A question for Agnostics...

and you included false accusations in this thread which antagonizing me to to defend myself.

 

I've made not false claims against you. All of my "accusations" are recorded in your own posts.

 

You have not demonstrated any contradictions exist outside of your imagination

Conspiracy theory? I didnt say anything about a conspiracy theory, that nose is getting long again.

well thats all the search function came up with, means you posted a false claim.

 

all your false claims are recorded in yours.

You didnt quote me for a reason, your false accusations are no where to be found in my posts.

Go ahead take it to the holocaust thread, Im feeling sadistic

and I havent had lunch yet.

Its all smoke and mirrors! He knows I got the goods!

He wont show up peeps! LOL

WTF? I dont see you there?
Here let me help you:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/about-the-holocaust.552312/

 

Yes, you "proved" many things.... if by "proved" you mean pretend to prove and declare victory while thumping your chest and not actually having any discussion with anyone.

 

He has, in this very thread within the past couple of pages. You could tell us why what he noted isn't a contradiction and try to explain it, but you don't do that, do you? No, you simply play your games instead. It is amusing but pathetic.

 

and you abandon the nonsense you post because you cant explain your claims, just make **** up other have to come to your rescue. and then you go into denial and argue with them when they are correct.

He didnt note a contradiction, neither did he debate me in the holocaust thread, neither did he post anything in that thread to debate me, he knows he will get his ass handed to him if he does. LOL

When the going gets tough the tough get going and run away as fast as they can, or go into denial and project all their nasty traits onto others, yes we know the drill.

 

Now you think you doing that is "tough"? Lol

 

My ass doesnt write checks my brain cant cash, like some people out here.

You simply post illiterate **** then when asked to explain and validate it you run away, and of course stage 2 is calling me lots of names to attempt to distract everyone from your DDT, dirty debate tricks. Everyone can see through your little facade.

So where we at now, DODGE11 or 12?

Literate people can validate their claims, clearly its been 12 DODGES already so dont you think its time to concede your titanic has long sunk? busted again.

Now its time to get all butthurt and project all your lovely DDT's, what did you say? trolling? Doesnt matter you project all your coveted traits on to me.

 

Any native English speaker knows you are wrong on this. Again, all you would need to do is learn to draw a Venn Diagram.

 

Pretty sure I've already debated there, as I have in other history-denier threads. If you can actually discuss facts in that thread and not just fire off childish taunts, I'll join you.

 

Of course they can! That is precisely how most supernatural/paranormal phenomena work on the human experience! Its normally an unpredictable scenario without any tangible or measurable presence, that is sensed either externally, they 'saw' a vision, and 'felt' someone's breath on their face and 'heard' a commanding or soft voice that is inexplicable and they cannot prove a thing or know, but they believe it quite firmly, especially if the same experience happens to them a few more times. The difference between your average ghost and a holy spirit or God figure, is that the phenomena that they 'saw' now takes on a of Mary, or Jesus, or Moses, or Buddha, or Ala and what was said or whispered takes on a quasi-religious meaning. They believe they have an answer now to a prayer, or a teaching to be obeyed. None of this is provable or repeatable, and thus knowable from a scientific perspective, but the conviction based on this experience can be strong. They can believe and not know and realize that there is a difference between the two.

 

clearly you are not a native english speaker since you claimed that a statement "declaring a negative belief" is "not an assertion" and you did not correct, in stead you agreed with the birds word salad that I have prove beyond a shadow of a doubt was in fact semantic. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...onal-religion.564784/page-125#post-1073389294 Any "native" english speaker would have known that.

I still dont see you there
I made hundreds of posts many with official quotes, my fav though is the testimony from that nice jewish guy that let us all know the prisoners could buy "Weak beer" and cigarettes at the death-camp cantina, that was stellar! Im still waiting.

If to be an agnostic means to take neither side how can they also take a side? Strong weak or otherwise.

 

It does not mean that in this context. I can of course refer you to the relevant definitions by the page ... I certainly have before, but We have done this tango sooo many times.

 

I have stated the opposite several times on the forum. Quote me ever saying that "declaring a negative belief" is "not an assertion."

 

you dont know how to click link?

 

If you choose either side, you claim the side you chose, and lose the label agnostic, it does not matter what sense you use it in. I dont know is not defined as agnostic. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/I don't know
Agnostic, atheist and theist are exclusive of each other, which means they do not logically mix.

essentially agnostic means neutral. you choose neither left nor right. You can not claim you are agnostic-atheist for instance any more than you can claim you are driving neutral-right

 

Quote the part that substantiates your claim. Neither of the things you quoted and attributed to me are actually things I said and they don't appear in the link, so it's curious why you would put them in quotation marks.

