Why don't you answer the Zeitgeist Challenge?

In the first place, I am under no obligation to answer anyone's "challenge." Secondly, the individuals involved in this particular endeavor, along with their followers, have been very impolite and obnoxious, libeling me with all manner of vile epithets and proving themselves entirely unworthy of response. Thirdly, these individuals are biased Christians who are not experts in comparative religion and mythology, know very little about the subject and know almost nothing about my work, but are nonetheless dishonestly presenting themselves as "experts" on me and my work. These are not credible and credentialed individuals upon whose endeavors I need to waste my own time and efforts. I am not inclined to trust the integrity of such dishonest characters who are going against their own religion by bearing false witness against me, which they have repeatedly done with their libelous, slanderous and hateful comments.

Moreover, in reality I have repeatedly addressed these ZG debunkers, in this blog as well as in my video on the subject. Their response has been to slander and libel me further as well as to spend more time demonstrating that they know very little about the subject matter and even less about my work. Again, these are not credible people with integrity. I understand that people whose feelings are hurt by the information I disclose will lash out and grasp anything they can to cling to discredited beliefs, but desperately following such characters who are being mendacious about their credentials and expertise, and who continually slander and libel decent and honest human beings, is really not the answer.

Furthermore, I answered whatever facts among their abundant non-facts and mistruths this so-called challenge may have produced before it was even issued, in my previous books, especially in Suns of God as well as Who Was Jesus? I also have hundreds of articles and other writings on my websites, in my groups and on my forums. These individuals would not know that fact because, even though they dishonestly pretend otherwise, they do not know my work at all.

These individuals need to be challenged themselves to admit to their many mistakes, as well as their vicious campaign of hatred, calumny, slander and libel, which is a mark of a truly low character and which is nothing new but has plagued Christianity from the very beginning. In the meantime, my latest book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection thoroughly addresses all of the Horus commentary in the ZG movie. I would not expect these individuals to be honest enough to admit that their challenge is met, however. One would hope, nevertheless, that someone in the believing corner has more class, integrity and honesty to deal maturely and with common decency than do these particular individuals. It is frankly appalling and dismaying to consider that there are others who actually give credence to these individuals, but such is religious indoctrination that it creates disturbed and unbalanced people - as we see abundantly all over the internet, unfortunately.

In any event, my book Christ in Egypt is my main response to all criticisms concerning the Horus-Jesus connection in Zeitgeist, and, once it comes out, unless detractors have read it and can offer a mature critique devoid of dishonesty, libel and personal attacks, we should not be concerned with their opinions.

Acharya S

Re: Saifai's post on behalf of Acharya S.

This is laughably ridiculous and typical of what I've been referring to here in other posts concerning the very transparent attitude of Acharya S. and her clique of followers.

Notice the deliberate skirting around of the issue connected to the Zeitgeist challenge??!! Acharya S. is off and running about everything and anything EXCEPT OFFERING SPECIFIC EVIDENCE TO ANSWER THE CHALLENGE AND SETTLE THE ISSUE!

Here in this post by Acharya's lap-dog SaiFai, we can clearly see a martyrology being established and we can also observe a glaring attempt at trying to "accuse the accuser", which is a common "slight of hand" tactic used by impotent parties while involved in debates when they get into a tight spot and try to wriggle out.

