• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST

Again, for what the 7th time now - it's about HER PRIVACY AND PHYSICAL SAFETY. It's also about the DEATH THREATS and other threats of violence from those who try to TRACK HER DOWN - Do you need to have a few death threats &/or physical violence happen to you in order to understand this? WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

HOW MANY DEATH THREATS DO YOU GET TIM? HOW MANY THREATS OF VIOLENCE FROM STALKERS DO YOU GET TIM? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN WHATEVER PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT YOU THEY CAN FIND SO THEY CAN POST IT ALL OVER THE NET TIM? Regardless of what you think &/or don't understand IT IS A BIG DEAL - PERIOD! So, just STOP and NEVER use that name.

1. She has never used that name.

2. She does not want it used.

3. It's usually only used for derogatory or disrespectful purposes (i.e. GreNME & other punks who viciously spread it around to attack a single female who has never done anything to them - very brave of them).

4. It's dangerous to her physical well being and her family.

Her child was abducted due to stalkers getting ahold of her personal & private information. You should've understood the seriousness of this issue after the very first time I explained this to you. Do you really need to have horrendous things happen to you in order to understand how serious this is? People like GreNME who go around spamming her name across every forum they belong to have no conscience whatsoever. I just expected much more from you. What a major disappointment.

post 30 "The disreputable and untrustworthy Christian apologist "James Patrick Holding" has been receiving and releasing malicious, false and libelous information about me, provided to him by a mentally ill fugitive wanted on three felonies, including child abduction. In his typically vicious, unprofessional, unethical and immoral manner, Holding first revealed my name--also gained from this felonious source and now posted all over the internet--and then passed along the false and libelous material to his fanatic followers, who have since threatened me with further exposure of personal information and lies received from this deranged criminal, who committed violent crimes against me and my small son. Because of this despicable behavior, it is obvious that this man, JP Holding, has no integrity, and that his writings should not be given credibility."
http://www.truthbeknown.com/holding.htm
Click to expand...

Tim, you need to consider where you got that name from in the first place because it sure as hell never came from her as explained many times - she has never used that name.
 
Last edited:
Do me a favor and leave off the screaming all-in-caps, and bold face lines in all future posts. I see them as the graphic equivalent of screaming, and it annoys me to be screamed at. I think you will find it annoys other people, too. It is off-putting and tends to make you look hysterical.

Let me point out a few flaws in your logic:

1) If you google Acharya S, you will find her listed in at least one heading as "Dorothy M. Murdock."

2) Anyone who has read ththis thread - and anyone stalking Acharya S could easily do this - will have seen by now that GreNMe has driven you up the wall by constantly referring to her as "Dorothy." Thus I doubt my referring to her as Dorthy M. Murdock is going to tip any one off to any new way to stalk her.

3) You seem to be getting a bit pushy regarding the content of my article. Let me remind you that you are not my editor and that you lack any means of compelling me to put in or leave out anything I choose in the print version of the article. I'm willing to be courteous, but you are beginning to annoy me. Now would be a good time for you to back off.

All that said, I will in all probability list her as D. M. Murdock if for no other reason than to avoid a wrongful death suit from your relatives should you blow an artery in you brain over this.
 
The problem seems to be your comprehension Tim - this issue has been addressed nearly a dozen times now just in this thread and you still don't seem to get it. I thought the BOLD would help you. Maybe if I make some points bigger it will help a bit more.

Now, I will point out the problems with YOUR logic:

1) If you google Acharya S, you will find her listed in at least one heading as "Dorothy M. Murdock."
Click to expand...

I've gone through 3 google pages now and haven't found any. The sites that do use that name you need to notice that NONE OF THEM COME FROM HER WEBSITES! It's not even at her Wiki page for Christ sakes Tim. How many times does it need to be explained to you that SHE HAS NEVER USED THAT NAME! so the point is - it does not matter where YOU found the name - it did not come from her! It comes from people like GreNMe. A point you just cannot seem to be able to grasp.

1. She has never used that name.

2. She does not want it used.

3. It's usually only used for derogatory or disrespectful purposes (i.e. GreNME & other punks who viciously spread it around to attack a single female who has never done anything to them - very brave of them).

4. It's dangerous to her physical well being and her family.

3) You seem to be getting a bit pushy regarding the content of my article.
Click to expand...

Not so, I'm just amazed at your inability to understand the concept that she is under constant threat after it has been thoroughly explained to you so many times now and you're just so bla'se about it saying 'what's the big deal' AFTER knowing her child has been abducted. BTW, Which has nothing to do with your article. A person with a conscience would've only needed this explained ONCE.
 
Last edited:
GIANT CAPITAL LETTERS DO NOT A POINT MAKE???1?!



but seriously dave, why not just email her and find out what name she would like? Or better yet, why doesn't Tim just email her and find out how she would like to be represented? Why does Tim even need your approval to write a review of a piece of entertainment, and to address the sources used in it's manufacture?
 
thesyntaxera said:
<snip>

Why does Tim even need your approval to write a review of a piece of entertainment, and to address the sources used in it's manufacture?
Click to expand...

Reading through this thread that is the primary question coming to my mind.

I would also point out that her Amazon.com page actually contains both names, and the fact that Zeitgeist itself sources work of hers under both names I believe it is completely fair to acknowledge that they are the same person.
 
Not to mention that I can't quite figure out why a name she has never used has to be kept sooper-sekrit. If she's never used it, it can't be used to track her down, right? Indeed, it should help to throw folks off the trail.

But I am sure that if you say it in big letters one more time I will be convinced never to refer to Acharya, S as Dorothy M. Murdock. Curse you, big letters!
 
Dave:

I probably will just refer to her as D. M. Murdoch and Acharya S., so you don't have an anurism. However, I will give you one last warning. Any more screaming capitals and I will: 1) refuse to respond to your posts on this thread, and 2) exile you permanently from my forum.
 
thank you, Fullflavormenthal:

After being attacked, called a "hack" etc., I tend to forget that most, if not all, of this is coming from a small cadre of Acharya S supporters.
 
TimCallahan said:
thank you, Fullflavormenthal:

After being attacked, called a "hack" etc., I tend to forget that most, if not all, of this is coming from a small cadre of Acharya S supporters.
Click to expand...
Don't let it get to you. I started college as a religious studies major, and so for a good year I studied the course work; not to mention the years of study to led to that initial decision. I digress, I saw Zeitgeist and was able to correct big portions of it in real time.

I once got into a debate with one of the followers of Murdoch/S., and I actually went to my University's library and checked out books and articles on Egyptology; even going to far as to enlist a German friend to help translate one of the books I found dealing with one of the main arguments of Murdoch/S. In the end all I got was a better understanding of the fluid nature of Egyptian religion, how far we have come in our understanding of it, and a whole lot of "LOL, ROTFLMAO! You are soo pwned" from this fan of Murdoch/S.

The intelligent will understand you, and others who point out problems. To the follower of Murdoch/S. they will view you through the conspiratorial mindset that is pushed in her work and in Zeitgeist. To these people they cannot understand how I can be both an atheist and against the...well honestly woo in her writings. BUT...the truth of the matter is there is a new age type of mindset in her work, and so it is easy for her to attack an atheist.

Disbelieving in the Christian religion, and any religion for that matter is easy. The problem is that Zeitgeist/Acharya's work appeals to the people who want to prove that religion is absolutely bunk regardless of how false the reasoning is. And in that respect it angers me, because they are mangling history to fit an agenda.

That and many of the sources for her work are to be frank crazy people from the past.

Nevertheless, your work was calm, well thought out and well argued; and had an academic nature to it. This is not the religious counter argument, but one that appeals to the academic minded.
 
Tim;

Another thing that you brought up in the beginning of the article, that I find lacking in Zeitgeist and other such work, is the actual societal and cultural situations at the time. I find when looking into history that certain cultures and societies are more inclined to the messianic mythology. You mentioned the apocalyptic, and I notice this as well. One thing I want to run by you is the something I noticed when looking at the North American Ghost Dance religion. What I noticed was the idea that when a culture is being occupied by another that they tend towards liberation ideologies. That is to say that the religious ideas of these cultures look towards a savior and if things look more and more against them they will personify this into a single person. From my perspective this was overlooked in Zeitgeist, that there would be reasons for the people to look for messianic figures; and the society at the time seemed to have several. I bring this up because it gives a cultural context to what Murdoch is trying to blame on a complicated conspiracy. Ignoring the real evolution of religious ideas.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Tim "I probably will just refer to her as D. M. Murdoch and Acharya S., so you don't have an anurism. However, I will give you one last warning. Any more screaming capitals and I will: 1) refuse to respond to your posts on this thread, and 2) exile you permanently from my forum."
Click to expand...

LOL, I don't consider letters as "screaming" so I can't help but laugh at that. Nevertheless, there's hardly anyone at your forum to have any real discussion with so that's sort of an empty threat. But I wish you all the best anyway.

Congrats to fullflavormenthol who's taken a sanitized, mainstream, status-quo course in religion from a local community college so he thinks he knows everything now - It's either that or openly admit that he wasted his money on the course. LOL, I'm not surprised he thinks Callahans article was "spot-on" even though it has thoroughly been addressed and Tim has himself declared ignorance on many issues.

fullflavormenthol too has never studied a single work of Acharya's but that doesn't stop him from pretending to be an expert on her works. So, his opinion is ... just his opinion hiding behind the face of "skepticism" giving skeptics with integrity a bad name. But that's nothing new around here.
 
fullflavormenthol said:
Disbelieving in the Christian religion, and any religion for that matter is easy. The problem is that Zeitgeist/Acharya's work appeals to the people who want to prove that religion is absolutely bunk regardless of how false the reasoning is. And in that respect it angers me, because they are mangling history to fit an agenda.

That and many of the sources for her work are to be frank crazy people from the past.
Click to expand...

I have a slightly different take on the people who Zeitgeist is supposed to appeal to. IMO, it's the disaffected and it has absolutely nothing to do with believing in religion. I see it as more of an attack on "western", or English speaking society by taking the very foundations of that society to task by accusing them of co-opting another cultures practices for their own use.

My view seems to fit well with parts 2 and 3 of this movie as the whole thing was designed to "expose" the viewer to the idea that everything they've been told, or come to regard as "truth" is, in fact a great big lie.

Part 1 only deals with Christianity, the "western" religion, "our" religion and as such it can avoid any charges of racism which would, no doubt surface, if it dealt with any other of the world's religions. IMO, as being presented as part 1, it sets up the viewer for the "meat" of the movie which I see as nothing more than an attack on the American federal government. Yep, it's a big market.

I read about 500 posts over on the main Zeitgeist thread before I actually invested the time in watching the movie< If I hadn't I might just have accepted part 1 at face value because I lacked any of the historical knowledge to question what was being presented. Kust for grins, I did a lot of my own research on the Jesus/Horus connection which was inspired in part by GreNME's posts and came to my own conclusion that if I were really interested in "debunking" Christianity, there's other, mnore fruitful directions I could go in rather than the Egyptian one.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Fullflavormenthol, you're dead-on, not only with respect to the Ghost Dance but with the apocalyptic literature of Judea, which stretches from the middle of the second century BCE to the end of the first century CE. The assault of Greco-Roman civilization on the Jews was both political and cultural. The impact of Greek culture was profound. Diaspora Jews not only began speaking Greek, but stopped speaking Hebrew. The Septuagint, the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek, had to be compiled for their benefit. We have as relics of this impact the fact that Jewish congregations are called synagogues - from the Greek word "synagogee," meaning an assembly, and the popularity of the names Philip and Alexander among Jews to this day.

The cultural onslaught is probably the deciding factor in generating apocalyptic literature. Even the depredations of the Assyrians and Chaldeans who respecively took the populations of Samaria and Jerusalem into exile, didn't generate and apocalyptic books, probably because boht of those empires, along with that of the Persians, left the Jews' culture basically intact.

Dave: It's nice that you're using regular type again. Remember that my critique of Zeitgeist is specifically of the film, not necessarily of the works of Acharya S. If she wishes to send a copy of either "The Christ Conspiracy" or "Christ in Egypt," or both, to Skeptic Magazine I'll be happy to read them and review them for Skeptic.
 
Since someone has brought it up. I took the religious studies coursework at a University, which is hardly a community college.

Nevertheless it is telling how someone resorted to an ad hom, a tired claim that I haven't read Dorothy Murdoch's historical revisionism, and an inability to answer anything that I post. This is why I have him on ignore.
 
Last edited:
Dave, I have to tell you, I'm not going to plunk down $ 11.00 to get "The Christ Conspiracy" or nearly $28.00 to get "Christ in Egypt." The last time I did something like that was when someone told me there was good caouse to believe the Maya civilization had roots in India. Against my bettter judgment, I went ahead and ordered this $ 45.00 book, which was a total waste. So, either Acharya S sends a review copy or copies to Skeptic, or I don't bother looking at her stuff. It's that simple.
 
TimCallahan said:
Dave, I have to tell you, I'm not going to plunk down $ 11.00 to get "The Christ Conspiracy" or nearly $28.00 to get "Christ in Egypt." The last time I did something like that was when someone told me there was good caouse to believe the Maya civilization had roots in India. Against my bettter judgment, I went ahead and ordered this $ 45.00 book, which was a total waste. So, either Acharya S sends a review copy or copies to Skeptic, or I don't bother looking at her stuff. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
Which is fair, because honestly I can tell you there isn't much to her writings, given the fact that I read her companion guide to Zeitgeist part 1 which really didn't give much information other than repeating debunked amateur "egyptologists". If you want the information without paying the money look into the writings of Gerald Massey, and since his work is public domain you can find them for free, and save the money.
 
Last edited:
Dave31 said:
Congrats to fullflavormenthol who's taken a sanitized, mainstream, status-quo course in religion from a local community college so he thinks he knows everything now - It's either that or openly admit that he wasted his money on the course.
Click to expand...

So where did you get your postgraduate degree in religion, Dave31?

I assume from your quoted remarks that you're a qualified scholar with relevant expertise. As opposed to a random internet idiot whose idea of scholarship is ordering silly books from vanity publishing houses.
 
Dave, is it likely that I might find any of Acharya S / D. M. Murdock's books in the library?
 
TimCallahan said:
Dave, is it likely that I might find any of Acharya S / D. M. Murdock's books in the library?
Click to expand...

You're asking me this question? Just check your local libraries if they don't have them you can put in a request for the library to get them. Since "Christ in Egypt" is new they probably don't have it but they do tend to order via Amazon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom