It is currently Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:28 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Nuskeptix "Christ Myth Theory" video chat Saturday March 15th, 2014 at 8pm Central Time

Robert Price, David Fitzgerald, Neil Godfrey, Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster with Nuskeptix host Phil Robinson

Nuskeptix
https://www.facebook.com/events/625383937541294/

https://plus.google.com/+PhilRobinsonNuskeptixNet/posts

No discussion of the 'Christ Myth Theory' or 'Mythicist Position' is complete without Acharya S. Nevertheless, aside from that, I'm glad they did this. Maybe they could do this again at some point in the future ... what with all the technical difficulties and since Dr. Price didn't make it. I'd like to see Price, Zindler, Doherty, Raphael and Acharya do something like this not necessarily on Nuskeptix but anywhere. Get the mythicist party started! 8)

* Added edit

Well, I've just found out and felt like it should be known that a member of the Facebook group Christ Mythicists invited Acharya S to be a moderator several months ago and within days the Nuskeptix moderator, Phil Robinson, who now also moderates the Christ Mythicists Facebook group, started attacking her personally with insults. When she started defending herself against the typical smears and made it clear that she'd prefer to discuss the evidence and facts instead, Phil banned her.

I've been told that anybody who wants to discuss Acharya's work at either of these groups gets banned and their comments removed. So, just be aware of that. Don't expect to be able to ever have a legitimate, objective discussion of Acharya's work over there. Of course, all the trash-talk about Acharya behind her back without the opportunity for her respond is fine tho. So, it makes perfect sense that Carrier, Neil & Phil would get along so well while purposely omitting Acharya S.

Here's the video. I'm only 25 minutes in at this point and it's an interesting discussion but, maybe that's just because it's it's right up our alley. I will keep adding to this post as I have time to go thru the video. I'll do my best to doc times for points of interest on this massive 99 hour video (sarcasm). A transcript would've been helpful but, just be glad we have video:

Nuskeptix epix (tech difficulties)



Knowing Richard Carrier, he probably refused to allow her to be apart of it. I doubt it but, a good question to ask is why wasn't she invited? I mean, after-all, Carrier and Godfrey did talk trash about her (as usual) and denied her the opportunity to explain or defend herself by omission.

At 2 minutes: "If you met somebody who'd never heard of the "Christ Myth Theory" before what would you say to them?"

At 2:30 to 3:45 Carrier's answer: "I think the better explanation to the 'origins of Christianity' is that Jesus was originally a celestial being (whose imagined as a celestial being) and that he was seen quote/unquote in visions and revelations and people were finding secret messages from him in the scriptures that had been hidden there from time past and that's how Christianity began. And then, over time, they started creating these myths about a historical man as propaganda, as a way to sort of sell the ideals of the faith and then, gradually people starting believing the myths. So, the version of Christianity that you see well documented in the 2nd century, because all the other documents of all the other Christianities were pretty much destroyed or left to rot, the 2nd century prevailing sect that prevailed in the middle ages is the one, is the group that started believing the myths or selling the myths as historical."

3:50 David Fitzgerald: How about the influence of the mystery faiths? Was Christianity a Jewish version of the mystery faiths?

5:15 Carrier's response: "One of most certain things we can say about earliest Christianity is that it started as a Jewish version of mystery cults."

Paul and Mark were "Diaspora Jews" / Hellenized

---

11:50 Raphael Lataster

17 Carrier, bad vs good arguments

20:30

21:50 Carrier: "academics don't get logic"

23:30 where is the argument going from here?" the epistles = explanation at 24:11. Seed of David - 25:15 "you can have a celestial Christ who is made of the seed of David."

25:45 Carrier: "One of the most important things that I'd like to see from other mythicists is to focus very sharply on specific kinds of silences in the epistles and cataloging them."

D.F. "trend of silences"

27: a comprehensive catalog of silences

27:24 Neil Godfrey "Does the Christ myth idea have to be completely a celestial Christ?"

27:50 Carrier's response: (paraphrased) there was no precedent for anything else. "Whereas I did find lots of precedence for cosmic deities being Euhemerized/Evemerized ... being historicized ... a lot of background evidence supporting the idea of crucifixions being a conceivable concept in heaven ...

30:00 Carrier "My ultimate goal is more agnosticism; more admission that agnosticism is a respectable position in the field. Even though, I personally am pretty convinced that it's probably something like the celestial Christ theory...."

