Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
...Regarding the story of Jesus, whatever actually happened I believe is no where near the truth and all we have left is the legend. I am correct about the 'no where near the truth' part, I simply extend it to the entire story since the bulk of the story is fiction. My argument is not unreasonable.
|
It is unreasonable because to this point you have not allowed for even a remote possibility to believe any part of the story of Jesus. You have to this point not made any allowance for the very likely event that the Gospels are grand embellishments of actual events that featured real people. This is the very definition of irrational scepticism.
Quote:
|
We should (I believe) use a bit (a lot) of skepticism about everything.
|
I agree completely and applaud your appeal to the exercise of scepticism in our study of history. But there is a massive difference between the responsible employment of scepticism which allows for a variety of types of historical evidences, and then there is your irrational insistence on an impossible burden of physical proof for the existence of a socially insignificant Jewish peasant. You are not being "a bit" sceptical here: your responses are rather intentionally obtuse.