Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 01-30-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Alexander coins were produced after those of Philip II (Alexander's father) and before Philip III Arrhidaeus (his half-brother).

The latest entry in the hall of fame of circular reasoning.

spin · 01-30-2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I got bored with your irrelevant responses, as many people do.

So other kids won't play with your toys! Oh, too bad there Gamera.

Quote:

I think ynquirer has pretty much debunked your coin evidence, and you haven't responded, so there's nothing more I can add to that.

OK, so you are being willful that you won't learn anything about coins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

As to the mss evidence, I don't believe you have even attempted to provide the dates and history of the mss, so we're at a standstill. When you get back with us on the mss attesting to the historicity of Alexander, we'll be in a position to talk.

Still piddling about trying to justify secondary sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Alexander coins were produced after those of Philip II (Alexander's father) and before Philip III Arrhidaeus (his half-brother).

The latest entry in the hall of fame of circular reasoning.

As you don't want to know anything about coins and show no knowledge of coins, just keep showing the fact and see who you'll convince other than yourself. La-la-la-la.

ETA: But if you want you use the coin evidence to build a different chronology or come to some other conclusion, please by all means, do so.

spin

spin · 01-30-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctorzb

I am scratching my head here.

It's alright, I feel that way frequently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctorzb

I agreed that the coin evidence is pretty much definitive.

The reference to "compelling" was trying to say that even if the evidence were not definitive, even if someone could prove Alexander was a mythical agglomoration of multiple people, few would care, because the empire itself certainly existed--the events, as history, are more compelling than the identities of particular people.

Makes sense now.

spin

spin · 01-31-2007, 04:53 PM

The challenge to Gamera regarding a formal debate as to the existence of Alexander is still open.

If he wants to argue that one cannot conclude that Alexander exists, I'll be happy to show that either he is wrong or that he lacks meaningful criteria to establish the historicity of anyone.

It will be interesting to see what evidence he is willing to jettison to maintain his position.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-31-2007, 04:53 PM	#184
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The challenge to Gamera regarding a formal debate as to the existence of Alexander is still open. If he wants to argue that one cannot conclude that Alexander exists, I'll be happy to show that either he is wrong or that he lacks meaningful criteria to establish the historicity of anyone. It will be interesting to see what evidence he is willing to jettison to maintain his position. spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.