Scot Dutchy wrote:

Free wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Free wrote:

Consensus is not always right, and can be wrong for a certainty. That is true with any consensus, including a consensus in the scientific community.

However, wrong or right, a consensus represents a body of professional authorities in every academic situation, and in every academic situation the consensus is respected and agreed with by the vast majority of interested and educated parties.

So, if you don't think a consensus holds water, then you must acknowledge that the consensus in the scientific community also cannot always be right on such things as evolution, the Big Bang, etc.

Are you prepared to doubt evolution based upon the consensus?

What a fucking load of crap. Scraping the barrel now. Dont answer just keep on stating guff. What professional authorities are you appealing to?

Well now, since the context demonstrates evolution, do you think it might be possible that I am appealing to the scientific community?

What for? Selling good rat oil? You are still avoiding all questions. YOU HAVE NOTHING

Free wrote:

Scar wrote:

Free wrote:

Scar wrote:Bullshit. I respect the consensus if it is built upon convincing evidence, if it isn't, I challenge it.
Simple. If all of the experts of a field can't present any actual clear evidence for their consensus then it's nothing but a giant circle jerk and the field potentially bogus.

Whatever dude.

Just because you personally don't think that what has been presented in this thread is evidence, it in no way whatsoever disputes the fact that a consensus of professional historians collectively disagrees with you.

When a Christian disputes evolution, we all know he is clueless, don't we? How do we know? We know because the scientific community has reached a consensus based upon the evidence. And despite the fact that the fire-and-brimstone Christian will deny anything the scientific community has determined to be evidence, we will acknowledge the consensus of the scientific community because we respect their professionalism, experience, and vast knowledge.

The same should be true for professional historians, who combine numerous methods to present what best approximates the truth in regards to historical events. Just like the scientific community explains evolution, the consensus of historians provides a credible and plausible explanation of history.

So if you are going to judge a consensus of professionals, and challenge them, perhaps its best you understand what is involved in the historical method before you can posit an opinion that has any semblance of credulity?

My point stands. Your argument for authority is nothing but that, an argument from authority. A fallacy. Either the evidence can withstand criticism or it can't.
And I haven't said I don't agree with the historians.

Just let me educate you here, myther.

As mentioned earlier, all consensus' of professionals can indeed be wrong. Since I admitted that, then I am not arguing that because the consensus is in agreement, they absolutely must be correct.

Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused. When misused, It becomes fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.

However, it is a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person (or consensus) presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.

More on Argument from Authority ...

In respect to a consensus, it is far more than just a singular authority, as it actually represents a Collective of Intelligence.

Collective intelligence is shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Now you know ...

Stein wrote:Is anyone here going to answer a perfectly reasonable question: Can you point to any NON-apologetic text of the first century c.e., or the early second, that references Jesus the rabbi as a purely mythical figure?

Stein

Scar wrote:

Free wrote:

Scar wrote:

Free wrote:

Whatever dude.

Just because you personally don't think that what has been presented in this thread is evidence, it in no way whatsoever disputes the fact that a consensus of professional historians collectively disagrees with you.

When a Christian disputes evolution, we all know he is clueless, don't we? How do we know? We know because the scientific community has reached a consensus based upon the evidence. And despite the fact that the fire-and-brimstone Christian will deny anything the scientific community has determined to be evidence, we will acknowledge the consensus of the scientific community because we respect their professionalism, experience, and vast knowledge.

The same should be true for professional historians, who combine numerous methods to present what best approximates the truth in regards to historical events. Just like the scientific community explains evolution, the consensus of historians provides a credible and plausible explanation of history.

So if you are going to judge a consensus of professionals, and challenge them, perhaps its best you understand what is involved in the historical method before you can posit an opinion that has any semblance of credulity?

My point stands. Your argument for authority is nothing but that, an argument from authority. A fallacy. Either the evidence can withstand criticism or it can't.
And I haven't said I don't agree with the historians.

Just let me educate you here, myther.

As mentioned earlier, all consensus' of professionals can indeed be wrong. Since I admitted that, then I am not arguing that because the consensus is in agreement, they absolutely must be correct.

Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused. When misused, It becomes fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.

However, it is a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person (or consensus) presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.

More on Argument from Authority ...

In respect to a consensus, it is far more than just a singular authority, as it actually represents a Collective of Intelligence.

Collective intelligence is shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Now you know ...

And you're still ignoring my explanation on why mindlessly accepting every conensus is stupid. Stop the strawmanning, please.

Free wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Free wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Just like conclusively proving he was 100% historical, proving he was 100% mythical will never happen. History doesn't work that way.

All I am asking for is enough evidence from antiquity that demonstrates he was a myth- such as a couple people stating as such- that can be compared to and contests the evidence that demonstrates historicity.

It's a very reasonable request, since JMs make the positive claim that Jesus was a total myth.

Just do the math: 8000 verses in the NT, only about a half dozen can be twisted to suggest a real person.

The vast majority of the evidence is going against your beliefs, by about 1000 to 1.

Ohhh ... another fallacy!

This one is called the "Fallacy of Exclusion."

Definition:

Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".

Since you failed to include the non-canonical texts and other documents attesting to historicity,

GUILTY!

Try again, myther. I'm enjoying this.

Free wrote:

Scar wrote:

Free wrote:

Scar wrote:
My point stands. Your argument for authority is nothing but that, an argument from authority. A fallacy. Either the evidence can withstand criticism or it can't.
And I haven't said I don't agree with the historians.

