• @afraid_of_zombiesOP
    link
    English
    -11 year ago

    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.

    • @Earthwormjim91
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      Virtually every historian of the time period, religious and secular, agree that Jesus the man did exist.

      • @afraid_of_zombiesOP
        link
        English
        -31 year ago

        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.

          • @afraid_of_zombiesOP
            link
            English
            -51 year ago

            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.

            • @Earthwormjim91
              link
              English
              31 year ago

              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.

              • @afraid_of_zombiesOP
                link
                English
                -51 year ago

                Because you’re obviously not interesting in actually learning anything, you just want to argue.

                Attack the argument not the person.

                citing scholarly consensus is not an argument ad populum. So you’re not even correct in asserting a logical fallacy.

                I see. Which logical fallacy did you do, was it argument from authority?

                that link has the sources dipshit.

                Attack the argument not the person.

                Read them if you want. Or stick your fingers in your ears and keep screaming like a child.

                Attack the argument not the person.

                I don’t give a shit about you.

                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?

          • @afraid_of_zombiesOP
            link
            English
            -21 year ago

            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?