I have recently come across some Xtians that claim;
"the majority of historians believe there is evidence for Jesus Christ's existence"
Some have referenced the Wikipedia Article "The Historicity of Jesus" attempting to use it as evidence that this so called "majority of historians" believe Jesus existed.
Does anybody have more information to help refute this?
I have recently come across some Xtians that claim;
"the majority of historians believe there is evidence for Jesus Christ's existence"
Some have referenced the Wikipedia Article "The Historicity of Jesus" attempting to use it as evidence that this so called "majority of historians" believe Jesus existed.
Does anybody have more information to help refute this?
Here is one for you. There is no evidence AT ALL that jesus existed.
On Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:07 AM, "Lord Kayle lord.kayle2@... " wrote:
I have recently come across some Xtians that claim;
"the majority of historians believe there is evidence for Jesus Christ's existence"
Some have referenced the Wikipedia Article "The Historicity of Jesus" attempting to use it as evidence that this so called "majority of historians" believe Jesus existed.
Does anybody have more information to help refute this?
Here is one for you. There is no evidence AT ALL that jesus existed.
On Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:07 AM, "Lord Kayle lord.kayle2@... " wrote:
I have recently come across some Xtians that claim;
"the majority of historians believe there is evidence for Jesus Christ's existence"
Some have referenced the Wikipedia Article "The Historicity of Jesus" attempting to use it as evidence that this so called "majority of historians" believe Jesus existed.
Does anybody have more information to help refute this?
It's true that the majority of historians do believe that. However, they do that on pure bias, they totally disregard evidence against it since they are either xians or in the case of few atheists or agnostics, they do that because that's what they grew up from xianity to believe.
Note that this argument is a logical fallacy. It's a combination "appeal to authority" and "appeal to the masses". Appealing to historians doesn't really prove anything. Just tell them if they really want to argue without fallacies, they should give evidence, not merely appealing to what historians believe.
It's true that the majority of historians do believe that. However, they do that on pure bias, they totally disregard evidence against it since they are either xians or in the case of few atheists or agnostics, they do that because that's what they grew up from xianity to believe.
Note that this argument is a logical fallacy. It's a combination "appeal to authority" and "appeal to the masses". Appealing to historians doesn't really prove anything. Just tell them if they really want to argue without fallacies, they should give evidence, not merely appealing to what historians believe.
@karthikkasyap84: They also believe Colombus discovered America, that the Druids and Norsemen were illitarate barbarians and that all humans came from a pair of common ancestors in Africa. LOL.
@karthikkasyap84: They also believe Colombus discovered America, that the Druids and Norsemen were illitarate barbarians and that all humans came from a pair of common ancestors in Africa. LOL.