No probs, DP, I'm frequently mistaken for being absent..!

Actually, it's encouraging to know I was making more sense to others than I was to myself...

(August 27, 2012 at 10:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Even then there won't necessarily be an ad hominem attack.

It's a question of "intent," Stim. When I decide to tell them off the intent will be clear.

Yes, I'd spotted that from time to time...

(August 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm)Atom Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm)cratehorus Wrote: Jesus was not a real person, so where did this Jesus myth come from? Was it based on a single other faith? Was it a combination of other faiths? Or was it completely invented out of nothing?

Here is Bart Ehrman answering your question. It seems he and virtually all academic historians disagree with the presupposition that Jesus was not a real person.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...F0AY#t=12s

So that all the distractions don't obscure the topic I'll restate it.
Bart Ehrman states the following:

"I don't think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus".

"I don't think it was more than one person, I mean, I think there was a historical Jesus..."

I offer the testimony of the Christian-hostile expert witness, Bart Ehrman, saying that Jesus was a real person and stating that "no serious historian" doubts this.

Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, I have argued a position and provided strong evidence to support it: Specifically "Jesus was a real person". I don't claim this to be a proof, just very strong evidence. I've provided other evidence, but this argument is the one I'm waiting to see refuted.

The claim "Jesus was a real person" is, as you rightly recognise, not a proof. Unfortunately, it's not even evidence, strong or otherwise; it's simply a claim.

To illustrate: The claim that "Bart Simpson murdered his father" (it could happen!) is neither evidence nor proof that Bart Simpson murdered his father. Imagine such a case going to trial and the kinds of legal arguments on both sides that would ensue. That's where your evidence comes into play. Simply dragging the accused into court and saying "this spiky-haired little boy murdered his father" will not, by itself, result in the judge immediately saying "Ok, fair enough. Bart Simpson, I sentence you to life imprisonment" or whatever. When you understand why that is so and why it must be so, maybe you'll be a step closer to understanding our position regarding your claims.

(August 27, 2012 at 10:55 pm)Atom Wrote:

(August 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm)Atom Wrote: Here is Bart Ehrman answering your question. It seems he and virtually all academic historians disagree with the presupposition that Jesus was not a real person.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...F0AY#t=12s

So that all the distractions don't obscure the topic I'll restate it.
Bart Ehrman states the following:

"I don't think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus".

"I don't think it was more than one person, I mean, I think there was a historical Jesus..."

I offer the testimony of the Christian-hostile expert witness, Bart Ehrman, saying that Jesus was a real person and stating that "no serious historian" doubts this.

Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, I have argued a position and provided strong evidence to support it: Specifically "Jesus was a real person". I don't claim this to be a proof, just very strong evidence. I've provided other evidence, but this argument is the one I'm waiting to see refuted.

Strong evidence? All you've stated is that Bart Erhman thinks there was a historical Jesus. That's it. If I can produce just one 'serious historian' that concludes that Jesus is not a historical figure, your argument falls apart. I would hardly consider this 'strong' evidence.

I can do this, but you are missing the broader consideration. If I grant you a historical Jesus, what do you think 'serious' historians think regarding this dude's divinity? I suppose at this point you will jettison the previously useful tribe known as historians.

Atom, many Sai Baba devotees claim that Sai Baba was a god reincarnated. Would that qualify as strong evidence for a god?

Including your pet Erhman.

I remember that episode. It was painful to listen to. Bart Ehrman kept saying "all the scholars say..." "No serious scholar doubts..." "the scholars believe..." etc but kept refusing to offer any evidence outside the Bible.

I call this the "Scholars Say Shuffle".

I've said it before and I'll say it again, even scholars need to provide evidence for what they believe and why.

I have an eighteen-inch penis. There you, all the strong evidence you need.

How to dance the "scholars say shuffle" when defending the existence of the "historical Jesus".

Step 1: The Ad Hominem
Dismiss the skeptic as a "crackpot". Group them in with Dan Brown, Holocaust deniers or other conspiracy theorists. The best way to win the argument is to not have it but, if you must, make all kinds of inappropriate comparisons. It may help you shove the burden of proof on them.

Step 2: Appeal to Authority
If you are unsuccessful at discouraging the skeptic, if they keep making pesky demands for evidence, just keep saying "all the scholars say..." and hope that substitutes for proof.

Step 3: No True Scotsman
If the skeptic points out some scholars like Robert Price doubt the existence of a historical Jesus, clarify your statement about scholarly consensus with "no SERIOUS scholars doubt that..."

Step 4: Pad the Resume
Do not go to this step unless absolutely necessary. Stay inside of steps 2 and 3 as long as you can to draw out the debate. The evidence is really thin so don't go there until the skeptic and the audience is worn down.

If the skeptic stays on top of you demanding evidence, trot out the usual suspects: Tacitus, Josephus and the Talmud. If the skeptic is savvy enough to point out all the problems with each of these, dance back to step 2 with "well, the scholars don't agree with you."

Step 5: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
Hit the "reset" button at the first opportunity. Go back to step 1 and repeat as necessary until the skeptic gets tired and gives up.

(August 27, 2012 at 11:18 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I have an eighteen-inch penis. There you, all the strong evidence you need.

Don't you faint every time you get an erection, or do you just fall over?'

I really empthasise, I had those problems, plus tripping over or sitting on my scrotum. Of course, that was before the operations. (five)

---

(August 27, 2012 at 11:11 pm)Forsaken Wrote: Atom, many Sai Baba devotees claim that Sai Baba was a god reincarnated. Would that qualify as strong evidence for a god?

That guys is a real hoot.


One of his tricks is making things materialise out of thin air; his rich followers get gold watches, the poor ones get flowers.