In an earlier post, I argued that the historicity of Jesus was doubtful. Some religion scholars questioned one of my sources. Now, recent scholarship comes as close as possible to settling the issue.
The argument is basically “I find it unlikely so it cannot be true”, which isn’t very convincing.
Not saying that the conclusion is right or wrong, but the logic is flawed.
That is not an accurate summary of the points made by the article. Besides which the default position is that he didn’t exist, it is up to the Jesus was real crowd to present their evidence. Which is basically a century later someone noticed that there was a group calling themselves Christians.
Are statements about history true because they reflect what happened or because people at a later date said so?
If argument ad populum does not work why would you use it instead of just presenting your evidence for a historical Jesus? Me personally I noticed that people lower themselves to logical fallacies when they don’t have facts.
Because you’re obviously not interesting in actually learning anything, you just want to argue.
A) citing scholarly consensus is not an argument ad populum. So you’re not even correct in asserting a logical fallacy.
B) that link has the sources dipshit. Read them if you want. Or stick your fingers in your ears and keep screaming like a child. Doesn’t make a difference to me. I don’t give a shit about you.
Again. If the majority of people say something is true does that make it true? What if the majority of people are really really freaken smart, does that make it true?
Do logical fallacies not apply if the people involved are scholars?
The argument is basically “I find it unlikely so it cannot be true”, which isn’t very convincing. Not saying that the conclusion is right or wrong, but the logic is flawed.
That is not an accurate summary of the points made by the article. Besides which the default position is that he didn’t exist, it is up to the Jesus was real crowd to present their evidence. Which is basically a century later someone noticed that there was a group calling themselves Christians.
Virtually every historian of the time period, religious and secular, agree that Jesus the man did exist.
Are statements about history true because they reflect what happened or because people at a later date said so?
If argument ad populum does not work why would you use it instead of just presenting your evidence for a historical Jesus? Me personally I noticed that people lower themselves to logical fallacies when they don’t have facts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Could just answer the questions instead of depending on someone else to do the work.
Question 1: Are statements about history true because they reflect what happened or because people at a later date said so?
Question 2: If argument ad populum does not work why would you use it instead of just presenting your evidence for a historical Jesus?
Pretty simple questions, maybe just answer them.
Because you’re obviously not interesting in actually learning anything, you just want to argue.
A) citing scholarly consensus is not an argument ad populum. So you’re not even correct in asserting a logical fallacy.
B) that link has the sources dipshit. Read them if you want. Or stick your fingers in your ears and keep screaming like a child. Doesn’t make a difference to me. I don’t give a shit about you.
Attack the argument not the person.
I see. Which logical fallacy did you do, was it argument from authority?
Attack the argument not the person.
Attack the argument not the person.
Clearly, 8 comments in one thread towards me. With 5 personal attacks.
Now, again. Because a lot of smart people say something does that make it true?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Again. If the majority of people say something is true does that make it true? What if the majority of people are really really freaken smart, does that make it true?
Do logical fallacies not apply if the people involved are scholars?
deleted by creator