Proving Jesus existed without the bible...

[Maddhattter]

i wasn't arguing anyone's authority you are, by saying the scholars proved him wrong.

Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

By presenting Atwill's book as evidence, you are claiming that he is correct by his own authority.

Now, just because you've not bothered to actually learn anything about logic, not all appeals to authority are fallacious. When you appeal to a valid authority, in this case actual historians and scholars the likes of Richard Carrier and Thomas Verenna, it is not a fallacious appeal to authority. When you provided evidence from someone who is not a valid authority, like Atwill, you are then engaging in a fallacious appeal to authority.

If you actually knew anything about logic, as a practice, I wouldn't have to spell this out for you because these are the basic fundamentals, which you obviously cannot, or refuse to, grasp.

[Maddhattter]

i'm simply saying i support his premise. then you assumed he is wrong because his credentials aren't as good as the scholars.

Now you actually demonstrate that you either didn't read my post or lack a third grade reading comprehension.

Congratulations.

[racrguy]

look at my fist post!

99 was mine 100 was his

Yeah, I've read them. You're still wrong, he's still right, and he's explained why. You just aren't getting it.

[jnobles06]

You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

By presenting Atwill's book as evidence, you are claiming that he is correct by his own authority.

Now, just because you've not bothered to actually learn anything about logic, not all appeals to authority are fallacious. When you appeal to a valid authority, in this case actual historians and scholars the likes of Richard Carrier and Thomas Verenna, it is not a fallacious appeal to authority. When you provided evidence from someone who is not a valid authority, like Atwill, you are then engaging in a fallacious appeal to authority.

If you actually knew anything about logic, as a practice, I wouldn't have to spell this out for you because these are the basic fundamentals, which you obviously cannot, or refuse to, grasp.

you are deeming what the scholars and historians are saying is true just because they are scholars and historians. you haven't read the book yourself so how can you accurately argue its validity?

[racrguy]

you are deeming what the scholars and historians are saying is true just because they are scholars and historians. you haven't read the book yourself so how can you accurately argue its validity?

This has already been explained. Start at post #99 and go from there.

[Maddhattter]

you are deeming what the scholars and historians are saying is true just because they are scholars and historians.

No, I'm not. I'm accepting valid authorities based on the fact that they have demonstrable credentials and a history of accurate, published, peer-reviewed documentation to support them. That's what you do when you when you use a proper appeal to authority.

you haven't read the book yourself so how can you accurately argue its validity?

Because there's no reason to believe that the author has any clue about what he's talking about. Again, this is how logic and reason are used. If you had even the basest of understanding on logic, this question would never had been answered. Also, when actual historians and scholars have already tackled Atwill's golden cow scat, I don't need to.

I'm not going to quote myself, however, I will gladly link you to a post I made to another poster who felt that their uneducated(on the topic) source should be considered for not justifiable reason....

Here. Considering you've not been able to comprehend the slightest bit of anything I've said in this thread, I doubt this will be much good. However, I don't want to have to type all that up again when it's so readily available.

[jnobles06]

Have I read the book? Irrelevant. There is no reason to believe the man because there is no demonstration that he would know what he was talking about if it hit him in the face. You're the one touting Atwill's book as if he's some kind of an authority on the subject which, of course, he's not. What you seem so intent on not realizing is that there is no reason to believe anything the man has to say on biblical history or historicity.

atwill's book uses the bible which is what christians to believe as fact and "the war of the jews" a book by josephus flavious, titus falvious' family historian which used to be read in conjunction with the bible by early Christians to validate his theory. since the book is being used to disprove the validity of christianity and the existence of jesus he is using the ultimate authority on the subject and and another book that historians accept as truth. if you read it you would know that.

it's not just him, rambling about about some theory

so the fact that you simply dismiss him because of his credentials doesn't mean he is not correct. ergo ad hominem

[Maddhattter]

atwill's book uses the bible which is what christians to believe as fact and "the war of the jews" a book by josephus flavious, titus falvious' family historian which used to be read in conjunction with the bible by early Christians to validate his theory.

I know what the book is about. He made a "documentary" about the stupid thing in 2012. He's assertions were as bad then as they are now.

it's just not him rambling about about some theory

You're correct. It's not a theory at all.

so the fact that you simply dismiss him because of his credentials doesn't mean he is not correct. ergo ad hominem

You never cease to amaze with the depth of your willful ignorance. You could make the Flat Earth Society collectively blush with the insipidity you display.

I've already explained how and why you are wrong, twice. Home schooling couldn't have worked out any worse for you.

[Maddhattter]

since the book is being used to disprove the validity of christianity and the existence of jesus he is using the ultimate authority on the subject and and another book that historians accept as truth. if you read it you would know that.

It's not proving anything to anyone but those who, like Atwill, don't know what their talking about. At least now, I can understand why you support it.

[jnobles06]

you are dismissing someone based on the fact that his credentials aren't as good as the the opposition just because you disagree with his theory, which is textbook ad hominem.

and you keep insulting me the whole time which a completely different fallacy!

[Maddhattter]

you are dismissing someone based on the fact that his credentials aren't as good as the the opposition just because you disagree with his theory, which is textbook ad hominem.

No, it's not. I've explained this and even provided a link to demonstrate your stupidity.

and you keep insulting me the whole time which a completely different fallacy!

No, it's not because I'm not using the fact that you're fucking retarded as evidence that you are wrong. I'm using the fact that you are wrong, explanations of how you are wrong, and links explaining how you are wrong to demonstrate that you're wrong.

The fact that you've got fewer functioning brain cells than Marlise Munoz is just an observation based on your behavior in this thread.

[jnobles06]

Jesus, wasn't an authority in his day either, just the son of a carpenter. The apostles and the writers of the new testament didn't have any impressive credentials either, the ones we know of were fishermen and a tax-collector, according to the bible.

from your ad hominem link

In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer don’t accept (ME), but which you know the listener does accept (YOU), in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of argument ad hominem.

[Maddhattter]

from your ad hominem link

In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer don’t accept, but which you know the listener does accept, in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of argument ad hominem.

You didn't do that, so this is irrelevant. The only thing you've demonstrated as incoherent is yourself.

[jnobles06]

So, you don't know your fallacies. I can help with that.

Let's start with the informal fallacy of A HERRING!

A red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy tha involves bringing up an irrelevant point in order to destract the other person from addressing the actual topic.

Now that we understand what the fallacy is.... I didn't do that.

You brough in Atwill's book as an authoritative topic on the historicity of Jesus. As there is no support to believe that he actually is an authority and published peer-reviewed evidence that he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about, he credentials are relevant and completely absent.

Next we have the formal fallacy of Ad Hominim.

An ad hominim fallacy is a logical fallacy that involves attacking your opponent's character as evidential support that they are wrong.

Hey, I didn't do that either! What I did was demonstrate that your appeal to authority was fallacious by explaining exactly why your source is not an authority on the matter at all.
.

i never said atwill's book was an authority either, you assumed that it was. i offering it up in my my first post as just something to read as "food for thought" so i did not commit an appeal to authority fallacy. Below.

No way i can even begin to explain it all

Read "caesar's messiah" by joseph atwill. it will blow your mind. You should start from the beginning, but it starts getting really interesting around chapters 4-5.

Atwill's book does a pretty damn good job at refuting everything christians were taught about the origin of the bible. So take it as you will. Its food for thought.

my second post was refuting your accusation of appeal to authority using an acceptable ad hominem. per your link

from your ad hominem link. below.

In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer don’t accept (ME), but which you know the listener does accept (YOU), in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of argument ad hominem.

Jesus, wasn't an authority in his day either, just the son of a carpenter. The apostles and the writers of the new testament didn't have any impressive credentials either, the ones we know of were fishermen and a tax-collector, according to the bible.

So what is the difference between me believing Atwill's ACTUAL words versus you believing in a second hand account of multiple sources; that conflict one another, of someone who might have existed 2k years ago?

then your next post you used false premise to refute my acceptable ad hominem. below.

Actually, if Jesus was who he claimed to be, then he would, by definition, have been the ultimate authority. If he wasn't, he was still the ultimate authority on what he felt and believed. So, it would be his credentials as the source of his own words and beliefs that would make him said authority.

[Maddhattter]

i never said atwill's book was an authority either, you assumed that it was. i offering it up in my my first post as just something to read as "food for thought" so i did not commit an appeal to authority fallacy.

You don't have to say that it is. You presented the book as support for your position. That is an appeal to authority. As Atwill demonstrably doesn't know what he's talking about, it's a fallacious appeal to authority.

No matter how many times you refuse to accept reality, it won't change. You'll still be wrong.

my second post was refuting your accusation of appeal to authority using an acceptable ad hominem.

You refuted nothing. You still merely asserted that the book was accurate on the basis that Atwill said it's true. So, you didn't use an acceptable ad hominem. You only demonstrated yourself even more an idiot that was demonstrated by your first post. Given that you presented a premise that I accepted after your introduction and you managed to not demonstrate anything was incoherent aside from yourself, you did not perform an acceptable ad hominem of any kind.

then your next post you used false premise to refute my acceptable ad hominem.

Demonstrate any premise I've used is false. Prove that you're not a liar.

While your edit added a quote from me, you've still not demonstrated a false premise. You've also been explained how what I did was not a false premise and what a false premise actually is.