Overly Scrutinous
@ikanteven.bsky.social
Loves to argue about Philosophy, Law, anything really.
I literally have a degree each in law and philosophy. I don't think I'm bad at language.
You're making an incredibly minute and pointless distinction where almost anyone is going to understand those two statements as equivalent because the operative word in the two is "like", as in roughly similar.
You're making an incredibly minute and pointless distinction where almost anyone is going to understand those two statements as equivalent because the operative word in the two is "like", as in roughly similar.
November 30, 2024 at 7:00 PM
I literally have a degree each in law and philosophy. I don't think I'm bad at language.
You're making an incredibly minute and pointless distinction where almost anyone is going to understand those two statements as equivalent because the operative word in the two is "like", as in roughly similar.
You're making an incredibly minute and pointless distinction where almost anyone is going to understand those two statements as equivalent because the operative word in the two is "like", as in roughly similar.
The Romans are famed for literally having detailed records about all this stuff. Tacitus explicitly references the name and rank of the guy who ordered the execution of Jesus.
You are literally trolling.
You are literally trolling.
November 30, 2024 at 4:30 PM
The Romans are famed for literally having detailed records about all this stuff. Tacitus explicitly references the name and rank of the guy who ordered the execution of Jesus.
You are literally trolling.
You are literally trolling.
I think you just intentionally miss the point so you can continue your ignorance.
The point is that cults only gain notoriety from flashy events and their worshipers growing in number. So it's entirely unexpected that we'd get more recounts about Jesus AFTER his death and only then.
The point is that cults only gain notoriety from flashy events and their worshipers growing in number. So it's entirely unexpected that we'd get more recounts about Jesus AFTER his death and only then.
November 30, 2024 at 4:19 PM
I think you just intentionally miss the point so you can continue your ignorance.
The point is that cults only gain notoriety from flashy events and their worshipers growing in number. So it's entirely unexpected that we'd get more recounts about Jesus AFTER his death and only then.
The point is that cults only gain notoriety from flashy events and their worshipers growing in number. So it's entirely unexpected that we'd get more recounts about Jesus AFTER his death and only then.
Because, as I claimed before, Jesus' influence was almost entirely posthumous. His martyrdom was what allowed early Christianity to spread. You don't hear about small cults and their activities, unless they do something big and dramatic, or start growing in size.
November 30, 2024 at 4:03 PM
Because, as I claimed before, Jesus' influence was almost entirely posthumous. His martyrdom was what allowed early Christianity to spread. You don't hear about small cults and their activities, unless they do something big and dramatic, or start growing in size.
Yes, I'm sure Tacitus was quoting the bible when he made his accounts.
Also, don't you claim you believe Jesus existed because it makes more sense as a basis for a mythology? If you've got nothing to argue for except to stroke your dick about nothing, then you're just incredibly boring.
Also, don't you claim you believe Jesus existed because it makes more sense as a basis for a mythology? If you've got nothing to argue for except to stroke your dick about nothing, then you're just incredibly boring.
November 30, 2024 at 4:00 PM
Yes, I'm sure Tacitus was quoting the bible when he made his accounts.
Also, don't you claim you believe Jesus existed because it makes more sense as a basis for a mythology? If you've got nothing to argue for except to stroke your dick about nothing, then you're just incredibly boring.
Also, don't you claim you believe Jesus existed because it makes more sense as a basis for a mythology? If you've got nothing to argue for except to stroke your dick about nothing, then you're just incredibly boring.
You refute by impossibility, or you argue that the evidence is false/mistaken/doesn't say what people claim it does.
For example, you say "Josephus's account was tampered with by early Christians", and if sufficiently warranted would remove that evidence from use.
For example, you say "Josephus's account was tampered with by early Christians", and if sufficiently warranted would remove that evidence from use.
November 30, 2024 at 3:57 PM
You refute by impossibility, or you argue that the evidence is false/mistaken/doesn't say what people claim it does.
For example, you say "Josephus's account was tampered with by early Christians", and if sufficiently warranted would remove that evidence from use.
For example, you say "Josephus's account was tampered with by early Christians", and if sufficiently warranted would remove that evidence from use.
You're providing evidence and reasoning, so you're avoiding that flaw at least in this regard.
This guy is just being absolutely dogmatic about it, however, and refusing to provide evidence or support, and instead is navel gazing about hypothetical possibilities.
This guy is just being absolutely dogmatic about it, however, and refusing to provide evidence or support, and instead is navel gazing about hypothetical possibilities.
November 30, 2024 at 3:50 PM
You're providing evidence and reasoning, so you're avoiding that flaw at least in this regard.
This guy is just being absolutely dogmatic about it, however, and refusing to provide evidence or support, and instead is navel gazing about hypothetical possibilities.
This guy is just being absolutely dogmatic about it, however, and refusing to provide evidence or support, and instead is navel gazing about hypothetical possibilities.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it do a basic, cursory search to look at the evidence that might challenge its position.
November 30, 2024 at 3:30 PM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it do a basic, cursory search to look at the evidence that might challenge its position.
