this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
-5 points (42.4% liked)

Religion

205 readers
39 users here now

Discussion and scholarship of world religions.

Rules:

  1. Follow the site-wide code of conduct: https://mastodon.world/about

  2. Avoid broad generalizations about any particular tradition or religion as a whole.

  3. Theological content is allowed, but devotional or proselytizing content is not. Please choose a more appropriate community for these kinds of posts.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
metic
-5
Jesus Never Existed, After All (www.huffpost.com)
submitted 1 year ago by afraid_of_zombies to c/religion
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Earthwormjim91 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] afraid_of_zombies -3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Earthwormjim91 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] afraid_of_zombies -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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_zombies -5 points 1 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?