Did Jesus Exist?

[Tuatara]

Well I certainly didn't post the video so you could look at it with a thoughtful and critical approach. I posted it so you could dismiss it without conviction. Hang on to your world. Don't let anyone break it down.

All you posted was a dumb ass in 2017AD

Richard Carrier has a BA in History, an MA in Ancient History and a PHD in Ancient History. You may not agree with his work but he is no dumb ass.

Jesus was a real person..

I have seen no evidence but he could have been.

now was he the son of God ?

Well, you would have to believe in God to believe that.

Once again you have your beliefs I have mine

doesn't everybody.

There have been four non biblical sources provided to you. That you choose to ignore them reflects very poorly on your honesty.

Really, I provided a source that tackles all of your sources. I stated that he has many videos and books on the subject. Not one person here has shown they even watched 5 minutes of the video.

No, it doesn't. It is a vain attempt to delegitimize a known non biblical reference to Jesus. It is called revisionist history and is no different than the despicable scum who try and refute the Holocaust. Two peas from the same despicable pod.

Wow, let's call anyone who argues history a Nazi sympathizer. Did you also know that the story of Paul Revere's midnight ride with his "The British Are Coming" is also false. History is rewritten all the time.

 

[antifa]

To be spiritual means you have the knowledge that we have some connection with the universe.

Agree - Yes, I believe that there is a meaning and purpose to life and SOMETHING after it.
I simply don't know exactly what it is .. nor does anyone else.

But if it involves floating around on puffy white clouds playing a harp .. how boring - don't send me there.

Or as Billy Joel opined:

… They say there's a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it's better but I say it ain't
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun…

Since we are made of stardust -- the elements of the universe -- our plasma could possibly return to some sort of interstellar cloud.

 

[westwall]

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


Jesus was a person.. now to say he was the son of God?


I believe it

And you have your beliefs ...

Well I certainly didn't post the video so you could look at it with a thoughtful and critical approach. I posted it so you could dismiss it without conviction. Hang on to your world. Don't let anyone break it down.

Tacitus had no axe to grind, could care less about whether Jesus was the son of God, and was living a mere twenty years after Jesus died. He had access to people who were in the area when Jesus walked the Earth, and was primarily concerned with the Christians because they were colossal pains in the ass. Carrier on the other hand, is according to his wiki page, "is an American historian, atheist activist, author, public speaker and blogger."

So he suffers from what is known as confirmation bias. Like I said before, who to give more credence too, someone who had nothing to gain by writing about the man, or someone who has a philosophical, and monetary reason to question his existence, who ignores clear, non biblical historical reference from multiple sources and removed by a few years from the actual events.

is an American historian, atheist activist, author, public speaker and blogger."

Translation~ another one of these

Who say god doesn't exist but thinks about god 24/7


What's the point with people like this?


They are miserable in their life's so they want other people to be miserable with them?
I don't get it..

carrier is just another in a long line of militant atheists trying to impose his will on others. I have no idea if Jesus was the Son of God, i do know that those who believe in it are none of my business. I do read a hell of a lot of history, bot contemporary and modern material, and Christ was written about very shortly after his death by non biblical sources. This is well known. The efforts by these people to re write history is a direct assault on history. These people are not historians, they are vandals, they are only interested in destruction, not the furtherance of knowledge.

Ok I have a question for you can you name me one atheist in the West who attacks the Quran as much as the Bible?

Why don't they?

To me it's like liberals always attacking fox and not attacking the real one Glen becks channel the blaze

Nope. Not one. Because the Islamist would kill them. Self preservation drives their targeting mode.

 

[westwall]

You now are denying that you talked about 100bc Yeshu and 45 ad Theudas the only Pilate era christ?
Calling someone stupid for showing you the historical relevance of what you said is calling yourself that name, because you said but worse did not understand what you yourself were proving and admitting.
Stop the ad hominem responses and be honest with yourself.

You seem to think that information traveled at the speed of radio back then. You seem to ignore the fact that 99% of the population was illiterate, you seem to ignore the fact that THOUSANDS of manuscripts have been lost over the intervening two thousand years. You seem bent on ignoring the fact that Tacitus, one of the worlds best historians, speaks of Christ in detail, and he was a mere thirty odd years after the fact, in other words, for your views to support themselves, you must contort yourself into a pretzel of logic.

Which is asinine.

Your excuses did not change the facts they, verified what I've said all along.
It's just that now you admit passing down the line errors confuse characters instead of spiteful compiling being the root cause, in that Christianity teaches Rome will do thus in our era, because Christians are in denial it already occured in forming Christianity.

No they don't. They verify that people traveled slowly before there were cars.

 

[westwall]

Most historians would say that Jesus existed.

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.

That makes you an atheist. Agnostics, of which I count myself, merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, the existence of a God.

 

[westwall]

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.

Indeed it is, and discounting ideas because you have a personal animus to them is the sign of a closed mind.

 

[G.T.]

Most historians would say that Jesus existed.

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.

That makes you an atheist. Agnostics, of which I count myself, merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, the existence of a God.

I dont think theres proof for or against god.

 

[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.

Indeed it is, and discounting ideas because you have a personal animus to them is the sign of a closed mind.

I agree.

 

[westwall]

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


Jesus was a person.. now to say he was the son of God?


I believe it

And you have your beliefs ...

Well I certainly didn't post the video so you could look at it with a thoughtful and critical approach. I posted it so you could dismiss it without conviction. Hang on to your world. Don't let anyone break it down.

Tacitus had no axe to grind, could care less about whether Jesus was the son of God, and was living a mere twenty years after Jesus died. He had access to people who were in the area when Jesus walked the Earth, and was primarily concerned with the Christians because they were colossal pains in the ass. Carrier on the other hand, is according to his wiki page, "is an American historian, atheist activist, author, public speaker and blogger."

So he suffers from what is known as confirmation bias. Like I said before, who to give more credence too, someone who had nothing to gain by writing about the man, or someone who has a philosophical, and monetary reason to question his existence, who ignores clear, non biblical historical reference from multiple sources and removed by a few years from the actual events.

Regarding Tacitus,

1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7. At this time but one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.
9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals" believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation

The Christ : a critical review and analysis of the evidences of His existence : Remsburg, John E. (John Eleazer), 1846-1919 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Most of what Tacitus wrote has been lost, that we have any of it is a miracle.

The earliest version we have is from the 11th Century and was first referenced in the 14th century.
"
The surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, which are held in the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy, and written in Latin. The second Medicean manuscript is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing "Christians." In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second, looking somewhat smudged, and lacking the long tail of the second 'i'; additionally, there is a large gap between the first 'i' and the subsequent 'long s'. Latin scholar Georg Andresen was one of the first to comment on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap, suggesting in 1902 that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.

In 1950, at historian Harald Fuchs' request, Dr. Teresa Lodi, the director of the Laurentian Library, examined the features of this item of the manuscript; she concluded that there are still signs of an 'e' being erased, by removal of the upper and lower horizontal portions, and distortion of the remainder into an 'i'. In 2008, Dr. Ida Giovanna Rao, the new head of the Laurentian Library's manuscript office, repeated Lodi's study, and concluded that it is likely that the 'i' is a correction of some earlier character (like an e), the change being made an extremely subtle one. Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning "good, useful", rather than strictly a follower of "Christ".

Other evidence of tampering exists regarding the removal of the entire Annals section covering 29-31 CE; “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two years is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.
Tacitus - RationalWiki

That he wrote of the early Christians is not in question. He DID. That he referred to Christ is likewise not in doubt.

I just showed you why that is not true. Old books have always been tampered with over the centuries.

