Did Jesus Exist?

[ding]

I dont debate you on these topics anymore, because you are irrational in almost every sentence, and you dont understand fact vs. assertion, which is ultimately your fatal flaw in your own research and arguments

Rhetoric. Nothing to back it up.

 

[HaShev]

There are more than 24,000 written manuscripts that document His ministry.

And you couldn't post one.

I remember posting a link to them and you saying they were unreliable or some such thing.

But I really shouldn't have to post them, now should I? Jesus did exist and Jesus was crucified.

I was joking but in a way still requiring backing of the outlandish numerical claim and logic behind that mattering since
your reasoning just validated Krishna who can claim older and more vast texts.
So does this mean you will cut your hair, leave a poney tail, put on a bed sheet toga and pass flowers around the airport while George Harrison plays in the background?

I'm not the one who needs to invalidate anything.

I don't have a rival religion I need to attack. I'd rather be curious about them and learn about them.

So you are saying Good is not against evil and vice versa and the Bible makes no mention of adversary (satan) or Michael vs rival Lucifer? Then explain what the term Shiloh in the Bible means to you?

 

[alang1216]

I believe he was a Jewish zealot seeking the end of Roman rule in the land God gave to the Israelites

You believe, wrong.

Easy to say, hard to prove. At least I have Occam's Razor on my side.

Actually Occam Razor would predict that the simplest explanation for the emergence of intelligence is that it proceeded from intelligence.

It's all built into the laws of nature which not only favor the formation of life but the complexification of life. Everything which has happened happened under the auspices of the laws of nature.

I agree that everything which has happened happened under the auspices of the laws of nature. God is not under the auspices of the laws of nature, He is over/outside/creator of nature, so is by definition supernatural. Occam's Razor would not posit a supernatural cause for a natural event.

 

[G.T.]

That's some agnostic worldview you have there, amigo.

Agnosticism doesnt refer to a specific religion's specific prophets or stories, amigo.

Im agnostic as to how existence came to be.

Im "anti" the man made religions on account of their utter fucking ridiculousness.

Do you understand the difference? I can give analogies if thats unclear.

I understand that you think you are an agnostic who only argues against the existence of a Creator.

An agnostic would argue both sides of the coin or not at all.

Your understanding of religion is biased and flawed. You blame religion for all the bad and give it no credit for the good. By any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.

No, you are wrong.

An agnostic analyzes the evidence presented.


Theres nothing Id call evidence thats been presented and withstood rational scrutiny ~

Also, you dont know what I blame religion for and dont, you pulled that out of your ass because its what you need to believe.

I dont debate you on these topics anymore, because you are irrational in almost every sentence, and you dont understand fact vs. assertion, which is ultimately your fatal flaw in your own research and arguments.

Dude, you really should question yourself. You don't act like an agnostic. You act like an atheist. A militant one at that.

Scrutinizing ideas is the pinnacle of an open mind.

 

[ding]

There are more than 24,000 written manuscripts that document His ministry.

And you couldn't post one.

I remember posting a link to them and you saying they were unreliable or some such thing.

But I really shouldn't have to post them, now should I? Jesus did exist and Jesus was crucified.

I was joking but in a way still requiring backing of the outlandish numerical claim and logic behind that mattering since
your reasoning just validated Krishna who can claim older and more vast texts.
So does this mean you will cut your hair, leave a poney tail, put on a bed sheet toga and pass flowers around the airport while George Harrison plays in the background?

I'm not the one who needs to invalidate anything.

I don't have a rival religion I need to attack. I'd rather be curious about them and learn about them.

So you are saying Good is not against evil and vice versa and the Bible makes no mention of adversary (satan) or Michael vs rival Lucifer? Then explain what the term Shiloh in the Bible means to you?

Can you tell me the logic on how you arrived at that conclusion from my statement? Because I'm not seeing it.

You do realize that evil is not extant, right?

 

[ding]

That's some agnostic worldview you have there, amigo.

Agnosticism doesnt refer to a specific religion's specific prophets or stories, amigo.

Im agnostic as to how existence came to be.

Im "anti" the man made religions on account of their utter fucking ridiculousness.

Do you understand the difference? I can give analogies if thats unclear.

I understand that you think you are an agnostic who only argues against the existence of a Creator.

An agnostic would argue both sides of the coin or not at all.

Your understanding of religion is biased and flawed. You blame religion for all the bad and give it no credit for the good. By any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.

No, you are wrong.

An agnostic analyzes the evidence presented.


Theres nothing Id call evidence thats been presented and withstood rational scrutiny ~

Also, you dont know what I blame religion for and dont, you pulled that out of your ass because its what you need to believe.

I dont debate you on these topics anymore, because you are irrational in almost every sentence, and you dont understand fact vs. assertion, which is ultimately your fatal flaw in your own research and arguments.

