|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2011 : 20:41:40 [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.
|
Thank you Dave, it does sound like that is what is needed because we decided this on the Zeitgeist youtube video and it was back and forth on there and they bury messages. I am up for it though. |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
 |
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 20:49:46 [Permalink]
|
| 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." |
| KingDavid: "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." |
See, this is precisely what I've been talking about. KindDavid does not have any relevant formal training, no qualifications, credentials or language skills to decide what is or isn't credible evidence on any of these issues whatsoever. He would never admit to any of that on his own without confronting him about it. He would let people assume that he knows what he's talking about on these issues when he absolutely does not.
People here will have to keep a very close eye on KingDavid because he will do anything to avoid conceding and paying the $1,000 for his challenge, which is apparently already off the table before they even began. He has refused the read the books that cite the evidence for the 8 years he's had his website so, he's certainly not going to concede easily even with all the necessary credible evidence supporting the claims.
 |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 21:02:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
David, I have no problem "reaching" them |
Then why are you asking me to move 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. |
Right. They get to decide whether it fits in with the types of evidence I agreed to allow. Seriously, you asked me to post the challenge from my website, and now seem to want to throw the challenge out the window and say "anything goes!". That wasn't what you and I agreed to before going in. You claimed to have the evidence to win my Zeitgeist Challenge, and are now asking me to allow other types of evidence than what I laid out. So what, exactly, was the purpose of me posting the challenge in the first place?
| YOU did not lay out the "burden of proof"...you laid out the CLAIMS from Zeitgeist. |
I laid out both. Did you really not read the challenge before we came here? What I posted in the OP is exactly what's on my website. I quoted it exactly, and even agreed to forego the stuff I said about the definitions of "baptism" and "resurrected". All we agreed to is that we would let the SFN members decide whether the evidence you posted fit in with these types of evidence.
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... |
Which piece(s) of evidence have I responded to? We never agreed that I wouldn't respond AT ALL, just that I wouldn't respond to your evidence, which I haven't. And I generously agreed not to respond to Teched, either. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 21:07:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Thank you Dave, it does sound like that is what is needed because we decided this on the Zeitgeist youtube video and it was back and forth on there and they bury messages. I am up for it though.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
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. |
Great.
Separately, you can both send emails to me at davew@skepticfriends.org in which you tell us how you think this ought to work, including what would constitute "success" and any other details you want (even how "heavy" you'd like thread moderation to be in the forums).
Kil and I will discuss your (new) original proposals, try to come up with a compromise and within a day or three we'll reply to both of you, and we can all discuss the rulez together. When everyone is in agreement, we can reboot this challenge.
This really shouldn't take long, since you've been discussing this stuff with each other already, and KingDavid8 has things laid out on his site, but there seems to be some amount of dispute for what should happen here on SFN. So what I'm really looking for is fresh words on what each of you thinks the rules should be, and not copy-and-pasted stuff from web pages or previous discussion between you two. |
- 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 : 21:25:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
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. |
Right, but you were worried that I would just move the goalposts. By leaving the decision to the SFN members, and having me post the conditions from my website in the OP, the decision as to whether it met the goalposts would be out of my hand and into theirs, which I agree is exactly where it should be. But now that we've agree to this, you suddenly want me to move (or perhaps even remove) the goalpost.
| The WHOLE PURPOSE was not to see if YOUR Zeitgeist challenge could be met, |
Yes, it was. That's why you asked me to post it here, remember? You said you had the evidence to win my challenge and wanted to prove it in a skeptic forum instead of worrying that I would just say "no, it's not" without a good reason.
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.
|
If it had nothing to do with my challenge and the goalposts that I set, then why did you ask me to post my challenge so that I would be uanble to move the goalposts that I set? Your worry about me "moving the goalposts" was the very reason you wanted the final decision out of my hands, and now you seem to want me to throw them out altogether.
I'm not willing to throw them out altogether, but I am willing to lower them to a reasonable degree. If that's not good enough for you, then I don't understand what we're doing here and why you asked me to post the challenge in the first place. If you want to just post whatever you want and see if you can persuade the SFN members that at least half of Zeitgeist's claims are true, then I'll gladly refrain from posting altogether in either forum and just come back on June 3rd to see how they voted. But, if so, then the results will, as far as I'm concerned, have nothing to do with my challenge, which is what this whole thing was supposed to be about. Remember? |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2011 : 22:10:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
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. |
Right, but you were worried that I would just move the goalposts. By leaving the decision to the SFN members, and having me post the conditions from my website in the OP, the decision as to whether it met the goalposts would be out of my hand and into theirs, which I agree is exactly where it should be. But now that we've agree to this, you suddenly want me to move (or perhaps even remove) the goalpost.
| The WHOLE PURPOSE was not to see if YOUR Zeitgeist challenge could be met, |
Yes, it was. That's why you asked me to post it here, remember? You said you had the evidence to win my challenge and wanted to prove it in a skeptic forum instead of worrying that I would just say "no, it's not" without a good reason.
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.
|
If it had nothing to do with my challenge and the goalposts that I set, then why did you ask me to post my challenge so that I would be uanble to move the goalposts that I set? Your worry about me "moving the goalposts" was the very reason you wanted the final decision out of my hands, and now you seem to want me to throw them out altogether.