31:30 ish (Alexander Jannaeus) Maccabean Christians believed Jesus was crucified 100 years prior.

35 Methodology - It sounds like David Fitzgerald has read: Religion and the Ph.D.: A Brief History - I'm not seriously claiming he has but, it would be interesting to know that he's taking on those important issues. Perhaps somebody should send him the link - maybe he would post his thoughts in that thread to add to the discussion here. David Fitzgerald is certainly welcome here, of course.

39 Carrier on methodology

"In general, the idea is that you have to start with prior probabilities, which is based on what past cases have been like. So, you look at other religions ... what has been typically the case with other religions ... mystery religions

40 Carrier "It was a fashion to write historical stories about these gods who previously had only been believed to exist in heaven essentially ... or umm in mythical far away lands ... not in human history"

42:45 Carrier: "I think "context" is one of the things that Jesus scholars don't have a lot of."

49 minutes: Raphael Lataster brings up Astrotheology and Acharya S

Raphael Lataster (RL): "Obviously a lot of us seem to agree on the idea that there's a lot of similarities between Christianity and previous religions. So, I wanted to get an idea of what other mythicists thought about astrotheology, the mythic parallels and specifically Acharya S, who has obviously played some role in alerting people to Jesus mythicism."

49:30 Carrier: "I've never found enough evidence to convince me of the astrotheological thesis for Christianity. It has background evidence because astrotheology was a thing at the time.

49:42 "And there is some evidence that Jewish sects were interested in that. Uh, but I just haven't ... the evidence for it being an influencing factor in the origins of Christianity, whether a later development, I don't know but, origins of Christianity the evidence just isn't there. It's possible but, I just don't see the evidence to confirm it so I can't confirm it.

50 minutes: Carrier: "But, I'd be interested to know what Neil thinks about this cause, I sort of like, I see the evidence isn't there and I dismiss it and I go work on ... what I think are better explanations so, I haven't as thoroughly looked into it. I'd be curious if Neil maybe had seen ... looked at more of this evidence and had his own opinion on that"

50:18 Neil Godfrey: "I've been in some conversations on a discussion board with one of Murdock's publicists, Robert Tulip, and um, my point is, ok look, I have this hypothesis I believe that the gospel miracle stories can be explained, ya know, by ya know such & such and the prediction here would be that every word and phrase in this particular pericope can be explained in terms of yeah, some other scripture and I can go through and show that and I ask him, "what is your prediction?" and all he can do is say well, (inaudible to me) ... the fish and the 12 or something like that ..." (laughter & ridicule)

Carrier chimes in: "Yeah, that's my take as well." (after later admitting that he's never really looked into astrotheology and has no intention of doing so at 53 through 54 minutes!!! Btw, Neil Godfrey hasn't looked into astrotheology either)

My thoughts: Neil's comment here is just a bizarre display of biases demonstrating Neil does not have any clue what Robert Tulip is talking about, which is a red flag as everybody who has ever taken a debate class already knows that one must be able to accurately explain the opponents position and argument. Obviously, Neil cannot, in fact, he can't even really begin to explain Robert Tulips position or argument or even the basics of astrotheology due to the fact that Neil Godfrey has never studied it and just accepts what his hero Richard Carrier says about it without ever studying the subject for himself. Carrier admits at 53 through 54 minutes that he has never studied astrotheology and has no intention of ever doing so! So when Godfrey or Raphael Lataster or anybody else who defers to Carrier on this issue are relying on someone who admits he's never studied it and has no intention of ever doing so! So, why would anybody trust them as they are obviously not reliable sources on this issue and are in fact often spreading false information about astrotheology and because of that they are a blemish to the entire mythicist movement for being so blatantly biased against a legitimate Occam's razor explanation for many religious concepts.

Star Worship of the Ancient Israelites

Btw, here's the thread Neil is talking about:

Code:
Acharya S and the real Christ Conspiracy
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=380&start=210

Here's a thread on the subject here at Freethought Nation: loaves and fishes

Lets also not forget Neil's severe biases against astrotheology and Acharya has been exposed here: Neil Godfrey/Vridar, Maliciously Smears Murdock/Acharya S

51:30 Carrier brings up Aaron Adir: Star of Bethlehem by Aaron Adair, DEBUNKED

Between 52 and 54 minutes, Carrier is inadvertently making a case for the dire need of a new Department of Astrotheological and Mythological Studies that I've been talking about for years now.

At 52 minutes, Richard Carrier: "It's really hard to communicate to people ... when you study ancient astrology as it actually was it's way more complicated and diverse. It's not as simple and straight forward as a lot of the mythicists who buy into the astrotheological theory claim it is. And so, that's the biggest problem that I see with that but ..."

My thoughts: That's partly correct, ancient astrotheology can be quite "complicated and diverse," especially for those like Richard Carrier who admit they've never studied the subject and have no interest in doing so (as you will see at 53-54 minutes in the video), therefore, an objective non-biased scholar would actually compliment Acharya S/Murdock for her hard work in taking on such a complicated subject making it far easier for both scholars and the layperson to grasp but, we should never expect any such objectivity from Dick Carrier. Of course, Carrier goes over-board here making it sound like it's so complicated that it's over-the-heads of modern folks so, therefore, it should be abandoned, which really is an insult to the intelligence of those who have spent years studying the subject. Acharya/Murdock has been studying and writing about this subject for 20 years and she has spilled a lot of ink across several books with nearly 3,000 pages of text explaining many of the common denominators making the subject far less complicated than Carrier proclaims - perhaps Carrier should try studying the subject for a change instead of attacking it, except, of course, when Carrier himself argues for the celestial Christ.

It's categorically clear that Richard Carrier will deny, refuse and dismiss anything by Acharya S/Murdock no matter how many primary sources she provides, no matter how much commentary on those primary sources by highly respected, credentialed and qualified scholars she provides, it's just never ever enough for Carrier, which is nothing less than a biased hypocritical double-standard on the part of Carrier, which is what fundy Christian apologists do. Go figure.


At 52:20: "... there's a lot of room here to actually spend time looking at these astrotheological theories of mythicists like Murdock, but also Zindler. Zindler has written about this as well. To look at it and say well what is valid about this, what is not, what do we know, what do we don't know? Because I think we could use that as a teaching tool to teach things about ancient astrology, ancient astrotheology in general looking at other astrotheological religions like Mithraism ... "

53 through 54 Carrier admits he has no interest in pursuing or investigating astrotheology as he finds it "dull." Carrier says he could never write a book on the subject. (ain't that the truth!)

"But, I think historians in this field, in ancient history and ancient religion, could do us a service if someone is interested in doing that and using it as a teaching tool ... So, maybe someday some ancient historian or ancient religion expert would have the passion to do that. I don't (laughter) ... because I find it so dull that I can't get up the passion to do that. I have different interests than ancient religion. But I would totally read a book like that (laughter). It's an example of many things in the ancient world that I couldn't write a book on myself but, I'm dying to read a good book on it."

My thoughts: So, Carrier admits he has no interest in pursuing or investigating astrotheology, as he finds it "dull." That's basically an admission that he has never studied the subject. Therefore, Carrier is not an expert and is unqualified to comment on the subjects of astrotheology and its relationship to mythicism with any authority or competence whatsoever. He says he "could never write a book on the subject" - ain't that the truth!

54 Neil Godfrey: "One thing that disturbs me about Acharya's/Murdock thesis is that she seems to be always trying to hide what appears to be fairly apparent especially where now Robert Tulip has in a sense come out and admitted it that they actually do believe themselves in some sort of Pantheism, they believe this religion themselves. In affect, they're evangelizing. Whereas Freke and Gandy they're (inaudible) about what their doing and you can read their books and make allowances for where they're coming from and that's fine I like that."

Carrier: "yeah, that's a good point"

My thoughts: Nope, all these guys are doing is proving how little they know about Acharya's work. It's a complete lie to claim Acharya is "hiding" anything or being deceptive in any way. Instead of always assuming the worst and smearing her with character assassinations, Neil, you could just be polite ask but, we can always count on you to ruin any opportunity for a reasonable discussion on this subject, which is truly sad because you do such a good job on other subjects but, just flat drop the ball any time Acharya or her work is mentioned. That is *YOUR* issue that *YOU* need to work out. Scholars who've actually read Acharya's work are quite supportive of it.

We had an interesting 'short & sweet' discussion here mentioning our views on Pantheism
: Freethought: Euphemism for Atheism?

54:40 Neil Godfrey: "I think she'd have a lot more respect if she was as open as Freke and Gandy."

(laughter & ridicule)

54:55 Carrier "I want her to get with the proper methodology and start reading something after the 19th century."

