Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kapyong · 07-12-2011, 02:51 AM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, just tell me who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Gladly: John 21:
20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

Pardon me, TedM, but this is not a claim that they (personally) saw a Jesus while he was alive at all.

Firstly -
It is not a personal claim - it's a 3rd person claim, added later by some person or persons unknown, saying "we" and "his", not "I" and "mine".

And -
It is not actually a claim to have seen Jesus while he was alive - it's claim that the beloved disciple testified and wrote the Gospel (thus merely implying he did see Jesus.)

In fact, there is NOT ONE authentic claim to have personally met Jesus in the entire NT (apart from the 2nd C. forgery 2 Peter.)

Instead we have claims and traditions, and twisted interpretations - such as saying the "we" and "his" discussed above are some sort of royal "we", or that it shows "John's" humility or some such nonsense.

If Jesus HAD existed, then we would certainly have stories about personally meeting Jesus. And the disciples' power and prestige would depend on how close they had been to Jesus, on how long they had spent following Jesus, on how early they had joined Jesus etc. Which is exactly what we see in examples such as Mohamed or H.P. Blavatsky and many more.

Instead we get NOTHING of any such personal connection to Jesus - none of the early Christians ever met Jesus (or Mary or Joseph or Lazarus or Joseph of Arimathea or Martha or anyone else IN the stories.)

The best we get is Paul - who had a vision of Christ; and 1 John who also had some sort of spiritual vision - that god is light etc.

It's pretty obvious there simply was no historical Jesus at the start of all this.

Kapyong

mountainman · 07-12-2011, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

A useful table. Thanks.

It's largely Spin's.

J-D · 07-12-2011, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
[Historicity %]
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
[90-100%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
[40-90%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
[10-40%]
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core figure behind the gospel Jesus existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells, Robert H. Gundry
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. In the Atwill version, it was the policy of the emperor Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious forgery
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Hermann Detering (*), Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious forgery
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
[0 to 100%]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]

That table describes various positions which (it alleges) are held by various people. It does not even attempt to articulate a case in favour of any one of those positions, and if it's not attempting to make a case then, by logical necessity, it is not making a fallacious case.

A very very lazy and simplistic conclusion. See the last column containing author names. These authors have written books and/or articles in favor of these positions. The table summarises sources for HJ theories. It is up to the reader to review these theories. It's never too late to start.

Those authors may have written books and/or articles in favour of their positions, whatever those positions are, but that doesn't answer my question, which was: by whom, where, when, has this theory we're talking about been articulated on this board?

If somebody wants to come here and point to things which people have posted to this board and explain how they're supposed to be fallacious, that's a contribution to discussion.

If somebody wants to come here and quote from published books or articles and then explain how the material quoted is fallacious argument, that's a contribution to discussion.

If somebody says 'some people have said things which are fallacious, but I'm not going to show you or tell you what they said', the status of that as a contribution to discussion is open to doubt.

J-D · 07-12-2011, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

..Well, just tell me who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories.

Gladly: John 21:

Quote:

20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

John 21 has serious problems.

1. The Gospel of John is NOT a credible source.

2. John 21 appears to have been an interpolation.

3. Based on "Against Praxeas" 25 by Tertullian gJohn terminated on the 20th chapter.

Logically you must FIRST produce a credible source. The NT is NOT considered a credible source even by HJ Scholars.

Any LACK of a CREDIBLE SOURCE is not synonymous with LOGICAL FALLACY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...However, because I believe they were not all making everything up, I suppose that SOME THINGS they said about Jesus were probably true. Since it couldn't have been the non-human part of Jesus, it must be the human part (ie the stuff that reminds us of ourselves perhaps--we talk, we weep, we sleep, we eat, we may pray, etc..)...and maybe even some of the things he said or did, people they say he interacted with, etc.....

Fantastic!!! You have made my day. What a relief!! Thank you very much!!

You have presented the PERFECT example of a logical fallacy.

You believe that Jesus was an ordinary man so it could not have been a Child of a Ghost that lived in Nazareth.

Your belief is irrational or highly illogical since it needs NO actual evidence from antiquity.

You fail to accept that the Gospels may have just been stories or myth fables that people believed.

Whether or not CORRECT, and whether or not SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, those are NOT LOGICAL FALLACIES. Neither INCORRECT nor UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE is SYNONYMOUS with FALLACIOUS.

Once again you demonstrate that you are talking about LOGICAL FALLACIES without KNOWING what they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Why is it illogical to conclude that SOMETHING they said about Jesus was true while rejecting other parts on supernatural grounds?

Why is it logical to accept anything in the NT about Jesus as history WITHOUT external corroborative sources?

Why is it logical just to isolate plausible events about Jesus and believe they are true WITHOUT external corroborative sources?

You seem not to understand the Jesus stories may be historical documents that fundamentally represent what people BELIEVED in antiquity.

People believed Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost and the authors may have simply documented what people believed.

It can be shown that Christians BELIEVED Jesus was a Child of a Ghost and God Incarnate who was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven but it cannot be shown that Christians of antiquity KNEW that Jesus was an ordinary man who could not and did NOT resurrect or ascended and still worshiped him as God knowing he was man.

It is irrational or illogical to believe an ADMITTED unreliable source without first seeking corroboration or AFTER no external corroboration can be found.

It is completely logical that the Jesus stories may have been myth fables just as they were believed in antiquity.

It is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that they were MYTHS or FABLES, and it is ALSO LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that they were NOT.

There is NOTHING LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS about assuming that they were NOT myths or fables.

J-D · 07-12-2011, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, just tell me who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Gladly: John 21:
20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

Pardon me, TedM, but this is not a claim that they (personally) saw a Jesus while he was alive at all.

Firstly -
It is not a personal claim - it's a 3rd person claim, added later by some person or persons unknown, saying "we" and "his", not "I" and "mine".

And -
It is not actually a claim to have seen Jesus while he was alive - it's claim that the beloved disciple testified and wrote the Gospel (thus merely implying he did see Jesus.)

In fact, there is NOT ONE authentic claim to have personally met Jesus in the entire NT (apart from the 2nd C. forgery 2 Peter.)

Instead we have claims and traditions, and twisted interpretations - such as saying the "we" and "his" discussed above are some sort of royal "we", or that it shows "John's" humility or some such nonsense.

If Jesus HAD existed, then we would certainly have stories about personally meeting Jesus. And the disciples' power and prestige would depend on how close they had been to Jesus, on how long they had spent following Jesus, on how early they had joined Jesus etc. Which is exactly what we see in examples such as Mohamed or H.P. Blavatsky and many more.

Instead we get NOTHING of any such personal connection to Jesus - none of the early Christians ever met Jesus (or Mary or Joseph or Lazarus or Joseph of Arimathea or Martha or anyone else IN the stories.)

The best we get is Paul - who had a vision of Christ; and 1 John who also had some sort of spiritual vision - that god is light etc.

It's pretty obvious there simply was no historical Jesus at the start of all this.

Kapyong

Even if what you say is true, it is not logically necessarily true, and there is nothing necessarily fallacious about taking a different position.

PyramidHead · 07-12-2011, 06:14 AM

But I honestly don't know what the capital of Brazil is! I know it's not New York City or Quebec or Melbourne, though. Am I wrong?

My point in making that analogy was to show that I don't have to know everything about X in order to ask for evidence that X is Y.

So, one does not need to look at the entirety of scholarship regarding the historical (or not) Jesus in order to ask for evidence of specific logical fallacies.

You don't get to say, "How do you know they DIDN'T commit logical fallacies if you haven't READ and UNDERSTOOD everything they wrote?" because you're the one who made the claim to begin with. Ironically, it's the same sort of fallacious reasoning that would lead someone to say "How do you know there WASN'T a historical Jesus if you weren't THERE in the FIRST CENTURY?" Rightfully, a reasonable person would say, no, that's not how it works, you have to provide me with a good basis to believe it beyond that! We are just asking you to provide one example, just one, of a statement you think is logically fallacious. It would be nice to attribute it to somebody specific, and explain what error in reasoning was committed.

TedM · 07-12-2011, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, just tell me who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Gladly: John 21:
20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

Pardon me, TedM, but this is not a claim that they (personally) saw a Jesus while he was alive at all.

aa didn't specify a requirement for a firsthand report.

Quote:

Firstly -
It is not a personal claim - it's a 3rd person claim, added later by some person or persons unknown, saying "we" and "his", not "I" and "mine".

Notice the tenses of the words. 'This is the disciple who is testifying'. Implies that the disciple was still alive. Otherwise should have said "This is/was the disciple who WAS testifying".

Quote:

And -
It is not actually a claim to have seen Jesus while he was alive - it's claim that the beloved disciple testified and wrote the Gospel (thus merely implying he did see Jesus.)

Not 'merely' implying. It is a very strong implication--to the point of certainty. IF the claim in John 21 is true, then John the disciple and witness to Jesus, wrote the gospel.

TedM · 07-12-2011, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

..Well, just tell me who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories.

Gladly: John 21:....

John 21 has serious problems.

well, you didn't specify that beforehand. You asked for something and I gave it to you. Now you are backpeddling...bad boy..

Quote:

You have presented the PERFECT example of a logical fallacy.

Only if all your pre-conditions are true. But they cannot be shown to be true...

Quote:

Your belief is irrational or highly illogical since it needs NO actual evidence from antiquity.

Illogical statement. Your requirements could well be deficient.

Quote:

You fail to accept that the Gospels may have just been stories or myth fables that people believed.

Wrong again. I accept that as a possibility. (hint: you shouldn't have used the words 'may have')

Quote:

Why is it logical to accept anything in the NT about Jesus as history WITHOUT external corroborative sources?

Internal consistency and insight into human nature are a couple of the issues you are arbitrarily rejecting as unworthy of consideration. Anyhow, you can't prove that there are no external corroborative sources when we have external corroborative sources. Now, come on again and clean up your grammar by saying what you really mean (hint: no credible external sources). 'Credible' is subjective.

WHAT YOU DON"T GET is that ALL of the stuff you require is subjective. What is credible? How many sources? How many non-conflicting sources? It is ALL SUBJECTIVE AA!! It all comes down to figuring what SEEMS probable. That's why your claim of 'illogical fallacy' ALSO comes down to your own subjective opinions.

It is an empty claim IMO, and MOST people would say as JD has been trying to this whole thread, that opinions without absolute logical proof to the contrary do not constitute 'illogical fallacies'.

Quote:

It can be shown that Christians BELIEVED Jesus was a Child of a Ghost and God Incarnate who was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven but it cannot be shown that Christians of antiquity KNEW that Jesus was an ordinary man who could not and did NOT resurrect or ascended and still worshiped him as God knowing he was man.

Geez, aa. If that could be shown there wouldn't have been any Christians in the first place...

As I predicted, your mantra continues and continues and continues.. I bowing out of the thread now because, unlike JD, I don't like repeating the same arguments with you over and over and getting nowhere with you.

Have a nice day.

mountainman · 07-12-2011, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The table summarises sources for HJ theories. It is up to the reader to review these theories. It's never too late to start.

Those authors may have written books and/or articles in favour of their positions, whatever those positions are, but that doesn't answer my question, which was: by whom, where, when, has this theory we're talking about been articulated on this board?

Ask Toto.

Quote:

If somebody wants to come here and point to things which people have posted to this board and explain how they're supposed to be fallacious, that's a contribution to discussion.

If somebody wants to come here and quote from published books or articles and then explain how the material quoted is fallacious argument, that's a contribution to discussion.

aa5874 quotes from the new testament and every so often from more recent authors. I haven't seen you doing that too much.

Quote:

If somebody says 'some people have said things which are fallacious, but I'm not going to show you or tell you what they said', the status of that as a contribution to discussion is open to doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

It's pretty obvious there simply was no historical Jesus at the start of all this.

Even if what you say is true, it is not logically necessarily true, and there is nothing necessarily fallacious about taking a different position.

