RE: Where did the Jesus myth come from?
August 27, 2012 at 11:36 pm
(This post was last modified: August 27, 2012 at 11:37 pm by DeistPaladin.)
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.
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.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist