I was a little surprised by this demand.
I suspected you might. Sorry to get off on the wrong foot.
This is technically a debate site, although not just. Maybe I can explain how the debating works here a little.
You see, the post to which I responded repeated a load of ignorant hearsay, and violated every one of the demands made of me. But ... no-one said that he needed some evidence.
I only made one 'demand' and I explained that I did because I thought it was funny that you ended a series of unsupported assertions with 'don't rely on heresay', which seemed to undermine your whole post. But I do think there's a difference between yours and his arguments and why yours requires more support.
Here's what he wrote:
But the guy whose birthday is actually 25 December is Mithras. This is a god who has come a long way, hasn't he? Beginning as Mitra, a minor god of light in Hindu polytheism with prehistoric roots, under the Persian religion of Zoroaster he changes sides in the war between the Devas and Ahuras and becomes a major player as Mithra, angel of the sun. From there he infects the Roman Empire as a Mystery religion with various degrees and orders, and finally achieves world supremacy in 321 when Constantine merged the imperial cult of Sol Invictus with the socio-political organization of Christianity and the military secret society of Mithras.
The 'conclusion' of his formal argument is that this god has come a long way. That needs to be supported.
His support are the following premises explaining Mitra and Mithra, and Constantine, etc.
You then come in and say that his premises are wrong, with specific claims, and that's it. This is where you should support your rebuttles with
something, not just heresay.
As politely as possible, I said that it was nonsense. That's because I happen to know. Since he offered only hearsay, I didn't feel the need to write a referenced essay in reply. Why should I?
To promote a positive and progressive discussion in an effort to help us all understand things better.
If the author of the original post wants to offer some evidence for his assertions, then I will offer some for my reply. But until then, surely the demand for proof is being pointed at the wrong person?
Then your reply should have been something along the lines of asking him to support his premises rather than just asserting they were wrong and submitting.
But like I said, his point was that the god has come a long way. And he did support that (whether or not his premises are factual).
I'm not interested in proving things to people who want to believe nonsense. (Hey, I'm not being paid to!)
This site might not be for you, then.
I'm merely responding to a bad post by pointing the fact out, to people who might suppose that the poster knew what he was talking about. Now readers know that at least some people think otherwise. Which of us is correct may be ascertained very quickly, by those so inclined.
That's not really the best way for things to work here. These internets are full of people with different thinkings, I doubt anyone thought that his was the only one. You pointing out that someone thinks otherwise doesn't really do anything. Now, had you provided a link to a webpage that supported your claims, then people could actually learn some stuff about the topic. And if it'd been so quick, then thats all the more reason for you to do it.
"Anything X says must be taken as true, unless someone writes a referenced essay to prove the contrary"... that seems a bit of a weird position to take, to me.
But probably I misunderstand.
Its not nearly as difficult as your making it out to be.
Check it out.
You claimed that there's no conection between Mithras and Dec. 25. You could have easily, after making the claim provided something like:
quote:
It is often stated that Mithras was thought to have been born on December 25. But Beck tells us that this is not so. In fact he calls this assertion 'that hoariest of "facts"'. He continues: "In truth, the only evidence for it is the celebration of the birthday of "Invictus" on that date in Calendar of Philocalus. 'Invictus' is of course Sol Invictus, Aurelian's sun god. It does not follow that a different, earlier, and unofficial sun god, Sol Invictus Mithras, was necessarily or even probably, born on that day too."
source
I found that pretty quickly. Anyone reading through the thread already has a link to go through for that ascertaining they might be inclined to.
My point is that it helps everyone else out and makes the discussions better. I mean, if the site's debates were:
A: blah, blah, blah
B: Nu-uh!
A: Uh-huh!
B: No way!
Then this place wouldn't be nearly as great as it is. Dontcha think?
™ Version 4.2
