I have a grudge against this topic for two reasons. One is that this is how I discovered that the tribal signaling aspect of belief doesn’t follow the expected conjunction rules.
Among secular Jews,
Professing that “Moses probably didn’t exist” gets a “meh.”
Professing that “Jesus probably existed” gets a “meh.”
Professing that “Moses probably didn’t exist and Jesus probably did” gets a “You goddamn self-hating Jew! You can’t prove anything!”
The other is that people trying to write the phrase “the historicity of Jesus” will write “the histocracy of Jesus” maybe .1% of the time, which clogs my Google results.
I have a grudge against this topic for two reasons. One is that this is how I discovered that the tribal signaling aspect of belief doesn’t follow the expected conjunction rules. Among secular Jews,
Professing that “Moses probably didn’t exist” gets a “meh.”
Professing that “Jesus probably existed” gets a “meh.”
Professing that “Moses probably didn’t exist and Jesus probably did” gets a “You goddamn self-hating Jew! You can’t prove anything!”
The other is that people trying to write the phrase “the historicity of Jesus” will write “the histocracy of Jesus” maybe .1% of the time, which clogs my Google results.
What the hell is “histocracy”? The rule of tissues? I have never seen it, even as a typo.
Histocracy Is HonoreDB’s idea for goup decision making.
Somehow I missed that article, thanks.