why is this relevant?
Did you know that Jesus never existed, even as a man?
-
I'm agnostic, but there's a lot of faulty logic going on here.
There's zero serious evidence he actually existed. Surprising, but true.Lol, it's faulty logic to claim there's a lack of evidence? Oh, are you about to write "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" like a rube before I have to explain Bayes Rule to you?
Oh, well, if you're going to throw some Bayesian that you learned last week in your grad seminar at me ..... I submit!
-
I'm agnostic, but there's a lot of faulty logic going on here.
There's zero serious evidence he actually existed. Surprising, but true.
Lol, it's faulty logic to claim there's a lack of evidence? Oh, are you about to write "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" like a rube before I have to explain Bayes Rule to you?
Oh, well, if you're going to throw some Bayesian that you learned last week in your grad seminar at me ..... I submit!Pretty sure you just got owned since you were supposed to show "faulty logic" but apparently can't. Maybe keep quiet next time and avoid the embarrassment?
-
Note the total inability to respond with evidence. Not surprising since there is none.
You may want to start here. Michael Grant (1977), Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. After you have read it, I'd be interested to know why the evidence Grant reviews is invalid.
-
I'm agnostic, but there's a lot of faulty logic going on here.
There's zero serious evidence he actually existed. Surprising, but true.
Lol, it's faulty logic to claim there's a lack of evidence? Oh, are you about to write "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" like a rube before I have to explain Bayes Rule to you?
Oh, well, if you're going to throw some Bayesian that you learned last week in your grad seminar at me ..... I submit!Pretty sure you just got owned since you were supposed to show "faulty logic" but apparently can't. Maybe keep quiet next time and avoid the embarrassment?
You can’t prove a negative smart a$$, but go ahead and amaze us with your Bayesian genius.
-
Note the total inability to respond with evidence. Not surprising since there is none.
You may want to start here. Michael Grant (1977), Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. After you have read it, I'd be interested to know why the evidence Grant reviews is invalid.I assume by vaguely referencing a book that means you can't cite any evidence yourself.
Pretty standard. Christians are among the least likely to understand or examine the historicity because deep down they know there's nothing there and it terrifies them.
-
Philosophically, Jesus Christ is a very interesting, attractive figure -- non-judgement of others; hostile to class inequality as well as greed; the rejection of theocracy. Right-wing Christians are not Christians at all -- as they disregard the putative teachings of Christ himself.