Skeptic Project

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/</p>

Notice all the books on this publishing company are Acharya S /DM Murdock....this is what is termed self publishing in the academic world, this is inherently due to noone else being willing to publish her works.

So in essence she has noone peer reviewing her work, and no editors or publishing companies willing to risk their reputation on her work.

This should set your skeptical and critical thinking alarm bells ringing.
That is unless you prescribe to the conspiracy theorist notion that her work is so credible and sensitive that everyone is denying her an avenue of free speech. ?

Its more likely that publishers are well aware of the inherent lack of scholarly research into her references and the authors, and are not taking any risks in ruining their reputation.

http://www.directionsmag.com/companies/Stellar_House_Publishing,_LLC/

>> With regards to the debunking of Part I of Zeitgeist: Addendum, the fact is Peter's entire source for that section is Modern Money Mechanics. Every statement he makes is either taken directly from that document, or is summarized from it.

Yes, and it's mine too, yet you criticize me for "not having a source." He misquotes it and leaves out important information, as well as implies things that aren't true.

>> One example is how you shrug off the "money out of thin air" argument with no reasonable or provable basis for that conclusion.

Because the basis for it is silly, it's not "out of thin air" only Austrian economists make that claim, and because he used to be one, that explains why he still even cares to mention it. It's 100% irrelevant to his anti-capitalist agenda anyway, there's no use talking about it, other than it's a part of his conspiracy theory beliefs.

>> Even if you look up fractional reserve banking on wikipedia, it shows you how bank deposits made from loans increase the money supply from the act of depositing alone.

And I didn't disagree with this, it does cause inflation, it does add to the money supply, but the Federal Reserve keeps this in check by retracting the amount of money in circulation. The reason it has to add to the money supply is because the value of assets is ever expanding as the economy expands.

There's not enough gold on planet Earth to backup the amount of value in assets in the United States alone, that's why fractional reserve banking exists, and as more people are born, more people create businesses, etc the money supply has to expand, loans to create value in assets do create more value and need to be backed up with money in circulation, otherwise it will debase the currency. This concept is lost on Austrian economists, which many far right conspiracy theorists tend to be, and since when Peter made the first movie he was a right wing, Ron Paul supporting conspiracy theorist, it makes total sense why he would promote the idea.

I mean, come on, claiming that the only reason people have to work is because of debt created by fractional reserve banking, as if when the debt was almost completely paid off under Andrew Jackson and central banking was removed, people all of a sudden didn't have to work anymore?

>>Why do people join the Zeitgeist movement? Because they believe in conspiracy theories and somehow want to convince themselves that the Venus project is the way to change society to get rid of the people who did these awful conspiracies. Merola himself has stated this clearly; conspiracy theories are relevant to the ZM because the ZM is supposedly the "answer" to them.>>

I simply don't take things for face value. I don't assert certitude in anything until I'm sure of it.

What I'm sure about is that there are people on the planet who will never have a chance to get good education and live healthy lives. That is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact. Businesses exploit people and the environment, and altering the foundations of society (applying technology for the common good with respect to the availability of natural resources) can improve a lot of lives, not just a select few.

>>And I didn't disagree with this, it does cause inflation, it does add to the money supply, but the Federal Reserve keeps this in check by retracting the amount of money in circulation. The reason it has to add to the money supply is because the value of assets is ever expanding as the economy expands.

There's not enough gold on planet Earth to backup the amount of value in assets in the United States alone, that's why fractional reserve banking exists, and as more people are born, more people create businesses, etc the money supply has to expand, loans to create value in assets do create more value and need to be backed up with money in circulation, otherwise it will debase the currency. This concept is lost on Austrian economists, which many far right conspiracy theorists tend to be, and since when Peter made the first movie he was a right wing, Ron Paul supporting conspiracy theorist, it makes total sense why he would promote the idea.

I mean, come on, claiming that the only reason people have to work is because of debt created by fractional reserve banking, as if when the debt was almost completely paid off under Andrew Jackson and central banking was removed, people all of a sudden didn't have to work anymore?>>

All monetary systems are problematic.

All money in a fractional reserve system is baseless and represents absolutely nothing other than debt owed to the central bank. Its value is constantly fluctuating and adjustments made to deal with inflation are met with other competing currencies, and the value is constantly in flux and skewed.

A gold standard is finite, and still promotes cyclical consumption and has harsh consequences when a lot of wealth is concentrated to individuals or a small percentage of the overall amount of people using the currency.

