Did Jesus Exist?

[G.T.]

Oops, was already answered.

If it was I missed it.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

The ones that do are letting the cat out of the bag that they aren't agnostic.

Arguments against the presented cases for god are not arguments against god.

You dont understand why?

I know!

Of course they are. Even more so when the argument is dismissed without investigation, GT. And that's what you always do because you can't argue the case on merit.

The case of agnosticism is argued by pointing out the fact that the cases for and against god are inconclusive.

Ive done both, here and in real life.

Dude, you don't argue they are inconclusive. You dismiss the case for God off hand.

False ~ thats how I treat discussions with Ding. On the internet, because youve proven over and over and over to be incapable of a rational, amicable discussion and always revert to telling the others what THEY think and believe, and revert to your dogmatic labels and incoherent assertions.

You thinking that I dismiss things out of hand is by design. I DO DO THAT, and I told you why.

 

[ding]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

No.

Thank you.

I know several agnostics and they don't even have an interest in discussing God.

Why? Because they are convinced it is unknowable. The problem I have with that is if one never tries how does he know it is unknowable?

 

[DrLove]

You never answered my question. Do agnostics argue against the existence of God?

I can see why you think I am unworthy of debate. I ask you questions you can't answer.

NO Agnostics do NOT argue against the existence of God.
Agnostics are smart enough to admit that they DON'T KNOW!
Fuck you're dense

 

[G.T.]

Yeah, good for your opinion, guy on the internet who thinks he can prove the existence of god

OR why an Agnostic is an Atheist.
Idiot .. unworthy of debate

You never answered my question. Do agnostics argue against the existence of God?

I can see why you think I am unworthy of debate. I ask you questions you can't answer.

I wish you understood that asking this question proves an incoherent view of agnosticism.

The nature of not being convinced either way, is to have seen challenges with every case presented to them, to date.

Thats a given, otherwise, theyre not agnostic.

Thats not arguing "against god," its scrutinizing the cases presented. A less dogmatic human understands the difference....and you asking the question means that you conclusively .. DONT.

 

[ding]

If it was I missed it.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

The ones that do are letting the cat out of the bag that they aren't agnostic.

Arguments against the presented cases for god are not arguments against god.

You dont understand why?

I know!

Of course they are. Even more so when the argument is dismissed without investigation, GT. And that's what you always do because you can't argue the case on merit.

The case of agnosticism is argued by pointing out the fact that the cases for and against god are inconclusive.

Ive done both, here and in real life.

Dude, you don't argue they are inconclusive. You dismiss the case for God off hand.

False ~ thats how I treat discussions with Ding. On the internet, because youve proven over and over and over to be incapable of a rational, amicable discussion and always revert to telling the others what THEY think and believe, and revert to your dogmatic labels and incoherent assertions.

You thinking that I dismiss things out of hand is by design. I DO DO THAT, and I told you why.

It's called disagreeing, GT. Happens all the time. What I am talking about here is that your behaviors do not match the behaviors of an agnostic. They match the behaviors of an atheist. Labels are used because labels are required to make comparisons. But just to be clear here, it is behaviors, not labels which define what they are. And your behaviors are that of someone who knows but hides behind the label of agnosticism which is one who doesn't know.

I don't know how else I can explain this to you.

 

[Michelle420]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

No.

Thank you.

I know several agnostics and they don't even have an interest in discussing God.

Why? Because they are convinced it is unknowable. The problem I have with that is if one never tries how does he know it is unknowable?

Another reason is that religious people define God differently so in some instances depending on how God is defined it would seem unknowable and in other instances the definition would seem knowable. But from just a generic point of view safer to just say I don't know.

 

[DrLove]

Thank you.

I know several agnostics and they don't even have an interest in discussing God.

Why? Because they are convinced it is unknowable. The problem I have with that is if one never tries how does he know it is unknowable?

Well that's interesting. Maybe your friends are weird.
Most Agnostics totally enjoy philosophical debate as to whether God exists (as proven in this thread).
And "trying" does not turn things from unknowable to knowable.

