Very disappointed

[Nikolai]

@ thread.

@ uninformed quasi-scientific bigots.

[Willem]

Is every faith a blind faith or are there 'normal' faiths and blind faiths?

Any faith that bases it's belief on something that can't be proven/disproven is blind.

[Andrew_RT]

Atheism is not logical because it falls prey to the Negative Proof fallacy I linked to earlier. Agnosticism is rational.

Not believing in god is not logical because it falls prey to the Negative Proof fallacy I linked to earlier. Not knowing for sure if god exists is rational.

You see what happens when you use shortcuts/labels, you create artificial meaning which has no basis.

So every imaginable notion that human mind can create is automatically existent, it is legitimized and you can never prove that it doesn't exist.. Also notice that god has no definition or any content of attributes whatsoever that relates to reality and logic. And every theist has constructed his own personalized internalized notion of god regardless of any official dogma(Christianity btw has 30 000 variations).

God is utterly amorphous anthropomorphized placeholder.

Now, here is the situation, what we have here is a nonsensical wordplay of labels:
There are 2 categories, atheist and theist. Agnostic as a third category is non-existent on every level.

What agnosticism nonsense does is introduces 4 categories:gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist and agnostic theist.

Agnosticism as generally understood is meaningless and functionally pointless, it conflates cognition with belief-action.

[Willem]

Ah, it was too much for me to expect that you actually read the given article...
You probably didn't even watch the video in the opening post.

None of these nonsensical questions and remarks would happen otherwise.





Yes, so that means that everything on internet is untrue, like internet is some kind of mystical magic, not a digital repository of all knowledge and there is no way to verify anything...really, do you have to belittle yourself so with that comment, you really brought the level of discussion down with it.
Also isn't the main feature of the internet hyperlinkability of all content? Do you really have to be so feeble minded as to allow internet tripe to cloud your reasoning?

P.S.
If you want to have an institutionalized superstition/god/sky fairy vs reason debate I'm all for it, you wouldn't be the first ones to get destroyed. I destroyed Muslims(completely demolished infinity concept), Catholics, Protestants....

Man, you really are full of yourself aren't you? For every article you point out disputing that Jesus existed, I can find 10 that says he did:

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-and-scientific-proof-of-jesus-faq.htm

The evidence he did far outwieghs the conjecture that he didn't. Whether he was actually the Son of God is another story but there's certainly enough evidence that he was a real person at some time. Get off your high-horse and stop pretending you know it all, you're just making yourself look like an idiot.

[Felch]

So every imaginable notion that human mind can create is automatically existent, it is legitimized and you can never prove that it doesn't exist.. Also notice that god has no definition or any content of attributes whatsoever that relates to reality and logic. And every theist has constructed his own personalized internalized notion of god regardless of any official dogma(Christianity btw has 30 000 variations).

The first statement is a non sequitur. God is not automatically existent, it is instead simply unknown. I do not know if Elisha Cuthbert is going to fall madly in love with me, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. It's simply unknowable (at present). The fact that people don't agree on a single definition of the divine simply proves that people have different attitudes. That's consistent with what we already know about people.

God is utterly amorphous anthropomorphized placeholder.

Amorphous, naturally. People can't agree about where to get lunch, much less on the nature of something fundamentally beyond human understanding. Anthropomorphism is not necessarily true. In fact, most major modern religions emphasize the non-human aspects of God. Christ is regarded as fully human and fully divine (Catholic/Orthodox doctrine). That's different from the Greek pantheon that was full of characters best described as superhuman.

Now, here is the situation, what we have here is a nonsensical wordplay of labels:
There are 2 categories, atheist and theist. Agnostic as a third category is non-existent on every level.

So you win because you decide an entire point of view doesn't exist? You do belong in Off-Topic. Come on in. The water is warm.

What agnosticism nonsense does is introduces 4 categories:gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist and agnostic theist.