My thoughts: Another smear proving once again that neither Carrier nor Neil have ever actually studied her work and are just doing their typical bludgeoning her with issues, real or perceived, from her first book from 1999. The problem here is she has already announced a 2nd edition for that book long ago. Plus, Carrier's argument is hypocritical here as his Bayes' theorem originally came from Thomas Bayes (1701–1761) from the 18th century.

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, 2nd Edition

From Acharya's FAQ's: Does Acharya rely on 18th and 19th century sources?

She has several other books but, it's as if Carrier and Neil are completely unaware of that fact because they obviously prefer bludgeoning her to death with her first book. So, they are not being intellectual honest and it's very unprofessional and is an embarrassment to the field of mythicism to treat other great mythicists like that. This is probably why they didn't invite her - so they could smear her and character assassination behind her back, as usual. Cowards! When they have to do that the way they always do it proves their biases against her and her work.

56 on the The phallic 'Savior of the World' hidden in the Vatican

Carrier did show support for Acharya's ripping Ehrman a new one but, sadly Carrier is still going around saying Acharya claims that phallic statue was of St. Peter but, that is false as she has made clear in the very blog Carrier has read. We've been over this so many times now that the fact that Carrier still doesn't get it demonstrates, once again, how biased he is against her from the start. People who've actually read her book do not get the impression that she is claiming the statue is St. Peter because she never makes that claim.

Carrier himself admits towards the end that he has never had any job as a historian.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:07 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2301
Location: Everywhere
I haven't watched the video yet but you've highlighted some pretty ignorant commentary by Carrier and God-free.

He's obsessed with Robert. That much glaring.

And he's so convinced that we're all evangelizing some form of Pantheism by pointing out the astrotheology of the ancients. Old God-free thinks that astrotheology is some type of way to draw him in towards reverence for the sun, moon, and stars and he's making such a complete buffoon out of himself as he tries to explain it. I'd like to see him provide a quote where any of us have ever suggested worshiping the sun like the ancients once did. And even if we did say anything like that it would be "Polytheism" not "Pantheism" because Pantheism in it's modern form is an atheist naturalist and science based type of philosophy. I think he's confusing talk of astrothology with other posts where Robert or I have mentioned Pantheism in some other context. He's trying so hard to find a way of painting this debate about Christian origins as evangelizing on our part.

I'll go back and watch the whole thing just to hear it all for myself.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
I've also added the following two paragraphs below into my post above to make sure it's right there so folks are aware:

Well, I've just found out and felt like it should be known that a member of the Facebook group Christ Mythicists invited Acharya S to be a moderator several months ago and within days the Nuskeptix moderator, Phil Robinson, who now also moderates the Christ Mythicists Facebook group, started attacking her personally with insults. When she started defending herself against the typical smears and made it clear that she'd prefer to discuss the evidence and facts instead, Phil banned her.

I've been told that anybody who wants to discuss Acharya's work at either of these groups gets banned and their comments removed. So, just be aware of that. Don't expect to be able to ever have a legitimate, objective discussion of Acharya's work over there. Of course, all the trash-talk about Acharya behind her back without the opportunity for her respond is fine tho. So, it makes perfect sense that Carrier, Neil & Phil would get along so well while purposely omitting Acharya S.

I'd like to expand a bit more on the below:

50:18 Neil Godfrey: "I've been in some conversations on a discussion board with one of Murdock's publicists, Robert Tulip, and um, my point is, ok look, I have this hypothesis I believe that the gospel miracle stories can be explained, ya know, by ya know such & such and the prediction here would be that every word and phrase in this particular pericope can be explained in terms of yeah, some other scripture and I can go through and show that and I ask him, "what is your prediction?" and all he can do is say well, (inaudible to me) ... the fish and the 12 or something like that ..." (laughter & ridicule)

My thoughts: Neil's comment here is just a bizarre display demonstrating Neil does not have any clue what Robert Tulip is talking about.

Carrier chimes in: "Yeah, that's my take as well." (after admitting that he's never really looked into it)

Anybody who has ever taken debate class 101 knows that you must first understand your opponents arguments and evidence before being able to argue against it with objectivity, honesty or competence. Neil Godfrey and Richard Carrier of all people know this yet, recklessly make giant leaps of faith based on false preconceived assumptions. They should be ashamed of themselves and others should point it out to make them answer for it because it's all based on their own biases as Carrier himself has admitted i.e. he admitted in this very video (53-54 minutes) that he has no interest in astrotheology because he considers it "dull" and he has never shown that he's ever read Acharya's books especially her newer ones. I wish Raphael would've asked Neil and Carrier on video what of Acharya's they've actually read from cover to cover - not just lurking for dirt to straw man.

