135
All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/atheistmemes@lemmy.world
153 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

So this is all bad faith then, eh? What would qualify as evidence for you?

* or we can cut this short. I'll concede you have a good point and are correct if you will agree that viruses aren't real cause we have no evidence to your standards in this thread for them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The polite thing to do is mention when you edit your comments, just a fyi.

    What I would like is a contemporary written account.

    concede you have a good point and are correct if you will agree that viruses aren’t real cause we have no evidence to your standards in this thread for them.

    non sequitur. Also I am curious why the first part of your comment was asking me what my standards were while the second part is you telling me what they were. Is this an example of arguing in bad faith? Maybe ask the "majority of scholars".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If anything, what I did was a false equivalence. God, you sound like me 15 years ago, and I was a twat. You also sound like my mum and she's an antivaxxer.

    I marked my edit with an asterisk, as is/was standard for the Internet for a long time.

    I assumed your position from the rest of your comments: groups of experts (or a consensus of experts) are not reliable, contemporary sources as considered in the general field are unreliable unless you want to use them to further your point (tacitus or Josephus). And contemporary sources are the only thing that matter.

    So by these standards, what do we know of history? Not much, I'd argue. And I'd also bring it back home: what's the fuckin point of your post except to be an angsty lil kid? Who are you impressing here

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    If anything, what I did was a false equivalence. God, you sound like me 15 years ago, and I was a twat. You also sound like my mum and she’s an antivaxxer.

    Attack the argument and not the person.

    I assumed your position from the rest of your comments

    You know what they say about assumptions. Why not just ask me? I am right here.

    groups of experts (or a consensus of experts) are not reliable, contemporary sources as considered in the general field are unreliable unless you want to use them to further your point (tacitus or Josephus).

    Neither men were contemporary.

    So by these standards, what do we know of history? Not much, I’d argue.

    Really not my problem that historical research is difficult. Theist complain about this a lot, that it is really difficult to prove God.

    what’s the fuckin point of your post except to be an angsty lil kid? Who are you impressing here

    Attack the argument and not the person. You don't want to give people the wrong idea.

    Now, how is that contemporary evidence of Jesus going, find it yet? Also I noticed you neglected to answer my questions in the last comment. Feel free to have a go at it again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're a teenager, aren't you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Just to be clear here, you won't even acknowledge that I made a false equivalence argument instead of a non sequitur (since you seem so singularity focused on rhetorical fallicy)?

    * < EDIT MARK

    Or that I followed your editing etiquette and you didn't recognize it?

    Discussion is useful when one is able to listen to others and progress a line of thought. You might want to take a beat and pay attention to what a lot of other people are trying to tell you in this comment section.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I am not sure that you did but if it matters so much to you fine I will acknowledge that you committed one logical fallacy vs a different one.

    Right so it seems you have moved on to the part of the debate where you have given up personal attacks, and now are entering argument about argument. How I am arguing my point doesn't suit you, instead of what my point is.

    Maybe we can steer this back a bit? Can you please provide contemporary evidence for Jesus' existence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So now the argument about arguments thing is important to you? What about the last 3 hours of you whining Latin at people?

    And I gave you the place to start at the beginning. If you want to push a fringe theory, then disprove the items in that first article. If you can do it, you'd change human history forever. And I'm not being sarcastic here, you'd be a hero in the understanding of the human journey. But, until you can or are willing to do that, you're spouting nonsense and demanding your own standards of evidence and this is a useless endeavor.

    Almost the same conversation I had with my mum about covid.

    If you're a troll, well done. If you're not, I hope you're young and this is just general inexperience talking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •