• MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The basis fir the consensus was explained. You clearly did not understand that.

    So you have nothing to substantiate your counter claim to the one presented by historians and you think your claim has validity? That isnt how any of this works.

    • ubergeek
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The basis fir the consensus was explained.

      Yes, I get it. The basis for consensus was “It’s the dominant religion, so it must be fact”.

      By the same basis, Hercules existed.

      So you have nothing to substantiate your counter claim

      It’s not my job to prove someone’s conclusions. The onus for the evidence of existence lays with the person making the claim. And it’s very clearly stated: There is no evidence. The best we got are some documents written by biased sources, half a century after the fact.