanks,

Abe

Please let me know if he says anything about it in his next podcast. I will let you know if he replies by email.

My I suggest a different approach?
.
First of all, reconsider the use of "damningly." It seems to be one of your favorite words, but it doesn't add anything except an emotional hook.

Secondly, "loony" is just a judgmental word. It only conveys the idea that you think DM is beyond discussion. But most religious theories are loony in somebody's eyes.

Thirdly, DM's sources are generally not conspiracy theorists. They are 19th century history of religion or perhaps outdated scholarship, but not conspiracy theorists. She does not quote Sitchen or Icke or Daniken or any of the seriously loony Extreme Bible Study types.

It would be much better for you to say - in this instance, Acharya quotes this source as if it were authoritative, but it's actually bogus, or something like that - if you can find an example.

ApostateAbe · 08-05-2011, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
OK, thanks, I sent him an email.

Dear Dr. Price,

DM Murdock is a loony conspiracy theorist hack author who is damningly uncritical of all of her loony conspiracy theorist hack sources. I am curious--why do you give her your support?

Thanks,

Abe

Please let me know if he says anything about it in his next podcast. I will let you know if he replies by email.

My I suggest a different approach?
.
First of all, reconsider the use of "damningly." It seems to be one of your favorite words, but it doesn't add anything except an emotional hook.

Secondly, "loony" is just a judgmental word. It only conveys the idea that you think DM is beyond discussion. But most religious theories are loony in somebody's eyes.

Thirdly, DM's sources are generally not conspiracy theorists. They are 19th century history of religion or perhaps outdated scholarship, but not conspiracy theorists. She does not quote Sitchen or Icke or Daniken or any of the seriously loony Extreme Bible Study types.

It would be much better for you to say - in this instance, Acharya quotes this source as if it were authoritative, but it's actually bogus, or something like that - if you can find an example.

The email has already been sent, sorry. I think you should send him an email, especially if you are already on good terms with him.

Kapyong · 08-05-2011, 02:39 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If she wants to say something about Origen, well, then she does not cite the writings of Origen, but she cites Joseph Whelless who cites the Catholic Encyclopedia which cites Origen. She needed only one iteration of citation, but she chose three, because she needed opinionated distortions of the evidence in order to make her point.

Yup.
AcharyaS' work could indeed be described in that one phrase :
"opinionated distortions".

Remember when she came here briefly?
I had analyzed her use of sources - my conclusion was that she used dubious sources, and frequently mis-represented the evidence. But as it turned out, the FIRST reference I checked was accurate - and I said so.

So she turned up here and said :
"thanks for confirming my work is accurate"
but completely ignored my conclusion, then disappeared!

What a load of ol' dingoes kidneys.

K.

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

08-04-2011, 08:46 PM	#91
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	She is, at least, cautious on the question of reptilian shape-shifters here on Earth. As she writes in the link above: "... I may not "believe" in such beings (I'm not saying yes or no)..." Dave31, what is your stance on reptilian shape-shifters here on Earth? Are you cautious on this topic as well? And do you think that it is feasible that an advanced ancient civilization still exists today and people misrepresent them and their crafts for aliens and flying saucers?

08-04-2011, 09:30 PM	#92
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Robert M Price interviewed Acharya S on on Point of Inquiry, and she mentioned a bit about her New Age background, but did not go into it enough. The thread on that link might be of interest.

08-04-2011, 10:55 PM	#93
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I didn't realize the close connection between Biblical studies and the UFO movement. Nine theories dominate discourse on Extraterrestrial Contact But Acharya S is not part of this, as far as I can see.

08-05-2011, 02:38 AM	#94
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Dr Price calls those kind of connections "Extreme Biblical Studies" :lol: It could perhaps have its own board.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.