Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

False analogy. Statistics such as smoking statistics are empirical findings. They're not opinions....

It is not a false analogy. Epidemiology is the analysis of such statistics. They are most certainly opinions. Even well-informed, professional, expert opinions are nonetheless - opinions.

I misread what you wrote. I thought you were saying that the raw data collected on smoking is equivalent to a collection of opinions of scholars in the field of historical investigation.

There's no fallacy in using such statistics in that way if it's agreed that the findings, research, and conclusion are reliable. It would be fallacious though to say that smoking is bad for the fetus because researches said so. That's again an appeal to authority or majority. And it would be equally fallacious to counter somebody who is arguing that smoking isn't bad for the fetus with the argument that "well, that's not majority thinks therefore you're wrong."

...Television ratings aren't used to determine whether a show is truly "good" but whether show is getting enough viewers to make profit.

Yes they are. Thats exactly what they are used for.
Ratings = profit = good.
Poor ratings = less profit (no advertiser demand) = bad.
Good ratings confer a Darwinian survival advantage. That's how you determine what a good show is.

You're equivocating. You're using "good" in an situation where it means "makes more money" and then concluding that this means that the show is "good" in the sense that it fulfills artistic values.

...Peer review is great. It helps keep bad research out of journals but that by itself does not mean the research and its conclusions is correct.

Hang on. A few seconds ago you said ..."False analogy. Statistics such as smoking statistics are empirical findings. They're not opinions...."

Smoking statistics ARE the result of research. Epidemiology seeks tentative expert conclusions. Expert peers can form a consensus and there is no logical fallacy in appealing to majority expert consensus.

The research and/or conclusions from the research could possibly be flawed and the consensus may not have realized yet. They're not infallible. So you can still can't say "x is true" because "90 percent of scholars agree."

...But ultimately the reason I may side with a consensus is not because the consensus is a consensus but because they make much better arguments than the minority....

Thats exactly what Atom was doing in relation to the majority of bible scholars including Mr Ehrman.

Yeah, and then he started using appeal to consensus and authority.