Quote:but a matter of which is more likely.

None of it is likely.

(September 19, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is actually a common misconception. An appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is not an appropriate authority on the subject matter, is an outlier, or is unreasonably biased. Ehrman is therefore an appropriate authority to appeal to.

This is correct.

Quote:Except when it comes to the existence of Jesus, then you simply have doubts for no good reason.

He specifically said 'unless he finds reasons to doubt it'. Come on man.

Quote:I wonder how he did that when science doesn’t deal with proof.

That evolution happens is known. However, you could do with realizing that the colloquial usage of 'proof' simply means 'greatly evidenced'.

Quote:So you began with the assumption that Jesus was not who he claimed to be. Figured as much.

Why would I (or he, in this case) accept an extraordinary claim on its face? Further, why would you assume that any but an adherent would assume anything else? Do YOU start with the assumption that, say, Zeus does exist first, or not? Or to make it historical, Socrates?

Quote:Little in comparison to what?

This seems irrelevant. How about smaller than the averagw Christian would [likely] claim?

Quote:Why would you expect that? Historians did not expect that. What first century historians are you even referring to?

There tends to be recordings of some sort when something extraordinary supposedly happened. However, I don't know whether or not the local culture was necessarily of the sort that they'd record a lot of things in writing.

Quote:
In order to discredit Tacitus you’d have to prove there were other supposed Messiah’s sentenced to death by Pontius Pilot whose followers were known as Christians and who were blamed for the fire in Rome by Nero. Tacitus’ mention of Jesus is exactly what I would expect from a Roman historian.

We know of at least a dozen or so "Messiahs" before, during and after Jesus' supposed lifetime, and there were almost certainly more. Whether or not they were put to death by Pikate I myself don't know, but I don't think it can be claimed that you know that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by Pilate (and the Gospels' portrayal of him is historically inaccurate).

Quote:
And they have.

Not always. Especially if they themselves were Christians when they became scholars/historians of it. That's not to say that they're untrustworthy per se, but more that humans are easily affected by confirmation bias, especially when the belief is a deeply held one.

Quote:Why? Do you reject what Roman historians say about ancient Rome? More special pleading.

His point was obviously that ancient Rome is practically silent on Jesus.

(September 19, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ehrman is therefore an appropriate authority to appeal to.

Even experts are required to provide evidence to support what they believe. "Because I'm the expert and I say so" is not a valid argument. Ehrman needs to do more than assert The Historical Jesus existed. He needs to prove it.

Quote:Except when it comes to the existence of Jesus, then you simply have doubts for no good reason.

"There is no proof" is a perfectly good reason to doubt a claim about a miracle working godman with popular and controversial ministry that nobody paid any attention to.

Quote:I wonder how he did that when science doesn’t deal with proof.

That may be a new signature quote.

Quote:So you began with the assumption that Jesus was not who he claimed to be. Figured as much.

Yes. When presented with claims of woo, I don't believe them. I assume claims of woo to be untrue until presented with evidence.

Quote:Little in comparison to what?

Just for instance, little in comparison to John the Baptist, who had a much smaller ministry with a smaller following and still got a mention in Josephus.

Quote:In order to discredit Tacitus you’d have to prove there were other supposed Messiah’s sentenced to death by Pontius Pilot [sic] whose followers were known as Christians and who were blamed for the fire in Rome by Nero.

Why does being executed by Pilate or persecuted by Nero make a reference in Tacitus more plausible?

Quote:Which historians?

Ehrman, most notably.

Quote:And they have.

When? What? Show me.

Quote:Why? Do you reject what Roman historians say about ancient Rome? More special pleading.

Invalid comparison. Even the most biased of political propaganda is about real events, however much the propaganda may distort them.

Religious propaganda (aka sacred texts), by contrast, is about fantasy and woo. It's about supernatural agents that there's no evidence for doing magical things that there's no evidence ever actually happens, all written about to suit the agenda of a church. In a rational world, all religious texts should be assumed to be mythology unless secular sources or evidence can provide corroboration.

Quote:So you began with the assumption that Jesus was not who he claimed to be.

Dear, dear, Waldork. Your fucking jesus never claimed shit. The men who created him in their various works of fiction wrote words to put in his mouth.....just like every other fictional character. Remember....there is no fucking tangible evidence for your godboy at all. None.

Quote:Why? Do you reject what Roman historians say about ancient Rome? More special pleading.

Of course the reports of Roman historians must be taken with a grain of salt. Are you so credulous that you believe Romulus and Remus were born of a union of Mars and a raped Vestal Virgin and sealed in a basket and thrown on the Tiber to be saved and raised by a she-wolf? When Livy states what was said in the Carthaginian senate as they debated war with Rome do you think that is any more real than your godboy's little soliloquy at Gethsemane?

Anyone who treats ancient writings as completely accurate or unbiased is a fool. I know, when it comes to your fucking bible, that you are one of many fools around here.

(September 19, 2013 at 9:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: ...Dear, dear, Waldork.
...Anyone who treats ancient writings as completely accurate or unbiased is a fool.
...you are one of many fools around here.

The ability to interact civilly is clearly very important.

(September 19, 2013 at 10:37 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 9:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: ...Dear, dear, Waldork.
...Anyone who treats ancient writings as completely accurate or unbiased is a fool.
...you are one of many fools around here.

The ability to interact civilly is clearly very important.

Yes, as the history of your sad religion amply demonstrates.

(September 19, 2013 at 10:37 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 9:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: ...Dear, dear, Waldork.
...Anyone who treats ancient writings as completely accurate or unbiased is a fool.
...you are one of many fools around here.

The ability to interact civilly is clearly very important.

In my experience, those that invoke 'civility' as a term of engagement have given up the argument and are seeking beneficial terms of surrender.

(September 19, 2013 at 10:48 pm)cato123 Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 10:37 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

The ability to interact civilly is clearly very important.

In my experience, those that invoke 'civility' as a term of engagement have given up the argument and are seeking beneficial terms of surrender.

Well, that means I'm fucked. I've tried to be as nice as possible on this forum, but all I've received from Christians is a lot of shallow-minded, arrogant bullshit. I'm not looking to make enemies, but I'm slowly learning that there are no religious "friends" here to make. Or even respect.

(September 19, 2013 at 10:37 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 9:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: ...Dear, dear, Waldork.
...Anyone who treats ancient writings as completely accurate or unbiased is a fool.
...you are one of many fools around here.

The ability to interact civilly is clearly very important.

To be civil to some is to be rude to all the better parts of mankind.

(September 19, 2013 at 11:08 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Well, that means I'm fucked. I've tried to be as nice as possible on this forum, but all I've received from Christians is a lot of shallow-minded, arrogant bullshit. I'm not looking to make enemies, but I'm slowly learning that there are no religious "friends" here to make. Or even respect.

Fucked? Perhaps you deserve it. Instead of being 'nice', try being yourself. AF.org is not a safe haven for politeness. Say what you mean and mean what you say. I've been here for awhile, but I'm ok with the fact that not everybody likes me. Tough shit. I say this regardless of religious affiliation.

In short, get over yourself.