Problems with Richard Carrier and Others
Richard Carrier is traveling around doing assorted lectures on Jesus, the Bible and mythicism, etc. The problem is that during the Q and A, if anybody mentions Acharya S or a few others Carrier doesn't like, he goes into his typical poisonous, talking-point propaganda tirade against them, doing a hand-waving dismissal of their work in toto
, while never having actually read the books.
Carrier says he teaches an online course and if any of his students mention Freke & Gandy
or Acharya S, for example, he gives them assignments to do research on it. If they fail in their quest to find what they're looking for, Carrier dismisses the work and calls it poor or sloppy scholarship, and accuses the author of lacking credibility or reliability without ever reading the work for himself. Carrier essentially does what Bart Ehrman did with his latest book Did Jesus Exist?
, where he got caught having his students essentially do the research for him and several sloppy and egregious errors were made.
Carrier claims that these authors make his work much more difficult and calls them "bad mythicists." I find it quite arrogant that Carrier assumes the authority to decide for everyone who is or who is not a good or bad mythicist - even if he has never read their work. He simply takes quotes from these works from his students and criticizes it. (From what I've seen it's more like Carrier is a crappy teacher and his students are incompetent.)
The problem is that Carrier is inspiring too many others to do this same type of unprofessional, unscholarly, biased, disingenuous and poisonous criticism. What's even worse is that when it's pointed out to him that he made his own sloppy and egregious errors in his criticisms, he usually refuses to acknowledge the errors and even doubles-down to compound them further. He then continues to repeat the same smears. A prime example is this Luxor issue. http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4771#p4771
A prime example of Carrier's influence inspiring others to be utterly intellectually dishonest is Rook Hawkins/Tom Verna, who wrote a blog smearing Acharya S and her book Suns of God
, which Rook later admitted under pressure in the comments that he never read the book at all and based his entire critique on Acharya's advert page.viewtopic.php?p=6521#p6521
Here's Rook/Tom's other trash tossed at Acharya.viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3583
In Carrier's own blogs he allows all sorts of vicious and malicious hate speech and smears against Acharya, so all Carrier's harping on and on about accuracy, reliability and credibility is tossed out the window when it comes to the work by Acharya S. Carrier does not care how evil and dishonest these malicious comments are so long as they're trashing Acharya S. Now, Carrier, as I stated previously, claims that these "bad mythicists" make it far more difficult for him. But, as the narcissist that he seems to be, he's shown absolutely no integrity whatsoever about how his
influence condoning his intellectual dishonesty and all malicious smears could be negatively affecting the lives of others on a daily basis. Carrier says in his lectures that if you criticize Acharya S her fans will get irate - well, hell yeah, when you spread vicious rumors, smears and lies about people, they tend to get pissed. Those who've actually read Acharya's books are simply fed up with the biases, discrimination and misogyny. And the abuse heaped on her at HIS blog is atrocious - it's simply misogynistic, pure and simple. But he lets that utter hate speech stand, while whining about people defending her. I wonder what Columbia University would say about all of that? Would they take his Ph.D back? Is this the type of work Columbia would be proud of? I would certainly hope not. Perhaps they should be informed.
It is time for Richard Carrier to be held accountable for his smear campaign against mythicists like Acharya S. The fact is that Acharya and others actually DO have plenty to offer the case for mythicism and should not be held hostage to Richard Carrier's irrational prejudice against them. He doesn't have to like them, but he shouldn't be smearing them and teaching others to do the same while, again, NEVER HAVING EVEN READ THE BOOKS HE CRITICIZES! That is intellectual dishonesty. He goes on and on about how he dislikes them, yet he is utterly incapable of acknowledging that Acharya S may be right about anything at all.
From where I stand, Richard Carrier is jealous of the attention Acharya S gets.viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1959
Zeitgeist Part 1 was viewed by 200 million people worldwide (as of 2009) in over 30 languages giving a basic introduction to the case for mythicism. The criticisms of that brief 25-minute movie have been quite thoroughly addressed. Here are just a few examples:
The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook Transcript (2010)http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitg ... cebook.pdf
Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html
Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidenceviewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997
Richard Carrier actually tells people not to read the books he doesn't like. He is caught here on video at one of his lectures telling the audience that he wishes Zeitgeist and all copies of it were burned!viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3381
Here is one of Acharya's responses to Bart Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist?
