(July 7, 2016 at 10:58 am)SteveII Wrote:(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.
So, 1) you want to redefine belief and 2) you have no backup for your assertion highlighted above but are willing to reassert it.
No you want to redefine belief because pretending your beliefs are evidence based is easier than going out and finding whether your beliefs can be confimed by evidence or not.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home