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

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4771#p4771

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

For starters:

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)...."

- Acharya S

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". 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."

"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. "

acharya S is still an ignorant lying assbutt.

unless she's a member of this forum in which case the things she said are ignorant and false assbutt statements.

Carrier likely means that those works are outdated, that there is greater understanding to be had now. I'm not too sure that's transferable when we talk about Bayesian reasoning, since Carrier does not think it is outdated.

Mick wrote:Carrier likely means that those works are outdated, that there is greater understanding to be had now. I'm not too sure that's transferable when we talk about Bayesian reasoning, since Carrier does not think it is outdated.

No, for many years Carrier has harassed her for discussing 18th century sources and never proved anything by them wrong, yet, he does the same thing and Bayes is a perfect example. It's utter hypocrisy and professional jealousy. All Carrier is doing is 'poisoning the well' smearing Acharya and he owes her an apology.

Those who actually care about accuracy and honesty and have integrity and character will have no problem calling Carrier out on all of his malicious smears he has tossed at Acharya S.

Marvin99 wrote:Bayes is a perfect example. It's utter hypocrisy and professional jealousy.

Bayes theorem is a mathematical theorem that has been proven, so it is not comparable.

Moridin wrote:

Marvin99 wrote:Bayes is a perfect example. It's utter hypocrisy and professional jealousy.

Bayes theorem is a mathematical theorem that has been proven, so it is not comparable.

^^^^

Your second point fails. I dunno about the first. Plus, carrier is one arrogant dude. You're not going to get him to apologize for anything.

Moridin wrote:

Marvin99 wrote:Bayes is a perfect example. It's utter hypocrisy and professional jealousy.

Bayes theorem is a mathematical theorem that has been proven, so it is not comparable.

Irrelevant, the fact remains that Carrier constantly harasses Acharya for discussing 18th/19th century sources when Carrier's claim to fame is due to 'Bayes Theorem' from the 18th century.

The Rosetta Stone was discovered and translated in the 18th century too. The point here is the utter hypocrisy coming from a so-called scholar who is spreading malicious smears at others in order to promote himself. It's like he has some sort of inferiority complex.

Read the full link: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4771#p4771

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". How much more hypocritical could Carrier possibly be?

This completely misrepresents Carrier's position, but that's typical of Archaya S groupthink. Carrier's criticism is not so much that she uses antiquated scholarship, but that she uses bad, discredited antiquated scholarship uncritically, by people like Gerald Massey (a poet, not an Egyptologist). She thus revives a lot of speculation that later scholarship has surpassed and updated, and did not need reviving. This kind of sloppy work makes all skeptics look bad, and makes easy fodder for Christian apologists to debunk.

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". How much more hypocritical could Carrier possibly be?

[1] Has Bayes' theorem been superseded? (It hasn't, because both Frequentist and Bayesian stats invoke Bayes theorem, and it is central to statistical inference). Has 18th century work been superseded? Possibly.

My shoes are gray, my professor's hair is gray, does not mean my shoes are made of my professor's hair. Fallacy of equivocation writ large.

[2] Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.

Blood wrote: ... she uses bad, discredited antiquated scholarship uncritically, by people like Gerald Massey (a poet, not an Egyptologist). She thus revives a lot of speculation that later scholarship has surpassed and updated, and did not need reviving.

The way Acharya/Murdock discusses things is confusing & frsutrating, but Carrier is also pretty annoying in the way he arrogantly comments about others.

Neither accept criticism very well, but Archaya S deserves more criticism than Carrier. Which is not to say she hasn't written some good stuff. I heard an interview with her and she came across as quite reasonable. She speaks with greater clarity than she writes, in my opinion.

I don't give a hoot about any of this. I just want to know what an "assbutt" is.

Blood wrote:This completely misrepresents Carrier's position, but that's typical of Archaya S groupthink. Carrier's criticism is not so much that she uses antiquated scholarship, but that she uses bad, discredited antiquated scholarship uncritically, by people like Gerald Massey (a poet, not an Egyptologist). She thus revives a lot of speculation that later scholarship has surpassed and updated, and did not need reviving. This kind of sloppy work makes all skeptics look bad, and makes easy fodder for Christian apologists to debunk.

Blood, you are making the argument that you're falsely accusing me of. Carrier "groupthink"; you are just making excuses for Carrier instead of dealing with the relevant facts. It's exposes your own biases.

You are also spreading the same lies that have already been addressed repeatedly. Gerald Massey was very highly peer reviewed by the top Egyptologists of his day. Carrier is unaware of that fact because he has never checked, same as others repeating these lies never check.

Who Is Gerald Massey?