The status of that as a contribution to discussion is open to doubt. It's about as vacuous as the evidence for the historical jesus.

avi · 07-12-2011, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Even if what you say is true, it is not logically necessarily true, and there is nothing necessarily fallacious about taking a different position

I suppose, (but I am not certain) that you are trying your best to guide us (or at least, those of us who need guidance!) to comprehend the distinction between (intentionally) "illogical", and "logically fallacious".

About all I comprehend, is that the two are not synonyms, a concept not only alien to my humble way of thinking, but also counter-intuitive from my perspective, since I assume that "fallacious" means "deliberately erroneous". I am wondering whether this terminological quandary has its origin in my having a mere, public, secondary school education, or, possessing a genetic predisposition to working class notions, or to having grown up on the wrong side of the pond.

For instance, spin (and Pete, and others too, I am sure) and I completely disagree about his use of the word "retroject", which he writes to communicate "project" about past events, clearly not the proper definition, since retroject is a medical term, well known to all health care practitioners familiar with urology, and has nothing whatsoever to do with neurology, nor with thinking per se, (since neurons communicate by projection.) Another example, is spin's misuse of the word "falsify", which for me, (perhaps uniquely on this forum, at least) always connotes the probability of fraud, (unfortunately all too common in studying biblical texts,) but which spin, and others, employ to explain the concept of "refute". So, it may well be, that my uncustomary notions of language, explain my inability to grasp the concepts you are trying to explain, here, in this thread.

It would be instructive, at least for me, if you could explain, using any one of aa5874's (many) examples, i.e. passages from the gospels, how that particular passage should have been written, 2000 years ago, in order to qualify, today, as "logically fallacious", instead of simply (deliberately) "illogical". Perhaps, in that manner, it will be possible for everyone to benefit, since it appears that some folks are irritated by the seeming repetitiveness of the submissions to this thread, even though, others (i.e.--ME) remain hopelessly mired in the mud, trying to grasp at what appear to be mind numbing vocabulary constraints.

The goal, it seems to me, ought to be to clarify whether or not those forum members, (thanks to Chaucer, for answering J-D's question!!) who posit faith in the concept of an historical Jesus, with or without the gospel fantasy/myth/demons/supernatural nonsense, can, or should, or ought, to be able to claim support for their position using the gospels.

In particular, J-D, I hope you could focus attention on how something can be concurrently both deliberately illogical, and nevertheless, still possible. Earlier in this thread, (page three perhaps) I inquired about this, but thus far, there has been no response. I inquired how a man born with no legs (thalidomide) could receive bilateral amputation of the lower extremities?

At least in the realm of computers, where I feel a tad more comfortable, it is not unlikely that a computer program will fail to execute to completion, if the memory is insufficient. It is IMPOSSIBLE. There is no circumstance where an 8 gigabyte file created in 2011, will fit on a single, double density, 8 inch diameter, 80 kilobyte floppy disk, manufactured by IBM in 1971. In ancient times, scribes encountering this dilemma, either modified the text, or wrote with smaller handwriting......

avi

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

07-12-2011, 06:14 AM	#166
PyramidHead Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Providence, Rhode Island Posts: 4,389	But I honestly don't know what the capital of Brazil is! I know it's not New York City or Quebec or Melbourne, though. Am I wrong? My point in making that analogy was to show that I don't have to know everything about X in order to ask for evidence that X is Y. So, one does not need to look at the entirety of scholarship regarding the historical (or not) Jesus in order to ask for evidence of specific logical fallacies. You don't get to say, "How do you know they DIDN'T commit logical fallacies if you haven't READ and UNDERSTOOD everything they wrote?" because you're the one who made the claim to begin with. Ironically, it's the same sort of fallacious reasoning that would lead someone to say "How do you know there WASN'T a historical Jesus if you weren't THERE in the FIRST CENTURY?" Rightfully, a reasonable person would say, no, that's not how it works, you have to provide me with a good basis to believe it beyond that! We are just asking you to provide one example, just one, of a statement you think is logically fallacious. It would be nice to attribute it to somebody specific, and explain what error in reasoning was committed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.