(July 7, 2016 at 9:18 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: On Mark Pocaras has answered you. No need for me to repeat him. On your wikipedia definition, it's wrong. If you have evidence that something exists you don't believe in it. I neither believe in th chair I'm sitting on, the phone I'm posting on nor the pork steak dinner I just et because I have sufficient evidence they all exist. I do not believe in things that can be shown to exist, and neither should you.
Edit: Your 27 corroborating documents are at best 27 tertiary source documents for which we have no primary nor secondary source corroboration, and we know that those 27 documents have been significantly doctored in order to conform to a theology which was largely created after the religion was adopted by the Roman state.
What is your evidence that they have been significantly doctored? There are some changes, but my understanding is that these do not effect doctrine. Also, because of the abundance of manuscripts from a across a geographical divide, we can often track many changes to a particular time and place (sometimes to a particular scribe). And most of the discrepancies are insignificant, anyway.
I don't find that your definition you are using for "believe" to be all that common. Would it be accurate to say, that you do not believe in gravity? Would you feel the need to clarify what is meant if so?