Dude, you really should question yourself. You don't act like an agnostic. You act like an atheist. A militant one at that.

Scrutinizing ideas is the pinnacle of an open mind.

You should get one of those. Open minds. The you might actually become an agnostic.

 

[DrLove]

I generally believe that there was a great named Jesus. Was he the Son of God? Well, I guess in the same sense that we're all children of God.

Very well put together case that should make anyone residing in the fact and logic-based world question his existence to one extent or another.

Which is why I'm a spiritual agnostic. It is always best to question.

 

[DrLove]

Only an idiot would ask such a question. You clearly have no knowledge of the subject, but somehow that never stops you from posting absurd OPs.

Does not reside ^ ^ ^ in a fact or logic-based world

 

[ding]

That's some agnostic worldview you have there, amigo.

Agnosticism doesnt refer to a specific religion's specific prophets or stories, amigo.

Im agnostic as to how existence came to be.

Im "anti" the man made religions on account of their utter fucking ridiculousness.

Do you understand the difference? I can give analogies if thats unclear.

I understand that you think you are an agnostic who only argues against the existence of a Creator.

An agnostic would argue both sides of the coin or not at all.

Your understanding of religion is biased and flawed. You blame religion for all the bad and give it no credit for the good. By any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.

No, you are wrong.

An agnostic analyzes the evidence presented.


Theres nothing Id call evidence thats been presented and withstood rational scrutiny ~

Also, you dont know what I blame religion for and dont, you pulled that out of your ass because its what you need to believe.

I dont debate you on these topics anymore, because you are irrational in almost every sentence, and you dont understand fact vs. assertion, which is ultimately your fatal flaw in your own research and arguments.

Dude, you really should question yourself. You don't act like an agnostic. You act like an atheist. A militant one at that.

Scrutinizing ideas is the pinnacle of an open mind.

You do realize that's not what you do, right?

You practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what you do not believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe.

You confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something I have never seen you do.

Think about it, GT, you don't have an argument for your belief. You only have an argument against others having a belief.

I doubt you could construct an affirmative case for your belief if your life depended upon it.

I argue what things are. You argure what things aren't. That is no way to make a case, Boris.

 

[G.T.]

Agnosticism doesnt refer to a specific religion's specific prophets or stories, amigo.

Im agnostic as to how existence came to be.

Im "anti" the man made religions on account of their utter fucking ridiculousness.

Do you understand the difference? I can give analogies if thats unclear.

I understand that you think you are an agnostic who only argues against the existence of a Creator.

An agnostic would argue both sides of the coin or not at all.

Your understanding of religion is biased and flawed. You blame religion for all the bad and give it no credit for the good. By any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.

No, you are wrong.

An agnostic analyzes the evidence presented.


Theres nothing Id call evidence thats been presented and withstood rational scrutiny ~

Also, you dont know what I blame religion for and dont, you pulled that out of your ass because its what you need to believe.

I dont debate you on these topics anymore, because you are irrational in almost every sentence, and you dont understand fact vs. assertion, which is ultimately your fatal flaw in your own research and arguments.

Dude, you really should question yourself. You don't act like an agnostic. You act like an atheist. A militant one at that.

Scrutinizing ideas is the pinnacle of an open mind.

You should get one of those. Open minds. The you might actually become an agnostic.

You dont get to determine what I am, or how I operate, and it seems infuriating. Is that a me problem, I honestly dont think so. Seems like youre upset that your ideas dont withstand my scrutiny ~ so much so that I wont even offer you the pleasure of discussing them any longer because you're overly dogmatic and present assertion as fact within your chain logic.

Its goofy, it no longer makes any sense to even try.

There's Theists who present intriguing cases at times ~ that's why I bother even revisiting these ideas. You just happen to not be one of them.

 

[G.T.]

Which is why I'm a spiritual agnostic. It is always best to question.

It's the most honest approach.

 

[ding]

I understand that you think you are an agnostic who only argues against the existence of a Creator.

An agnostic would argue both sides of the coin or not at all.

Your understanding of religion is biased and flawed. You blame religion for all the bad and give it no credit for the good. By any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.

No, you are wrong.

An agnostic analyzes the evidence presented.


Theres nothing Id call evidence thats been presented and withstood rational scrutiny ~

Also, you dont know what I blame religion for and dont, you pulled that out of your ass because its what you need to believe.

I dont debate you on these topics anymore, because you are irrational in almost every sentence, and you dont understand fact vs. assertion, which is ultimately your fatal flaw in your own research and arguments.

Dude, you really should question yourself. You don't act like an agnostic. You act like an atheist. A militant one at that.

Scrutinizing ideas is the pinnacle of an open mind.

You should get one of those. Open minds. The you might actually become an agnostic.

You dont get to determine what I am, or how I operate, and it seems infuriating. Is that a me problem, I honestly dont think so. Seems like youre upset that your ideas dont withstand my scrutiny ~ so much so that I wont even offer you the pleasure of discussing them any longer because you're overly dogmatic and present assertion as fact within your chain logic.

Its goofy, it no longer makes any sense to even try.

Theres Theists who present intriguing cases at times ~ that's why I bother even revisiting these ideas. You just happen to not be one of them.

I'm not upset because I don't have a preference for an outcome. I am calling like I see it. I think I have made a pretty good case that you don't have any affirmative arguments for your beliefs. You aren't practicing critical think, you are practicing the deceitful practice of critical theory.

You claim to be agnostic but only argue against the existence of God. That's not agnostic. If you want to think it is, great, more power to you. It doesn't change the fact that you are a practicing atheist arguing against the beliefs of others without ever having any affirmative beliefs of your own.

 

[DrLove]

What are you going to post next some retarded videos that man never stepped on the moon?

To compare one who questions whether someone existed 2018 years ago to a Moon Truther is really dumb.
Which comes as no surprise - I have read your posts.

 

[ding]

Which is why I'm a spiritual agnostic. It is always best to question.

It's the most honest approach.

Oh the irony.

 

[Likkmee]

Not past tense. EXISTS ! ........He WILL be back to tear this dump to bits
psalm 37

 

[G.T.]

No, you are wrong.

An agnostic analyzes the evidence presented.


Theres nothing Id call evidence thats been presented and withstood rational scrutiny ~

Also, you dont know what I blame religion for and dont, you pulled that out of your ass because its what you need to believe.

I dont debate you on these topics anymore, because you are irrational in almost every sentence, and you dont understand fact vs. assertion, which is ultimately your fatal flaw in your own research and arguments.

Dude, you really should question yourself. You don't act like an agnostic. You act like an atheist. A militant one at that.

Scrutinizing ideas is the pinnacle of an open mind.

You should get one of those. Open minds. The you might actually become an agnostic.

You dont get to determine what I am, or how I operate, and it seems infuriating. Is that a me problem, I honestly dont think so. Seems like youre upset that your ideas dont withstand my scrutiny ~ so much so that I wont even offer you the pleasure of discussing them any longer because you're overly dogmatic and present assertion as fact within your chain logic.

Its goofy, it no longer makes any sense to even try.

Theres Theists who present intriguing cases at times ~ that's why I bother even revisiting these ideas. You just happen to not be one of them.

I'm not upset because I don't have a preference for an outcome. I am calling like I see it. I think I have made a pretty good case that you don't have any affirmative arguments for your beliefs. You aren't practicing critical think, you are practicing the deceitful practice of critical theory.

You claim to be agnostic but only argue against the existence of God. That's not agnostic. If you want to think it is, great, more power to you. It doesn't change the fact that you are a practicing atheist arguing against the beliefs of others without ever having any affirmative beliefs of your own.

You dont understand what agnostic means.

Heres how I know:

An agnostic "doesnt know" if a god exists or not.

That means, the religions as presented.....thus far..


and evidence for god....as presented....thus far...

have been inadequate.


If they were adequate, that person is not an agnostic.

Maybe thats not enough to help you understand what agnostic means....

Ill go further....


an agnostic doesnt know how the universe was created, because they dont find the current evidence in either direction.....atheist or theist.......adequate.

Therefore, "i dont know" is the current state of honesty.


You, in your misunderstanding of what agnostic means....

are asking for an agnostic's positive case of how the universe was created



an agnostic, by definition, DOESNT KNOW.


This is why I dont have discussions with you.


You are dogmatic.


You take dogmatic catch phrases, "cultural marxism," "critical theory," "militant atheistm," and all the other blah blah garbage and slap them on the labels for the box full of "doesnt agree with ding" and you call it a day....in place of actually discussing and scrutinizing actual ideas....and logically doing so..

no, instead youd rather strawman your goofy dogmatic catch phrases.

its meaningless.

 

[G.T.]

Which is why I'm a spiritual agnostic. It is always best to question.

It's the most honest approach.

Oh the irony.

The irony is that agnosticism is the highest approach, in terms of integrity.

Its quite liberating to admit to oneself they do not know the unknowable.

Its ego, and a lack of humility to pretend to know.

Irony indeed.

 

[DrLove]

Dude, you really should question yourself. You don't act like an agnostic. You act like an atheist. A militant one at that.

Scrutinizing ideas is the pinnacle of an open mind.

You should get one of those. Open minds. The you might actually become an agnostic.

You dont get to determine what I am, or how I operate, and it seems infuriating. Is that a me problem, I honestly dont think so. Seems like youre upset that your ideas dont withstand my scrutiny ~ so much so that I wont even offer you the pleasure of discussing them any longer because you're overly dogmatic and present assertion as fact within your chain logic.