No, because agnosticism is all about simply ignoring the question. It's unknowable, so I'm not going to profess any belief. For example, I stopped paying attention to the Orioles / Blue Jays game on Saturday during the 11th inning. I don't know who won the tie, and if someone asked me, I would say "I don't know." I wouldn't say, "I don't know, but I think it was the Orioles." That would be baseless.

Agnosticism as generally understood is meaningless and functionally pointless, it conflates cognition with belief-action.

I disagree with this entire statement. It's wrong on every level.

[Andrew_RT]

Man, you really are full of yourself aren't you? For every article you point out disputing that Jesus existed, I can find 10 that says he did:

Linking debunked apologetic nonsense makes you look foolish.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

THE BIBLE GOSPELS

OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS

LYING FOR THE CHURCH

GNOSTIC GOSPELS

NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

FAKES, FRAUDS, AND FICTIONS

WHAT ABOUT WRITINGS DURING THE LIFE OF JESUS?

HISTORICAL SCHOLARS

CITING GEOGRAPHY, AND KNOWN HISTORICAL FIGURES AS "EVIDENCE"

COMPARING JESUS TO OTHER HISTORICAL FIGURES

IF JESUS, THEN WHY NOT HERCULES?

A NOTE ABOUT DATING:

The A.D. (Anno Domini, or "year of our Lord") dating method derived from a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Little), in the sixth-century who used it in his Easter tables. Oddly, some people seem to think this has relevance to a historical Jesus. But of course it has nothing at all to do with it. In the time before and during the 6th century, people used various other dating methods. The Romans used A.U.C. (anno urbis conditae, "year of the founded city," that being Rome). The Jews had their own dating system. Not until the tenth century did most churches accept the new dating system. The A.D. system simply reset the time of January 1, 754 A.U.C. to January 1, of year one A.D., which Dionysius obliquly derived from the belief of the date of "incarnation" of Jesus . The date, if one uses the Bible as history, can't possibly hold true. *

Instead of B.C. and A.D., I have used the convention of B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) as often used in scholarly literature. They correspond to the same dates as B.C. and A.D., but without alluding to the birth or death of an alleged Christ.

And on final note-

[Andrew_RT]

No, because agnosticism is all about simply ignoring the question.

Wow, that has to be the dumbest comeback I ever saw!

[Felch]

Wow, that has to be the dumbest comeback I ever saw!

I've got to hand it to whoever created you, you are fun.

I mean, you're like the anti-Kenobi. It's pure luxury.

If you explain how I'm wrong (a few sentences is fine), we can keep this up for a while.

[Ming]

Yeah... you should be in the off topic forum. There, you can go "destroy" people... maybe

But to be honest... simply pointing to a web site proves nothing, since there are multiple websites covering each side of the issue, and in this "discussion", FACTS are hard to come by

[Jon Shafer]

Man, threadjack much? Where's a mod when you need one...

Jon

[OzzyKP]

I mean, you're like the anti-Kenobi. It's pure luxury.

He should definitely go to the OT.

[Willem]

Aah, that's better. This raving lunatic is much easier to deal with when he's on your ignore list.

[Cort Haus]

R.A. Wilson

Can I just say "Giant Spaghetti Monster"?

Thanks

[Theben]

None of these nonsensical questions and remarks would happen otherwise.

Riiight... b/c in the 11 years of this sites existence, you are the 1st person to make such claims.

P.S.
If you want to have an institutionalized superstition/god/sky fairy vs reason debate I'm all for it, you wouldn't be the first ones to get destroyed. I destroyed Muslims(completely demolished infinity concept), Catholics, Protestants....

This isn't 4Chan. You'll be outclassed pretty quickly here.

And as a "fellow" atheist (I use the term loosely in your case) I can state without reservation that you're acting like a douchebag, only less convincing. Most atheists concur with the history of the existence of Jesus the man.

p.s. to mods: This should be moved to OTF by now as the thread has been jacked.

[Murg]

Haha, not only does he dispute the divinity of Jesus (as reasonable atheists do) but he maintains that the guy never even existed (thus securing his spot among wacko atheists).

But, he has a link on the internet so it must be true.