Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
I think that the main problem is that none of us have ever taken your challenge and reward scenario seriously. And by university level scholars you mean what, scholars who work at universities or scholars who have degrees from universities?
Work at universities in a scholarly manner.
Once again, in order to analyze this I have to literally get out the book, check all or a lot of the scholars all with degrees, for each claim, and determine which of them work at a university.
Take your time, then. Surely you can't expect me to take the word of anyone who makes the claim, right?
Now of course there's a mix of scholars cited for each claim. And I don't remember off hand how many 'work' at a university for every claim addressed in the entire book.
Google them, then.
But obviously any scholars presented are peer reviewed serious scholars.
Obviously? How so?
Even Massey as an amateur Egyptologist was peer reviewed to some extent
But exactly which of his claims passed peer-review?
The whole point of the book was to address all of the people out there who had been complaining that no serious scholars confirm these claims. So she selected a bunch of serious scholars from within Egyptology and other fields who are not so easily dismissed just to make a strong point.
The problem is that her definition of "serious scholars" and mine may differ. As far as I'm concerned, if they're university-level, I have to take them seriously. If they're less than that, whether they're "serious" or not is an entirely subjective matter. If they were serious, you'd think that the university-level ones would be swayed by their arguments, or that they would end up getting published in peer-reviewed journals.
That's why we have no problem going through the whole list and citing all of the citations given for each claim. So if you want to hold off on going through each claim one by one until I post the scholars cited for each claim and look into their occupational status, it could take a while.
That's fine. And if you want to throw out a few names to me, I'll gladly do some of the checking for you (since you know I'll be checking on the back-end, anyways).
Accepting only scholars, peer reviewed scholars in relevant fields, that also work at a university does seem a little ridiculous though. Shouldn't you be interested in any relevant scholar regardless of where they happen to work?
The problem is that I clearly have to have some kind of standards. Anyone can call themselves a "scholar", but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Do you have a suggestion on how else I can separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak?
tat tvam asi wrote:
We've given you the information you request and you've dismissed it out of hand. And that's why you have been called a "liar for the lord."
So because I didn't realize that those scholars were university-level, I'm a liar? How does that work?
No, it's because we started posting valid evidence that does confirm various claims and you just brushed it all off and proceeded to write a book full of straw man arguments.[/quote]
I didn't "brush off" anything. In my book, I go on for pages addressing the "Horus virgin-born" argument, addressing the claims that were made in this forum. Also, since the lady I talked to pointed out that university-level scholars agree that Isis was a virgin, I've added it to the book so that it will appear in future editions of "Myth?" (though it's not in the first edition, since I got the evidence too late, but I did add it to my website).
I think the way I started out with you this time around is the best way to go about addressing the Horus list, which is to stay focused on each claim one at a time right down the list.
Isn't that what we tried the first time, though?
In doing so we can evaluate the scholars who are cited, whether they are relevant or not, and what they have to say about each claim. That's what CiE is designed for. It's suppose to basically spoon fed everyone relevant information via the citations found at the bottom of each page. It's for the layman and scholar alike. But it's written in such a way that it's perfectly presentable to serious scholars to use for, say, university level research.
And if there are university-level scholars who have been swayed by CiE and have found the evidence for the claims convincing, then you're free to use them as sources. But if university-level scholars don't find the claims convincing, why do you think that is?