|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2011 : 08:11:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by Dave W.
What I was curious about was how SFN even got in the running.
|
I'm the one who chose this site, and I just googled "skeptic forums" and went with the first one who accepted us. We tried James Randi's forum, but ChangingMyself was rejected, and I never got a response. I tried another one (I forget which), but the site said they weren't accepting new members. You were third on the list, and I got through right away, so I recommended this one to ChangingMyself. She agreed.
We also each suggested a specific forum, but vetoed each other's choices. I suggested TheologyWeb (though promised not to accept votes from Christians), but ChangingMyself was still worried about a forum that was generally pro-Christian. She suggested Sam Harris' forum, but that's heavily pro-Christ-myth, so I vetoed that one.
|
"In fact, it's *not even Isis* in that image. This is a different birth narrative for Horus, in which his mother is a human queen and her father is Amun"
"In conclusion, the Luxor narrative has some parallels with the Christian narrative, but also with dozens of other narratives that would have been more familiar to the Christians (such as those surrounding Alexander the Great), though none present a complete or particularly startling parallel. Granted, the key narrative signposts are present at Luxor: there is a divine conception, a divine annunciation, a birth of a Son of God, then a divine adoration and confirmation (all leading eventually to a coronation). The inversion of conception and annunciation is necessary because of Egyptian moral standards--whereas the Jewish version could turn them around, because a Jewish audience would not countenance sex with God anyway, so there was (unlike in Egypt) no impropriety in the fact that Mary learned of it before it happened (and that fits more with the Jewish cultural tradition of prophecy, and, more importantly, the legend of Sarah)."
Maybe you MISSED this part of that funny little article that you posted from an apologetics website...??? |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
 |
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 08:24:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Maybe you MISSED this part of that funny little article that you posted from an apologetics website...???
|
That article was written by Richard Carrier, a skeptical atheist.
But my purpose there was to show that people need to be skeptical of someone posting an heiroglyph and *telling them* who they are and what they're doing, when the glyph shows no such thing. Peter Joseph claimed that it showed a virgin Isis having her upcoming conception announced, but in fact, the woman is neither a virgin, Isis, or having her upcoming conception announced. Ultimately, Carrier says that the parallels there are "very weak". Christ-mythers showing off heiroglyphs and misrepresenting them is an old tactic that people need to watch out for, one that was done in Zeitgeist itself. I'm merely encouraging the skeptics to be skeptical. |
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 08:26:59 [Permalink]
|
Kingdavid, every bit of evidence that we've posted in that forum thus far helps others understand the egyptian religion and other pre-christian religions. Withholding information is a technique that cult leaders use to isolate thier flock from reality...Neither you or your fellow "debunkers" (so-called) have provided anyone with even a basic understanding of the egyptian religion. None of the information that we've posted has been addressed on any of the debunkers' sites -- you and your brood of debunkers are not arguing using counter-evidence, but instead are arguing from YOUR OWN lack of evidence. Because, many others have trouble finding the information -- our information -- they become frustrated and immediatley side with "debunkers" (who are either ignorant themselves, or just withholding the info).
|
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
| Edited by - teched246 on 05/21/2011 08:42:42 |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 08:27:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
David, you agreed that you would NOT respond, you have broken the deal OR remove your post in the evidence thread immediately. |
No, I agreed not to respond to your evidence. I haven't. We never said I couldn't post at all.
You responded to teched ON the evidence page with your usual SPECIAL PLEADING...take it off or you have conceded. You can RESPOND HERE if you like, but not on the evidence page.
| Now, the REASON I am saying this is because people need ALL the evidence that we have and not just YOUR approved evidence. |
That's incorrect. The question was whether you could meet the challenge as I laid it out on my website. I'm specific about what types of evidence I will accept, and most of what you've posted is not that type of evidence, but just people repeating the claims, exactly as Zeitgeist does. In other words, it's no stronger evidence than Zeitgeist itself is, so it does nothing to validate the claims.
I am following your rules and as I have stated, teched is following up the evidence with explanation. The reason this is, is because we CANNOT expect people to do the same amount of work, searching through the texts as we have.
| Remember, THEY get to decide whether the proof is valid or not by voting yes or no. |
No, they get to choose whether *it meets the standard of evidence I laid out* by voting yes or no. If you wanted a different standard of evidence, you should have said something before we started this. You keep asking me to change the rules, and I've agreed to change any rule that I felt was reasonable. I already agreed to essentially drop my definitions of "baptism" and "resurrection" from my site, and leave the definitions to the SFN members. I also agreed to not respond to evidence posted by Teched. But you can't seriously be asking me to just forget about the challenge altogether. That's what we we're here for in the first place.
No, they are not voting on STANDARDS, they are voting on if the evidence is sufficient to prove the point. If we are going by STANDARDS then the bible would not pass, therefore no reason to compare it to other books because it fails in itself.
| If you cannot follow the rules, I am done here. |
I am following the rules, and am even following rules I didn't initially agree to. We never said I couldn't post at all, just that I couldn't respond to your evidence. I haven't. Which piece(s) of evidence do you think I've responded to?
I am not saying that you cannot post, I am saying that you cannot SPECIAL PLEAD and use other FALLACIES like "voting on standards" which as I have pointed out to you many times before, you ask for more than what the bible has.
I'll tell you what - I'll agree to stop posting in that forum and even delete all of the posts I made so far, if you'll agree to delete any type of evidence that doesn't meet the criteria I set out in my challenge, and any evidence you leave in, or post in the future, you have to explain how it meets my criteria.
No, as I said, special pleading WILL NOT be allowed, we are NOT debating here. The people get to vote which is what I said to begin with.
| Hercules is not part of my and Teched's team. |
I know. Which is why it's permissible for me to respond to him. I can respond to *anything* he says, or *anything* said by anyone else besides you, and now Teched, though I promise not to use them as a back door to go after your evidence. I can also respond to you and Teched (as I'm doing now) as long as I'm not addressing the pieces of evidence you're giving, which I'm not.
|
All I ask is that you ignore his posts in there just like I have and bring it in here and I HOPE he would respect me enough to stop posting there, otherwise I will ask that the thread be closed because it is a side track I do NOT approve of.
Yes, I have posted some posts by authors that are not Egyptologists, but not to prove the point of Horus or Osiris, but to prove the point about the dates or time. The fact that they are NOT arguing a parallel but focusing on the purpose of their book should attest to the evidence. For instance the book about Orion and the three kings is not saying that Osiris is Orion, it is just saying that Orion is referred to the three kings and why it was.
I HAVE attempted to keep the information scholarly, even when it pertained to astronomy. |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 08:36:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
Kingdavid, every bit of evidence that we've posted in that forum thus far helps others understand the egyptian religion and other pre-christian religions. |
Sorry, but repeating claims that are not supported by the stories themselves, university-level scholars, peer-reviewed journals, heiroglyphs, or general mythology websites or books does not help others understand pre-Christian mythology or religions. In fact, it does quite the opposite. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 08:41:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
Maybe you MISSED this part of that funny little article that you posted from an apologetics website...???
|
That article was written by Richard Carrier, a skeptical atheist.
But my purpose there was to show that people need to be skeptical of someone posting an heiroglyph and *telling them* who they are and what they're doing, when the glyph shows no such thing. Peter Joseph claimed that it showed a virgin Isis having her upcoming conception announced, but in fact, the woman is neither a virgin, Isis, or having her upcoming conception announced. Ultimately, Carrier says that the parallels there are "very weak". Christ-mythers showing off heiroglyphs and misrepresenting them is an old tactic that people need to watch out for, one that was done in Zeitgeist itself. I'm merely encouraging the skeptics to be skeptical.
|
"But my purpose there was to show that people need to be skeptical of someone posting an heiroglyph and *telling them* who they are and what they're doing,"
But you are doing the SAME THING you accuse teched of by attempting to tell them that "Richard Carrier" disagrees or says it is very weak.
THIS is why I did not want to debate you. I am doing my best NOT to sway the vote or tell them what to think by giving them ONLY the evidence, while Teched breaks it down USING the evidence.
IN my evidence, it says that HORUS was standing by watching his own conception....by a scholar. In my evidence it says Orisis was tied to a cross....by a scholar. In my evidence it says Osiris is RA, Horus is Ra and Horus is Osiris...by a scholar. In my evidence it is going to talk about the Egyptian trinity, also by a scholar. So everything that Teched has discussed that I have seen thus far in Egyptian mythology, I have covered BY scholars OR primary sources. He is attempting to explain it in the best way that he can and showing the pictures.
A birth narrative of Horus is still a birth narrative of Horus is still a birth narrative of Horus...which is valid.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 05/21/2011 08:43:25 |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 08:44:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
All I ask is that you ignore his posts in there just like I have and bring it in here and I HOPE he would respect me enough to stop posting there, otherwise I will ask that the thread be closed because it is a side track I do NOT approve of.
|
Just like I never agreed to allow types of evidence besides those I listed in the challenge? You seem to have no problem breaking the rules, yet insist I follow rules that you're making up as you go along (some of which I have).
In fact, I'll agree to follow your new "no posting in the forum" rule (including deleting the posts I've made already), if you'll agree to only use the types of evidence listed in the challenge, exactly as stated in the OP. That would mean deleting any evidence that doesn't follow the rules, and to stop posting such stuff in the future. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 08:54:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by teched246
Kingdavid, every bit of evidence that we've posted in that forum thus far helps others understand the egyptian religion and other pre-christian religions. |
Sorry, but repeating claims that are not supported by the stories themselves, university-level scholars, peer-reviewed journals, heiroglyphs, or general mythology websites or books does not help others understand pre-Christian mythology or religions. In fact, it does quite the opposite.
|
David, you admit that this is a BIRTH narrative of Horus, if you understand Egyptian mythology, then you would also understand that this applies to Isis, Osiris and Horus. But you do not understand it because you have NOT read the books TO understand it...instead, you take it at FACE value and attempt to discredit it applying YOUR OWN BELIEF of how "gods" are.
But...at least you tried to counter with evidence this time instead of your normal "no it ain't" so I give you credit for that, but next time, please attempt to read your own evidence so I do not have to counter you and try to post evidence.
Thanks! |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 08:54:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
I am doing my best NOT to sway the vote or tell them what to think by giving them ONLY the evidence, while Teched breaks it down USING the evidence. |
Evidence that does not meet the challenge, for the most part, since it doesn't come from any of the three types of sources my challenge allows.
| IN my evidence, it says that HORUS was standing by watching his own conception....by a scholar. |
The problem is that anyone can call themselves a "scholar". I have to have some kind of standards, so that we aren't allowing some self-appointed "scholar" who just repeats the claims, like Zeitgeist itself is doing. If a scholar is good enough to work for a university, or if his information is good enough to pass peer-review, then I'll allow it. But you can't honestly expect me to allow a piece of evidence just because some people call that source a "scholar".
"So everything that Teched has discussed that I have seen thus far in Egyptian mythology, I have covered BY scholars OR primary sources."
I'll certainly allow primary sources (as long as they're generally considered pre-Christian and actually back up the claims) and I'll allow scholars as long as they're university-level or the info is from a peer-reviewed journal or a general mythology website. Otherwise, I won't. You knew this going in.
| A birth narrative of Horus is still a birth narrative of Horus is still a birth narrative of Horus...which is valid. |
As long as it meets the standards of my challenge and actually backs up Zeitgeist's claims, yes. |
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 08:56:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
All I ask is that you ignore his posts in there just like I have and bring it in here and I HOPE he would respect me enough to stop posting there, otherwise I will ask that the thread be closed because it is a side track I do NOT approve of.
|
Just like I never agreed to allow types of evidence besides those I listed in the challenge? You seem to have no problem breaking the rules, yet insist I follow rules that you're making up as you go along (some of which I have).
In fact, I'll agree to follow your new "no posting in the forum" rule (including deleting the posts I've made already), if you'll agree to only use the types of evidence listed in the challenge, exactly as stated in the OP. That would mean deleting any evidence that doesn't follow the rules, and to stop posting such stuff in the future.
|
Kingdavid, if you want to play childish games, it's entirely up to you. I however am not removing a shred of evidence from that forum. A cult leader's power rests on his ability to cover-up knowledge, and now that your ability to do so is fast becoming undone, you're desperate. You could've posted our information on your website and rebutted it there many months ago, but of course that would'nt be in your best interests seeing as how it is much easier to preach to the uninformed. |
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 09:03:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
David, you admit that this is a BIRTH narrative of Horus, if you understand Egyptian mythology, then you would also understand that this applies to Isis, Osiris and Horus. |
Sure it's a birth narrative. I'm not saying that Horus has no birth narrative, just that I have yet to see any version of Horus' birth narrative that backs up Zeitgeist's claims.
| But...at least you tried to counter with evidence this time instead of your normal "no it ain't" so I give you credit for that, but next time, please attempt to read your own evidence so I do not have to counter you and try to post evidence. |
I did read it. I was using it as an example to show that Peter Joseph was wrong about it being the *Virgin* *Isis* having her *upcoming conception* announced, which it is on all three counts. All it is is a birth narrative with very weak parallels to Jesus' birth narrative.
My purpose was only to encourage the SFN members to not take what someone *says* about a glyph at face value, since people frequently lie about them, misrepresenting the players or their actions. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 09:13:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
I however am not removing a shred of evidence from that forum. |
Okay, then I'm going to have to ask the SFN members to ignore any evidence that doesn't come from a pre-Christian story, university-level scholars, peer-reviewed journals, general mythology books/websites, or glyphs that clearly show these things, as per the rules that ChangingMyself and Teched agreed to, but now seem to be ignoring. Evidently, they know that my challenge cannot be met, and are hoping you all will think it has been just because they posted where people have repeated the claims.
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 09:14:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
A cult leader's power rests on his ability to cover-up knowledge, and now that your ability to do so is fast becoming undone, you're desperate. |
I'm not covering up knowledge. You can post these repetitions of the claims all over the internet for all I care. But here, we'd agreed to see if ChangingMyself (and now you) can meet the Zeitgeist Challenge that I set out. Obviously you can't, since most of what you're posting in no way meets it, and is no more "evidence" for Zeitgeist's claims than Zeitgeist itself is. Simply repeating claims isn't evidence for those claims. Only the gullible would think it is.
| You could've posted our information on your website and rebutted it there many months ago, but of course that would'nt be in your best interests seeing as how it is much easier to preach to the uninformed. |
I point out at my website that, for most of the claims, all anyone can do is repeat them over and over and hope that their audience is ignorant of mythology, gullible enough to believe them, and too lazy to check them against the actual pre-Christian stories (which can easily be found online). I don't need to post your repetitions of the evidence, and point out that it's just repetitions of the evidence, in order to prove my point. I can do that just as easily here. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 09:27:03 [Permalink]
|
I guess I have a quick question for ChangingMyself and Teched.
Do you believe that using the standards of evidence that I said I would accept in the OP (the pre-Christian stories themselves, university-level scholars, peer-reviewed journals, general mythology websites and books, and the pre-Christian heiroglyphs that clearly show these things), that you would be able to meet my Challenge? Yes or no.
If the answer is yes, then I'm going to insist that you stick with those evidences, or continue to ask that the SFN members refuse to accept any that does not meet the agreed-upon standard, since they're in violation of the rules.
If the answer is no, then I'm willing to either call this a draw, or consider allowing other types of evidence, as long as you can give me a good reason to accept it. And, no, I'm not going to allow a source just because "it's in a book" or just because some people call him or her a "scholar". I would need to have them meet a reasonable standard, though I'm pretty flexible as to what that standard should be. |
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 05/21/2011 09:29:16 |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 10:06:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
I guess I have a quick question for ChangingMyself and Teched.
Do you believe that using the standards of evidence that I said I would accept in the OP (the pre-Christian stories themselves, university-level scholars, peer-reviewed journals, general mythology websites and books, and the pre-Christian heiroglyphs that clearly show these things), that you would be able to meet my Challenge? Yes or no.
If the answer is yes, then I'm going to insist that you stick with those evidences, or continue to ask that the SFN members refuse to accept any that does not meet the agreed-upon standard, since they're in violation of the rules.
If the answer is no, then I'm willing to either call this a draw, or consider allowing other types of evidence, as long as you can give me a good reason to accept it. And, no, I'm not going to allow a source just because "it's in a book" or just because some people call him or her a "scholar". I would need to have them meet a reasonable standard, though I'm pretty flexible as to what that standard should be.
|
So basically you are saying that we cannot use evidence that we haven't used when you say this:
"For an example *not* from this page, Zeitgeist shows the Luxor Inscriptions in the movie, with Peter Joseph claiming that it shows the *virgin Isis* having her *upcoming conception announced*." Okay, I can deal with not using evidence that we have not used, I wont use the Luxor Inscription.
I haven't used that because honestly, I had never heard of it before. The only Zeitgeist video claims that I have seen are the one that we have been debating for 6+ months on...which is here
And I do not see or hear anything about a Luxor Inscription...???
So I don't know what your fuss is about.
We can use the definition of SCHOLAR from the encyclopedia...
schol·ar/#712;skäl#601;r/Noun
1. A specialist in a particular branch of study, esp. the humanities; a distinguished academic: "a Hebrew scholar".
2. A person who is highly educated or has an aptitude for study.
from dictionary dot com
SO what are you fussing about this time? Are you thinking that a scholar is something other than it is? We define words so that people can speak a universal language. If you are just going to make up your own definitions of words, there is no use even talking to me because we do not speak the same language. I follow the DICTIONARY...what do you use to define your words?
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evidence for Zeitgeist’s claims?