The fact remains Carrier has never proven anything significant of Acharya's wrong. They actually agree on about 90% of Jesus mythicism ... Acharya simply takes it to the next level by addressing an entire subject Carrier and Neil know nothing about and have no interest in, astrotheology.

One would think, if Carrier and Neil were serious about mythicism they'd at least want to know the basics - nope, and that is why they fail and will continue to fail. Carrier has actually brought nothing new to the table; all he's known for is doing a better job of confirming or disproving claims via methods and better sources and peer review, as a professional historian. Carrier's 'Bayes' theorem' originally came from Thomas Bayes (1701–1761) from the 18th century. Lets not forget Carrier's own advice: 54:55 Carrier: "I want her to get with the proper methodology and start reading something after the 19th century."

Neil Godfrey himself has done a good job of exposing the hype of peer review:

Code:
"The editors of the ACP Journal Club find that less than 1% of studies in most journals are “both scientifically sound and important for clinicians”.

We have little or no evidence that peer review ‘works,’ but we have lots of evidence of its downside.

Peer-review does not detect errors. Again numerous studies have demonstrated this. Papers have certain errors deliberately inserted into them (mixes of major and minor) and are then sent to peer review, and the rate of detection of those errors is so often very, very low indeed."

If Peer-Review Does Not Work for Science Why Does It Work for Biblical Studies?
http://vridar.org/2013/10/15/if-peer-review-does-not-work-for-science-why-does-it-work-for-biblical-studies/

But if Carrier and Neil are not interested in studying astrotheology or Acharya's work, that's fine but, stop 'poisoning the well' and tossing smears and character assassinations. Grow up! This is all on Carrier as Acharya has *NEVER* gone after him - she has simply responded to Carrier's trash over the last 10 years. Carrier has been going around doing lectures telling people not to read her work and trash-talking her. I've witnessed it myself - I just got up and walked out after that. What an asshole! He's also on video trashing Zeitgeist part 1: Richard Carrier on Zeitgeist Part 1

It's laughable how they grill her over methodology and peer review and elsewhere complain about how pathetic the methodology and peer review is. I mean, that's how we got here; if the methodology across academia was where it should've been all this time there would be no scholars claiming Jesus existed based on no credible evidence whatsoever, HELL-O!

Joseph Campbell refused his Ph.D. indicating that it would do more harm than good for him, as pointed out by Acharya here Credentialism, Joseph Campbell and Mythicism. Had Acharya pursued her Ph.D. she would never have been allowed to get it on the subject of mythicism and astrotheology as she has made categorically clear.

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5205
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
I just stumbled across this interview of Acharya S with Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris:

Skeptiko - Alex Tsakiris - Acharya S. Examines the Effects of Myth Making on Christianity



Below are a few more videos folks will find interesting:

Are the New Testament gospels history? Where's the proof? | Acharya S



The Mythicist Position (read the links in the info box for more info)



Below is a trailer for a documentary Acharya S is in entitled: God in the Box

You will see an interesting clip of Acharya S at 2:05 through 2:45 in the trailer.


_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:38 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2301
Location: Everywhere
Oh be ye ware of the Scandinavian demon with her evangelizing astrotheological Pantheists.....wa, ha, ha, ha, ha (evil laugh fading)....

The host is a complete douche bag. I watched the interview and I kept wondering how he came to host such a thing being the complete idiot that he appears to be in the video. This whole thing was premeditated and staged the way that Carrier asked that loaded question to Godfrey with Robert's arguments, in particular, in mind going into it. Robert and I were talking about astrotheology at both blogs so I know they were both familiar with it. I was banned at both blogs for supporting and defending Roberts arguments.

What gets me is how easily understandable something like Roberts's argument for the loaves and fishes as allegory for the Virgo-Pisces axial age actually is. Manly P. Hall lectured on this very same thing. It's not as if Robert made it all up. This is known and has been known in esoteric circles. What else do they suppose it is? The numbers and symbolism correspond specifically to astrotheological contexts. I don't see how they could be so baffled by what Robert is getting at.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support