No. It’s much closer to reducto at absurdum. Yours is an attempt at redirection.
In case you weren’t around, a quick recap is as follows: you stated that there’s no evidence for Jesus. I countered that there’s sketchy evidence for a lot of things in the ancient world. You implied that there is, I think. I gave the example of multiple Persian kings who we have only about one line about even existing (I’m also now going to add the entire writings of Herodotus to my argument), and clarified my position by stating that while we have ample evidence for the human commonly known as “Jesus of Nazareth” existing and being crucified, I don’t personally believe that he was a real life demigod. You gave an unsourced account of a guy named Paul leading an unspecified and unnumbered group of people at some point, and now we’re here. Did I miss anything?
Look dude, I’m not going to go find primary sources over this to make my argument. The entire contemporary historical community, which is full of a lot of very skeptical and liberally minded people basically agrees that the current iteration of the Christian faith was started by a real person named Jesus who lived in Nazareth. The exact validity of his stories, and many, but not actually all of the accounts of the events and people surrounding him are what is under question. You should spend some time outside of your Echo chamber, the air gets really stuffy in there and it makes it hard to think clearly. The term is “skeptic” not “denier”.
Go read the Wikipedia page about Herodotus, and why he is called both the ‘Father of History’, and the ‘Father of Lies’, and then come back. Be ready to answer questions about what you read. I can’t have a well organized debate with a walking Dunning-Kruger Effect, because you think you’re making valid points when you’re not. Ignorance is not a crime, only the willful maintenance of it. I can’t teach you an entire course on the history of the ancient world over this medium, but I’m happy to point you to places where you can educate yourself and help guide your learning.
Oh and by the way, The subjects under the reign of a king are a “social group”, and therefore are captured under the first definition of the word “culture”. Furthermore, the term “workplace culture” is a commonly used and accepted term for the accepted and expected behavior of the people at a particular place of employment. English is a fluid, living language
No. Because you’re jaq’ing off. Perhaps literally to your perceived victory, however in this context, it is not so much a logical fallacy, as a political maneuver, and a different type of deflecting, which stands for “Just Asking Questions”. You’ve offered virtually no evidence in favor of your argument, while you ask several short questions in a row that sound persuasive, but take an extremely asymmetrical amount of time to answer appropriately. An often cited example being when the flat earthers ask “If the earth was round, why don’t airliners ever fly over the North Pole?” In reality, there are several very good reasons why they don’t fly over the North Pole ranging from the concept of great arcs on a spherical planet, to longstanding international treaties, but it takes about 10 minutes to explain all that, after which the flat earth or will usually say something like “Do you have any proof for any of that?” At which point the second party will usually just give up and walk away, wherein the flat earth or will strut around with the level of victorious satisfaction that is also seen in a Boomer who “Really gave that telemarketer an earful”, but in actuality accomplished nothing.
So no. If you refuse to give any reasonable arguments for your case, do any of the independent reading I’ve recommended from well respected professionals in the field, and insist on redefining commonly used words to fit your position, then I cannot help you. You are exhibiting the same dogmatic insistence that’s a Hallmark of the religious fundamentalists that you seem to be arguing against. You’re not using deductive reasoning and logic, or any evidence to come to the conclusion that you espouse. You’re starting with the sertitude that you are correct, and then bending logic into a pretzel to make that the case. I’m sure you’ll make a great politician someday.
No. It’s much closer to reducto at absurdum. Yours is an attempt at redirection.
In case you weren’t around, a quick recap is as follows: you stated that there’s no evidence for Jesus. I countered that there’s sketchy evidence for a lot of things in the ancient world. You implied that there is, I think. I gave the example of multiple Persian kings who we have only about one line about even existing (I’m also now going to add the entire writings of Herodotus to my argument), and clarified my position by stating that while we have ample evidence for the human commonly known as “Jesus of Nazareth” existing and being crucified, I don’t personally believe that he was a real life demigod. You gave an unsourced account of a guy named Paul leading an unspecified and unnumbered group of people at some point, and now we’re here. Did I miss anything?
Look dude, I’m not going to go find primary sources over this to make my argument. The entire contemporary historical community, which is full of a lot of very skeptical and liberally minded people basically agrees that the current iteration of the Christian faith was started by a real person named Jesus who lived in Nazareth. The exact validity of his stories, and many, but not actually all of the accounts of the events and people surrounding him are what is under question. You should spend some time outside of your Echo chamber, the air gets really stuffy in there and it makes it hard to think clearly. The term is “skeptic” not “denier”.
You said that there were entire cultures I asked you to name one and you goalpost shifted to kings. Name me the culture.
The reign of a king can be considered a culture. It’s a very loosely defined term.
Please provide a citation for this assertion.
The Oxford English dictionary. Is bibliography.com still a thing?
Just checked it and doesn’t say anything about a reign of a single king being one of the definitions for culture.
Want to try again? Tell me the culture that is accepted by scholars that has less evidence of existing compared to your buddy Jesus of Nazareth.
Go read the Wikipedia page about Herodotus, and why he is called both the ‘Father of History’, and the ‘Father of Lies’, and then come back. Be ready to answer questions about what you read. I can’t have a well organized debate with a walking Dunning-Kruger Effect, because you think you’re making valid points when you’re not. Ignorance is not a crime, only the willful maintenance of it. I can’t teach you an entire course on the history of the ancient world over this medium, but I’m happy to point you to places where you can educate yourself and help guide your learning.
Oh and by the way, The subjects under the reign of a king are a “social group”, and therefore are captured under the first definition of the word “culture”. Furthermore, the term “workplace culture” is a commonly used and accepted term for the accepted and expected behavior of the people at a particular place of employment. English is a fluid, living language
Deflecting, deal with the argument.
No. Because you’re jaq’ing off. Perhaps literally to your perceived victory, however in this context, it is not so much a logical fallacy, as a political maneuver, and a different type of deflecting, which stands for “Just Asking Questions”. You’ve offered virtually no evidence in favor of your argument, while you ask several short questions in a row that sound persuasive, but take an extremely asymmetrical amount of time to answer appropriately. An often cited example being when the flat earthers ask “If the earth was round, why don’t airliners ever fly over the North Pole?” In reality, there are several very good reasons why they don’t fly over the North Pole ranging from the concept of great arcs on a spherical planet, to longstanding international treaties, but it takes about 10 minutes to explain all that, after which the flat earth or will usually say something like “Do you have any proof for any of that?” At which point the second party will usually just give up and walk away, wherein the flat earth or will strut around with the level of victorious satisfaction that is also seen in a Boomer who “Really gave that telemarketer an earful”, but in actuality accomplished nothing.
So no. If you refuse to give any reasonable arguments for your case, do any of the independent reading I’ve recommended from well respected professionals in the field, and insist on redefining commonly used words to fit your position, then I cannot help you. You are exhibiting the same dogmatic insistence that’s a Hallmark of the religious fundamentalists that you seem to be arguing against. You’re not using deductive reasoning and logic, or any evidence to come to the conclusion that you espouse. You’re starting with the sertitude that you are correct, and then bending logic into a pretzel to make that the case. I’m sure you’ll make a great politician someday.