Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 01-01-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So, a serious question: How is it possible to analyze these parallels, so that the analysis can be seen as objective and without bias on either side? And without such a method, how can you convince Acharya followers that the parallels are subjective and without meaning?

I would be willing to accept any of these for which she had actual evidence. As it stands, these are just word games that have no established relevance to actual beliefs.

Roger Pearse · 01-01-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

??

Which part of my comment did you read?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ronin · 01-01-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think Acharya S's work lacks thorough criticism because it is immune to it. It is not falsifiable. She makes a bunch of claims, and she will do one of three things:

1) doesn't cite the source
2) cites a source that no longer exists
3) cites a secondary source that doesn't cite its sources

Her work doesn't have thorough scholarly criticism because it doesn't even begin to be a work of scholarship. All you can do is say, "Where is the evidence?" The end!

I shelled out the $15.00 way back in 2000 for The Christ Conspiracy (which came with a nice handwritten personalized message from her) and came away with the notion that quite a bit of sincere research was put into a work.

Of course, it was obviously structured from a highly outlined presupposition and there are a little over four pages of referenced sources...to include some rather dubious personalities from history.

While it really is a good primer on what to look for and where to start, I find it to be more helpful to the "mystics" and "new agers" than to atheists and skeptics concerned with empirical evidence.

Of course, the use of astrological references and the implausible "multinational cabal" set off all sorts of alarms and rightly so.

So, on point with the OP, I find if she does have a diligent "following" it is the appeal of the conspiracy theorist.

If anyone actually does want to delve into the issue further, though, her site does have a discussion forum welcoming such interaction and inquiry.

ApostateAbe · 01-01-2008, 11:01 AM

Malachi, I hope you persist and eventually write a full criticism and post it online. Criticisms of Acharya S come mostly from Biblicist Christians, and there needs to be a greater showing from critical scholars.

Freethinkaluva, you have to be the greatest loyalist of any historical scholar I have ever seen. If you have an extra copy of any of Acharya S's books, then I'll give you my address and you can send it to me as a New Year's present. I promise I'll start reading it as soon as I get it. I have read parts of Christ Conspiracy, because it used to be published online as an e-book, but I can't find it anymore, and her bibliography was left out. I am a poor man, and I am not yet willing to fund Acharya's publisher.

Freethinkaluva · 01-01-2008, 11:10 AM

<edit>

Geetarmoore · 01-01-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin

While it really is a good primer on what to look for and where to start, I find it to be more helpful to the "mystics" and "new agers" than to atheists and skeptics concerned with empirical evidence.

I'm not sure why people cite 'mystics' and 'new agers' so often. It's not as if mysticism is presented as 'truth' in these books; It's presented as a historical reality of religion. One could argue that Sam Harris' book contains more active promotion of mysticism than Acharya's do.

As has been previously submitted in this thread, I think that it has appeal to conspiracy theorists more than anyone. I posted to her webforum regarding zeitgeist, and the fact that it didn't help their cause at all to be included along with part 2 of the movie, which is totally bonkers and has been debunked solidly literally hundreds of times. There appear to be a few members of that forum who buy the conspiracy stories hook, line and sinker - despite solid, overwhelming evidence against.

However - I personally think that the 'conspiracy' part of 'The Christ Conspiracy' is underplayed in the book. The title is unfortunate, as it puts it in a bad association with skeptical thinkers from the get-go.

Solitary Man · 01-01-2008, 11:31 AM

Freethinkaluva:

Personal insults according to IIDB policy are acceptable only if directed at a non-member. So you can call George Bush a poopie-head, or you can call Archaya S. a dingnut, since neither are members here, but you cannot call Malachi151 a loser nor can he call you a whackjob.

You see how that works?

aa5874 · 01-01-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I would suggest that anyone looking at this stuff reduce/paraphrase each claim to a sentence, and then examine how to test it. If it cannot be tested it's crap.

I think this was also done to the NT, and it appeared to be a load of crap. I think the Holy Ghost conception and resurrection are a load of crap. Don't you think so, too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

If it can be tested, don't forget the 'negative test' which checks that the test criteria are right -- i.e., OK, this claim passes the test; but would loads of other things which are plainly not true pass too?

It seems that all tests of the NT are negative on Jesus since there are many things about him that are plainly not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Finally if a claim passes, check whether it actually is evidence, or merely a statement about the world, from which yet another claim is being insinuated.

The NT can scarcely pass test 1, you have, in effect, destroyed the NT's credibility.

Freethinkaluva · 01-01-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Freethinkaluva:

Personal insults according to IIDB policy are acceptable only if directed at a non-member. So you can call George Bush a poopie-head, or you can call Archaya S. a dingnut, since neither are members here, but you cannot call Malachi151 a loser nor can he call you a whackjob.

You see how that works?

Yes, or course I understand that but I launched no personal insult - I am simply calling a spade a spade. <edit>

There is clearly bias against Acharya and her work here at IIDB. I can't even post to correct false information or errors. This is how folks who have never even read her work are able to repeat the same false information over and over for the last several YEARS. Folks who HAVE read her work are utterly sick and tired of it.

Solitary Man · 01-01-2008, 11:47 AM

Your post was deleted because you cannot discuss moderator action in a thread. Nor can you always call a spade a spade. You can't call trolls trolls or liars liars. While I agree there's moderation bias here, if you have a complaint, take it to QP&C, because you'll just be edited further here.

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

01-01-2008, 11:01 AM	#44
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Malachi, I hope you persist and eventually write a full criticism and post it online. Criticisms of Acharya S come mostly from Biblicist Christians, and there needs to be a greater showing from critical scholars. Freethinkaluva, you have to be the greatest loyalist of any historical scholar I have ever seen. If you have an extra copy of any of Acharya S's books, then I'll give you my address and you can send it to me as a New Year's present. I promise I'll start reading it as soon as I get it. I have read parts of Christ Conspiracy, because it used to be published online as an e-book, but I can't find it anymore, and her bibliography was left out. I am a poor man, and I am not yet willing to fund Acharya's publisher.

01-01-2008, 11:10 AM	#45
Freethinkaluva Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: USA Posts: 78	<edit>

01-01-2008, 11:31 AM	#47
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	Freethinkaluva: Personal insults according to IIDB policy are acceptable only if directed at a non-member. So you can call George Bush a poopie-head, or you can call Archaya S. a dingnut, since neither are members here, but you cannot call Malachi151 a loser nor can he call you a whackjob. You see how that works?

01-01-2008, 11:47 AM	#50
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	Your post was deleted because you cannot discuss moderator action in a thread. Nor can you always call a spade a spade. You can't call trolls trolls or liars liars. While I agree there's moderation bias here, if you have a complaint, take it to QP&C, because you'll just be edited further here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.