 

[ding]

Yeah, good for your opinion, guy on the internet who thinks he can prove the existence of god

OR why an Agnostic is an Atheist.
Idiot .. unworthy of debate

You never answered my question. Do agnostics argue against the existence of God?

I can see why you think I am unworthy of debate. I ask you questions you can't answer.

I wish you understood that asking this question proves an incoherent view of agnosticism.

The nature of not being convinced either way, is to have seen challenges with every case presented to them, to date.

Thats a given, otherwise, theyre not agnostic.

Thats not arguing "against god," its scrutinizing the cases presented. A less dogmatic human understands the difference....and you asking the question means that you conclusively .. DONT.

You can't scrutinize what you summarily dismiss, GT, and that's what you do.

 

[G.T.]

Arguments against the presented cases for god are not arguments against god.

You dont understand why?

I know!

Of course they are. Even more so when the argument is dismissed without investigation, GT. And that's what you always do because you can't argue the case on merit.

The case of agnosticism is argued by pointing out the fact that the cases for and against god are inconclusive.

Ive done both, here and in real life.

Dude, you don't argue they are inconclusive. You dismiss the case for God off hand.

False ~ thats how I treat discussions with Ding. On the internet, because youve proven over and over and over to be incapable of a rational, amicable discussion and always revert to telling the others what THEY think and believe, and revert to your dogmatic labels and incoherent assertions.

You thinking that I dismiss things out of hand is by design. I DO DO THAT, and I told you why.

It's called disagreeing, GT. Happens all the time. What I am talking about here is that your behaviors do not match the behaviors of an agnostic. They match the behaviors of an atheist. Labels are used because labels are required to make comparisons. But just to be clear here, it is behaviors, not labels which define what they are. And your behaviors are that of someone who knows but hides behind the label of agnosticism which is one who doesn't know.

I don't know how else I can explain this to you.

You dont know my behaviors, you know I simply challenge theism and youre confused as to why an agnostic would.

Thats your poor understanding ~ not mine.

Seems you think agnostics believe in God.

No, they believe hes NOT been proven one way or the other.....and the nature of NOT being proven means, they see challenges to all cases presented.

You take the challeging of the cases as defacto atheism.

Thats not my problem, its actually either your dishonesty or your misunderstanding.

 

[ding]

Thank you.

I know several agnostics and they don't even have an interest in discussing God.

Why? Because they are convinced it is unknowable. The problem I have with that is if one never tries how does he know it is unknowable?

Well that's interesting. Maybe your friends are weird.
Most Agnostics totally enjoy philosophical debate as to whether God exists (as proven in this thread).
And "trying" does not turn things from unknowable to knowable.

Yeah, that is weird. Do they only argue against the existence of God in these fun filled philosophical debates?

And if they did, wouldn't that indicate a bias?

 

[G.T.]

Yeah, good for your opinion, guy on the internet who thinks he can prove the existence of god

OR why an Agnostic is an Atheist.
Idiot .. unworthy of debate

You never answered my question. Do agnostics argue against the existence of God?

I can see why you think I am unworthy of debate. I ask you questions you can't answer.

I wish you understood that asking this question proves an incoherent view of agnosticism.

The nature of not being convinced either way, is to have seen challenges with every case presented to them, to date.

Thats a given, otherwise, theyre not agnostic.

Thats not arguing "against god," its scrutinizing the cases presented. A less dogmatic human understands the difference....and you asking the question means that you conclusively .. DONT.

You can't scrutinize what you summarily dismiss, GT, and that's what you do.

To *you.

Ive had these discussions for years and years and with many folks, even at usmb.

Youre not privy to all of those conversations.

Guess youre not omniscient...something else hard for you to hear apparently

 

[G.T.]

Thank you.

I know several agnostics and they don't even have an interest in discussing God.

Why? Because they are convinced it is unknowable. The problem I have with that is if one never tries how does he know it is unknowable?