I've never thought that monetary reform was a good solution either, and neither does Peter. In case you didn't realize the whole point of Addendum was to show the necessity for a resource based economy. The Venus Project certainly doesn't advocate currency reform, as they want to implement a resource based economy without any currency or money used at all.

>> I've never thought that monetary reform was a good solution either, and neither does Peter. In case you didn't realize the whole point of Addendum was to show the necessity for a resource based economy. The Venus Project certainly doesn't advocate currency reform, as they want to implement a resource based economy without any currency or money used at all.

Then why talk about fractional reserve banking in such debt then? That's my point, the whole argument is meaningless when talking about TVP

Also, could you either use blockquote or use news style quotes ">>" on every line if you quote multiple lines? It's really hard to follow what you're saying otherwise.

"Very good detective work. Are you a qualified detective too?"

No but I think im better at sarcasm than you are.

"It is more likely? Have you read the opinions of publishers? Do you have accurate source information for that claim? No?"

She couldnt get it published...do i need to go any further than that.

"Analyze the sources in Archaya's work instead of relying on the limited research of some people from skeptic websites and magazines. That's what I have actually been taking my time doing the last little while and there are hundreds of sources in her books. A lot of scholars have documented similarities between older cultural mythologies and the ideas of Christianity."

Nobody is denying the similarities...but similarities dont prove christianity to be originated from one single other religious ideology IE paganism. If you want to discuss original sources why not go right back to neanderthal times and state everything is a derivative of neanderthal thinking? why just stop at paganism ? unless one is predisposed to having a preference to paganism it serves no purpose.

"Where do you think Christianity came from if not influenced by other religions and cultural myths?"

peoples minds

"Do you believe in Christianity?"

i dont even believe in you, so a larger false entity is hardly important to me either

"Do you think a historical Jesus existed, and performed miracles and was a messiah?"

i have no idea if a man called jesus lived 2000 years ago who people loved and hated [and neither do you]. I highly doubt a god dropped a baby on earth though if thats what you are asking.

>>"It is more likely? Have you read the opinions of publishers? Do you have accurate source information for that claim? No?"

I'm positive that there are tons of publishers out there who would jump at the chance to publish a revealing, Christianity bashing, tell-all story... so the fact that none of them did should set off some bells in your head, no?

Also, could you either use blockquote or use news style quotes ">>" on every line if you quote multiple lines? It's really hard to follow what you're saying otherwise.

Sure, sorry about that. I marked the beginning and end of each quotation with >> but from now on I will use block quote commands.

Then why talk about fractional reserve banking in such debt then? That's my point, the whole argument is meaningless when talking about TVP

Fractional reserve banking is the dominant financial institution all over the world right now. It's important to discuss the faults of the current system before introducing a solution.

She couldnt get it published...do i need to go any further than that.

After doing some simple research, it turns out past editions of her books have been published by Adventure Unlimited Press. It seems that she has created her own publishing company to distance herself away from the non-scientific reputation of AUP. Self-publishing has a number of other benefits as well. Hume was self-published as well.

Anyway, I don't understand how her publishing methods have anything to do with the content of her work. You're not directing your criticism at her argument. You do this a lot, especially toward TZM and TVP.

Nobody is denying the similarities...but similarities dont prove christianity to be originated from one single other religious ideology IE paganism. If you want to discuss original sources why not go right back to neanderthal times and state everything is a derivative of neanderthal thinking? why just stop at paganism ? unless one is predisposed to having a preference to paganism it serves no purpose

Paganism is a broad term. It can refer to any polytheistic theological doctrine. The similarities have to do with solar myth deities that represent the winter solstice. The deities are common in many cultures: Norse, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, just to name a few. The winter solstice is a very specific natural occurrence. It was first documented on a calendar with the date of December 25th (The Julian Calendar in 46BCE). But of course, over time it has changed, and it differs depending on which hemisphere you are on.

However, many past cultures have documented the solstice, and attributed some celebration and corresponding death/rebirth myth to go along with it.

As for your Neanderthal argument, first of all, Neanderthals don't have any documented text or markings. Secondly, I don’t understand how any speculation or study of Neaderthal intelligence has anything to do with revealing Christianity as mythology.

That logic is dangerous. Should scientists forget working out details of string theory and instead refer to the intelligence of a Neanderthal?

Please list the credentialed and respected scholars who back her up.

She has received positive reviews from Earl Doherty BA, Dr. Robert M. Price, Kenneth Feder PhD and Richard Carrier PhD.

Her sources are blavatsky [theosophist], ancient defunct egyptology claims that have long since been disgarded and even discredited, and she rehashes old ideas to make her claims. While she makes a good argument for some things she makes 'terrible' factual claims & her academic qualifications and peer review is utterly lacking.

