My version of course. You ought to know that by now...
Take the case of the magician that is mentioned in Acts. He is mentioned only one time in historical records. Do you doubt that he exists? I don't...
Materialists
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
My version of course. You ought to know that by now...
Take the case of the magician that is mentioned in Acts. He is mentioned only one time in historical records. Do you doubt that he exists? I don't...
I would word it a little differently: instead of agnosticism and disbelief, I would say agnosticism and skepticism. If you word it that way, then I can accept what you are saying. Otherwise, you're just converting agnosticism into a kind of atheism.
If you were truly an agnostic as you say you are, you would not take a position. By saying that you disbelieve something, which generally means to believe it is false, you are taking a stand on the opposite side of the issue...
You can call yourself an agnostic, but I don't think anyone who has read your posts thinks of you as an agnostic...
Quote from axeman:
I am agnostic and a-jesus, or simply dont believe in jesus (Similar to being an atheist)
You need to learn to differentiate the two, they are not mutually
exclusive.
(a)Gnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE.
ATHEISM/BELIEF/DISBELIEF/A-jesus, obviously, deals with BELIEF.
I have no KNOWLEDGE of a historical Jesus, and therefore am agnostic on it.
However, I also hold no BELIEF in a historical jesus, so therefore
I am a-jesus.
Covered in my last post. It's all semantics I realize tho - not worth arguing over...
LMAOOOO - every time I read this, I just cant help but laugh.
JEM fully supports my position and concedes the debate
with this glaring admission.
Now read JEMs silly quote very carefully:
JEM:JEM your honor as to this issue. We are not seeking to admit this evidence as to the truth of the matter but as to whether JESUS exists in historical documents. AND HE DOES. Think about this issue. AXE states we have no records that Jesus existed. So then we point to a record of Jesus in a famous and respected history. AXE then says objection hearsay. Hearsay is irrelevant to the issue of whether jesus's existence recorded. The question would be is whether to book that recorded the existence of Jesus is an accepted history. Answer yes.
In other words.... JEM ISNT TRYING TO PROVE whether or not
JESUS ACTUALLY EXISTED... oh no no no ... he is only interested
in if Jesus exists in a historical document, even a forged one,
a fictional jesus, simply doesnt matter, as long as it exists
in a historical document! LMAOOOOOOOOO
You see.... JEM being the slimy lawyer he is, attempts to change
the entire issue of the debate while at the same time side stepping
the real issue at hand.
Wake up JEM, we are interested in whether or not JESUS
ACTUALLY EXISTED AS A LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEING/GOD.
Who CARES if he simply is mentioned in fictional history.
Ok... I need to laugh at this quote one more time:
JEM:We are not seeking to admit this evidence as to the truth of the matter but as to whether JESUS exists in historical documents. AND HE DOES.
LMAOOOOOOOOO Ummmm.... you DO realize that many
mythical gods exist in historical documents right??? LMAOOO
Whooooooooopiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee! Doesnt prove shit.
Again...... I state there is no rational reason to believe in a
historical jesus. And not a FICTIONAL historical jesus, I never
said that. A HISTORICAL JESUS, one that actually EXISTED
and lived and breathed. That is what is meant when scholars
debate the "historical jesus". Dude...you are so clueless.
Give it to an ATTORNEY to put this much idiotic spin on something
as simple as the existence of a historical human being.
I think ill die and old man waiting for someone to produce
any evidence that a historical jesus actually existed.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Open and shut case.
peace
axeman
JEM fully supports my position and concedes the debate
with this glaring admission.
Now read JEMs silly quote very carefully:
JEM:JEM your honor as to this issue. We are not seeking to admit this evidence as to the truth of the matter but as to whether JESUS exists in historical documents. AND HE DOES. Think about this issue. AXE states we have no records that Jesus existed. So then we point to a record of Jesus in a famous and respected history. AXE then says objection hearsay. Hearsay is irrelevant to the issue of whether jesus's existence recorded. The question would be is whether to book that recorded the existence of Jesus is an accepted history. Answer yes.
In other words.... JEM ISNT TRYING TO PROVE whether or not
JESUS ACTUALLY EXISTED... oh no no no ... he is only interested
in if Jesus exists in a historical document, even a forged one,
a fictional jesus, simply doesnt matter, as long as it exists
in a historical document! LMAOOOOOOOOO
You see.... JEM being the slimy lawyer he is, attempts to change
the entire issue of the debate while at the same time side stepping
the real issue at hand.
Wake up JEM, we are interested in whether or not JESUS
ACTUALLY EXISTED AS A LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEING/GOD.
Who CARES if he simply is mentioned in fictional history.
Ok... I need to laugh at this quote one more time:
JEM:We are not seeking to admit this evidence as to the truth of the matter but as to whether JESUS exists in historical documents. AND HE DOES.
LMAOOOOOOOOO
Ummmm.... you DO realize that manymythical gods exist in historical documents right??? LMAOOO
Whooooooooopiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee! Doesnt prove shit.
Again...... I state there is no rational reason to believe in a
historical jesus. And not a FICTIONAL historical jesus, I never
said that. A HISTORICAL JESUS, one that actually EXISTED
and lived and breathed. That is what is meant when scholars
debate the "historical jesus". Dude...you are so clueless.
Give it to an ATTORNEY to put this much idiotic spin on something
as simple as the existence of a historical human being.
I think ill die and old man waiting for someone to produce
any evidence that a historical jesus actually existed.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Open and shut case.
peace
axeman
Your getting closer Shoe, but your still missing it.
I am in no way converting agnosticism into atheism.
It simply is not possible, they deal with different domains
(knowledge and belief) and I myself am an agnostic atheist,
also known as a weak atheist.
You are forcing agnosticism and disbelief to be mutually exclusive.
You must understand that its perfectly valid, and in fact,
extremely COMMON among critical thinkers and scientists to hold
a position of agnosticism and DISBELIEF at the SAME TIME.
Think of the following cases:
You could be gnostic (have knowledge of something) and CHOOSE not to believe in it.
In some cases we call this being in denial
You could be Agnostic, and BELIEVE in something.
With ZERO knowledge, you're still a believer.
I would call this being irrational.
You could be Agnostic, and disbelieve in something.
This is in fact the correct and DEFAULT position for scientists/critical thinkers.
Its the MOST COMMON position, in fact.
Its silly to claim knowledge and believe in everything by default.
You could be Gnostic AND believe in something.
This is a rational position, and should only occur
after you have proven something true or at least highly likely
of being true. Once critically examined and verified, belief
naturally follows such knowledge.
So in summary.... yes... im agnostic and atheist.
Im also a-jesus and agnostic with regards to a historical jesus.
I simply think there is NO reason to believe in a historical jesus.
And again... since JEM is so obviously confused, by historical jesus,
I mean a person WHO ACTUALLY EXISTED.
peace
axeman
I am in no way converting agnosticism into atheism.
It simply is not possible, they deal with different domains
(knowledge and belief) and I myself am an agnostic atheist,
also known as a weak atheist.
You are forcing agnosticism and disbelief to be mutually exclusive.
You must understand that its perfectly valid, and in fact,
extremely COMMON among critical thinkers and scientists to hold
a position of agnosticism and DISBELIEF at the SAME TIME.
Think of the following cases:
You could be gnostic (have knowledge of something) and CHOOSE not to believe in it.
In some cases we call this being in denial
You could be Agnostic, and BELIEVE in something.
With ZERO knowledge, you're still a believer.
I would call this being irrational.
You could be Agnostic, and disbelieve in something.
This is in fact the correct and DEFAULT position for scientists/critical thinkers.
Its the MOST COMMON position, in fact.
Its silly to claim knowledge and believe in everything by default.