I'm not willing to throw them out altogether, but I am willing to lower them to a reasonable degree. If that's not good enough for you, then I don't understand what we're doing here and why you asked me to post the challenge in the first place. If you want to just post whatever you want and see if you can persuade the SFN members that at least half of Zeitgeist's claims are true, then I'll gladly refrain from posting altogether in either forum and just come back on June 3rd to see how they voted. But, if so, then the results will, as far as I'm concerned, have nothing to do with my challenge, which is what this whole thing was supposed to be about. Remember?
|
No David, I never said ANYTHING about winning your challenge. As a matter of FACT: I have repeatedly said I am NOT interested in your challenge. Do I really need to go to youtube and copy and paste your and my posts here? I would rather not spend any more time on arguing this and more time posting the information. THIS is why I said for you NOT to respond. You did the SAME exact thing on youtube. I am NOT debating this with you. I am NOT arguing semantics, I am NOT going to listen to your nit picking. Either it proves it or not. Thus why I said, they can vote yes OR no.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2011 : 06:19:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
No David, I never said ANYTHING about winning your challenge. As a matter of FACT: I have repeatedly said I am NOT interested in your challenge. |
So why did you tell me to post the challenge from the website in the forum? All you said was that you weren't interested in the $1000, since it's "chump change". You wanted me to post the challenge so that I couldn't "move the goalposts", and now you're saying the idea was that the goalposts would be removed altogether. No, that's not what we agreed to.
By the way, did you e-mail Dave W. your ideas for how the challenge should go? Let's stop debating this until we all can come to an agreement on the format. |
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 05/22/2011 06:22:32 |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2011 : 07:36:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
No David, I never said ANYTHING about winning your challenge. As a matter of FACT: I have repeatedly said I am NOT interested in your challenge. |
So why did you tell me to post the challenge from the website in the forum? All you said was that you weren't interested in the $1000, since it's "chump change". You wanted me to post the challenge so that I couldn't "move the goalposts", and now you're saying the idea was that the goalposts would be removed altogether. No, that's not what we agreed to.
By the way, did you e-mail Dave W. your ideas for how the challenge should go? Let's stop debating this until we all can come to an agreement on the format.
|
I am no longer replying to you until my evidence is posted.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2011 : 13:09:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
I am no longer replying to you until my evidence is posted.
|
That's fine, but I think we should both wait on doing any more until an agreement can be reached on how we're doing this and the challenge is rebooted. Right now, it's like you're playing checkers and I'm playing dominoes. I can't see any way of determining a winner if we're doing two different things here. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2011 : 13:33:45 [Permalink]
|
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2011 : 20:44:22 [Permalink]
|
| These threads are awesome! Having just recovered from a totally horrific stomach flu, I look forward to reviewing all the presented evidence and discussion tomorrow night. So glad I came back to SFN. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
 Posted - 05/23/2011 : 11:49:03 [Permalink]
|
| So to resolve this dispute, someone is posting uncontested evidence for pagan Christology on a skeptical forum? Am I missing something? |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2011 : 12:16:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
So to resolve this dispute, someone is posting uncontested evidence for pagan Christology on a skeptical forum? Am I missing something?
|
Debating comes with a such childish disposition. The goal of either side of one is merely to "defeat" the other, and often this stifles any real opportunity at genuine understanding. Consider this an experiment -- we've provided info and knowledge backed by credible sources...people just have to go with what feels right. The winning isn't even important to me, personally. I would just like to see how other react to Truth when it's presented so forthright. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2011 : 12:55:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
Originally posted by Baxter
So to resolve this dispute, someone is posting uncontested evidence for pagan Christology on a skeptical forum? Am I missing something?
|
Debating comes with a such childish disposition. The goal of either side of one is merely to "defeat" the other, and often this stifles any real opportunity at genuine understanding. Consider this an experiment -- we've provided info and knowledge backed by credible sources...people just have to go with what feels right. The winning isn't even important to me, personally. I would just like to see how other react to Truth when it's presented so forthright.
|
There are so many problems with this statement.... Debates serve a purpose, to provide a platform for conflicting opinions. There is no real place for debate in matters of true/false. Debates are for deciding how to spend tax money, for example. Not for determining the truth value of a claim. When you are explaining to another person why they are wrong (like I'm doing now) it isn't a debate.
Then... "go with what feels right"... Well, no. You go with what feels right when picking out the decorations for your wedding cake, not for determining truth values.
And capital T Truth. Really? Truth is so hard to even define... While I agree that there are plenty of things we can assign conclusive true/false values, I have a problem with the implications of "Truth".
@changingmyself- When you post, I beg you to not randomly capitalize words. It makes reading your posts difficult, random words in all caps pull the eye away from other words, and it doesn't really add emphasis. People will understand you better if you stick with established grammatical conventions.
That said, I'm definitely interested in what you guys/gals/whatevers have to say. Work with Dave_W and Kil to set up the "rules" of this exchange and I think most people here will probably be interested as well.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2011 : 13:09:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
...I look forward to reviewing all the presented evidence and discussion tomorrow night. |
Please wait for a bit, we are undertaking a re-start.| So glad I came back to SFN. |
I'm glad you did, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evidence for Zeitgeist’s claims?