Okay, but what if they point to multiple people around the same time who in disparate areas and with different ideological motivations say "Yeah, this guy existed"? Multiple corroborating witnesses/experts make for a harder to refute position, does it not?
November 30, 2024 at 2:26 PM
Okay, but what if they point to multiple people around the same time who in disparate areas and with different ideological motivations say "Yeah, this guy existed"? Multiple corroborating witnesses/experts make for a harder to refute position, does it not?
My point is you take people at their word daily for things. Climate change, food/water safety, general day to day information. You're digging in your heels here against the evidence because you have an ideological axe to grind. You give hypothetical reasons to disbelieve, but not positive evidence.
November 30, 2024 at 2:21 PM
My point is you take people at their word daily for things. Climate change, food/water safety, general day to day information. You're digging in your heels here against the evidence because you have an ideological axe to grind. You give hypothetical reasons to disbelieve, but not positive evidence.
Damn those pre-Constantinian Romans and their bias in favor Christianity! They're so biased in favor of Jesus and his religion, they fed his supporters to lions and outright tried to outlaw their worship! Wait...
November 30, 2024 at 2:15 PM
Damn those pre-Constantinian Romans and their bias in favor Christianity! They're so biased in favor of Jesus and his religion, they fed his supporters to lions and outright tried to outlaw their worship! Wait...
*There
You're trying to make a 5D chess move, but undermine your own argument. Let me know when you start testing your food for poison. Side note, presumably you believe climate change exists, but haven't gathered and analyzed the data yourself. Stop being a hypocrite.
You're trying to make a 5D chess move, but undermine your own argument. Let me know when you start testing your food for poison. Side note, presumably you believe climate change exists, but haven't gathered and analyzed the data yourself. Stop being a hypocrite.
November 30, 2024 at 2:13 PM
*There
You're trying to make a 5D chess move, but undermine your own argument. Let me know when you start testing your food for poison. Side note, presumably you believe climate change exists, but haven't gathered and analyzed the data yourself. Stop being a hypocrite.
You're trying to make a 5D chess move, but undermine your own argument. Let me know when you start testing your food for poison. Side note, presumably you believe climate change exists, but haven't gathered and analyzed the data yourself. Stop being a hypocrite.
You literally take for granted that principle every day by assuming everything you read and hear for the most part is generally true. I don't see you performing chemical analysis to make sure your food isn't poisoned.
Still waiting on the evidence otherwise btw.
Still waiting on the evidence otherwise btw.
November 30, 2024 at 11:52 AM
You literally take for granted that principle every day by assuming everything you read and hear for the most part is generally true. I don't see you performing chemical analysis to make sure your food isn't poisoned.
Still waiting on the evidence otherwise btw.
Still waiting on the evidence otherwise btw.
This really is the most incredibly petty answer. Yes, there is SOME dispute, but it's much more fringe and the evidence DOES point almost entirely toward his existence.
However, mere dispute doesn't undermine the much more likely position being likely true.
However, mere dispute doesn't undermine the much more likely position being likely true.
November 30, 2024 at 11:50 AM
This really is the most incredibly petty answer. Yes, there is SOME dispute, but it's much more fringe and the evidence DOES point almost entirely toward his existence.
However, mere dispute doesn't undermine the much more likely position being likely true.
However, mere dispute doesn't undermine the much more likely position being likely true.
What point would a Roman historian have to lie about what was then a cult? At least with Josephus, there's reason to believe his were tampered with. No such reason with Tacitus.
So in light of evidence otherwise, why should we doubt otherwise? You STILL haven't given a reason otherwise.
So in light of evidence otherwise, why should we doubt otherwise? You STILL haven't given a reason otherwise.
November 30, 2024 at 11:45 AM
What point would a Roman historian have to lie about what was then a cult? At least with Josephus, there's reason to believe his were tampered with. No such reason with Tacitus.
So in light of evidence otherwise, why should we doubt otherwise? You STILL haven't given a reason otherwise.
So in light of evidence otherwise, why should we doubt otherwise? You STILL haven't given a reason otherwise.
It's not overwhelmingly conclusive, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.
Either Jesus existed, or he didn't. There IS a definite answer. And we have proof that indicates the former.
As well, you still haven't given ANY reason to believe he didn't, just a nebulous "we don't know for sure".
Either Jesus existed, or he didn't. There IS a definite answer. And we have proof that indicates the former.
As well, you still haven't given ANY reason to believe he didn't, just a nebulous "we don't know for sure".
November 30, 2024 at 11:42 AM
It's not overwhelmingly conclusive, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.
Either Jesus existed, or he didn't. There IS a definite answer. And we have proof that indicates the former.
As well, you still haven't given ANY reason to believe he didn't, just a nebulous "we don't know for sure".
Either Jesus existed, or he didn't. There IS a definite answer. And we have proof that indicates the former.
As well, you still haven't given ANY reason to believe he didn't, just a nebulous "we don't know for sure".