You could be Gnostic AND believe in something.
This is a rational position, and should only occur
after you have proven something true or at least highly likely
of being true. Once critically examined and verified, belief
naturally follows such knowledge.
So in summary.... yes... im agnostic and atheist.
Im also a-jesus and agnostic with regards to a historical jesus.
I simply think there is NO reason to believe in a historical jesus.
And again... since JEM is so obviously confused, by historical jesus,
I mean a person WHO ACTUALLY EXISTED.
peace
axeman
I think you're substituting weird Ivy League definitions for these words.
A perfect example is your definition of gnostic. If you say gnostic to the majority of people (who even know what the word means), they'll think occult or New Age, which is the connotation of the dictionary definition as well.
____________________________________________Quote from axeman:
LMAOOOO - every time I read this, I just cant help but laugh.
JEM fully supports my position and concedes the debate
with this glaring admission.
Now read JEMs silly quote very carefully:
JEM:JEM your honor as to this issue. We are not seeking to admit this evidence as to the truth of the matter but as to whether JESUS exists in historical documents. AND HE DOES. Think about this issue. AXE states we have no records that Jesus existed. So then we point to a record of Jesus in a famous and respected history. AXE then says objection hearsay. Hearsay is irrelevant to the issue of whether jesus's existence recorded. The question would be is whether to book that recorded the existence of Jesus is an accepted history. Answer yes.
In other words.... JEM ISNT TRYING TO PROVE whether or not
JESUS ACTUALLY EXISTED... oh no no no ... he is only interested
in if Jesus exists in a historical document, even a forged one,
a fictional jesus, simply doesnt matter, as long as it exists
in a historical document! LMAOOOOOOOOO
You see.... JEM being the slimy lawyer he is, attempts to change
the entire issue of the debate while at the same time side stepping
the real issue at hand.
Wake up JEM, we are interested in whether or not JESUS
ACTUALLY EXISTED AS A LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEING/GOD.
Who CARES if he simply is mentioned in fictional history.
Ok... I need to laugh at this quote one more time:
JEM:We are not seeking to admit this evidence as to the truth of the matter but as to whether JESUS exists in historical documents. AND HE DOES.
LMAOOOOOOOOO
mythical gods exist in historical documents right??? LMAOOO
Whooooooooopiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee! Doesnt prove shit.
Again...... I state there is no rational reason to believe in a
historical jesus. And not a FICTIONAL historical jesus, I never
said that. A HISTORICAL JESUS, one that actually EXISTED
and lived and breathed. That is what is meant when scholars
debate the "historical jesus". Dude...you are so clueless.
Give it to an ATTORNEY to put this much idiotic spin on something
as simple as the existence of a historical human being.
I think ill die and old man waiting for someone to produce
any evidence that a historical jesus actually existed.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Open and shut case.
peace
axeman
How rational is it to continually attack many other people and to belittle them in order to try to build yourself up?
Are these the actions and thoughts of a very rational mind?
Better check the facts Doubter.... JEM started the attacking, not me.
So pin the beginning of the mud slinging to JEM, and ask HIM
why he started attacking other people.
Further... who says this is on order to "build myself up"?? YOU?
Give me a break. I suppose you think you can READ ME MIND now,
and KNOW the reason. LOL.
Since I KNOW you CANT read my mind... let me just tell you WHY
im attacking JEMs argument.
Because its irrational and full of bullshit SPIN.
I enjoy shooting down bullshit. Simple as that.
peace
axeman
So pin the beginning of the mud slinging to JEM, and ask HIM
why he started attacking other people.
Further... who says this is on order to "build myself up"?? YOU?
Give me a break. I suppose you think you can READ ME MIND now,
and KNOW the reason. LOL.
Since I KNOW you CANT read my mind... let me just tell you WHY
im attacking JEMs argument.
Because its irrational and full of bullshit SPIN.
I enjoy shooting down bullshit. Simple as that.
peace
axeman