[nonameiguess]

Pails in comparison to what Frank Dux and Frank Abagnale were able to convince much of the world they did with no evidence other than their own stories. Who knows how much of recorded and believed history is complete bullshit? Not to get too far into sacred territory, but claims around Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus Christ, and the Prophet Muhammad are quite a bit less plausible than the legends of Ragnar Lodbrok or the tales of Jonathan Swift, but nonetheless widely believed.

[pooooka]

Paul's letters reference new testament scripture and those can be dated roughly 60 AD (so within the life time of the witnesses). The new testament correctly described pontius pilate as governor of judeau (something Tacitus failed to do) and seemed to have referenced the conflict between Tiberius and Sejanus. The Jews (Hellenistic sadducees) blackmailed Pilate knowing that he was a Sejanus ally (John 19:12). The names used in the NT also match first century names used by Jews in the second temple era....And keep in mind Luke was an educated man who wrote the Book of Luke in highly polished greek and as a text-book styled greek historical document...Ragnar Lodbrok, on the other hand, has no first hand historical accounts, only pure speculation from events and etymology associated with the name. Buddha has virtually no textual documents placed within 900 years of his death. Islam went out of its way to dictate only one source of the Quran and destroyed much of its history that Uthman didn't like. Historically you have to give the Christians their due for producing mass amounts of verifiable kone greek parchments and scrolls during the first three centuries.

[square_usual]

> Buddha has virtually no textual documents placed within 900 years of his death

First: this isn't true. There are plenty of Ashokan inscriptions from ~150 years after the Buddha's death, and they speak of an already-existing Buddhist orthodoxy.

Second: there's plenty of archeological evidence of both the Buddha and Muhammad; the lack of written documents has more to do with the cultures they were in at the time. You don't need to drag other religions down to engage with the evidence for the historical Jesus.

[pooooka]

Ashokan carvings are not historical documents attributed to the historical person of Buddha. Which is what I'm referring too. And my textual criticism on Muhammad stands. We do not know which historical or religious texts attributed to Muhammad were destroyed by Uthman, but most scholars agree that it was substantial. The criticism is valid and true and anyone who has issues with this should provide a counter argument...And I'll be the first to admit that Christianity has issues too. There were a plethora of translations that were taking place. For instance, the story of Jesus and the prostitute (stoning) is a late interpolation added after the fact (300 AD). But that doesn't denote the etymology and historical documentation in the new testament and the same standard SHOULD be applied to Buddhism and Islam and the Viking lord and everything else this poster was claiming as BS.

[square_usual]

> Ashokan carvings are not historical documents attributed to the historical person of Buddha

Yeah, if you assert a document is not a document, sure, you can say whatever you'd like.

[adornKey]

Good point. Also, most humans seem to have no problems believing even stories that are self-contradictory. Philosophers from all periods have often stated that the situation with human mind and reasoning is almost hopeless.

The news here is that AI has too much trust in the internet. The first time I allowed tool-calling, it started googling up some nonsense instead of thinking... But I think at least it's possible for the AI to evaluate the quality of the source - you just have to ask for an analysis, and you'll get a reasonable evaluation. With humans, something like that just doesn't work - they'll get aggressive or might even start throwing bananas...