You'll notice that Acharya S. first states that she is "under no obligation" to answer the challenge. Well, what do you know?! A published author who has had her work questioned and has had demands leveled at her for proof of her claims, and she feels she's under no obligation to answer her critics! This view on the part of Acharya S. is very unique to say the least because any other author or publishing scholar of any note would immediately seek to defend their work by willingly providing any and all evidence and proof their critics demanded of them AS SOON AS POSSIBLE so as to re-establish their work as genuine and valid in the view of the reading public. This is not the case with Acharya S though! She doesn't feel she's obligated to respond with proof and evidence at all! But what could she be thinking while holding such a dismissive attitude toward her critics? If she's not obligated to answer their demands for the sake of her reputation as an author and as a supposedly accurate "researcher", and also for the sake of her book's validity in the eyes of the reading public ( especially the Christian reading public whom she is attempting to influence and alert! ), then to whom or to what IS Acharya S. obligated? With such statements, Acharya S. is really telling the readers of this post by Saifai that she simply doesn't care who thinks she's credible and worth reading and who doesn't. Now does this sound logical in terms of an attitude held by a dedicated author who is intensely interested in revealing serious flaws and misconceptions connected to one of the world's major religions??!! No, of course it doesn't! It sounds like the vapid and pathetic excuse-making and "ducking out" tactics of a crank and hack writer who has offered readers views and conclusions which she cannot possibly substantiate - views and conclusions which amount to no more than opinion and guessing on her part and on the part of all the authors who published on the same topic long before she began putting her own book together!!

But Acharya S. goes ever further in her evasive tactics. She begins talking down to her critics and offers comments about them which are obviously meant to indicate that she occupies the moral and intellectual high ground, and that she is also an innocent, but noble victim of their slanderous and vicious attacks. She maintains her status of innocent, but hounded victim, and she also dismisses all critics as nothing but a lot of semi-imbecilic and hostile attackers. She even goes so far as to offer the readers of this post from Saifai an assessment of just who her attackers are! She tells the reader of Saifai's post that they are "biased Christians who are not experts in comparative religion and mythology, know very little about the subject and know almost nothing about my work, but are nontheless dishonestly presenting themselves as 'experts' on me and my work."

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't see any credentials offered by Acharya S. to prove she's any sort of "expert" or specialist on comparative religion, or mythologies or anything else, for that matter. And come to think of it, any thinking individual who reads a book by an author claiming certain postions as "FACT" is en_title_d to ask for proof to validate those postions. The critic demanding proof does not have to offer an author of any book "credentials" before saying "Put up or shut up!". So again, Acharya S. shows everyone that she's blatantly reverting to "accuse the accuser" in her obvious attempt to escape from the demands for proof and evidence!

Futhermore, I am one of the "attackers" of Acharya's work here, and I am NOT a Christian by any stretch of the imagination, nevermind a biased Christian! But here we have another exceptionally fine example of Acharya S. stating her _base_less opinion AS FACT....in exactly the same way she has repeatedly done in her book "The Christ Conspiracy" and in the Zeitgeist presentation! Painting things, people, and issues with a convenient "whitewash brush" of _base_less opinion-as-fact is a habit Acharya S. has and for that matter,
its a habit of all cranks and hacks. Proof and evidence mean nothing. Opinion-as-fact is the tell-tale sign of the crackpot hack and crank author in every instance, and we see it here in this post as plain as day.

This post from Acharya's lap-dog, Saifai consists of FIVE paragraphs, and in each one Acharya S. resorts to the same "A+B=C" tactics. She keeps on claiming that she is correct in her views, but offers no firm proof of it. She keeps on referring to her critics in terms meant to suggest their incompetence and inability to even remotely grasp the high-toned aspects of her illustrious work. She keeps on falling back on victimhood and blatantly suggests that she is being persecuted by her critics. She keeps up her holier-than-thou stance and even goes so far as to tell the readers of this post that her critics are as good as brainwashed by religious dogma and therefore incapable of reasoning with any logic worth speaking of.
Beyond this sort of claptrap, Acharya S. repeatedly points out how she has already "answered" her critics via blog and video presentations. And the readers of this post are supposed to swallow this drek without question! Acharya's "answers" through blog and video are the same "answers" as the ones she offers in this post - a lot of nothing! She offers no specific evidence. Nor any solid proof to place the content of her work above suspicion in terms of it only being her opinion and guessing regurgitated from the opinion and guessing of other authors who wrote about the same subject in the distant past. No, her "answers" don't consist of anything of the kind needed to convince people she's actually written about something that can be substantiated! What we have instead is just the standard tactics of the crank and hack - the "Smoke and Mirrors" with words and statements - lots of talk with no substance connected to the actual issue!

When reading this post, one is forced to wonder why Acharya S. does not sue at least some of her critics? In this post from Saifai, she accuses them of "liable", and that is certainly a subject to take up through lawyers! But like the rest of her statements, this reference to "liable" is just so much hot air which cannot be pursued. For to do so would mean that Acharya S. would have to allow her critics to lay out all the "loose ends" in her work which caused them to "attack" her in such a liableous manner - lay it all out right in Court! This is something that would send Acharya's work and her reputation down in flames, so its much wiser for her to just accuse the critics of "liable" while she plays the innocent victim. But it must be let go at that point without taking any official action.

No, Acharya S. cannot and will not address the specific issue connected to the Zeitgeist Challenge in this "reply" of her's posted by Saifai because she simply can't! Instead of posting something here consisting of specific references to museum displays/cultural remains and artwork/ancient writings/etc., showing that Christ is definitely _link_ed to other savior gods, or to a Solar myth, Acharya S. "answers" her critics with five paragraphs of off-topic blather!

But I myself couldn't really care less about Acharya's conclusions about Christ and other gods.
What I am most interested in is her utterly whacky positions concerning recent history. This is where her ignorance and absurd irrationality really come shining through in my view!!
In her book, "The Christ Conspiracy", Acharya S. mentions people like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. He sites portions of the works of other authors and attempts to convince the reader that both Hitler and Stalin were motivated by the Christian religion. In Acharya's view, if Hitler and Stalin hadn't been exposed to Christianity during their lives, they would probably never have done the terrible things they did! In other words, the logic Acharya S. holds to concludes that if we just get rid of Christianity, we automatically get rid of all serious and terrible activities among human beings as well. Simple, isn't it?!
For the information of the readers of this reply of mine to the post of lap-dog Saifai on behalf of Acharya S., I will say that Hitler was a complex and highly astute megalomaniac who did everything and anything he could to attain and keep power. He was a member of several anti-Christian Occult orders prior to becoming Reich Chancellor in Germany, but he was also many other things to many other people. He was a gross materialist/militarist to German factory owners, steel magnets, and bankers around the world who financed him. He was a Christian to Christian Germans and churchmen. He was a pagan to German pagans. He was a modernist and science buff to German modernists and scientists. In other words, Hitler sought to become all things to all people...or to be as many things to the majority of people within Germany as he could be in order to attain and keep the power _base_ he desired.
But forget all that! That's nothing more than verifiable and accurate HISTORIC FACT. Instead, go ahead and swallow the hook, line, and sinker of Acharya S. when she tells you in her book "The Christ Conspiracy" that Hitler was entirely motivated by his connection/love/following of the Christian religion.
Acharya S. goes so far as to quote Hitler out of context to support her bizarre and looney conclusions.
She offers her readers what Hitler "said" concerning the Jews and how he called Jews "Christ killers". This is supposed to convince you that Acharya's one-dimensional view of a specific world leader in modern times is valid.
Hitler referred to the Jews as "Christ killers", so therfore ( according to Acharya S. ) Hitler was a dedicated and practicing Christian! And since he was a dedicated and practicing Christian, its the fault of Christianity that he did was he did on the world's stage! Wow, how's that for logic, boys and girls?!!!
In FACT, Hitler was never a "BELIEVING" or practicing Christian. He was a political "ghost". He could change shape and "look" at will to impress specific segments of the German population. He actually referred to the Jews as a lot of things during the span of his leadership, but why should that be considered as important? Acharya S. only wants her readers to understand Hitler in the most simplistic, the most irrationally bizarre and one-dimensional way possible...because that "way" of understanding supports her views on Christianity!
Consider for a moment that Hitler and the Nazi party were heavily financed by Jewish bankers! Yes, that's right boys and girls! Jewish Banking families in Europe and America financed the Nazi party! The Rothschildes, for example, provided massive financing to Hitler and his party. And when the German armies occupied France, no estate or castle belonging to the Rothschildes was touched! Nor were any members of the Rothschildes family "gased" or otherwise "exterminated" by Hitler and Co. So gosh, golly, gee, what a way for a dedicated "Christian" to behave toward those he saw as "Christ Killers"?!

Acharya employs the same convenient "whitewashing" maneuver with Stalin. I won't mention just how mentally off the beaten path she is on Stalin's score here, because to do so would serve to lengthen this post beyond all reasonable proportion. But I will say that if one ever wanted to seriously discredit Acharya S. and her work, all that would be needed for success would be to take Acharya's conclusions about Hitler and Stalin and to compare these with what is known as historic fact about these two men. Doing this comparison alone would serve to
expose Acharya S. as as a writer who was unconcerned with accuracy in terms of what she offered as conclusions to her readers, and as being illogical and irrationally biased as well. It would be easy for any reader to view her as a mere misfit among authors - as someone who only peices together bits and segments of information from other authors in order to construct a false, but self-serving "finished product" result and in so doing, sway her ignorant and mindless followers toward conclusions which have nothing whatsoever to do with reality and FACT!

Again you have failed to answer simple questions: Lets try again! Woof woof! “

The evidence shows Jesus was a mythical figure, a personification of the SUN like so many other ancient fables and fairy tales before. Do you agree or disagree? It’s a simple yes or no…

Do you claim he was an historical person? It’s a simple yes or no…

If yes, where and what is your proof dating from the 1st century?

Was Christianity nothing more than a 3rd century, politically motivated construction? It’s a simple yes or no…

Anyone with half a brain can see just from the hieroglyphic and archaeological evidence alone, that the basis for the Christian religion was stolen from the Egyptians. So with that in mind, is that not true? Was it not plagiarised from the Egyptian religion? It’s a simple yes or no…

Now lets keep things quite simple, like I said, if you have ANY constructive and beneficial information showing the information in the Christ Conspiracy to be false, thus proving Jesus was NOT a mythical figure and NOT a personification of the SUN but was a real “historical” personage, then, as I have already politely said, either put up the evidence to show this or just shut the fuck up as your ranting about Hitler and human nature are hot only boring but are irrelevant to the reason why this site exists in the first place!

You have again stated in your posts that you are not even interested in these facts and are just using these forums to continue to do as you so clearly stated before, to expose Acharya to the fullest extent.

This is your personal animosity, which you hold against Acharya. No one cares if Acharya read other peoples books when researching her book, no one cares if she makes a living from selling books, no one cares if people see Acharya as a messenger, or the latest messenger in a long line of messengers, no one case about these by-the-way-side matters, except you and the depth you are going into these completely irrelevant issues, is bordering on a psychotic obsession! Fanaticism with a person, while claiming to be interested in that persons work, is extremely unhealthy and very worrying.

Back to this website: The only point that matters, (regardless who shows or states it, is this), Is there any 1st century evidence that shows Jesus to be a Historical personage? (The answer is of course NO: There is not a single piece of credible historical evidence but we’ll see what you come up with anyway).

So, present your case NOW for an historical Jesus as this is what this site is REALLY all about. Not a false Straw man tactic, presented for cash that no one can win, as the people they are wanting answers to, never existed!

So answer the above questions, with answers this time, …not questions as you usually do and well see how far you get?

Kindest regards.

SAIFAI woof woof!

To respond to Saifai's second post here, and the questions he/she raises in it:

Saifai says; "The evidence shows Jesus was a mythical figure,.....do you agree or disagree? It's a simple yes or no."

I would reply to Saifai that it is far from "a simple yes or no".

First, what "evidence" is Saifai referring to? Provide SPECIFIC sources ( items, writings from the founders of Christianity, etc. ) which clearly show that Christ is a mythic figure, etc.
Without specific evidence...not opinion-as-fact...discussion in this regard is POINTLESS.
Furthermore, what difference does it make if I do or do not agree with what SEEMS to be a good case for Christ being a mythic figure? There are plenty of people who don't agree. And when Acharya S. chooses to attack their religion and its central character, it is reasonable to feel that she IS obligated to provide specific proof and evidence in concrete form to establish the connections she's talking about.

Saifai says; "Do you claim he was an historic person...."

My response to this is that I don't claim anything in any way about Jesus Christ and I am totally unconcerned with his historic validity.

Saifai says; "If yes,...."

This question is unimportant from my perspective _base_d on my position concerning the religion of Christianity and its central figure.


I now skip down to where Saifai says;
"Anyone with half a brain can see just from the hierogliphic and archaeological evidence alone..."

Here again, Saifai asks for a simple "yes or no" agreement/disagreement. While there may or may not be similarities between how some of Egypt's many religious components match up with those of Christianity, to state as "FACT" that Egypt's religion or some portions of it were "stolen" by the originators and promoters of Christianity is a blanket statement of FACT which will instantly cause Christians to exclaim, "PROVE IT!"
And, IN FACT, this "stealing" of Egyptian elements in order to construct Christianity still remains only opinion and guessing unless something specific is shown which clearly connects early Christians admitting to doing this. For all that it matters, certain portions of some of Egypt's many religions components and elements may have found their way into the Christian religion, but for what reason specifically, Acharya S. and other's cannot truthfully say. Because of this, Acharya S. should be writing in a more responsible manner so that she uses "perhaps", "maybe", "it seems to me _base_d on what I've read", and "it is likely", instead of making whitewash, blanket statements such as "Christ IS part of a solar myth", "Christ IS a mythic figure constructed from the attributes and personalities of other savior gods".
In writing one way, Acharya would be telling her readers that she is expressing her opinion. By writing in the other way, Acharya S. comes across to her readers as stating FACT. There is a big difference in how those reading her work would view her as an author and how they would digest her postions.


Saifai says; "Now lets keep things quite simple....."

My reply to this paragraph is; It is NOT up to myself or any other critic of Acharya's work to PROVIDE "constructive and beneficial information" about anything. It is up to Acharya S. ( the author promoting specific positions and attempting to influence people ) to provide the evidence and proof critics demand before they'll believe what she is stating.
IT IS THAT SIMPLE. Saifai is attempting to throw the responsibility for Acharya's blunders onto her critics to clear up! He is telling the reader of his second post that it is the critic, not Acharya S., who must lay out something - anything - to support their doubt of what she's written. This is utter nonsense and is a wide-open admission of ducking the issue of this challenge. You also see exhibited here the irrational, openly - even FANATICALLY hostile attitude and mindset of those who are followers and True Believers of Acharya S. and her work. Even though I stated in my initial post that I was not a Christian and that I had no interest in Acharya's positions on Christ or Christianity; and in spite of the fact that I layed out the false and completely STUPID positions that Acharya S. holds concerning Hitler and Stalin; here we see Saifai blowing his lid and becoming abusive by telling me that I've been "ranting" about Hitler/Stalin and that what I've got to say is
"boring and irrelivant to the reason why this site exists in the first place!"
There could be no better an example of the classic "accuse the accuser" technique/ploy through the employment of smoke screen tactics designed to get Acharya's views out of hot water.
Nevermind that the "purpose of this site" has been completely ignored by Saifai and all other followers/True Believers of Acharya S. ( this is obvious in the content of their posts!).
Saifai accuses me of doing the ignoring! Well, I've stated repeatedly that Acharya S. has ducked this challenge and I've stated why she's done so. As for my mention of Hitler/Stalin and her other looney-tune concepts of near history, I made mention of these to show just how "far off" she actually is about a lot of things other than just Christian issues. And of course it struck a nerve in Saifai! You'll notice he can't respond to what I said about Hitler or human nature with ANY contrary data/evidence/proof to support the bizarre conclusions of his beloved Acharya! Instead he merely reverts to the standard irrational hostility that is such a knee-jerk behavior mechanism among all of Acharya's True Believing cult memmbers.

Saifai says; "You have again stated in your posts that you are not even interested in these facts......"

My reply to this is that I am very interested in FACTS, but FACTS are something that Acharya S. and her groupies don't deal in. They only deal in OPINION-STATED-AS-FACT. There's a big difference. And I would ask Saifai to provide a direct quote from any of my posts here ( or my posts from anywhere else ) in which I can be found saying that I am not interested in any facts. But really, this is more smoke-and-mirrors, a blatant attack the attacker, accuse the accuser maneuver on the part of Saifai.

Saifai says; "This is your personal animosity, which you hold against Acharya...."

My reply to this is to say that Acharya S. as an individual is of no concern to me at all. Acharya S. as an author who seeks to influence the minds of other people IS a concern because there is far far too much of this "garbage in print" literature being spewed out by all sorts of crank authors these days, and being read and believed by the unwitting and dumbed-down public, or at least a good portion of the public.
Furthermore, Frank and Chris have been attacked by Acharya S. and by her followers, and all they've done is demand proof in the form of something more solid than opinion and guessing to support Acharya's positions. But since Acharya S. and Saifai and all the rest of her groupies relentlessly attempt to establish her as a persecuted, hounded, attacked, and innocent VICTIM, this statement of Saifai's comes as no surprise to me. Also, I call the reader's attention to the way Saifai attempts to suggest that my mental state should be questioned by his employment of terms from psychiatry and psychology and hanging these as labels on me - not as his opinion, but as FACT. After reading his posts and the posts of Aziz, and then reading mine, I'll leave the reader to decide just who is exhibiting signs of mental derangement and who isn't.

I won't address the rest of the repetative drool-in-print left by Saifai in his second post. Instead I'll do something much, much better! I'll provide the reader of this post with some excellent tools with which they can see through the work and claims of Acharya S., and to also see through the arguements and tactics routinely employed by her True Believing groupies.

There are three short, but fantastically informative books which you, dear reader, need to read if you want to be saved from the work of such people as Acharya S. These three books will also save you from falling for the transparent arguements offered by her followers, and they'll allow you to see through and counter the irrational, deceptive, and hostile tactics employed by her followers whenever they can't logically respond to someone's questions and points.


The first book you need to read is:

"The Thinkers Guide to How to read a Paragraph - the Art of Close Reading"
by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder
** This book will allow you to pick apart the writing and stated positons of an author, and break it down into a _frame_work where you can easily see it in terms of logic and illogic, reason and irrationality, etc.

The second book you need to read is:

"The Thinker's Guide For Conscientious Citizens on How To Detect Media Bias & Propaganda In National and World News"
by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder
**This book's content will school you in a clear and concise manner to spot both blatant and subtle propaganda and bias. Although it focuses on news content, you can easily apply its lessons and techniques to books and video presentations - such as those offered to you by Acharya S. This is an excellent book and well worth your time.

The third book you cannot afford to pass by is:

"The Thinker's Guide To Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation"
by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder
**This book SPECIFICALLY reveals the popular techniques used by manipulators/propagandists, and "False=True" swindlers who seek to convince their targeted victims by means of deception and verbal slight-of-hand/smoke-and-mirrors.

I GUARANTEE ANY READER HERE WHO PURCHASES THIS BOOK THAT THEY WILL FIND ALLTHE MANY TECHNIQUES ROUTINELY EMPLOYED BY SWINDLERS OF EVERY KIND - AUTHORS, NEWSCASTERS, SPIN ARTISTS, PR PEOPLE, POLITICOS, ETC.

I also guarantee any reader here who purchases this book that if they look at the information from Dr. Paul and Dr. Elder, they will be able to come back to this site and DEFINITELY find many of the deceptive, misleading, manipulative tactics in full use within the arguements and replies of Acharya S. and her groupies!

Again, get these three inexpensive and excellent books ASAP! Read them and I can honestly tell you that your mind will be perfectly able to shred through the work of Acharya S. and others like her with ease.
All three books are available from
"The Foundation for Critical Thinking" and you can order them on their website;

www.criticalthinking.org

After you've got them and utilized the information and techniques within their short pages, you'll come back here and thank me.