Agnostic is not "don't know". It's confused self-contradictory copping-out. Agnostic is uncertainty in all claims of knowledge of anything. So agnostic is uncertainty in all claims of knowledge of agnostic. Duh. You only have religious agnostics where logical definitions of atheist are circumscribed fallaciously (sounds like a jewish stamp collector). Generally a role assumed by theists.
I agree , it's fair format for the subject matter, although I say the premise is faulty, as it would appear more accurate to state "All things proven to exist have empirical evidence." Apart from what I call your faulty premise, I find it strange you felt the need to make a syllogism in any case to understand what I am arguing. Especially as I have made it abundantly clear throughout as follows: There is NO historicity for Jesus. Jesus has NO authentic history. There is NO historical evidence Jesus ever existed Accepting the premise then under this 'fair format' exception , if a syllogism is necessary, I suggest to understand what I'm arguing it might better read ; All things that exist have evidence. There is no evidence of a Jesus, Therefore there is no evidence of a Jesus ever existing. Because there is no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus ever existed, but conversely there is evidence of how the Jesus character mimics almost exactly many earlier and later mythical deistic fictional figures, it is accurate to say Jesus is fictional, along with the myriad of other fictional personas consistent with Jesus .
You seem to think the Bible is substantive evidence, so I doubt you understand the meaning of the word. There is NO history of Jesus ever existing. You need a credible historian to show credible history. There is none to show.
Desparately back to making your own rubbish up , using alternative screen names to try and support yourself. For that reason Jem...you are a schizo. The Josephus passage is said to have been written late 1st century. That is not an account "a few years after" the supposed Jesus's supposed death. Most of the passage is accepted as a forgery. The rest remains contentious, both accepted by scholars and disputed by scholars. For a so called Youtube and CNN Josephus reporter of the day, the supposed Jesus was a mighty non event. Josephus is renowned as an ancient historian due to comprehensive writings that are confirmed in other records, accounts and artifacts. For that reason most all his other documents give historians a good insight into the lives of Kings and common people written about in his own life time. However there is nothing equivalent to that in Josephus about Jesus. The mention is mostly forged , all of it is between 40 and 100 years out of date anyway, and is in any case what would be extremely scant mention for a supposed 'King of the Jews'. It does not stand up as historical evidence. However some desparate christians like yourself for some weird reasons obviously need to clutch at any straw because there is actually NO historocity of Jesus. keep 'em commin'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.humanreligions.info/twelve.html "Starting out life as an immensely useful number for counting and dividing things, the number 12 became a number revered by mathematicians and early astronomers. So the skies were divided into 12 portions as were the months of year, reflecting the annual movement of heavenly bodies. Superstitions and religious beliefs were piled on top of respect for the number 12. Superstitions concerning signs of the Zodiac and life events have been comprehensively shown to be false. The ancient Zoroastrians had twelve commanders on the side of light (light being a symbol for the sun), the Greeks imagined 12 Gods on mount Olympus, and many Gods have had 12 sons. Mithraists, and then Christians, believed that their saviour had 12 disciples, and Muslim Shi'as list 12 ruling Imams following Muhammad. Such holy persons are depicted with a bright solar light around their heads. Although many ancient religions such as the Gnostics understood things like the twelve disciples of Mithras to be symbolic of the stages of the waning and waxing sun throughout the year, later religions took it literally and believed in an actual 12 disciples - and some still do."
Your first statement is tautological. The arguments you follow with are not valid syllogisms, not that they need to be, but that's what you're trying to make them. I can tell by your reply to the essay linked that you are absolutely certain of everything, and believe you know more than everyone. Adios, have a great life. : )
1. How many times do you have to be told there are two passages in Josephus which mention Jesus. The second one is accepted as authentic by all legit scholars and it mentions Jesus and James. 2. "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Ricter, Just a heads up. The arguments are not syllogisms, One syllogism requires 2 premises and a conclusion. In light of that are you sure you mean tautological? Because if my first statement is tautological then so is yours. Of course it isn't. The first statement made is your first , but made logically consistent. Your first statement, I contend, was not. If the argument following is not valid then neither was yours.. it is yours. So you are arguing against yourself. The third is your conclusion made logically consistent with the first and second premise in line with the aforementioned 'fair format' exception. The essay you linked is based on what can only be a complete misrepresentation and contradiction in terms. At least I explain why. All you've done is "grief" and run. Personally, I think you can tell from my reply (and Free Thinker's) what I said is probably reasonable. Funny how you guys run so fast when called out. ps. You are wrong. I don't go with absolutes, though I do notice some sour grapes you have there. But thanks anyway, I am having a great life and I hope you can too.
1. How many times do you have to be told what you call the second passage, but which is only a few words, remains contentious Both accepted by some scholars and disputed by some scholars. Mentioning characters Josephus could have had no real knowledge of, as they are unproven as ever existing in any other verified historical evidence, does not count as historical evidence anyway, even if (big if) they are authentic. You keep mindlessly repeating over and over a remark from Wiki that does nothing to show any historicity for Jesus, but which is only saying (paraphrasing) "don't debate the historicity of Jesus" Get a clue Jem... ( or have you dressed up as res-jubblyca in high heels and a red wig to type that ) ... or run off like Ricter because you are both so brainwashed you can't see what is staring you in the face. There is NO historical Jesus. It doesn't mean you have to stop believing in your imaginary friend, or stop guessing that he might not have actually been Bible Jesus but..... just "some guy".... whatever You should maybe stop going around lying to everyone and yourself that there is any valid historical evidence that Jesus existed.
Once again its Stu against the educated. Its pretty funny. Stu why don't you quote from university educated historians disputing the second passage in Josephus? You say my quote does not mean anything. yet the historicity of Jesus article it comes from has over 100 quotes. Thats real academics do... they support their findings. That what anyone who is credible does. Its no wonder you think it means nothing. You never provide any support for your sorry conjectures. You have no answer for the physicists I quote on other threads. You have no answer for the historians I quote on this thread. You quarrel with dictionary definitions on other threads. don't you ever get tired of playing the zealout?