Its goofy, it no longer makes any sense to even try.

Theres Theists who present intriguing cases at times ~ that's why I bother even revisiting these ideas. You just happen to not be one of them.

I'm not upset because I don't have a preference for an outcome. I am calling like I see it. I think I have made a pretty good case that you don't have any affirmative arguments for your beliefs. You aren't practicing critical think, you are practicing the deceitful practice of critical theory.

You claim to be agnostic but only argue against the existence of God. That's not agnostic. If you want to think it is, great, more power to you. It doesn't change the fact that you are a practicing atheist arguing against the beliefs of others without ever having any affirmative beliefs of your own.

You dont understand what agnostic means.

Heres how I know:

An agnostic "doesnt know" if a god exists or not.

That means, the religions as presented.....thus far..


and evidence for god....as presented....thus far...

have been inadequate.


If they were adequate, that person is not an agnostic.

Maybe thats not enough to help you understand what agnostic means....

Ill go further....


an agnostic doesnt know how the universe was created, because they dont find the current evidence in either direction.....atheist or theist.......adequate.

Therefore, "i dont know" is the current state of honesty.


You, in your misunderstanding of what agnostic means....

are asking for an agnostic's positive case of how the universe was created



an agnostic, by definition, DOESNT KNOW.


This is why I dont have discussions with you.


You are dogmatic.


You take dogmatic catch phrases, "cultural marxism," "critical theory," "militant atheistm," and all the other blah blah garbage and slap them on the labels for the box full of "doesnt agree with ding" and you call it a day....in place of actually discussing and scrutinizing actual ideas....and logically doing so..

no, instead youd rather strawman your goofy dogmatic catch phrases.

its meaningless.

Suggestion to the blindly accepting Thumpers in this thread who do not understand agnosticism.

G.T. is above your pay grade - move along now

 

[G.T.]

Scrutinizing ideas is the pinnacle of an open mind.

You should get one of those. Open minds. The you might actually become an agnostic.

You dont get to determine what I am, or how I operate, and it seems infuriating. Is that a me problem, I honestly dont think so. Seems like youre upset that your ideas dont withstand my scrutiny ~ so much so that I wont even offer you the pleasure of discussing them any longer because you're overly dogmatic and present assertion as fact within your chain logic.

Its goofy, it no longer makes any sense to even try.

Theres Theists who present intriguing cases at times ~ that's why I bother even revisiting these ideas. You just happen to not be one of them.

I'm not upset because I don't have a preference for an outcome. I am calling like I see it. I think I have made a pretty good case that you don't have any affirmative arguments for your beliefs. You aren't practicing critical think, you are practicing the deceitful practice of critical theory.

You claim to be agnostic but only argue against the existence of God. That's not agnostic. If you want to think it is, great, more power to you. It doesn't change the fact that you are a practicing atheist arguing against the beliefs of others without ever having any affirmative beliefs of your own.

You dont understand what agnostic means.

Heres how I know:

An agnostic "doesnt know" if a god exists or not.

That means, the religions as presented.....thus far..


and evidence for god....as presented....thus far...

have been inadequate.


If they were adequate, that person is not an agnostic.

Maybe thats not enough to help you understand what agnostic means....

Ill go further....


an agnostic doesnt know how the universe was created, because they dont find the current evidence in either direction.....atheist or theist.......adequate.

Therefore, "i dont know" is the current state of honesty.


You, in your misunderstanding of what agnostic means....

are asking for an agnostic's positive case of how the universe was created



an agnostic, by definition, DOESNT KNOW.


This is why I dont have discussions with you.


You are dogmatic.


You take dogmatic catch phrases, "cultural marxism," "critical theory," "militant atheistm," and all the other blah blah garbage and slap them on the labels for the box full of "doesnt agree with ding" and you call it a day....in place of actually discussing and scrutinizing actual ideas....and logically doing so..

no, instead youd rather strawman your goofy dogmatic catch phrases.

its meaningless.

Suggestion to the blindly accepting Thumpers in this thread who do not understand agnosticism.

G.T. is above your pay grade - move along now

It was never more clear than asking an "agnostic" to present their..."positive" case for how existence came to be.

What the fakk? lol

 

[Meriweather]

No, you are wrong.

An agnostic analyzes the evidence presented.

Theres nothing Id call evidence thats been presented and withstood rational scrutiny ~

God is Spirit (i.e., not physical). Evidence, which is physical, cannot be required (or acquired) in the Spirit realm. This relegates God to Philosophical studies, not scientific studies. A true agnostic studies and analyzes the philosophy and logic for God. He would no more expect science to tell him whether a non-physical being/realm exists than he would expect a philosophy to discover a new species of frogs.