Richard Carrier Owes Acharya S an Apology

Please read this link below and pass it around. More people need to be made aware of all the malicious smears Richard Carrier has been spreading on Acharya S for 10 years now and it's finally time he was called out for it:

STUPID THINGS RICHARD CARRIER HAS DONE AND SAID:

Richard Carrier Owes Acharya an Apology

www.freethoughtnation.com...

Somebody needs to make a video exposing Carrier's lies from that link.

For example:

The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor

"However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L)...."

Bayes Theorem, from the 18th century

Richard Carrier constantly bludgeons Acharya to death for discussing 18th/19th century works, yet, Carrier's 'Bayes Theorem' originates from the 18th century!!! "Bayes' theorem is named after Thomas Bayes 1701–1761". :shock: How much more hypocritical could Carrier possibly be?

"Carrier admits on video he has no interest in studying Astrotheology:

In a recent 2014 video, Nuskeptix "Christ Myth Theory" Video Chat, Carrier admits (at 53-54 minutes) he has no interest in pursuing or investigating astrotheology as he finds it "dull," which is basically an admission that Carrier has never studied the subject and has no interest in doing so, therefore, Carrier is not qualified to comment on it with any authority or competence whatsoever. Carrier says he "could never write a book on the subject" (ain't that the truth!). Carrier is simply not a reliable or credible source on the subject of astrotheology or Acharya's work and he needs to be called out on it by others."

www.freethoughtnation.com...

a reply to: GoldenKnight

Those links just go to another forum with a thread like this but with actual context.

"It's important to note that Richard Carrier has never read a single book by Acharya S/Murdock as the information he obtains of her work apparently comes from e-mails from others asking for Carrier's opinion. Since Carrier's critique above he has actually gotten worse, Dick Carrier's criticisms of her work have been very sloppy including egregious errors, so, be very skeptical of his criticisms as Richard Carrier is not a reliable or credible source on Acharya's work. It's also important to realize that Carrier has been criticizing Acharya's work for at least 10 years since 2004, yet, he has never proven anything of significance wrong. Take note how Carrier has always been quick to criticize Acharya's work even though he has never actually read a single book of hers, yet, he also has never acknowledged that she may be right about anything - all signs of biases and ulterior motives. In fact, he's so quick to criticize her work that he consistently makes sloppy and egregious errors, which he NEVER apologizes for. We expect far more integrity, character and ethics from the mythicist camp. It appears his agenda is merely to 'poison the well.' Somebody needs to explain to Carrier that part of being a good scholar is also having good ethics and the treatment he gives to Acharya, a fellow mythicist, has been disingenuous and unethical and others also need to call him out on it. "

www.freethoughtnation.com...

I am not sure if op was on a thread a while back where I called out the op of that thread . Basically they were flogging Acharya S/Murdock work . The op of that thread attacked me and basically brushed me aside and so I went to their posts and found a very interesting conversation with another member .When I brought it to the thread the op vanished and never returned to face what I had found what they had said .....use lots of salt when reading anything from Acharya S/Murdock

Astrotheology Debunked

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

Get that crap out of here, TROLL. Those fundy Christian extremists have already been debunked repeatedly anyways but, none of that has anything to do with this thread.

Chris White, DEBUNKED
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Keith "Truth" is a useful idiot
www.freethoughtnation.com...

See Chris get exposed


Scholars who've actually read her work are supportive of it:

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations ... I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

"Your scholarship is relentless! The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Professor of Archaeology
Review of Acharya's book "Christ in Egypt"

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"
- Dr. Robert Eisenman

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?"
- Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, North Park Seminary

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating."
- Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor, Presbyterian Church

We cannot win them over to our side by constantly insulting them and terrorizing them. That's not how one wins people over to our side. How many Christians have come to our side due to Dawkins? He's one of the most popular atheists but not popular among theists. We cannot get an "antagonistic and anti-Christian" mythicist position entry into dictionaries or encyclopedias - it will just be dismissed as "hostile" towards religion/Christianity and will only serve to create more divisiveness as well as lower the level of discourse. We need the direct oppose at this point in time.

Besides, Acharya's books certainly blast all the Abrahamic religions. So, it's not necessary, useful or beneficial to have a hateful position that theists will never pay any attention to.

a reply to: GoldenKnight

originally posted by: GoldenKnight
Scholars who've actually read her work are supportive of it:

You might want to make it clear that you are speaking specifically about those scholars you listed. Your statement implies that all scholars that actually read her work are supportive of it, which is very far from the truth.

Eric