Proving Jesus existed without the bible...

[jnobles06]

No, it's not a fallacy at all. You introduced the idea of Jesus only being the son of a carpenter. That creates the assumption of existence and accuracy of the gospels (that was further supported by your statement of who the author's of the gospels were), since something that doesn't exist can't be the son of anything. You introduced the topic, I responded. Again, you claim to understand logic but have consistently been unable to correctly identify a logical argument or fallacy.

i also said according to the bible since that is the basis of his existence.

[jnobles06]

if, is an assumption. not proof.


and you can't base a logical argument on an assumption.

that is why Christian requires faith in the first place.

Faith defined is the belief in something with out proof.

[Maddhattter]

i also said according to the bible since that is the basis of his existence.

Right. You were the one who attributed the bible as a source. So, I stated that if we accept your source, then they would be authorities on what they believed happened. Hence the fact that I added the 'if's and not you.

[racrguy]

yet another fallacy.

there is no book of jesus only second hand accounts by the apostles of what he might have said. so actually jesus never said anything.

if if's and but's were candy and nuts.

Nigga you dumb. You really really dumb.

[Maddhattter]

if, is an assumption. not proof.


and you can't base a logical argument on an assumption

All logical arguments are based on assumptions. They're called premises.

Your ignorance, and the resulting butchering and misapplication, of logic is starting to become physically painful.

[racrguy]

Dude, maddhattter, proof read your shit!

Sail sale sell, kneegrow!

[Maddhattter]

that is why Christian requires faith in the first place.

Faith defined is the belief in something with out proof.

Again, educate yourself on the basic fundamentals of logic. You're doing nothing but spewing idiocy from your face like beer from a tap on St. Patrick's.

[jnobles06]

No, it's not a fallacy at all. You introduced the idea of Jesus only being the son of a carpenter. That creates the assumption of existence and accuracy of the gospels (that was further supported by your statement of who the author's of the gospels were), since something that doesn't exist can't be the son of anything. You introduced the topic, I responded. Again, you claim to understand logic but have consistently been unable to correctly identify a logical argument or fallacy.

since the argument is the existence of jesus, you cant assume he existed to prove your point. that is a fallacy of false primes. i was only humoring your reply to my first post since you were claiming that Atwill's credentials aren't good enough with is ad hominem fallacy instead of actually trying to refute his claim, which isn't surprising since you haven't read his book so how could you even argue it?

[Maddhattter]

since the argument is the existence of jesus, you cant assume he existed to prove your point.

Your refusal to actually be correct seems to know no bounds.

that is a fallacy of false primes.

No, it's not. A false premise is when one of the premises is demonstrably false. You presented a premise, I accepted it. Not only can you not demonstrate that the premise is false, you were the one who introduced the premise.

i was only humoring your reply to my first post

No, you weren't. In fact, the more you blather on, the more you it convinces me that you either didn't read my response, or you're just not capable of reading beyond a third grade level.

since you were claiming that Atwill's credentials aren't good enough with is ad hominem fallacy

No, it's not an ad hominem. I did state that he's not a valid authority on the matter, yes. However, that was nothing but explaining your fallacious appeal to authority. Your ignorance has already been corrected on this matter(twice, now). If you continue to repeat it, I'll have to assume that you're either willfully ignorant, or just a liar.

instead of actually trying to refute his claim, which isn't surprising since you haven't read his book so how could you even argue it?

Because your appeal to authority is fallacious and the actual scholars have already proven him wrong.

[jnobles06]

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.

i never said anything about atwills authority in my fist post you did in yours

[racrguy]

since the argument is the existence of jesus, you cant assume he existed to prove your point. that is a fallacy of false primes. i was only humoring your reply to my first post since you were claiming that Atwill's credentials aren't good enough with is ad hominem fallacy instead of actually trying to refute his claim, which isn't surprising since you haven't read his book so how could you even argue it?

It's not an ad hom, you mouth breathing fucktard. The only fallacy being used is your fallacious appeal to authority.

[jnobles06]

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

[racrguy]

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 do know there's a fallacious appeal to authority and a legitimate appeal to authority, right?

[racrguy]

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

No, it didn't go down like that. You aren't reading what he's saying. Stop reading what you think he's saying, and start reading what he's actually saying.

[jnobles06]

No, it didn't go down like that. You aren't reading what he's saying. Stop reading what you think he's saying, and start reading what he's actually saying.

look at my fist post!

99 was mine 100 was his