Well that's interesting. Maybe your friends are weird.
Most Agnostics totally enjoy philosophical debate as to whether God exists (as proven in this thread).
And "trying" does not turn things from unknowable to knowable.

Yeah, that is weird. Do they only argue against the existence of God in these fun filled philosophical debates?

And if they did, wouldn't that indicate a bias?

Arguments against the sufficience of evidence presented is not an argument for or against god, its a scrutiny of the cases folks have thought theyve made. Its called being rational.

 

[ding]

Of course they are. Even more so when the argument is dismissed without investigation, GT. And that's what you always do because you can't argue the case on merit.

The case of agnosticism is argued by pointing out the fact that the cases for and against god are inconclusive.

Ive done both, here and in real life.

Dude, you don't argue they are inconclusive. You dismiss the case for God off hand.

False ~ thats how I treat discussions with Ding. On the internet, because youve proven over and over and over to be incapable of a rational, amicable discussion and always revert to telling the others what THEY think and believe, and revert to your dogmatic labels and incoherent assertions.

You thinking that I dismiss things out of hand is by design. I DO DO THAT, and I told you why.

It's called disagreeing, GT. Happens all the time. What I am talking about here is that your behaviors do not match the behaviors of an agnostic. They match the behaviors of an atheist. Labels are used because labels are required to make comparisons. But just to be clear here, it is behaviors, not labels which define what they are. And your behaviors are that of someone who knows but hides behind the label of agnosticism which is one who doesn't know.

I don't know how else I can explain this to you.

You dont know my behaviors, you know I simply challenge theism and youre confused as to why an agnostic would.

Thats your poor understanding ~ not mine.

Seems you think agnostics believe in God.

No, they believe hes NOT been proven one way or the other.....and the nature of NOT being proven means, they see challenges to all cases presented.

You take the challeging of the cases as defacto atheism.

Thats not my problem, its actually either your dishonesty or your misunderstanding.

I have debated you long enough to observe and know your behaviors, GT. Do I need to catalog them again for you?

I don't believe agnostics believe in God. I believe agnostics don't exclusively argue against the existence of God or summarily dismiss arguments and information without investigating them first.

 

[ding]

Thank you.

I know several agnostics and they don't even have an interest in discussing God.

Why? Because they are convinced it is unknowable. The problem I have with that is if one never tries how does he know it is unknowable?

Well that's interesting. Maybe your friends are weird.
Most Agnostics totally enjoy philosophical debate as to whether God exists (as proven in this thread).
And "trying" does not turn things from unknowable to knowable.

Yeah, that is weird. Do they only argue against the existence of God in these fun filled philosophical debates?

And if they did, wouldn't that indicate a bias?

Arguments against the sufficience of evidence presented is not an argument for or against god, its a scrutiny of the cases folks have thought theyve made. Its called being rational.

Except you summarily dismiss all arguments without investigation, GT.

 

[ding]

Yeah, good for your opinion, guy on the internet who thinks he can prove the existence of god

OR why an Agnostic is an Atheist.
Idiot .. unworthy of debate

You never answered my question. Do agnostics argue against the existence of God?

I can see why you think I am unworthy of debate. I ask you questions you can't answer.

I wish you understood that asking this question proves an incoherent view of agnosticism.

The nature of not being convinced either way, is to have seen challenges with every case presented to them, to date.

Thats a given, otherwise, theyre not agnostic.

Thats not arguing "against god," its scrutinizing the cases presented. A less dogmatic human understands the difference....and you asking the question means that you conclusively .. DONT.

You can't scrutinize what you summarily dismiss, GT, and that's what you do.

To *you.

Ive had these discussions for years and years and with many folks, even at usmb.

Youre not privy to all of those conversations.

Guess youre not omniscient...something else hard for you to hear apparently

Send me a link to one of them so I can see for myself, GT. Fair enough?

 

[G.T.]

The case of agnosticism is argued by pointing out the fact that the cases for and against god are inconclusive.

Ive done both, here and in real life.

Dude, you don't argue they are inconclusive. You dismiss the case for God off hand.