All the complainants are doing is trying to denigrate the Annals to try and eliminate a non biblical reference to Christ. It is a despicable attempt to revise history.

No, it is attempt to accurately research and present history.

Secular humanists have been trying to challenge the provenance of the Annals since at least the 1800's. What they can't refute is the copies that do exist predate the 1300's. In one instance it was copied in a Carolingian script and dates to around 850. Long before there would have been any reason to falsify them. When used in conjunction with other histories and contemporary works they are consistent with all other accounts we have. What they have that the others don't have, is a reference to Christ and that is why the secular humanists are so desperate to delegitimize them.

Many attempts have been made, and every single one of the claims has been demolished. Tacitus is a legitimate historical source of information that just unfortunately for those who wish to claim that Jesus was not a real individual, mentions a dude called Jesus who was executed for being an annoyance in the land of Judea at that inconvenient time covered by the Bible.

 

[westwall]

Most historians would say that Jesus existed.

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.

That makes you an atheist. Agnostics, of which I count myself, merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, the existence of a God.

I dont think theres proof for or against god.

All you posted was a dumb ass in 2017AD

Richard Carrier has a BA in History, an MA in Ancient History and a PHD in Ancient History. You may not agree with his work but he is no dumb ass.

Jesus was a real person..

I have seen no evidence but he could have been.

now was he the son of God ?

Well, you would have to believe in God to believe that.

Once again you have your beliefs I have mine

doesn't everybody.

There have been four non biblical sources provided to you. That you choose to ignore them reflects very poorly on your honesty.

Really, I provided a source that tackles all of your sources. I stated that he has many videos and books on the subject. Not one person here has shown they even watched 5 minutes of the video.

No, it doesn't. It is a vain attempt to delegitimize a known non biblical reference to Jesus. It is called revisionist history and is no different than the despicable scum who try and refute the Holocaust. Two peas from the same despicable pod.

Wow, let's call anyone who argues history a Nazi sympathizer. Did you also know that the story of Paul Revere's midnight ride with his "The British Are Coming" is also false. History is rewritten all the time.

No, I call anyone who tries to revise history for personal, or political gain, a revisionist. Nazi's are the most well known version of that contemptible form of "history" study, but your hero carrier, is cut from the same cloth. He has a political, and a personal reason to try and rewrite history. That makes him a contemptible person. History is. It cares not a tot about a persons individual proclivities, or political aspirations, or religious beliefs. It just is. Anyone who tries to destroy that, as this asshole is doing, is a criminal, destroying the record of humanities progress and retreat from primitive man, to modern man.

Anyone who engages in the destruction of history is committing a crime against humanity.

 

[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.

That makes you an atheist. Agnostics, of which I count myself, merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, the existence of a God.

I dont think theres proof for or against god.

Richard Carrier has a BA in History, an MA in Ancient History and a PHD in Ancient History. You may not agree with his work but he is no dumb ass.
I have seen no evidence but he could have been.
Well, you would have to believe in God to believe that.
doesn't everybody.

There have been four non biblical sources provided to you. That you choose to ignore them reflects very poorly on your honesty.

Really, I provided a source that tackles all of your sources. I stated that he has many videos and books on the subject. Not one person here has shown they even watched 5 minutes of the video.

No, it doesn't. It is a vain attempt to delegitimize a known non biblical reference to Jesus. It is called revisionist history and is no different than the despicable scum who try and refute the Holocaust. Two peas from the same despicable pod.

Wow, let's call anyone who argues history a Nazi sympathizer. Did you also know that the story of Paul Revere's midnight ride with his "The British Are Coming" is also false. History is rewritten all the time.

No, I call anyone who tries to revise history for personal, or political gain, a revisionist. Nazi's are the most well known version of that contemptible form of "history" study, but your hero carrier, is cut from the same cloth. He has a political, and a personal reason to try and rewrite history. That makes him a contemptible person. History is. It cares not a tot about a persons individual proclivities, or political aspirations, or religious beliefs. It just is. Anyone who tries to destroy that, as this asshole is doing, is a criminal, destroying the record of humanities progress and retreat from primitive man, to modern man.