Blood "This kind of sloppy work makes all skeptics look bad"

How does this sloppy and egregious error help the cause? Carrier was busted several years ago and has never apologized for such a sloppy error. There are definitely serious hypocritical double-standards going on here - if Acharya ever did this she'd never heard the end of it, meanwhile, Carrier gets a free pass from the fanboy/cheerleader crowd. The biases is blatantly obvious:

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)...."

- Acharya S

The fact remains that Carrier constantly harasses Acharya for discussing 18th/19th century sources when Carrier's claim to fame is due to 'Bayes Theorem' from the 18th century.

There's plenty that has not been "superseded" from the 18th century eg., the Rosetta Stone was discovered and translated in the 18th century too. The point here is the utter hypocrisy and unethical smears coming from a so-called scholar who is spreading malicious smears at other fellow mythicists in order to promote himself. It's like he has some sort of inferiority complex and is jealous of Acharya S.

Read the full link: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4771#p4771

Those who actually care about accuracy and honesty and have integrity and character will have no problem calling Carrier out on all of his malicious smears he has tossed at Acharya S for 10 years now.

Marvin99 wrote:Irrelevant, the fact remains that Carrier constantly harasses Acharya for discussing 18th/19th century sources when Carrier's claim to fame is due to 'Bayes Theorem' from the 18th century.

You do not seem to get it. Proven mathematical theorems do not get less credible as they age. The same cannot be said for historical sources.

Moridin wrote:

Marvin99 wrote:Irrelevant, the fact remains that Carrier constantly harasses Acharya for discussing 18th/19th century sources when Carrier's claim to fame is due to 'Bayes Theorem' from the 18th century.

You do not seem to get it. Proven mathematical theorems do not get less credible as they age. The same cannot be said for historical sources.

No, YOU still don't get it. There are many scholars who were correct in their assessments in the 18th century or others with just minor updated corrections say on dates or something. Richard Carrier has MALICIOUSLY SMEARED her for discussing 18th/19th century sources for 10 years now, meanwhile, Carrier relies on the 18th century Bayes Theorem. It's a hypocritical double-standard and the fact that you can't see that straight away is a red flag.

Stop making bullshit excuses and start being honest for a change. Carrier needs to be called out for all of his lies:

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4771#p4771

This is getting awkward.

GenesForLife wrote:

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". How much more hypocritical could Carrier possibly be?

[1] Has Bayes' theorem been superseded? (It hasn't, because both Frequentist and Bayesian stats invoke Bayes theorem, and it is central to statistical inference). Has 18th century work been superseded? Possibly.

My shoes are gray, my professor's hair is gray, does not mean my shoes are made of my professor's hair. Fallacy of equivocation writ large.

[2] Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.

I have no stakes in this Carrier vs Acharya controversy, just pointing out I don't exactly see the analogy with a mathematical theorem.

Rumraket, it's so simple a 3rd grader can understand it.

Richard Carrier has been bludgeoning Acharya to death for discussing 18th/19th century works for 10 years, yet, Carrier's 'Bayes Theorem' originates from the 18th century!!! "Bayes' theorem is named after Thomas Bayes 1701–1761."

It's a blatantly obvious hypocritical double-standard. Carrier has maliciously attacked her for discussing 18th/19th century sources for 10 years now, meanwhile, Carrier relies on the 18th century for his use of Bayes. Stop getting hung-up on the math formula - that is completely irrelevant. Thomas Bayes (1701–1761) never intended his formula to be used in the way Dick Carrier is now using it anyway.

If Dick Carrier ever actually read her work he'd learn that those 18th/19th century scholars she mentions are discussing PRIMARY SOURCES.

So, this is a clear-cut case of Dick Carrier's blatantly obvious hypocritical double-standard. You can't attack someone for 10 years for something and then, turn around and do the same thing. Get it?

I don't know how much clearer I can explain it. It's a simple right and wrong and there are many examples of this in the link:

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4771#p4771

Another example is how Dick Carrier maliciously smears Acharya's work on astrotheology, yet, Carrier is now arguing that Jesus is a "CELESTIAL BEING," which is just another way of saying astrotheological being.

But, since Carrier has never actually read Acharya's books and admitted he's never studied the subject of astrotheology he is completely unaware:

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.

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4771#p4771

Carrier maybe a little off on this. What I mean is that astrotheology is not a course taught in schools of higher learning. Sometimes having a 2 million dollar piece of paper that says you know everything does not pay off. I stopped following Carrier years ago because of his arrogant remarks about laymen staying out of religious debates.

As far as Murdock goes I have several of her books and this is not the first time I have read where one of her followers so to speak comes on a forum to defend her. I like her work, but I think those of you who play shit house lawyer to defend her do more harm than good. She has responded to Carrier if I am not mistaken.

Marvin99 wrote:Richard Carrier has been bludgeoning Acharya to death for discussing 18th/19th century works for 10 years

Yet she's still alive?
Clearly this Carrier bloke isn't much good at bludgeoning.