Freethought & Rationalism Archive

squiz · 05-10-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Richard posted this in a comment on his own blog
AU will send you a receipt, which you should keep with your tax records.

I doubt very much if anyone donating from Germany, where I live, could claim such a donation as a deduction. Anyone know more here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Richard posted this in a comment on his own blog
PayPal donors: Other methods are preferable since PayPal typically takes a percentage...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Richard posted this in a comment on his own blog
Donors Outside the U.S. and others who may be interested: For those who are not registered at PayPal, please note that PayPal accounts are free and easy to register for (at www.paypal.com), although (as noted above) PayPal should be a last choice method of sending money. But once you are registered, and logged in, all you need is the email address of another registered recipient and you can send money to anyone anywhere in the world, using any credit card, most bank cards, and many other methods (though with greater difficulty, as the PayPal site will explain). PayPal will do currency exchanges but you'll have to figure out how (since I've never used that feature).

I am not sure which would be more efficient for donating from outside the US, credit card, or paypal. Both seem to take a rather large cut, from what I hear.

It's not really relevant, but do people still transfer money by cheque in the US? In Europe and in Australia, I just log on to my account and initiate a direct transfer to the target account.

Back to relevancy, I am a little concerned that by soliciting funds in this way, especially via an organisation with a name like "Atheists United" people could accuse this research of bias. You know "he who pays the piper, calls the tune" and all that. Richard makes makes some strong arguments against this in his blog:

Quote:

People are paying me for an honest, informed examination of the case, wherever it leads, because of my qualifications in the field and my proven balance and lack of bias in this issue (since it doesn't matter to me whether Jesus existed or not, it only matters to me what the truth is). This is what I did when I reviewed Doherty, with whom I still have as much disagreement as agreement, and such honest independence is what people expect from me.

But if anyone who is donating thinks they are buying a propaganda piece, I agree they should withdraw their pledges. But I don't think anyone who has pledged is expecting that. All of them want to see where the evidence leads, and want someone qualified and unbiased who can find out for them, no matter how it turns out, and lay the case out objectively. I have explicitly offered nothing else.

Indeed, since I am making no promises at all but that, the funding I am seeking is actually less implicative of bias than standard granting agencies, since my funding source can't control the result of the product by withdrawing funds.
...

I think it is important that this is explicitly spelled out in the book.

Toto · 05-10-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Richard posted this in a comment on his own blog
AU will send you a receipt, which you should keep with your tax records.

I doubt very much if anyone donating from Germany, where I live, could claim such a donation as a deduction. Anyone know more here?

Tax deductibility is an American thing. You probably cannot deduct anything if you do not file a US tax return.

Quote:

I am not sure which would be more efficient for donating from outside the US, credit card, or paypal. Both seem to take a rather large cut, from what I hear.

It's not really relevant, but do people still transfer money by cheque in the US? In Europe and in Australia, I just log on to my account and initiate a direct transfer to the target account.

Old habits die hard. We also do electronic transfers, but a lot of people like to have a piece of paper in their hands.

Quote:

Back to relevancy, I am a little concerned that by soliciting funds in this way, especially via an organisation with a name like "Atheists United" people could accuse this research of bias. You know "he who pays the piper, calls the tune" and all that. Richard makes makes some strong arguments against this in his blog:

Quote:

People are paying me for an honest, informed examination of the case, wherever it leads, because of my qualifications in the field and my proven balance and lack of bias in this issue (since it doesn't matter to me whether Jesus existed or not, it only matters to me what the truth is). This is what I did when I reviewed Doherty, with whom I still have as much disagreement as agreement, and such honest independence is what people expect from me.

But if anyone who is donating thinks they are buying a propaganda piece, I agree they should withdraw their pledges. But I don't think anyone who has pledged is expecting that. All of them want to see where the evidence leads, and want someone qualified and unbiased who can find out for them, no matter how it turns out, and lay the case out objectively. I have explicitly offered nothing else.

Indeed, since I am making no promises at all but that, the funding I am seeking is actually less implicative of bias than standard granting agencies, since my funding source can't control the result of the product by withdrawing funds.
...

I think it is important that this is explicitly spelled out in the book.

Atheists United has no doctrine on the existence of a Historical Jesus, and no reason to prefer one outcome over another. It is quote possible to be an atheist and hold that there was a historical Jesus who was not the fleshy part of the divine trinity, just an off beat Jewish prophet or some other shadowy historic figure.

American Atheists, in contrast, has official publications arguing against a historical Jesus.

Ted Hoffman · 05-13-2008, 12:28 AM

I am glad that pledges have been sizable enough to warrant undertaking the project. Congratulations everybody.

Toto · 05-13-2008, 07:45 PM

The Form Criticism discussion has been split off here.

Richard Carrier · 05-20-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

I think it is important that this is explicitly spelled out in the book.

Yes, absolutely. It will be.

Ted Hoffman · 05-21-2008, 02:32 AM

If you can somehow incorporate Bob Price, I think that would be a good thing.

Toto · 09-20-2008, 02:29 PM

UPDATE: Carrier's Blog: Making Progress

Quote:

New Testament studies is in a worse state than I thought, a fact that standard references often whitewash (out of their own desperation, I suspect), and trying to untangle that mess is what's slowed me down.

Ironically, though, I already have too much and not enough--I've accumulated these past months more material than I can use for the book, yet important gaps remain in specific places where further fact-checking is needed, so I have to accumulate yet more, while cutting the fat from the rest. It's that fact-checking, though, that's uncovered some messy skeletons in the closet of New Testament studies, and I'm buried in skeletons enough as it is. ...

Jeffrey Gibson · 09-20-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

UPDATE: Carrier's Blog: Making Progress

Quote:

New Testament studies is in a worse state than I thought, a fact that standard references often whitewash (out of their own desperation, I suspect), and trying to untangle that mess is what's slowed me down.

Ironically, though, I already have too much and not enough--I've accumulated these past months more material than I can use for the book, yet important gaps remain in specific places where further fact-checking is needed, so I have to accumulate yet more, while cutting the fat from the rest. It's that fact-checking, though, that's uncovered some messy skeletons in the closet of New Testament studies, and I'm buried in skeletons enough as it is. ...

It's probably too much to ask Richard to tell us what he thinks all the "whitewashes" that he refers to above actually are, let alone why he thinks they are what he calls them. So I wonder if instead we might at least have the names of "the "standard references" in which Richard sees these purported "whitewashes" going on.

Jeffrey

squiz · 09-24-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

It's probably too much to ask Richard to tell us what he thinks all the "whitewashes" that he refers to above actually are, let alone why he thinks they are what he calls them. So I wonder if instead we might at least have the names of "the "standard references" in which Richard sees these purported "whitewashes" going on.

Jeffrey

It was only a blog entry, so maybe you'll just have to wait for his book to be finished. If it is as dramatic as he seems to be implying, then I'm sure he'll go into more detail there. But then again, maybe he'll enlighten us, if you contact him directly.

Actually he already promised more details in his next blog entry, so it seems that you might just have to wait.

Camio · 08-15-2009, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

maybe you'll just have to wait for his book to be finished.

Any news about it? In the last entries I read on RC blog, I got the impression he was drowning under work to achieve it.

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

05-13-2008, 12:28 AM	#93
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	I am glad that pledges have been sizable enough to warrant undertaking the project. Congratulations everybody.

05-13-2008, 07:45 PM	#94
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Form Criticism discussion has been split off here.

05-21-2008, 02:32 AM	#96
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	If you can somehow incorporate Bob Price, I think that would be a good thing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.