(December 15, 2014 at 1:54 am)His_Majesty Wrote:(December 14, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Your sample size is too small.
Then more people should start posting.
I'm sure they'll get right on it.
(December 15, 2014 at 1:54 am)His_Majesty Wrote:(December 14, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Ah, so by your very own logic, there are more than 5 billion people who *don't* agree with you.
Wait a minute, there are 5 billion atheists in the world? After all, that is what I was comparing Christianity too.
I'm sorry, what? That isn't what this thread is about. This is about whether or not your precious Jesus was resurrected or not ("The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)", is your thread title, is it not?) The question is related to the number of people who believe THAT claim, versus those who do not - and that *is* in fact what you original question was.
Quit moving the goalposts.
(December 15, 2014 at 1:54 am)His_Majesty Wrote:(December 14, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: And you're still wrong about the facts on that.
No I am not...there are more Christians in this world than atheists.
...after you moved the goalposts.
(December 15, 2014 at 1:54 am)His_Majesty Wrote:(December 14, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: (not that argument ad populum isn't a logical fallacy or anything)
If it is so much of a fallacy, why would you ask me how many people in this thread were convinced of my argument?
The question was related to the effectiveness of your argument. You claimed that it was successful. If it were, you ought to be able to point to at least one reader who was convinced. Yet, you can't.
(December 15, 2014 at 1:54 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Is that argument ad populum? You know, a logical fallacy. I wasn't using it as an initial point, I was only saying that IF you wanted to play that game, then I can play it too.
See my above point, and try for some reading comprehension, Einstein. You might try a measure of intellectual honesty while you're at it.
(December 15, 2014 at 1:54 am)His_Majesty Wrote:(December 14, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: In addition, you also claimed you could present data which supported your claim that most historians believe in a historic Jesus, and I not that you utterly failed to support that claim.
Which I did. I gave a video of Bart Ehrman...a video of Richard Dawkins..and a citation of Robert Price...plus a few quotes from historians...and they all said the same thing...and the interesting thing is, why would Bart, Richard, or Robert make the statement if it wasn't true...after all, they are unbelievers...yet they acknowledge that the con-Historical Jesus view is the minority view.
No, you presented evidence that a few people repeated the same claim. What you didn't do is present evidence that the claim was *in fact true*.
Do you even know what evidence is? You should, several people told you what would be required to prove that claim in that thread.
Your case is weak, kid. But please, do continue knocking over the pieces, shitting on the board, and strutting around victorious.
