Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-08-2011, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

LOGICAL FALLACIES do produce FALSE CONCLUSIONS....

Ok, stop right there.

The HJ theory is a logical fallcy.

J-D · 07-08-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

It is possible that you do not appreciate the logical and methodological differences between Biblical History and Ancient History.

We are discussing logic.

I beg your pardon? Are you serious? You have made a most fundamental logical error. You may be discussing logic, but I am discussing ancient history, its evidence, methodologies, hypotheses and theories. Read the OP carefully. And feel free to start another thread in the Philosophy forum.

I beg your pardon? Are you serious? You have made a most fundamental error in reading. Read the OP carefully. It does not refer to the methodology of ancient history,

Let me read the OP carefully again. The OP starts with "The HJ theory ...". In case any readers are in the dark about this acronym "HJ", or were wondering what this "HJ" directly refers to, it is the "Historical Jesus theory" and as such must implicitly rely upon the methodology of ancient history, unless one is approaching the HJ theory with implicit reliance upon the methodology of Biblical history. The methodologies employed by ancient history and biblical history are quite different. You have not demonstrated yet to my satisfaction that you are aware of the differences.

You have not demonstrated yet to my satisfaction that you have read the OP carefully. A careful reader does not stop and draw conclusions after just three words. A careful reader would see that the OP does not make any distinction between different kinds of history, 'ancient', 'Biblical', or any other, and says nothing about specific historical methodologies.

J-D · 07-08-2011, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

LOGICAL FALLACIES do produce FALSE CONCLUSIONS....

Ok, stop right there.

No. Why should I? Because it helps you to commit a fallacy? That's not a good reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ theory is a logical fallcy.

You have just committed the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'.

aa5874 · 07-08-2011, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Ok, stop right there.

No. Why should I? Because it helps you to commit a fallacy? That's not a good reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ theory is a logical fallcy.

You have just committed the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'.

You did write that Logical Fallacies do produce False conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

LOGICAL FALLACIES do produce FALSE CONCLUSIONS....

You are wasting your time.

After all the noise, you have now publicly admitted that "Logical Fallacies do produce False conclusion."

Logical Fallacies produced the HJ theory.

J-D · 07-08-2011, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Ok, stop right there.

No. Why should I? Because it helps you to commit a fallacy? That's not a good reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ theory is a logical fallcy.

You have just committed the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'.

You did write that Logical Fallacies do produce False conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

LOGICAL FALLACIES do produce FALSE CONCLUSIONS....

You are wasting your time.

After all the noise, you have now publicly admitted that "Logical Fallacies do produce False conclusion."

Logical Fallacies produced the HJ theory.

Logical fallacies sometimes produce false conclusions. Logical fallacies do not always produce false conclusions. Sometimes false conclusions are produced without any logical fallacy.

You are wasting your time discussing fallacies if you cannot demonstrate that you know what a fallacy is.

bootsie · 07-08-2011, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The majority of Biblical Scholars are engaged in False Dichotomies with respect to the historical Jesus.

The historical Jesus CANNOT be reliably re-constructed and this was known for hundreds of years.

I couldn't agree more. The gospels are filled with errors and contradictions. But this is not too surprising, as the were written decades after Jesus was purported to have died. Their only source of "evidence" was through word of mouth or through their vivid imagination - both of which are unreliable.

Perhaps this is why I always refer to the term "The Gospel Truth" as an oxymoron.

J-D · 07-08-2011, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bootsie

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The majority of Biblical Scholars are engaged in False Dichotomies with respect to the historical Jesus.

The historical Jesus CANNOT be reliably re-constructed and this was known for hundreds of years.

I couldn't agree more. The gospels are filled with errors and contradictions. But this is not too surprising, as the were written decades after Jesus was purported to have died. Their only source of "evidence" was through word of mouth or through their vivid imagination - both of which are unreliable.

Perhaps this is why I always refer to the term "The Gospel Truth" as an oxymoron.

So, do you understand what a 'false dichotomy' is?

mountainman · 07-09-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by bootsie

Perhaps this is why I always refer to the term "The Gospel Truth" as an oxymoron.

So, do you understand what a 'false dichotomy' is?

So, do you understand what 'evidence' is, and how one may maintain a theory in the field of ancient history in its manifest absence?

Quote:

A careful reader would see that the OP does not make any distinction between different kinds of history, 'ancient', 'Biblical', or any other, and says nothing about specific historical methodologies.

A careful reader would see that you do the same thing, whereas a careful historical analyst would see that to make distinctions between "Biblical History" and "Ancient History" (and their respective methodologies) is precisely what is required to set out a possible range of answers to the OP.

J-D · 07-09-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by bootsie

Perhaps this is why I always refer to the term "The Gospel Truth" as an oxymoron.

So, do you understand what a 'false dichotomy' is?

So, do you understand what 'evidence' is, and how one may maintain a theory in the field of ancient history in its manifest absence?

So, do you understand what a logical fallacy is?

mountainman · 07-09-2011, 03:29 PM

See post #46. An example of a logical fallacy ......

"It wasn't medicine that raised Lazarus from the dead, so it must have been a miracle."

07-09-2011, 03:29 PM	#110
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	See post #46. An example of a logical fallacy ...... "It wasn't medicine that raised Lazarus from the dead, so it must have been a miracle."

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.