A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

What do they believe? What do you think? Talk about religion as it exists today.
Roger Pearse
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

Post by Roger Pearse »

Earlier today I had a very curious experience on twitter. It started when I became aware of an exchange that a certain @markhawker was having with someone well known here: @AcharyaS.
Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@aiminghigh9 And what credibility do you think @AcharyaS has in this area? A respected Mithras scholar? (@mooneyedgirl)

Religion and History ‏@AcharyaS:
@aiminghigh9 This kind of LOGICAL FALLACY is called "credentialism." It's a rubbish tactic. http :// w ww.free thoughtnatio n.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18804 … @markhawker @mooneyedgirl

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@AcharyaS Sadly, that’s not what’s going on here. You say you have the credentials though, right? (@aiminghigh9 @mooneyedgirl)

Religion and History ‏@AcharyaS:
@markhawker Sadly, you are doing EXACTLY as I've stated. READ the article and stop deflecting now. @aiminghigh9 @mooneyedgirl
Religion and History ‏@AcharyaS:

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@AcharyaS Let’s take one point you make: which academic scholars endorse “the Twelve”? (@roger_pearse)

Religion and History ‏@AcharyaS:
@markhawker What credibility do you have when you clearly don't know my work in the least? Article is SOURCED. @aiminghigh9 @mooneyedgirl

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@AcharyaS I do know your work, though. J. P. Holding loves it, too. (@aiminghigh9 @mooneyedgirl)

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@AcharyaS Can I pick up any of your work in a peer-reviewed journal? (@aiminghigh9 @mooneyedgirl)

Religion and History ‏@AcharyaS:
@markhawker Yes, you can, which you would know if you weren't only dishonestly PRETENDING to know my work. @aiminghigh9 @mooneyedgirl

Religion and History ‏@AcharyaS:
@markhawker But, again, that's CREDENTIALISM. Please provide your credentials as an expert on my work. @aiminghigh9 @mooneyedgirl

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@AcharyaS So, where is it? (@aiminghigh9 @mooneyedgirl)

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@AcharyaS This isn’t about your work but about understanding Mithraism. Nothing about you. (@aiminghigh9 @mooneyedgirl)

Religion and History ‏@AcharyaS:
@markhawker Instead of dishonest pretenses & deflection fallacies, you could read the attached article: http://truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm @aiminghigh9

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@AcharyaS I have read that article. Anyone can post on the Internet, though. Where has this been presented to the academic community?

Religion and History ‏@AcharyaS:
@aiminghigh9 Roger's another dishonest poseur shoring up his cultic views by all costs - refuted repeatedly. @roger_pearse

Religion and History ‏@AcharyaS:
@aiminghigh9 My article proves these fanatics wrong, but they won't read it, while pretending to be experts. @roger_pearse @markhawker

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@AcharyaS @aiminghigh9 @roger_pearse @mooneyedgirl Right, enough of the mud-slinging and let’s start talking about evidence.

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@roger_pearse @AcharyaS So, this twelve disciples idea. Source and evidence?

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@roger_pearse @AcharyaS Or evidence of Mithras being called “the Good Shepherd”. Source and evidence, please?

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@roger_pearse @AcharyaS Or "Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders”. Source and evidence, please?

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@roger_pearse @AcharyaS OK, so that’s three claims you make that we’ll explore together. And … go.

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@roger_pearse @AcharyaS Any monument or inscription of Mithras with a lamb on his back will do. That’s how low my bar is.

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@roger_pearse @AcharyaS Unless you’re referring to this and using artistic licence? http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithr ... ge=cimrm77

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@roger_pearse @AcharyaS Or maybe this? http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithr ... =cimrm1494
A certain amount of chaff passed between Mark Hawker and myself, but I have since deleted my tweets for reasons that will become clear.

At this point something strange happened. There were no further replies from Acharya S. Instead Mark and I received a tweet from someone calling themself @Lieofabraham or something like that, not about Mithras but about Jesus or something equally irrelevant. There were no previous tweets.

Mark promptly enquired if the account had just been created for the purpose of badgering him. There followed a series of insulting or provocative tweets, directed at each of us, and to which each of us responded. Until I realised that we were being trolled here.

At this point I smelled a rat. A brand new account appears, just at that point, to pick a fight and fling dirt? Coincidence? I thought not. For I've encountered this sort of troll before. It was, I reasoned, an attempt to fill my twitter feed with insults back and forth, which would tend to make *me* - posting under my own name - look like a troll. It's the old "wrestling a pig in mud" gambit.

Naturally I deleted those few tweets that I had made, and I advised Mark to do the same. Then I went to look at the troll account and found ... it had hidden all of its tweets so that nobody could see them, only our responses!

I'm afraid that it looks very much to me as if Acharya S set one of her minions to troll people here, with a view to damaging their reputations online. That's pretty nasty.

Needless to say, Acharya had nothing to say in response to Mark H's comments.

I don't as a rule post on individuals, but I rather take against a cold-blooded attempt at character assassination. Let it known what happened.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
perseusomega9
Posts: 904
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

Post by perseusomega9 »

Every time I'm tempted to read one of her books, her cult followers disabuse me of that notion.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

Post by Blood »

I was just thinking, "You know, we need another Archaya S thread."
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

Post by GakuseiDon »

I've seen Acharya S direct her forum readers to go to Youtube or forums to argue against people who are critical of her. An example from a month ago, where she was criticized on Youtube. The person wrote "DM Murdock is a conniving liar. Almost no historians or scholars think her work is credible, some of her statements are wrong and deceiving at best."

Acharya S then writes on her own website:
http: // f reethought nation.co m/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2729
  • PLEASE feel free to address this person, who himself is a LIAR and libeler of my person, probably also a misogynist... I can't go in there and get into a flame war, so I rely on my friends and supporters to do it for me. Unfortunately, few people are doing it.
I don't see anything wrong for her to ask for help in addressing specific criticisms, but the problem is that all too often it DOES descend into a flame war, with charges of closed-mindedness, misogyny, etc. I think Acharya S is correct: it is only a small number of people doing this. But they certainly are trolls, repeating the same things, the same walls of texts with the same list of links and the "just read her books!" as responses; and that small number is very active. Your encounter on twitter was almost inevitable, Roger.

(ETA) I suppose this thread shouldn't be in the Christian texts forum, but it would be useful to have it somewhere, like an "Acts of Acharya S" thread, where it is noted that this is what happens when you question a Christ Myth proponent, since it is relevant in a way to how Christian texts and history is examined on the Internet. Similarly, a thread could be created for reactions received when a Christ Myth proponent pushes their view. I think both are worthy of study, as part of a wider examination of epistemology of Christian texts.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

Post by GakuseiDon »

Blood wrote:I was just thinking, "You know, we need another Archaya S thread."
:lol: :notworthy:
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

Post by Peter Kirby »

Critical of whatever Acharya S promotes = liar, libeler, and probably a misogynist.

9 out of 10 people who say anything at all that isn't ebullient get labeled this way.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5640
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote:(ETA) I suppose this thread shouldn't be in the Christian texts forum, but it would be useful to have it somewhere, like an "Acts of Acharya S" thread, where it is noted that this is what happens when you question a Christ Myth proponent, since it is relevant in a way to how Christian texts and history is examined on the Internet. Similarly, a thread could be created for reactions received when a Christ Myth proponent pushes their view. I think both are worthy of study, as part of a wider examination of epistemology of Christian texts.
We can move this to General Religious Discussion (talking about the sociology of religion today, basically).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Roger Pearse
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

Re: A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

Post by Roger Pearse »

I wondered where this ended up. It just vanished, to my eyes. Only found it today.
Roger Pearse
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:26 am

Re: A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

Post by Roger Pearse »

I've just discovered that she has blocked me from following her on twitter. Which is, of course, certainly her right.
User avatar
hjalti
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:28 am

Re: A curious exchange with Acharya S on twitter

Post by hjalti »

Mark Hawker ‏@markhawker :
@AcharyaS I do know your work, though. J. P. Holding loves it, too. (@aiminghigh9 @mooneyedgirl)
[puking smiley] Yeah, because JP Holding is sooooo much better than Acharya.
Post Reply