, where he makes sloppy errors falsely accusing her of making stuff up, while the source citation was right there all along.http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 719#p25719
Here we have an article posted by an American Atheist (AA) board member where it was later revealed that is was plagiarized or "borrowed" from Acharya's book Christ Conspiracy
. When the AA was asked to provide the correct source, which was Acharya S, they chose to remove the article altogether, rather than attribute the proper source to Acharya S. So, the article was just fine while an AA board member's name took credit for it, but suddenly when they found out it came from Acharya, they couldn't take it down fast enough. I mean, for Christsakes, people, this is really sickening. http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... =19&t=3486
Or here we have atheist Matt Dillahunty from the "Atheist Experience" proudly proclaiming that he got Acharya S removed from the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER):http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... =19&t=3629
Or here we have Richard Dawkins inadvertently demonstrating his own utter ignorance on the subject of mythicism:http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 425#p21425
So, rather than Carrier cannibalizing or creating divisiveness with other mythicists due to his own biases against them and attempting to persuade others to do the same, we as freethinkers really need to stand up against such discrimination and be organizing and working together. Why should we support discrimination when we are the most discriminated against minority?viewtopic.php?f=7&t=391
We did not come this far just to discriminate against our own. Acharya S has never done a damned thing to Richard Carrier or his #1 fanboy Rook/Tom, beyond responding exposing the sloppy and unprofessional errors in their rants against her. I'm reminded of Acharya's review of "Jesus: God, Man or Myth?" by Herb Cutner
"...the mythicist school was fought tooth and nail, and almost buried, save for the few daring individuals who kept it alive over the past decades. Cutner is one of these rare and courageous individuals who risked the malevolence and vitriol of the clergy and its zealots. In his synopsis of the historical-versus-mythical, Cutner notes that the clergy's "adversaries" were dispatched in the most unprofessional and puerile manner:
"Long ago the celebrated Dr. Bentley, in trying to dispose of Anthony Collins, had found one very fine method: convict your Freethinking opponent of fraud, ignorance, and bad scholarship, and his thesis falls to the ground. I should say rather, try to convict your opponent by this method, for some of the mud thrown is sure to stick.... By thus concentrating on mistakes of grammar or Greek, the reader is unwarily led away from the main issue which is exactly what the critic wants. Over and over again Christian controversialists have pursued this method, as if it always mattered greatly that a present tense of Greek should be the imperfect, or that a date should be conjectured as, let us say, 1702 when it ought to be 1712 in the opinion of somebody else. (27-28)"
"Indeed, there is hardly a mythicist who has not experienced such treatment, even at the hands of other mythicists and/or freethinkers, another fact highlighted by Cutner, who shows that the early modern mythicists were viciously attacked not only by Christians but also by other "rationalists" and "freethinkers" who, in their attempts to remain 'respectable' with the Christian elite, mindlessly fell in line and displayed a real lack of critical thinking. Professional jealousy also factors into this type of vitriol, as various scholars want their particular interpretation to become that which is accepted by the establishment....."
In other words:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair
Scholars who've actually read Acharya's books are quite supportive of her work. For example:
"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'shttp://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... _egypt.htm
"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 Archaeologyhttp://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 33&start=0
And many more viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3411
Oh, and let's not forget the intelligent observation by Atheist Universe author David Mills
pinpointing why Acharya's been the subject of this unglued, irrational, unprofessional and bigoted load of discriminatory crap:
D.M. Murdock/Acharya S, like all authors on controversial subjects, has many critics. But they all share one commonality: They don't know what they're talking about. Murdock understands many languages and has a breadth of knowledge her critics cannot match. This fact irks the uninformed. Having given a fair hearing to some of her online detractors and their "rebuttal" videos, I have detected not only a lack of knowledge on the part of her critics, but also, in some cases, a thinly disguised misogyny. Objectively speaking, D.M. Murdock is an attractive and dazzlingly brilliant woman. This is more intimidation than some men can handle, even some atheist men. To those who follow the teachings of the Apostle Paul, who forbade women to even speak in church, it "logically" follows that Ms. Murdock should remain silent as well, especially since she is grieving the Holy Ghost. In plain English, Murdock is dealt criticism that would never befall an ugly old man in a monastery. I would like to think that 21st-century America is beyond such juvenile conduct, but that is sadly not the case.
I personally think this goes double and triple for Richard Carrier and his ilk.