openlyatheist

Assumed the status quo is correct, and I think, assumed that it is not worth fighting over. I don't see Earl Doherty's work as being a particularly attractive or rewarding field myself.

~M~

what bias?



What does this badgering have to do with the analogy?


Yes. I believe Jesus existed. I believed this based upon the majority of expert concurrence. I also believe this belief to be rational in my circumstances.


When you can argue such, then i will listen.


I am offering other ways of reasonable choice--Ones you did not mention.
I hear a few people claim mechanic X is good, and this counts as educating myself?

yes. point?


:huh:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/division.html

show me evidence that most HJ scholars are Christians. Once you do that, then we have the problems regarding belief-formation.

openlyatheist

Biases like those people have towards subjects concerning their beliefs and backgrounds, like the political science example I just wrote to you which you just cut out.
Ok. No one ever said you were irrational.

Excuse me, but you are the one who insists your position is “based upon the majority of expert concurrence.” A position that you yourself have failed to meet a Burden of Proof upon (check those fallacy files). And if you are telling the truth, then you should already know what scholars are what.

I can see you aren’t serious about discussion. I’m done here.

openlyatheist

Ladies and Gentlemen: this thread is proof of that.

~M~

[QUOTE]

Wouldn't that apply to all experts?
The rationality of my choice is the question.


and it is.Isn't it generally accepted that the mythic case is a minority position with relevant scholars?



what scholars are what???? :huh:
I'm not? :huh: Are you mad because you committed the whole division fallacy thingy?

Doug Shaver

Yes. It is up to the dissenters to make their case against the consensus. If they fail to convince you, then you are entirely justified in accepting the consensus as more likely to be true. And if you can't even understand the dissenters, then no one can reasonably fault you for not being convinced.

Roland

I have one for you:

Show me a historical figure about whom thousands and thousands of words were written for a period of well over a hundred years, yet in all those words barely a single event from his life is ever referenced. Then, suddenly, about 120 years after his alleged death (starting pretty much with Justin Martyr and some undated gospels), all those details suddenly become so well known that nobody who writes about him from that point on can refrain from reiterating them ad nauseum.

I can guarantee that the earliest writings about Alexander the Great were chock full of specific biographical details about what he said and did from the get-go.

Moreover, if we are basing what we know about Jesus on the four canonical gospels, we don't even know who wrote them, and the writers don't cite a single source or reference for us to know where they got their information. This is NOT the case with ancient historians like Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny etc. The gospels are written as narratives not histories, which also makes them highly suspect.

Finally, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that virtually every single detail of the Jesus "biography" is a product of midrash based on the Old Testament. The gospel writers themselves give the game away with their constant referencing of the OT when chronicaling the details of Jesus' "life." Is that true of any other historical figure?

Peter Kirby

Hehe, ask J. P. M. first. I doubt he'd be able to do so; his stature is so great already, it could only take a hit.

Soul Invictus

Right...again, it's still dependent on the culture which determines how big of a deal he is or not.

youngalexander

and
You are not making a whole lot of sense matey!