 

Maybe there is an opportunity for education here.

Timmy went neither left nor right.

Your first test question is: Timmy went left, true or false?
Your second test question is: Timmy went left, true or false?

 

try:
Your first test question is: Timmy went left, true or false?
Your second test question is: Timmy went RIGHT, true or false?

Your name is in the 'quoted by' reference, yardmeat said:

 

False

False

The difference between you and me is that I can answer your questions, you can't answer mine, and you would freak out if someone only asked you the first question -- you wouldn't be able to answer at all. You would insist on additional question and not be able to answer something so simple.

I can easily answer your question and mine. Why can't you do the same? In fact, why do you never answer any questions? It seems like every time I ask you a question, you hide and demand I answer your questions instead. Terribly dishonest tactic.

The statements in your quotation marks did not come from me. That's what I'm asking for. But thanks for another white flag.

 

I prefer the term agnostic these days, since so many morons, deviants, and sociopaths call themselves 'atheists' these days it has become a joke term. I think that the Jesus of the NT was an actual person, that the Gospels and most of the 'books' in the NT were written at the times they claim to be, and the orthodox versions are indeed the originals and not written hundreds of years later. Whether or not he was a divine entity is not an issue I lose sleep over; I leave that belief for his followers to decide. So, I am a 'believer' the man existed, but I'm not what Christians would consider to be a 'believer'.

The social revolution the Christians started was most certainly a great improvement over its alternatives, and I'm glad I won the birth lottery by being born in a culture whose history and culture was dominated early on by WASPs, along with it legal systems and idealism, and not some death cult and political ideology like Islam or even worse pagan violence and anti-social cultures. So again, I would most certainly pick living in a 'Christian' culture over what a bunch of pseudo-intellectual 'rational constructivists' like Communists and 'Libertarians' would concoct in their insane 'objectivity' fantasies.

 

It wouldn't matter. Koko pretends to be incapable of understanding anyone who doesn't use his specific preferred meanings for words, even if you painstakingly define what you mean by them, and even if the definition you use is just as or more popular and more commonly used than his is. I tried to engage him in good faith conversation. So did you. So have many others. He's not interested. He's here to thump his chest and "win" against "neoatheists".

He is riding high currently because he wrongly thinks he "proved" not believing something must be the same as believing something isn't so (while at the same time purporting to be his meaning of "agnostic"; meaning both not believing God exists and not believing God doesn't exist). He thinks he proved this by linking to a random article from a decade ago that he then promptly demonstrated he didn't read all of it. Fun guy.

He also has the gall to talk down to others about their English usage while he makes grammar and spelling mistakes in almost every single post he writes. Extra fun guy.

 

Reddit atheists have indeed made a joke of the term. Jesus was most likely an actual person, and the overwhelming majority of secular historians accept this. Most of the "Jesus Myth" crowd is working with "scholarship" so bad that they are the equivalent to history that young earth creationists are to biology and geology. The Gospels, however, don't actually claim to have been written at any particular time. They were likely written quite some time after Jesus's death, and none of them, aside from MAYBE John, and this is debatable, even purport to have been written by eyewitnesses. In fact, even orthodox tradition says that two of them weren't written by eyewitnesses. We definitely don't have the originals, but the differences in the copies are *mostly* minor. There are, of course, exceptions. The social revolution you are referring to was mostly from Christians finally, after more than 1,500 years, taking on some humanist values, some of which were blatantly inspired by Greek and Roman pagans. The legal system of the OT was just as much of a "death cult" as the other populations you mention, and the NT has its barbarity as well. Most of what you credit to Christianity has nothing to do with Christianity. The social progress happened because Christianity was being defanged, not because it was empowered.

 

That's a reasonable argument. I do agree that the "morality" contained in the bible appears to be an improvement over what was the morality of the time and place before it. So yes, it looks like progress. The problem is that by making it a religion they made it difficult to change, and as we developed even better morally, it became an anchor holding us back as much as a paddle pushing us forward. For example, it says to treat slaves a certain way and not to beat them to death, which was likely an improvement at the time.... but it didn't go so far as to say slavery is wrong (or rape for that matter) and said slaves should obey their masters, and can be beaten so long as they don't die, etc.

It also pushes obedience as morality, vicarious redemption, and a bunch of other very immoral concepts that we should rid ourselves of.

I think it is a good argument that you are onto that Christianity helped push western society in the right direction, and I am also happy that secularism then took over and has pushed us along further. So I would say Christianity was a good step forward for its time, but we have outgrown its usefulness.

But that said, I do fear what may rise up and replace it if it dies completely. "Woke" atheist religion could develop into something worse. Perhaps the best situation is what we currently have, a rather docile version of Christianity that most people nod to but few actually adhere to.