Anyone who engages in the destruction of history is committing a crime against humanity.

wut? lol

 

[westwall]

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.

That makes you an atheist. Agnostics, of which I count myself, merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, the existence of a God.

I dont think theres proof for or against god.

There have been four non biblical sources provided to you. That you choose to ignore them reflects very poorly on your honesty.

Really, I provided a source that tackles all of your sources. I stated that he has many videos and books on the subject. Not one person here has shown they even watched 5 minutes of the video.

No, it doesn't. It is a vain attempt to delegitimize a known non biblical reference to Jesus. It is called revisionist history and is no different than the despicable scum who try and refute the Holocaust. Two peas from the same despicable pod.

Wow, let's call anyone who argues history a Nazi sympathizer. Did you also know that the story of Paul Revere's midnight ride with his "The British Are Coming" is also false. History is rewritten all the time.

No, I call anyone who tries to revise history for personal, or political gain, a revisionist. Nazi's are the most well known version of that contemptible form of "history" study, but your hero carrier, is cut from the same cloth. He has a political, and a personal reason to try and rewrite history. That makes him a contemptible person. History is. It cares not a tot about a persons individual proclivities, or political aspirations, or religious beliefs. It just is. Anyone who tries to destroy that, as this asshole is doing, is a criminal, destroying the record of humanities progress and retreat from primitive man, to modern man.

Anyone who engages in the destruction of history is committing a crime against humanity.

wut? lol

Feel free to laugh, but that is a fact. History is all we have, the taliban blew up giant Buddhas because they weren't part of their religion, they are criminals. Those ancient statues were centuries old. A few assholes felt that they were superior to the needs of all of mankind. I had the great fortune of actually seeing them, but my daughter never will. That is incredibly sad to me as they were truly magnificent.

What this asshole carrier is attempting is in the same vein. He wishes to destroy history because it doesn't support his particular idea of how the world should work.

 

[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.

That makes you an atheist. Agnostics, of which I count myself, merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, the existence of a God.

I dont think theres proof for or against god.

Really, I provided a source that tackles all of your sources. I stated that he has many videos and books on the subject. Not one person here has shown they even watched 5 minutes of the video.

No, it doesn't. It is a vain attempt to delegitimize a known non biblical reference to Jesus. It is called revisionist history and is no different than the despicable scum who try and refute the Holocaust. Two peas from the same despicable pod.

Wow, let's call anyone who argues history a Nazi sympathizer. Did you also know that the story of Paul Revere's midnight ride with his "The British Are Coming" is also false. History is rewritten all the time.

No, I call anyone who tries to revise history for personal, or political gain, a revisionist. Nazi's are the most well known version of that contemptible form of "history" study, but your hero carrier, is cut from the same cloth. He has a political, and a personal reason to try and rewrite history. That makes him a contemptible person. History is. It cares not a tot about a persons individual proclivities, or political aspirations, or religious beliefs. It just is. Anyone who tries to destroy that, as this asshole is doing, is a criminal, destroying the record of humanities progress and retreat from primitive man, to modern man.

Anyone who engages in the destruction of history is committing a crime against humanity.

wut? lol

Feel free to laugh, but that is a fact. History is all we have, the taliban blew up giant Buddhas because they weren't part of their religion, they are criminals. Those ancient statues were centuries old. A few assholes felt that they were superior to the needs of all of mankind. I had the great fortune of actually seeing them, but my daughter never will. That is incredibly sad to me as they were truly magnificent.

What this asshole carrier is attempting is in the same vein. He wishes to destroy history because it doesn't support his particular idea of how the world should work.

I think I was called to the wrong post.

 

[ding]

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

Thumpers? Moi?

Good thing you show no bias, amirite?

