When you talk about needing to take the word of historical sources, I wanted to add that we use academic skepticism as a tool to logically determine the trustworthiness of a specific historical source (to try and avoid simply putting our trust in a historical sources word). Pro's logic would indeed lead them to believe that the holocaust happened, because historical sources from that time can be cross-referenced with one another (along with physical evidence like the architecture of concentration camps) to epistemologically verify the trustworthiness of the individual claims made by a source. When discussing which belief is more logical, it's important to acknowledge historical sources only deserve to be treated as fact when it is reasonable to do so, and should otherwise be considered with varying amounts of skepticism. The historical sources accounting Jesus's actions cannot be validated and proven reliable to the standard to logically justify placing complete faith in those sources today. For example, the idea that all authors of the gospel personally knew or witnessed Jesus's actions is heavily contested, and these things should logically be taken into consideration when judging the amount of faith we ought to place in their written accounts of his actions. I acknowledge you treat these historical sources as fact because it is required to logically maintain your preexisting belief in the religion, but it creates a kind of circular argument where you believe your belief to be more logical because you already think it's true. It may be the case that those who wrote the gospel were indeed telling the truth and it's all fact, but when considering what we should be inclined to believe following the rules of logic, the extreme claims of Jesus's actions supported by historical claims that cannot be epistemologically validated and proven reliable as we look to do today make putting complete faith into these sources less logical than being skeptical of them.
When you talk about needing to take the word of historical sources, I wanted to add that we use academic skepticism as a tool to logically determine the trustworthiness of a specific historical source (to try and avoid simply putting our trust in a historical sources word). Pro's logic would indeed lead them to believe that the holocaust happened, because historical sources from that time can be cross-referenced with one another (along with physical evidence like the architecture of concentration camps) to epistemologically verify the trustworthiness of the individual claims made by a source. When discussing which belief is more logical, it's important to acknowledge historical sources only deserve to be treated as fact when it is reasonable to do so, and should otherwise be considered with varying amounts of skepticism. The historical sources accounting Jesus's actions cannot be validated and proven reliable to the standard to logically justify placing complete faith in those sources today. For example, the idea that all authors of the gospel personally knew or witnessed Jesus's actions is heavily contested, and these things should logically be taken into consideration when judging the amount of faith we ought to place in their written accounts of his actions. I acknowledge you treat these historical sources as fact because it is required to logically maintain your preexisting belief in the religion, but it creates a kind of circular argument where you believe your belief to be more logical because you already think it's true. It may be the case that those who wrote the gospel were indeed telling the truth and it's all fact, but when considering what we should be inclined to believe following the rules of logic, the extreme claims of Jesus's actions supported by historical claims that cannot be epistemologically validated and proven reliable as we look to do today make putting complete faith into these sources less logical than being skeptical of them.