Someone once put together a book titled, “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein.” Einstein dismissed the book with the quip, “Why one hundred? If I were really wrong, they’d only need one.”
Sounds like a colossal reach at best, and pathetic cope at worst.
You understand the colossal differences between multiple independent journalists researching and reporting on the same topic, and a large organized group of pseudointellectuals trying to disprove a single person based on vibes alone, right?
You seem to be very desperately, and pathetically holding onto a form of fallacy of composition:
And you’ve read zero of them.
Sounds like cope
Someone once put together a book titled, “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein.” Einstein dismissed the book with the quip, “Why one hundred? If I were really wrong, they’d only need one.”
Sounds like a colossal reach at best, and pathetic cope at worst.
You understand the colossal differences between multiple independent journalists researching and reporting on the same topic, and a large organized group of pseudointellectuals trying to disprove a single person based on vibes alone, right?
You seem to be very desperately, and pathetically holding onto a form of fallacy of composition:
https://practicalpie.com/fallacy-of-composition/
No, I’m simply calling out a lazy gish gallop. It’s the same in both cases.
How many sources are listed on the Wikipedia page for Christianity? If I accept your logic as valid, it seems I’ll have to convert.