GT is deluding himself, his own behaviors convict him. Open your eyes.

 

[ding]

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

But you are so good at selectively presenting negative cases, GT. And you are 100% consistent in that you only criticize from an atheist's perspective.

Your positions and behaviors prove it.

Or do agnostics only entertain the idea that there is no Creator?

 

[ding]

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.

That makes you an atheist. Agnostics, of which I count myself, merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, the existence of a God.

I dont think theres proof for or against god.

Really, I provided a source that tackles all of your sources. I stated that he has many videos and books on the subject. Not one person here has shown they even watched 5 minutes of the video.

No, it doesn't. It is a vain attempt to delegitimize a known non biblical reference to Jesus. It is called revisionist history and is no different than the despicable scum who try and refute the Holocaust. Two peas from the same despicable pod.

Wow, let's call anyone who argues history a Nazi sympathizer. Did you also know that the story of Paul Revere's midnight ride with his "The British Are Coming" is also false. History is rewritten all the time.

No, I call anyone who tries to revise history for personal, or political gain, a revisionist. Nazi's are the most well known version of that contemptible form of "history" study, but your hero carrier, is cut from the same cloth. He has a political, and a personal reason to try and rewrite history. That makes him a contemptible person. History is. It cares not a tot about a persons individual proclivities, or political aspirations, or religious beliefs. It just is. Anyone who tries to destroy that, as this asshole is doing, is a criminal, destroying the record of humanities progress and retreat from primitive man, to modern man.

Anyone who engages in the destruction of history is committing a crime against humanity.

wut? lol

Feel free to laugh, but that is a fact. History is all we have, the taliban blew up giant Buddhas because they weren't part of their religion, they are criminals. Those ancient statues were centuries old. A few assholes felt that they were superior to the needs of all of mankind. I had the great fortune of actually seeing them, but my daughter never will. That is incredibly sad to me as they were truly magnificent.

What this asshole carrier is attempting is in the same vein. He wishes to destroy history because it doesn't support his particular idea of how the world should work.

A people without a heritage are easily persuaded. Karl Marx

 

[G.T.]

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

But you are so good at selectively presenting negative cases, GT. And you are 100% consistent in that you only criticize from an atheist's perspective.

Your positions and behaviors prove it.

Or do agnostics only entertain the idea that there is no Creator?

theres no way to prove the negative case, ding ~ so, theres really nothing to have to dispute in terms of any case being presented.

 

[ding]

To prove Karl's point that a people without a heritage are easily persuaded...

The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.

 

[ding]

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

But you are so good at selectively presenting negative cases, GT. And you are 100% consistent in that you only criticize from an atheist's perspective.

Your positions and behaviors prove it.

Or do agnostics only entertain the idea that there is no Creator?

theres no way to prove the negative case, ding ~ so, theres really nothing to have to dispute in terms of any case being presented.

So you are saying an agnostic can only argue against a belief in God?

Do you admit that you have never made an argument for the existence of God?

Do you admit that you have only made arguments against the existence of God?

Didn't you let the cat out of the bag that you are not agnostic when you said you can't make an argument for a negative, GT?

Sounds like you know, bro. That sure didn't sound like you didn't know. Busted.

 

[G.T.]

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

But you are so good at selectively presenting negative cases, GT. And you are 100% consistent in that you only criticize from an atheist's perspective.

Your positions and behaviors prove it.

Or do agnostics only entertain the idea that there is no Creator?

theres no way to prove the negative case, ding ~ so, theres really nothing to have to dispute in terms of any case being presented.

So you are saying an agnostic can only argue against a belief in God?

Do you admit that you have never mad an argument for the existence of God?

Do you admit that you have only made arguments against the existence of God?

Didn't you let the cat out of the bag that you are not agnostic when you said you can't make an argument for a negative, GT?

Sounds like you know, bro.

i think that what you extrapolated from that comment points to your axe to grind, which is why youre not worthy of my time