Toto

The Secular Web has a debate format that has been used in its secularist vs secularist debates. Perhaps that format could be adapted for this purpose. It would allow for more contiguous text than the message boards allow, and the format would be easier to read.

Hello, I'm someone who's been reading this thread with much interest from the sidelines. Like Ethan, I've corresponded in private email with Mr. Doherty concerning this thread. I came across Doherty's website about a month ago and have spent almost every day reading his material, much of it for a second time (I was jumping around but then I forgot what I had read and what I hadn't in some cases or had glossed over areas too quickly so I'm now reading everything in order it is listed on his site). I must say, the initial readings were quite shocking. Even though not a Christian, I found the idea that a Jesus could've never existed to be disturbing, let alone that a good argument could be given for such. In a more detailed reading, I find his arguments hold up quite well. For my own part, I would like to see more reference to historians of religion concerning the Platonic worldview as I'm unfamiliar with the specifics and if it does line up with what Doherty asserts to Paul's thinking.

As for credentials, I also confronted Mr. Doherty on this lack of referencing on his website (does he go further in his book?). He claimed privacy which I find ironic considering he would only consider debating here if all debaters would present their real names. Giving your real name is enough to blow away privacy in this technical age so I'm unsure why he's so reticent about his credentials beyond saying he has a degree (bachelor's? Masters? Doctorate?) in Ancient History (or somesuch). I do hope Mr. Doherty will come here and debate. As he would be one among perhaps three primary debaters (Bede, Nomad, Ish?) it would be unfair to ask him to take all on. I personally think as Nomad initiated this, he shoud perhaps be the front man. Others could comment but Doherty would only be obliged to respond to Nomad. If Nomad found something of use in another's post, he could utilize it himself directly. And, yes, there's no hurry. Doherty could respond as he found time. This is a delicate issue that deserves time and attention. I hope this comes about as I, myself, find Doherty's arguments very persuasive and would like to see them directly addressed.

Take care,
Logan

Toto

BTW - I am not a "follower" or "disciple" of Doherty. He is not leading a religious movement. The existence or non-existence of Jesus would not change my views on anything else. I think that he presents an interesting and provocative thesis which appears to have a lot of support behind it, and I would be interested in comments from people with more historical and linguistic skills than I have.

The only thing that I am sure of is that Nomad and his fellow apologists have not given a good summary of Doherty's views or a real rebuttal of them.

Latest correspondence with Earl Doherty:

Earl,

Thanks for your reply

The quotes I gave you are from the SW board. They have revealed their names on the board and I'm sure would have no problem using them during their posts if you desired. Their posts would still have their old usernames on them, but you could address each other and sign off using your real names on the post.

We are currently discussing what the best mode of debate would be. You can choose, of course. If you wish, you can say you only wish to debate Nomad or else say that you will respond to Nomad's replies first and to others if you have the time. You can make whatever rules you want. It may also be possible to enforce unusual rules if the website moderators get in on it. Perhaps they could set up a debate forum where others weren't allowed to post replies. I'm
not sure, though.

Agreed. Brian (nomad) has already indicated that this is fine.

It would probably be best for you to start a new thread of your own by choosing to 'Post New Topic'. Just title it 'Jesus Puzzle' or something so that people will recognize it.


Sounds good. As I said, above, everyone is fine about using their names...


Humor spotted. (Imagine me smiling)

I'll post it. Thanks again.
Ethan



[This message has been edited by PhysicsGuy (edited April 20, 2001).]

This is just too cool!

Best of luck to all of you in getting him here, and to Nomad in the debate...

Hey I want in on this. I don't want it to be three against one, but I want to debate him. I dont mind using my real first name, but do I have to give my real last name? I think he should have a partner, like Earl, I respect Earl and think he would be a good partner for Dhortey.

I don't think it makes sense to divide into "teams" in the thread Doherty would participate in. I'd much rather see a focussed debate with Doherty going one on one against one of the theists, such as Nomad whom Doherty apparently is already expecting to debate, than to have a whole assortment of posts clogging the thread. There should be a single thread, in my view, set off for the debate, and a separate thread for anyone to comment on the debate or to make suggestions to the participants. If "team" members were allowed to post in Doherty's thread, the focus would be lost and for that matter one of the sides--probably Doherty, the "star" of the show--would get swamped by quantity if not necessarily quality of material. That would spoil the debate, in my view. The debate should be treated like any other formal written debate, with two participants one on one engaging a particular issue. Doherty could, of course, also participate in the spectator thread set up for commentary on the debate. A moderator could be assigned to keep extraneous posts out of Doherty's thread (or to somehow limit the thread to accepting posts only from Doherty and the theist participant). There should also be rules set up at the beginning governing how long the posts can be, especially if other people are allowed to post in Doherty's thread.

Another possibility is for a number of one on one debates to be lined up one after the other, with each involving a predetermined number of replies, say 3 or 4. The debate would conclude and then the next would begin, so that Nomad, Bede, Metacrock, or whoever could each debate Doherty but without all ganging up on him and swamping the thread. There should, in any case, be some structure set up at the beginning for the debate to be worthwhile and fair.



[This message has been edited by Earl (edited April 21, 2001).]

Earl, I tend to agree with your idea of a one-on-one thread and a second thread where the rest of us can respond to various issues. Either Doherty or Nomad could pick up on the issues raised by others in the second thread, if interesting and useful.

I have to agree with Meta on this. I do not think it is necessary, nor is it necessarily appropriate, to give names in such a public forum. ...possibly in a private email. Doherty chose to become a public personality, many of us have not but still wish to participate.

I would think that Doherty would not have a problem with privacy since he invites anonymous responses on his Jesus Puzzle website:

I promise I am not J.P. Holding and, as far as I know, neither is Meta.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 21, 2001).]

ISH: I have to agree with Meta on this. I do not think it is necessary, nor is it necessarily appropriate, to give names in such a public forum. ...possibly in a private email. Doherty chose to become a public personality, many of us have not but still wish to participate.

I would think that Doherty would not have a problem with privacy since he invites anonymous responses on his Jesus Puzzle website.

EARL: But that's up to Doherty. Those who post in the second, commentary thread wouldn't have to give their names, but Doherty has stressed that those who want to debate him directly have to give their real names. That isn't an extraordinary request. In debating private figures we can remain private, but in debating a more public figure, such as Doherty, it's only fair to become equally public. That's the way accountability is ensured in formal debate.

Earl, I personally do not understand the necessity of giving your real name for a direct internet debate. However, you are right, it is Doherty's choice.

Since I will be on the sidelines where it seems not to matter and some have already given their names, I guess it's a moot point (unless Meta really wants to debate directly).

Ish