Originally Posted by Eolas Pellor

Both are, of course, an Appeal to Pity, and an informal fallacy in debate. I think it seriously undermines the validty of Travis' point.

Originally Posted by Eolas Pellor

Just to make this quite clear, an Appeal to pity, or argumentum ad misercordium is identified as an attempt to stir readers/listeners to accapt a specious argument because of the state of the one making the appeal, and not on the merits of the argument being advanced.

Example 1: If elected, XY will be remembered as one of our greatest Presidents. He was wounded in World War II and fought back from paralysis to become the nation's longest-running Senator.

Example 2: We hope you'll accept our recommendations. We spent the last three months working extra time on it.

Example 3: Go ahead and marry that girl and move away. After all, I only carried you in my womb for nine months, with all that morning sickness and labour pain...

Example 4: The jury should find the defendant not guilty of theft, because she is so poor and had to steal food for her children.

Example 5: The jury should find the defendant guilty of murder because the victim was so innocent and defenseless.

Example 6: Mommy, I should not have to ride the bus to school anymore, because it makes me sad when you don't take me to school.

Example 7: Well, I couldn't afford to go to a fancy university and learn big words, like my opponent. That doesn't mean that I am wrong.

Example 8: Yes, X is the most qualified and experienced for this position, but Y is a member of "B", and they were oppressed for 300 years!

Now, the question is, does the quote, "I have admitted that mine is the minority position, here and in other discussions" constitutue an Appeal to Pity? I think it is arguable that it is. ...

Originally Posted by Travis

In Ignatius’ Epistle to Mary:

Originally Posted by Travis

In addition to being unoriginal, plagarizations, and supernatural, there also seems to be some commotion about Jesus “coming in the flesh”. I leave it to the reader to determine whether or not this constitutes serious questioning about “historicity”. So what did our Pagans think of Christianity as a whole? Here is none other than the Emperor Justus on his summations:



And Celsus:




I guess Graham Stanton is right, I couldn’t find the phrase “denied the existence”. But if one is arguing with someone about someone whom you don’t know anything about, but they believe was a real person, does one start out challenging their existence, or simply counter the supposed claims of such a person? Anyway, I don’t think his objection carries quite the weight he believes it does.

Originally Posted by Travis

There is a well-known saying concerning part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the U.S. by Mark Twain:


I’m not quite sure how I shall work myself out of being compared to the series of coin flips, so allow me to get to the heart of the reasoning for stacking this statistical nightmare against me.


And that…


So, let me get this strait, you are willing to admit that despite a very small percentage of it being so, my theory could be right; and in return, I should be willing to admit your position has the highest probability of being correct. I’m sorry, why were we having this debate?

I have admitted that mine is the minority position, here and in other discussions.

(...)

Still, I have to admit, the statistical problem has me quite apprehensive. I wonder if I can improve my percentages a bit, I haven't been able to look at a quarter the same way since Harvey1 published his latest retort.


OK, what if I drop one of the three? The textual cross-reference concerning John the Baptist really doesn't bear that much weight on the overall premise. After all, if I conceded it was original to Josephus (for the statistical argument only), it has little in common with the Biblical account (different date of death, different circumstances surrounding the reasons for beheading, NEVER mentions he meets this Jesus), now I only have two “radical” theories to deal with. I won't go into why each “radical” theory carries the same statistical weight, that is, a direct reference versus an indirect reference, but that should increase my percentages a bit, no?

(...)

So, it would appear, it is not "lay people" versus "scholars", but scholars versus scholars. If we conclude that there are at least three different positions in this argument: orthodox, evemerist (minimal supernatural), and mythicist, by my calculations, I now have a 33.333% chance of being correct. I like those statistics much better. Don't you love numbers?

Originally Posted by Travis

I will admit that the majority not only believes there was an historical Jesus, but also that such a concept is very intrinsic to their worldview, either personally or professionally. I, on the other hand, do not have a lot in the historicity. If credible evidence were proved that pointed towards an historical Jesus, it does not radically change my overall philosophical viewpoint, it would only mean I must surrender this particular argument. If, on the other hand, it were proved Jesus was not historical, the result would be catastrophic to multi-billion dollar operations as well as the dominant assumption in many people’s overall philosophical view. For myself, once again, it does not really affect my economic status one bit. This may or may not hold for my opponent, but to say it wouldn’t have huge implications for the majority of people would be an understatement; whereas, for me, proof of an historical Jesus upsets little in my life. So, this argument could go either way.

Originally Posted by Travis

I am still at a loss why it is even “radical” to suggest information as it has come down to us might not be accurate. It’s not as though I’m suggesting that aliens masqueraded as gods and planted the information. That would indeed be “radical”. All I’m suggesting is that people who had political, religious and economic reasons to proliferate a particular point of view might have done just that. In my experience, this happens all the time.

Originally Posted by Travis

How about this, I am willing to admit that if everything that is disputed as spurious, interpolated, or outright fabrications are indeed absolutely true, and that the Church, over centuries of complete academic control, showed absolutely no bias in contending their authenticity either way, that the probability is very high there was an historical Jesus.

(...)

Now, I am more than willing to go over these so-called evidences one by one which the Church has had centuries of stacking its own cards. But, if you are asking me to state your position has a higher probability than mine, I’m afraid my answer is, that is exactly what we are debating and you are basically asking me to concede by virtue of popularity. I’m afraid I must decline.