False ~ thats how I treat discussions with Ding. On the internet, because youve proven over and over and over to be incapable of a rational, amicable discussion and always revert to telling the others what THEY think and believe, and revert to your dogmatic labels and incoherent assertions.

You thinking that I dismiss things out of hand is by design. I DO DO THAT, and I told you why.

It's called disagreeing, GT. Happens all the time. What I am talking about here is that your behaviors do not match the behaviors of an agnostic. They match the behaviors of an atheist. Labels are used because labels are required to make comparisons. But just to be clear here, it is behaviors, not labels which define what they are. And your behaviors are that of someone who knows but hides behind the label of agnosticism which is one who doesn't know.

I don't know how else I can explain this to you.

You dont know my behaviors, you know I simply challenge theism and youre confused as to why an agnostic would.

Thats your poor understanding ~ not mine.

Seems you think agnostics believe in God.

No, they believe hes NOT been proven one way or the other.....and the nature of NOT being proven means, they see challenges to all cases presented.

You take the challeging of the cases as defacto atheism.

Thats not my problem, its actually either your dishonesty or your misunderstanding.

I have debated you long enough to observe and know your behaviors, GT. Do I need to catalog them again for you?

I don't believe agnostics believe in God. I believe agnostics don't exclusively argue against the existence of God or summarily dismiss arguments and information without investigating them first.

You dont possess the intellectual capacity to examine behaviors.

Thats what Ive examined of.. you.

Its conclusive, too....especially with your idea of how agnostics are "supposed" to operate

 

[G.T.]

Thank you.

I know several agnostics and they don't even have an interest in discussing God.

Why? Because they are convinced it is unknowable. The problem I have with that is if one never tries how does he know it is unknowable?

Well that's interesting. Maybe your friends are weird.
Most Agnostics totally enjoy philosophical debate as to whether God exists (as proven in this thread).
And "trying" does not turn things from unknowable to knowable.

Yeah, that is weird. Do they only argue against the existence of God in these fun filled philosophical debates?

And if they did, wouldn't that indicate a bias?

Arguments against the sufficience of evidence presented is not an argument for or against god, its a scrutiny of the cases folks have thought theyve made. Its called being rational.

Except you summarily dismiss all arguments without investigation, GT.

Nope, just yours. Cuz youre not capable.

 

[westwall]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

 

[G.T.]

OR why an Agnostic is an Atheist.
Idiot .. unworthy of debate

You never answered my question. Do agnostics argue against the existence of God?

I can see why you think I am unworthy of debate. I ask you questions you can't answer.

I wish you understood that asking this question proves an incoherent view of agnosticism.

The nature of not being convinced either way, is to have seen challenges with every case presented to them, to date.

Thats a given, otherwise, theyre not agnostic.

Thats not arguing "against god," its scrutinizing the cases presented. A less dogmatic human understands the difference....and you asking the question means that you conclusively .. DONT.

You can't scrutinize what you summarily dismiss, GT, and that's what you do.

To *you.

Ive had these discussions for years and years and with many folks, even at usmb.

Youre not privy to all of those conversations.

Guess youre not omniscient...something else hard for you to hear apparently

Send me a link to one of them so I can see for myself, GT. Fair enough?

If someone else asks, I will. Ive had long, long winded conversations pointing out the logical incoherence of the t a.g. argument. for example.

It was logically ruled out as a good argument for god, not dismissed out of hand. Thats a you thing because of your inability to read, comprehend, respond in good faith and or be logical.

 

[ding]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

No.

Thank you.

I know several agnostics and they don't even have an interest in discussing God.

Why? Because they are convinced it is unknowable. The problem I have with that is if one never tries how does he know it is unknowable?

Another reason is that religious people define God differently so in some instances depending on how God is defined it would seem unknowable and in other instances the definition would seem knowable. But from just a generic point of view safer to just say I don't know.

God is eternal and unchanging. He gave us a clue as to what He is when He said, I am. If we take Him at his word, God is existence. I am. I exist.