Disregarded and discredited by whom?

I’ve yet to find any critical reviews of her work which have any merit, in fact. Many have obvious Christian agendas, and others are skeptical of her work without looking into her sources, or their conclusions are based on conflicting information from inadequate source material.

Have you actually looked into the Bibliography of her work for yourself, or have you formulated your conclusion based on someone elses opinion?

"It seems that she has created her own publishing company to distance herself away from the non-scientific reputation of AUP."

evidence of this claim please or are we just taking your word on it ?

Your question about neanderthals was irrelevant, you're completly avoiding my point, she stops her source research at a point that suites her ideology.

It's not irrelevant. You made a conclusion based on a logical fallacy.

In the Origins of Christianity PDF, the Zeitgeist Companion Guide and Suns of God (the content of hers that I have read, which sources I am referring to) I have never gotten any sympathetic notions toward paganism, which is a blanket term anyhow, as I pointed out.

Like I said before, it is all related to astrology, which isn't associated with any specific form of worship, is cross-cultural and is one of the most primitive examples of science.

<<"It's not irrelevant. You made a conclusion based on a logical fallacy.

In the Origins of Christianity PDF, the Zeitgeist Companion Guide and Suns of God (the content of hers that I have read, which sources I am referring to) I have never gotten any sympathetic notions toward paganism, which is a blanket term anyhow, as I pointed out. ">>

No I made a point anyone would make, and that is pure and simple her ideology dictates her argument. Read her more recent works and shes getting into feminine deity worship and the goddess etc etc.

No I made a point anyone would make, and that is pure and simple her ideology dictates her argument. Read her more recent works and shes getting into feminine deity worship and the goddess etc etc.

I'm not near as certain of her ideology as you seem to be. Other than using the word goddess in her article about Princess Diana (whom she seems to admire greatly), along with some other allusions, I have not found any information to lead me to the conclusion that she is a pagan. The definition of which you have yet to specify, because paganism is a blanket term, this is the third time I've said this.

The only thing that I've read of hers, that describes a personal philosophy is this:

(taken from http://blog.shankbone.org/2009/11/12/christ-conspiracy-author-d-m-murdock-answers-five-questions/ )

Q. What is one misconception people have about you?

A. Many people think I am an atheist or anti-religious. I do not label myself either an atheist or a theist, and I have a tremendous appreciation for religion, so long as its meaning and origins are understood. Unfortunately, very few people are truly aware of the roots of religious ideology, so what we see manifested is often the pathology of religion, and that is all I am really criticizing. The rest of my work is designed to show the great beauty of human culture dating back thousands of years.

Apparently some TZM members have -- either by themselves or through direction of PJ, I have no idea -- to go find forum threads on the Internet that previously mention my web site, and talk about how I'm mentally ill. The external enemy crusade continues.

We know from your own admission in this thread you havent read into all her works, so lets leave that there shall we ?

I don't think we should move on just yet. Can you provide me with your definition of pagan, and point me toward some specific content of hers that will assure me, without a doubt, that she fits in with your description of a pagan?

I am after all trying to find the truth of the matter.

It didnt take some tracksuit wearing woman to point this out to the world for them to arrive at this conclusion. Therefore she doesnt deserve much credit because shes using other peoples literature to arrive at an already ancient stated notion.

I don't get why you are so hung up with people piecing together information. You do it. I do it. It's a commonality between all people. So being prejudiced about it toward people you disagree with is really baffling to me.

How do you think you have come to know anything? Whether it is your knowledge of aircraft engineering, or your work in media (which to me seems like a description for music publishing). It was taught to you from prior information. I don't see anything negative in that. People can only extrapolate on the prior information they absorb.

The fact is that her body of work is a thorough collection of evidence pointing toward the mythological nature of Christianity. A lot of people have written about the historical authenticity of Christ, and a few have written about Christianity as a comparative mythology, but none have been as thorough, that I know of.

please Kris, i am not getting into semantics of what paganism is, its unimportant to me to get into that kind of specific dialogue, in fact all religions are pretty much unimportant to me, other than why people join them and the psychology of its belief.
I will check out the veracity of those scholars backing her and thats all I have to say about Acharya S, i think I've/we've derailed this thread into her territory long enough.

I think is a relevant question to you though

So Peter Joseph Merola thinks Edward is mentally ill, what you make of that Kris?

You think he is in any intellectual/professional or academic position to make these claims?

Can you guys please start an Acharya S thread, this thread is supposed to be about how insane I am.