He never mentions him by name, but he mentions him by title, as well as accurately identifying the name of the guy who is to have ordered the crucifixion.
Even if it's after the fact, he had access to the records, which WERE direct reports, and he was recording history. No reason to lie, so...
Even if it's after the fact, he had access to the records, which WERE direct reports, and he was recording history. No reason to lie, so...
November 30, 2024 at 11:38 AM
He never mentions him by name, but he mentions him by title, as well as accurately identifying the name of the guy who is to have ordered the crucifixion.
Even if it's after the fact, he had access to the records, which WERE direct reports, and he was recording history. No reason to lie, so...
Even if it's after the fact, he had access to the records, which WERE direct reports, and he was recording history. No reason to lie, so...
Ignoring you can prove non-existence even in classical logic, what's your argument why we should disregard what evidence does exist then?
Surely you must have some compelling reasons for not believing it to be valid? Unless you're just talking out your ass of course.
Surely you must have some compelling reasons for not believing it to be valid? Unless you're just talking out your ass of course.
November 30, 2024 at 11:35 AM
Ignoring you can prove non-existence even in classical logic, what's your argument why we should disregard what evidence does exist then?
Surely you must have some compelling reasons for not believing it to be valid? Unless you're just talking out your ass of course.
Surely you must have some compelling reasons for not believing it to be valid? Unless you're just talking out your ass of course.
Damn, so where's your proof?
November 30, 2024 at 11:21 AM
Damn, so where's your proof?
Except all those historical documents and historians I've mentioned, like Tacitus.
But I'm sure you know better than a guy who had direct access to the records and attested to it, as well as the majority of historians who've looked at the evidence. You've still cited no evidence, by the way.
But I'm sure you know better than a guy who had direct access to the records and attested to it, as well as the majority of historians who've looked at the evidence. You've still cited no evidence, by the way.
November 30, 2024 at 11:21 AM
Except all those historical documents and historians I've mentioned, like Tacitus.
But I'm sure you know better than a guy who had direct access to the records and attested to it, as well as the majority of historians who've looked at the evidence. You've still cited no evidence, by the way.
But I'm sure you know better than a guy who had direct access to the records and attested to it, as well as the majority of historians who've looked at the evidence. You've still cited no evidence, by the way.
Yeah, you've made many. But okay, enjoy your unwarranted ego over any position you've taken in this thread.
November 30, 2024 at 11:07 AM
Yeah, you've made many. But okay, enjoy your unwarranted ego over any position you've taken in this thread.
Ah, so let's ask the random guy on the street who is talking out of their ass. That's much better evidence right?
November 30, 2024 at 11:06 AM
Ah, so let's ask the random guy on the street who is talking out of their ass. That's much better evidence right?
Experts also built literally the entirety of civilization including technology.
You can admit you've made a mistake, you're not showing anyone how smart you are by stupidly digging in your heels and thinking you're superior than most historians from your armchair. Take the L and move on.
You can admit you've made a mistake, you're not showing anyone how smart you are by stupidly digging in your heels and thinking you're superior than most historians from your armchair. Take the L and move on.
November 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM
Experts also built literally the entirety of civilization including technology.
You can admit you've made a mistake, you're not showing anyone how smart you are by stupidly digging in your heels and thinking you're superior than most historians from your armchair. Take the L and move on.
You can admit you've made a mistake, you're not showing anyone how smart you are by stupidly digging in your heels and thinking you're superior than most historians from your armchair. Take the L and move on.
No. If I said "It would have looked like", your answer is understood that it's being used as an exemplar. "Like" necessarily states that it means similar to.
If I said something is "like" clay, I'm not saying it IS clay, I'm saying it shares roughly similar properties on the whole.
If I said something is "like" clay, I'm not saying it IS clay, I'm saying it shares roughly similar properties on the whole.
November 30, 2024 at 9:28 AM
No. If I said "It would have looked like", your answer is understood that it's being used as an exemplar. "Like" necessarily states that it means similar to.
If I said something is "like" clay, I'm not saying it IS clay, I'm saying it shares roughly similar properties on the whole.
If I said something is "like" clay, I'm not saying it IS clay, I'm saying it shares roughly similar properties on the whole.
Yes. It also calls in expert opinion.
Expert opinion, like Tacitus, who had no reason to be biased and had direct access to more complete records than modern historians, says that Jesus existed. Most historians in general also agree he existed.
So why are you undermining your own position?
Expert opinion, like Tacitus, who had no reason to be biased and had direct access to more complete records than modern historians, says that Jesus existed. Most historians in general also agree he existed.
So why are you undermining your own position?
November 30, 2024 at 9:25 AM
Yes. It also calls in expert opinion.
Expert opinion, like Tacitus, who had no reason to be biased and had direct access to more complete records than modern historians, says that Jesus existed. Most historians in general also agree he existed.
So why are you undermining your own position?
Expert opinion, like Tacitus, who had no reason to be biased and had direct access to more complete records than modern historians, says that Jesus existed. Most historians in general also agree he existed.
So why are you undermining your own position?