• 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

Up next...wild speculation on what the "S" stands for in Acharya S.

Satya ?
Siddha?
Samsarin?
Smith?
 
Dave:

Give it a rest about the name already. It's a dead issue. You've expressed your concern over Acharya's safety, the threat to which you have yet to document, despite requests for such documentation by many on this thread. The rest of us aren't convinced because of seeing her full first, unmentionable, name plastered over the net and associated with her pseudonym. I have told you that I will be referring to her as either "Acharya S" or D. M. Murdock in the article in Skeptic. Be content with that. this is the last I have to say on this non-issue.

As to the library thing, the libraries in my area are large and fairly cosmopolitan. Thus, I was surprised that at least one of her works wasn't represented. It may surprise you to know that I do know how to use a library, including interlibrary loan. Your snotty comments were not called for. Look back over this thread and tell me if I have ever made a snide comment about you or Acharya S. I don't think you'll find any. Thus, it's rather curious that you would use them in dealing with me, particularly since you have complained bitterly about what you see as uncivil actions by GreNMe and others.

As for my article in Skeptic: As with the one in e-skeptic, this is a review of the film "Zeitgeist." Therefore, it matters little that certain material left out of the film is in Acharya's books. I'm not reviewing them; I'm reviewing the film.
 
Two pages of personal attacks after I haven't checked this thread for a while. Amazing how it's been allowed to continue.

Dave31, I haven't responded because I stopped reading this thread. You've gone right back to your same old tactics of turning this into a personal issue rather than one based on the subject you yourself brought up. The plain fact is that nowhere, ever, at any given point has Dorothy ever produced any actual evidence to solidify her claims. Instead, she simply twists around half-quotes and then takes claims from the likes of Kersey Graves and Gerald Massey to spin a tale of religious syncretism that all seems to take astrology as its source. Whether it's Egyptian mythology or Hindu religious stories, Dorothy takes similar-sounding (when reduced far enough) snippets and claims correlation as causation, or she outright fabricates some kind of connection.

I've asked her, Dave31, to actually discuss it and was rebuffed. I've asked you to invite her here to defend her own ideas since you are apparently unequipped. If you like, I can even translate Egyptian for you without ever needing to reference Budge, who seems to be the primary source for translation beyond Massey used in her work.

Coming up with obscure references isn't proof. If you want to claim a reference as proof, then supply context, dating, and a clear line of succession from one group to another for the idea or concept being claimed as passed down. The closest archaeology has ever come to doing that between Christianity and Egyptian religions (plural) have been with some basic ideas in the Luke narrative and Heliopolitan inscriptions. The religion of the Egyptians changed so much over the millenia that trying to condense all of them into one monolithic faith is in itself a ridiculously faulty endeavor, yet Dorothy persists in doing so (through mixing dynasties and denominations) and you continue to come here to personally attack anyone who dares to point out all of the glaring inconsistencies. Could you give me a good reason why I should take the gross generalizations of what you or Dorothy claim the gods are or meant to the people at the time when never once has either of you displayed the ability to differentiate how any given god meant different things during, say, the reign of Amenhotep compared to that of Nepherites? Sure, most people who have heard some AE names have heard of the likes of Rameses (mostly due to Bible stories) or Akhenaten (the 'heretic' king), but why take a story like that of Osiris and Horus and make it something it isn't: a story referring to the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt (hence 'Horus of the two horizons') by the king Narmer, after which the first known instance of the use of the invocation of a Horus aspect in a pharaoh's name takes place (HorAha, meaning roughly 'Horus the fighter').

I've actually spoken to a number of Egyptologists (who have been wonderful correspondence) as well as Christian scholars (I even got an opportunity to ask Bart Ehrman directly) about this movement to link Christianity to practically every known major religion to ever have existed, and the most time they tend to want to spend on it is to shrug and say it sounds like the people making the claims are welcome to present evidence to the scholarly community, but if not then there's likely an agenda of some sort separate from scholarship. Why hasn't Dorothy, or Jan Irvin, or any of the other astro-religio-syncretists ever submitted their self-published works for peer review? Why must their 'books' come from vanity press and not serious publishers with actual print runs? Given that there may be some information that could possibly be worthwhile, why can't you, Dave31, engage in an honest and non-vitriolic discussion on the actual subject matter based on their writings? For that matter, why can't Dorothy-- any time she responds to these things she's accusing people of personally attacking her for not taking her claims for granted, or she's doing interviews with fringe press.

All I've been asking for now for a year and a half, Dave31, is an honest discussion on the subject matter. You continually refuse, Dorothy continually refuses, Jan Irvin at least gave it a shot until he lost his temper, while I can find loads of interesting information and correspondence from the newer Christian scholars (like Ehrman and Pagels) or from Egyptologists (those who I've actually corresponded with having asked me to keep their names out of this). Perhaps if you stopped demanding everyone believe without questioning for once, Dave31, you could have a thread that doesn't devolve into name-calling (from you) and a descent into nonsense about people who aren't even here to argue themselves.

You take care, Dave31. If you want to actually have a calm, reasoned, non-personal discussion on the actual subject matter and not on whether everyone should agree that the books you constantly advertise are the best ever, then feel free to let me know. Ask thesyntaxera, ask HereticHulk, ask pretty much anyone who has actually engaged me in discussion on the subject matter itsef: I'm open to it and willing to talk. I'm just tired of your constantly picking fights.
 
OH NOES! GreNME SAID DOROTHY THREE TIMES! NOW MOTHRA WILL DESTROY JERUSALEM!

Seriously, we ever going to see any evidence to support the wild and less than believable kidnapping claim, or that using Dorothy's name is going to cause her harm?

No? Thought not.
 
If I say "Dorothy M Murdock" and click my heels together three times, will I suddenly get a pair of five-inch ruby spikes?
 
Come on, guys. I made an honest appeal to some intellectual debate. Poking him into flame mode isn't really going to get the conversation back on subject.
 
GreNME said:
Come on, guys. I made an honest appeal to some intellectual debate. Poking him into flame mode isn't really going to get the conversation back on subject.
Click to expand...

<srs bsns>
It's my considered opinion that nothing you can do will get the conversation back on subject, or at least as close to "on subject" as it was in the first place. He has taken every opportunity to ignore intellectual debate in favor of shouting. As you say yourself:

GreNME said:
All I've been asking for now for a year and a half, Dave31, is an honest discussion on the subject matter. You continually refuse,...
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that at this point, whatever part you think you're attempting to appeal to ("integrity"?) just doesn't exist; note where he shouts earlier that you obviously have never studied her works and are just pretending. That's not the sound of someone who's ever going to talk to you. That's the "lalala" of someone who's got cucumbers firmly in both ears.
</srs bsns>
 
I am all for a calm discussion on the subject matter. I am not for constantly being accused of not reading things, having my education insulted and being accused of bigotry.

That being said I fear that remirol is pretty much right in his assessment of the situation. Perhaps starting a new thread specifically to discuss the subject of astro-theology with some ground rules in place is in order?
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
I googled "Acharya S, child abducted" to check on this incident. I didn't find anything. However on Acharya S's blogspot I found a long post by Acharya S, a screed against circumcision. Among other things, it contained this little gem:

Over the past decade or so, I have met and communicated with two world-renowned "anti-circ" scientists, including pediatrician Dr. Paul Fleiss, who told me he had performed "thousands" of circumcisions before he saw the light, and neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott, who has evidently proved that circumcision causes irreversible brain damage. The foreskin is, after all, not a "useless piece of skin" but a highly complex organ. What does circumcision do, exactly? Dr. Fleiss describes this "denuding of the penis":

So, this "irreversible brain damage" must be why the Jews produce so many scientists, mathematcians, musicians etc.
Click to expand...

:)

Personally, the best reason against circ is quite simply nobody has any business mutilating sex organs without the owner's permission. Especially such apparently sensitive skin, which I wouldn't know :(, based on anachronistic religious reasons, or modern dubious retcons, i.e. marginally less disease, seeking to justify it in absentia of a god.
 
I certainly agree, Beerina. I have no idea why circumcision was practiced in ancient times other than as a mark of separation. In most cases, this was done at puberty. In the region of the Levant, most peoples seem to hae practiced circumcision, as did the Egyptians. "The uncircumcised" is used in the Bible as a term of oprobrium for only two peoples, the Hivites of Shechem (see Gen. 34:14 - 17) and the Philistines. The people variously called "Hivites" and "Horites" were probably Hurrians, a non-Semitic people. The core of the Philistines seem to have come from Cyprus.

The oddity of the screed by Acharya S is the intensity of her reaction againt circumcision. Simply saying it's pointless would have been enough. Now, had she been railing against what is called "female circumcision," which is actually clitorectomy, I could certainly understand and support not only her opposition by her vehemence.

I still haven't been able to verify the abduction of her child or the stalking that Dave claims took place. So far, he hasn't enlightened the rest of us as to documentation of either of these.
 
Okay, Dave, I managed to locate a copy of "The Christ Conspiracy" by way of inter-library loan. I may get it within a week, but it could take two or up to four weeks (the last of these is the longest it will take and is unlikely). I promise you I will give it a thorough read. Perhaps (but only perhaps) I will do a review of it and post it on my website.
 
Well, damn! I guess we'll never find out about that kidnapping. On the other hand, we can now say the name "Dorothy" without being accused of stalking. I will, nevertheless, read "The Christ Conspiracy," just because I said I would.
 
Acharya S son's kidnapping

I was interested if there was any correlation to what Acharya S / M.D. Murdock was stating in her books, or in the Zeitgeist - that would result in her son being kidnapped.

From the only article I could find on the kidnapping reported in The Los Angeles Times, it is clear it didn't have anything to do with it.

The 10 January 2005 article states...

A 2-year-old boy was reunited with his mother Sunday after his father, suspected of orchestrating the boy's kidnapping, turned himself in to police. The child had been the focus of an Amber Alert since Friday, when three strangers snatched him from his mother's arms on a sidewalk in Venice.

Father Arrested in Abduction
A 2-year-old boy is reunited with his mother after the man turns himself in to police.

Los Angeles January 10, 2005|Daniel Hernandez, Times Staff Writer

A 2-year-old boy was reunited with his mother Sunday after his father, suspected of orchestrating the boy's kidnapping, turned himself in to police. The child had been the focus of an Amber Alert since Friday, when three strangers snatched him from his mother's arms on a sidewalk in Venice.

"He's fine; they're here," said Los Angeles Police Department Det. L. Britton at the Pacific Station.

According to police, Jason Murdock Steele has been at the center of a custody battle between his parents, Dorothy Murdock and Scott Eric
Rosenstiel.

Police said the abductors handed Murdock fraudulent court papers claiming Rosenstiel had gained custody of the boy, yanked him from her side and left in the two cars.​

It would appear that while incredibly distressing to Acharya S, that it was obvious that it was a custody issue rather than a kidnapping for ransom, any claim that it was motivated because of Acharya S's beliefs would be disingenuous.
 
Aieee! The thread that won't die! Nevertheless, thanks, Guinness, for clearing up this over-dramatized nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom