|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2011 : 10:36:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
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.
|
You can use it, or not use it. It's your choice. Since it is a pre-Christian heiroglyph, you're certainly welcome to use it if you wish. All I was doing there was pointing out to people that sometimes people show you a glyph, then try to convince you it says something that it really doesn't, just like Zeitgeist did.
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
|
That doesn't settle the issue, though. How do we determine if a given source is "a specialist" or is "highly educated"? We need some kind of standards to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
| 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 problem is that the dictionary definition is very vague. For example, it's described as someone "highly educated". How high is "highly", and how do we easily determine which of your sources are "highly educated"? We can't just go around giving them all IQ tests. Personally, I'd say that if someone is good enough to be on staff at a university in a certain field, then, yes, they're "highly educated" and are "specialists" in that particular brand of study. If you want to lower the bar, then what level do you propose we lower it to?
And, again, I won't consider lowering the bar until you tell me whether you believe the challenge as I outlined it in the OP can be won by you and Teched. Tell me it can't, and I'll consider lowering the bar. Tell me it can, and it won't be necessary to do so.
So can you meet my original challenge? Yes or no? |
 |
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 11:35:57 [Permalink]
|
Has anyone actually read the response to Richard Carrier's Luxor article?
"For the inscription of this "bed" scene, Carrier refers us to page 42, et seq., of Brunner, upon which we find two main paragraphs in German relating the words spoken by Amun and the queen as reflected in the hieroglyphs surrounding the image. Carrier states this is where the "very real sex" and "soft-core porn" come in. 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)."
"In this picture we have the Annunciation, the Conception, the Birth, and the Adoration, as described in the First and Second Chapters of Luke's Gospel; and as we have historical assurance that the chapters in Matthew's Gospel which contain the Miraculous Birth of Jesus are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, it seems probable that these two poetical chapters in Luke may also be unhistorical, and be borrowed from the Egyptian accounts of the miraculous birth of their kings."
- Dr. Samuel C. Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity (p. 19)
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html |
|
| Edited by - Hercules on 05/21/2011 11:39:52 |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 13:13:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
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.
|
You can use it, or not use it. It's your choice. Since it is a pre-Christian heiroglyph, you're certainly welcome to use it if you wish. All I was doing there was pointing out to people that sometimes people show you a glyph, then try to convince you it says something that it really doesn't, just like Zeitgeist did.
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
|
That doesn't settle the issue, though. How do we determine if a given source is "a specialist" or is "highly educated"? We need some kind of standards to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
| 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 problem is that the dictionary definition is very vague. For example, it's described as someone "highly educated". How high is "highly", and how do we easily determine which of your sources are "highly educated"? We can't just go around giving them all IQ tests. Personally, I'd say that if someone is good enough to be on staff at a university in a certain field, then, yes, they're "highly educated" and are "specialists" in that particular brand of study. If you want to lower the bar, then what level do you propose we lower it to?
And, again, I won't consider lowering the bar until you tell me whether you believe the challenge as I outlined it in the OP can be won by you and Teched. Tell me it can't, and I'll consider lowering the bar. Tell me it can, and it won't be necessary to do so.
So can you meet my original challenge? Yes or no?
|
I just added the education to all of my posts, if there is one or two left out it is because it is redundant or I have missed it.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 05/21/2011 13:29:20 |
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 13:44:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
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...as per the rules
|
Go ahead. In case you've forgotten, this is a skeptic website. The purpose of your challenge was to verify whether or not jesus and other deities were based on egyptian mythology/sun worship. The importance of any information that would lead to a conclusion on the matter supercedes any meticulously arranged terms of the challenge. As definitive as his film is in explaining religion, Peter Joseph didn't elaborate on many things that would've saved his film alot of criticism, for the sake of fluidity....that's where we come in  |
"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 13:56:38 |
|
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 13:51:35 [Permalink]
|
KingDavid, Thank you for confirming that what I stated previously was, in fact, factual - that you have no relevant qualifications or credentials whatsoever. So, why then do *YOU* launch a personal attack against me? By name-calling me a "troll?" What you really mean by that is that I have been pointing out the facts for years ... facts you don't want people to be made aware of, especially those reading your website.
I've asked you for years to provide a disclaimer on your website stating the fact that not only do you have absolutely no relevant qualifications or credentials whatsoever but, you haven't even read one single book by Acharya S either. You had no idea that all those lists on your website came from Acharya's books until I told you just a year or so ago. So, you've been attacking Acharya S and her work ever since you created your website 8 years ago and you never knew those lists were hers because you've refused to actually read her books. So, you refuse to read the very books that your website launches a tirade against. That is known as intellectual dishonesty. I think we know who's really the "troll" here.
My point in sharing the fact that you have no relevant qualifications or credentials whatsoever is due to the fact that you keep making claims such as:
KingDavid8: "Just a reminder of what types of evidences I will accept for my challenge:
1) Versions of their stories in which we can read about them actually doing these things, provided that the stories are generally agreed-upon by scholars to be pre-Christian.
2) Any information coming from scholarly sources who are not specifically trying to prove parallels to Jesus, for example:
a) General mythology books and websites, provided they have no Christ-myther agenda
b) Scholars (Christian or not) who work for a university who agree that the parallels are valid.
c) Anything coming from a mainstream peer-reviewed journal.
3) Photographs of pre-Christian heiroglyphs showing them clearly doing these things
Any of the above that doesn't fit into one of these categories is not evidence, per the challenge." |
You are in no position whatsoever to make any claims on determining what is or isn't credible evidence. For example, your comments regarding Richard Carrier's Luxor article at the bottom of page 1 here is a perfect example of an epic failure. Carrier makes "egregious errors" that were quite sloppy so, just because a scholar holds a Ph.D doesn't mean they can't be in error. The only reason you hold up Carrier's Luxor article as counter evidence is because you agree with it. The problem is Carrier was demonstrably wrong. And, the "virgin" issue was addressed throughout the article I linked. Obviously, you didn't read that either.
Another factoid here is that there are no theology courses for this information. There's no course for astrotheology or even a comparative religion course that spells out all the parallels. So, all you're attempting to do here with your "types of evidences I will accept for my challenge" is back us into an unfair corner forcing us to rely on scholars that often know very little about these issues since academia doesn't even discuss let alone teach them. And you know this, which is why your list of what you'll accept is dishonest.
Now that we all that out of the way ... carry on.
"The Egyptian goddess who was equally ‘the Great Virgin’ (hwnt) and ‘Mother of the God’ was the object of the very same praise bestowed upon her successor [Mary, Virgin Mother of Jesus]."
- Dr. Witt, an Egyptologist
"The Pyramid Texts speak of "the great virgin" (Hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a, cf. 809c)" ...
"In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares:
"I am the great virgin"
- Christ in Egypt, page 152
* The Pyramid Texts are 4,400 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 14:36:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
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.
|
You do not even have immaculate conception on your list so this is silly childish games and this is why I did not want to debate you.
Do YOU remember saying this in the FIRST PARAGRAPH that you wrote on here?
"One is that I not be the one to judge whether her evidence is valid."
val·id (vld)
adj.
1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
4. Logic
a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
5. Archaic Of sound health; robust.
YOU agreed to this in your FIRST PARAGRAPH.
So, again, this is what YOU agreed to, so either follow it or we are DONE.
|
"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 : 15:21:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
In case you've forgotten, this is a skeptic website. The purpose of your challenge was to verify whether or not jesus and other deities were based on egyptian mythology/sun worship. |
You might want to go back and read the OP, then. This was about whether my Zeitgeist Challenge could be met, and I laid out the rules there. After we're done on June 3rd, feel free to come back and post whatever you want, but for now, we're just dealing with the challenge I laid out.
If you want me allow other types of evidence, I first need to know whether you believe that the challenge I laid out, accepting the types of evidence I said could be accepted, can be met. If not, I'll consider opening it up further. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 15:39:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hercules
KingDavid, Thank you for confirming that what I stated previously was, in fact, factual - that you have no relevant qualifications or credentials whatsoever. |
Why are you acting like I ever said or suggested otherwise?
| What you really mean by that is that I have been pointing out the facts for years ... facts you don't want people to be made aware of, especially those reading your website. |
Yes, you've been going around the web acting like you're accusing me of pretending to be something I'm not. When in fact you're going around the web accusing me of pretending to be something I'm not pretending to be.
| I've asked you for years to provide a disclaimer on your website stating the fact that not only do you have absolutely no relevant qualifications or credentials whatsoever but, you haven't even read one single book by Acharya S either. |
And I've said so on my site. Evidently, you never bothered to read my response to FreeThoughtNation's critique of me, or you would already have known this. Here it is again:
http://www.kingdavid8.com/FreeThought.html
| You had no idea that all those lists on your website came from Acharya's books until I told you just a year or so ago. |
Because they didn't, as I already explained to you. I took them from a website which took them from her book. Seriously, do I need to re-explain this to you in every forum you follow me into?
| So, you refuse to read the very books that your website launches a tirade against. |
Stop repeating that lie, please. I've never launched a tirade against ANY of her books.
| That is known as intellectual dishonesty. I think we know who's really the "troll" here. |
Yep.
| You are in no position whatsoever to make any claims on determining what is or isn't credible evidence. |
So I should just accept someone repeating the claims as evidence for the claims? I'm sure you'd love that.
| So, all you're attempting to do here with your "types of evidences I will accept for my challenge" is back us into an unfair corner forcing us to rely on scholars that often know very little about these issues since academia doesn't even discuss let alone teach them. |
And why do you think that is? It's the same reason they don't discuss and teach "moon hoax", "holocaust denial", "9/11 truthers", etc. They just don't take it seriously enough.
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 15:51:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
You do not even have immaculate conception on your list so this is silly childish games and this is why I did not want to debate you. |
The "immaculate conception" refers to the conception of Mary, not of Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
Do YOU remember saying this in the FIRST PARAGRAPH that you wrote on here?
"One is that I not be the one to judge whether her evidence is valid." |
Yep, and then I go on to say "If the majority of you agree that she's met the challenge as I describe it (which I will, below), then we'll call her the winner." And then I go on to describe it. In case you forget, this is what we agreed upon prior to coming in here. I may be willing to open it up to other types of evidence, but not unless you tell me whether you believe that the challenge I originally laid out can be met.
| So, again, this is what YOU agreed to, so either follow it or we are DONE. |
I will definitely follow what we agreed to, which is to allow the members of SFN decide if you've met the challenge that I described, instead of me. If that's not what this is about, then why did we agree prior to even coming here that it was? |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 17:33:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
You do not even have immaculate conception on your list so this is silly childish games and this is why I did not want to debate you. |
The "immaculate conception" refers to the conception of Mary, not of Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
Do YOU remember saying this in the FIRST PARAGRAPH that you wrote on here?
"One is that I not be the one to judge whether her evidence is valid." |
Yep, and then I go on to say "If the majority of you agree that she's met the challenge as I describe it (which I will, below), then we'll call her the winner." And then I go on to describe it. In case you forget, this is what we agreed upon prior to coming in here. I may be willing to open it up to other types of evidence, but not unless you tell me whether you believe that the challenge I originally laid out can be met.
| So, again, this is what YOU agreed to, so either follow it or we are DONE. |
I will definitely follow what we agreed to, which is to allow the members of SFN decide if you've met the challenge that I described, instead of me. If that's not what this is about, then why did we agree prior to even coming here that it was?
|
Okay, when I said that that YOU do not get to decide if the information is valid or not, I was referring directly to YOUR "challenge" because what you have done is essentially tied my hands behind my back because I cannot use any scholar that agrees that there are parallels.
That would be like me telling you that you can ONLY use scholars that do not agree that the bible is historical to prove that Jesus existed. Does that sound fair to you? Because to me, that sounds like a SET UP.
As I stated before, this is not for your money, so we should let the people at this forum decide whether the information is valid or not.
Remember saying this david: "I'm asking the forum members at SFN to be the ones to judge whether she's met the burden of proof."
"The concept of a “burden of proof” is important in debates — whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to “prove” their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn’t have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported."
THEY get to decide if the claims are adequately supported..YOU SAID, the FORUM members are to be the ones to judge whether I have met the burden of proof...
NOT YOU.
That also means that THEY get to decide if my proof is adequately supported...
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 05/21/2011 17:40:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 18:31:03 [Permalink]
|
Wow. Decide to spend the day doing something else, and this thread gets two new pages of sniping.
In hindsight, it probably would have been better had the major players here contacted us by email to set up the ground rules about how things would take place here on our forums.
It's not too late. We could all agree to call a Mulligan. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 19:58:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Okay, when I said that that YOU do not get to decide if the information is valid or not, I was referring directly to YOUR "challenge" because what you have done is essentially tied my hands behind my back because I cannot use any scholar that agrees that there are parallels. |
Sure you can, as long as their information is in one of the pre-Christian stories. Or if it's published in a peer-reviewed journal. Or if they work for a university. Or if it's supported by heiroglyphs. Or if it's in a general mythology book. Or if it's on a general mythology website.
| That would be like me telling you that you can ONLY use scholars that do not agree that the bible is historical to prove that Jesus existed. |
No, it's not a matter of WHAT they believe, but whether their information is backed up by the pre-Christian stories. Or if it's published in a peer-reviewed journal. Or if they work for a university. Or if it's supported by heiroglyphs. Or if it's in a general mythology book. Or if it's on a general mythology website.
| As I stated before, this is not for your money, so we should let the people at this forum decide whether the information is valid or not. |
Geez, in the other forum, you kept accusing me of "moving the goal posts", and insisted that the post the challenge in its entirety into the OP so that I would be unable to move the goal posts once we started...and now you're asking me to move the goal posts?
The thing is, that I'm WILLING to move the goal posts in your favor, but only if you acknowledge beforehand that my challenge, as I stated it in the OP, cannot be won with the evidence you have. Once you've done so, I will agree to lower the goal posts (to some degree) in your favor. And if you still can't reach it with the lower goal posts, I'll likely agree to lower it some more. I'm serious.
And please do keep in mind that I'm only asking you to prove HALF of Zeitgeist's claims. That's all. You claimed before going into this forum that you had the evidence to win my challenge, and now you seem to be agreeing that you can't. If you can, then why are you asking me to move the goal posts?
| Remember saying this david: "I'm asking the forum members at SFN to be the ones to judge whether she's met the burden of proof." |
I am. But the burden of proof is what I laid out in the OP. You knew that going in. If you want me to lower the bar, then I'm asking for you to admit that you can't reach the bar where I've currently set it. Once you admit this, then yes, I'll lower it. But I have to agree with where it's lowered to.
| THEY get to decide if the claims are adequately supported..YOU SAID, the FORUM members are to be the ones to judge whether I have met the burden of proof... |
Yes, they get to agree as to whether your evidence has met the burden of proof, but they don't get to decide what the burden of proof is. We agreed beforehand that I would lay that out in the OP by posting my challenge in its entirety, which I did, so that I would be unable to move the goal posts. If you now WANT me to move the goal posts, then I'm going to ask you to tell me whether you think you can reach the goal posts where they currently are. If you can, I won't lower them, since it won't be necessary. If you can't, then I will lower them. I promise. But first, you have to admit that you can't reach them where they are.
But do keep in mind that I'm only doing so for the purpose of this particular forum. I'm not agreeing to accept any "lower goalpost" evidence as valid on my website itself (though I will, as promised beforehand, post all of your evidence to my website for all to see).
The only reason I am willing to lower the goalposts in this forum is that, with the money off the table, I have nothing to lose. So I'm willing to play this game. And I am morbidly curious as to how far I'll have to lower the goal posts before you can score a goal. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 20:03:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Wow. Decide to spend the day doing something else, and this thread gets two new pages of sniping.
In hindsight, it probably would have been better had the major players here contacted us by email to set up the ground rules about how things would take place here on our forums.
It's not too late. We could all agree to call a Mulligan.
|
I'm willing, if ChangingMyself is. I agree that a lack of clear rules is causing some confusion here. And, yeah, we probably should have contacted you by e-mail first. Sorry, we didn't think of it. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 20:31:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
Okay, when I said that that YOU do not get to decide if the information is valid or not, I was referring directly to YOUR "challenge" because what you have done is essentially tied my hands behind my back because I cannot use any scholar that agrees that there are parallels. |
Sure you can, as long as their information is in one of the pre-Christian stories. Or if it's published in a peer-reviewed journal. Or if they work for a university. Or if it's supported by heiroglyphs. Or if it's in a general mythology book. Or if it's on a general mythology website.
| That would be like me telling you that you can ONLY use scholars that do not agree that the bible is historical to prove that Jesus existed. |
No, it's not a matter of WHAT they believe, but whether their information is backed up by the pre-Christian stories. Or if it's published in a peer-reviewed journal. Or if they work for a university. Or if it's supported by heiroglyphs. Or if it's in a general mythology book. Or if it's on a general mythology website.
| As I stated before, this is not for your money, so we should let the people at this forum decide whether the information is valid or not. |
Geez, in the other forum, you kept accusing me of "moving the goal posts", and insisted that the post the challenge in its entirety into the OP so that I would be unable to move the goal posts once we started...and now you're asking me to move the goal posts?
The thing is, that I'm WILLING to move the goal posts in your favor, but only if you acknowledge beforehand that my challenge, as I stated it in the OP, cannot be won with the evidence you have. Once you've done so, I will agree to lower the goal posts (to some degree) in your favor. And if you still can't reach it with the lower goal posts, I'll likely agree to lower it some more. I'm serious.
And please do keep in mind that I'm only asking you to prove HALF of Zeitgeist's claims. That's all. You claimed before going into this forum that you had the evidence to win my challenge, and now you seem to be agreeing that you can't. If you can, then why are you asking me to move the goal posts?
| Remember saying this david: "I'm asking the forum members at SFN to be the ones to judge whether she's met the burden of proof." |
I am. But the burden of proof is what I laid out in the OP. You knew that going in. If you want me to lower the bar, then I'm asking for you to admit that you can't reach the bar where I've currently set it. Once you admit this, then yes, I'll lower it. But I have to agree with where it's lowered to.
| THEY get to decide if the claims are adequately supported..YOU SAID, the FORUM members are to be the ones to judge whether I have met the burden of proof... |
Yes, they get to agree as to whether your evidence has met the burden of proof, but they don't get to decide what the burden of proof is. We agreed beforehand that I would lay that out in the OP by posting my challenge in its entirety, which I did, so that I would be unable to move the goal posts. If you now WANT me to move the goal posts, then I'm going to ask you to tell me whether you think you can reach the goal posts where they currently are. If you can, I won't lower them, since it won't be necessary. If you can't, then I will lower them. I promise. But first, you have to admit that you can't reach them where they are.
But do keep in mind that I'm only doing so for the purpose of this particular forum. I'm not agreeing to accept any "lower goalpost" evidence as valid on my website itself (though I will, as promised beforehand, post all of your evidence to my website for all to see).
The only reason I am willing to lower the goalposts in this forum is that, with the money off the table, I have nothing to lose. So I'm willing to play this game. And I am morbidly curious as to how far I'll have to lower the goal posts before you can score a goal.
|
David, I have no problem "reaching" them but again, it sounds to me as if you are already moving the goal posts...because I specifically said that YOU do not get to say if the evidence is valid or not which is what YOU have said in your opening post and that is EXACTLY what that means. Again, MY whole point is that the people got to see the information and got to DECIDE for themselves.
YOU did not lay out the "burden of proof"...you laid out the CLAIMS from Zeitgeist. I HAVE the burden of proof to prove those claims.
Remember saying this?>>>Her other condition is that I not be able to respond to her evidence before you decide.
You have already BROKEN that...
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 20:37:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by teched246
In case you've forgotten, this is a skeptic website. The purpose of your challenge was to verify whether or not jesus and other deities were based on egyptian mythology/sun worship. |
You might want to go back and read the OP, then. This was about whether my Zeitgeist Challenge could be met, and I laid out the rules there. After we're done on June 3rd, feel free to come back and post whatever you want, but for now, we're just dealing with the challenge I laid out.
If you want me allow other types of evidence, I first need to know whether you believe that the challenge I laid out, accepting the types of evidence I said could be accepted, can be met. If not, I'll consider opening it up further.
|
David, if this was about whether YOUR Zeitgeist challenge could be met, I would have written all this out and sent it to your website. The WHOLE PURPOSE was not to see if YOUR Zeitgeist challenge could be met, it was so PEOPLE could actually see the evidence and DECIDE for themselves instead of YOU telling them what to think THUS why I said that part of the deal was that YOU link your website to this page. |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evidence for Zeitgeist’s claims?