Just let me educate you here, myther.

As mentioned earlier, all consensus' of professionals can indeed be wrong. Since I admitted that, then I am not arguing that because the consensus is in agreement, they absolutely must be correct.

Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused. When misused, It becomes fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.

However, it is a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person (or consensus) presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.

More on Argument from Authority ...

In respect to a consensus, it is far more than just a singular authority, as it actually represents a Collective of Intelligence.

Collective intelligence is shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Now you know ...

And you're still ignoring my explanation on why mindlessly accepting every conensus is stupid. Stop the strawmanning, please.

Since you are ignoring the fact that I explicitly said that any and all consensus' from any academic community can indeed be wrong, then you are intentionally misrepresenting my position. Now, here is the definition of a stawman:

"A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So, guess who is doing the strawmanning here? It certainly isn't me!

Scar wrote:And just to further elaborate, so there's no more room for selective reading:
I accept the consensus on evolution because I looked at the evidence it's based upon and found it convincing.
I don't accept the consensus on the historical Jesus (and hence remain on the fence), because I looked at the evidence and didn't find it convincing.

That's rational. Mindlessly accepting all consensus because of an appeal to authority is idiotic.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Free wrote:

Scar wrote:Also it's consensus and consensus is always right and RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!

Consensus is not always right, and can be wrong for a certainty. That is true with any consensus, including a consensus in the scientific community.

However, wrong or right, a consensus represents a body of professional authorities in every academic situation, and in every academic situation the consensus is respected and agreed with by the vast majority of interested and educated parties.

So, if you don't think a consensus holds water, then you must acknowledge that the consensus in the scientific community also cannot always be right on such things as evolution, the Big Bang, etc.

Are you prepared to doubt evolution based upon the consensus?

What a fucking load of crap. Scraping the barrel now. Dont answer just keep on stating guff. What professional authorities are you appealing to?

Scar wrote:

Free wrote:

Scar wrote:

Free wrote:

Just let me educate you here, myther.

As mentioned earlier, all consensus' of professionals can indeed be wrong. Since I admitted that, then I am not arguing that because the consensus is in agreement, they absolutely must be correct.

Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused. When misused, It becomes fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.

However, it is a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person (or consensus) presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.

More on Argument from Authority ...

In respect to a consensus, it is far more than just a singular authority, as it actually represents a Collective of Intelligence.

Collective intelligence is shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Now you know ...

And you're still ignoring my explanation on why mindlessly accepting every conensus is stupid. Stop the strawmanning, please.

Since you are ignoring the fact that I explicitly said that any and all consensus' from any academic community can indeed be wrong, then you are intentionally misrepresenting my position. Now, here is the definition of a stawman:

"A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So, guess who is doing the strawmanning here? It certainly isn't me!

What you said does not change the validity of my position nor was I strawmanning you. Read again. You're leaving crucial parts out. Reading comprehension isn't that hard. You can do it.

Free wrote:

Scar wrote:And just to further elaborate, so there's no more room for selective reading:
I accept the consensus on evolution because I looked at the evidence it's based upon and found it convincing.
I don't accept the consensus on the historical Jesus (and hence remain on the fence), because I looked at the evidence and didn't find it convincing.

That's rational. Mindlessly accepting all consensus because of an appeal to authority is idiotic.

It's true, each of us can accept or reject whatever we choose in regards to any consensus. However, when I see people rejecting the consensus of historians, I really do not see much of a difference between them and the young earther who rejects the consensus of the scientific community on the issue of evolution.

But you know ... that's just my opinion.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Stein wrote:Is anyone here going to answer a perfectly reasonable question: Can you point to any NON-apologetic text of the first century c.e., or the early second, that references Jesus the rabbi as a purely mythical figure?

Stein

Can you point to any unedited, reconstructed and original text?

Pointing at the bible again. You naughty boy.

Stein wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Stein wrote:Is anyone here going to answer a perfectly reasonable question: Can you point to any NON-apologetic text of the first century c.e., or the early second, that references Jesus the rabbi as a purely mythical figure?

Stein

Can you point to any unedited, reconstructed and original text?

Pointing at the bible again. You naughty boy.

I'm NOT pointing at the Bible here, YOU LIAR. I'm explicitly pointing to any NON-apologetic text. Can you point to any NON-apologetic text of the first century c.e., or the early second, that references Jesus the rabbi as a purely mythical figure?

Answer. the. question.

Stein

Scar wrote:I did not.

Free wrote:

Scar wrote:And just to further elaborate, so there's no more room for selective reading:
I accept the consensus on evolution because I looked at the evidence it's based upon and found it convincing.
I don't accept the consensus on the historical Jesus (and hence remain on the fence), because I looked at the evidence and didn't find it convincing.

That's rational. Mindlessly accepting all consensus because of an appeal to authority is idiotic.

It's true, each of us can accept or reject whatever we choose in regards to any consensus. However, when I see people rejecting the consensus of historians, I really do not see much of a difference between them and the young earther who rejects the consensus of the scientific community on the issue of evolution.

But you know ... that's just my opinion.

You have yet to present that convincing evidence that their consensus is based upon and you seem to be quite reluctant to even touch this crucial point. Why is that?

But, well if you're unable to defend your position and instead go on a smear campain, I've got nothing more to say. You've just destroyed the last bit of credibility you might have had.

We've had the Jesus Seminar, the Jesus Project, as well as numerous gatherings of xtian theists discussing this subject many times over the years.