Now that we are winning AJ defectors, WNlists, please lay off the Nazi shit

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Don't scare them off. A libertiarian-Christian view of anti-Judaism is far more credible anyways.

[mgt23]

whilst we are in agreement about the nazi shit which is stupid, speak for yourself about the christian, anti judaism crap.1 religion is bollox full stop. 2 anti judaism is not anti zionism. the two only overlap in the critique of the talmud. anti zionism does agree with the libertarian view of yours however and i will focus on that part of your suggestion in my message.

[Travis]

whilst we are in agreement about the nazi shit which is stupid, speak for yourself about the christian, anti judaism crap.1 religion is bollox full stop. 2 anti judaism is not anti zionism. the two only overlap in the critique of the talmud. anti zionism does agree with the libertarian view of yours however and i will focus on that part of your suggestion in my message.

Everyone has a religion.

[mgt23]

define religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism

Pyrrhonism, or Pyrrhonian skepticism, was a school of skepticism founded by Aenesidemus in the first century BC and recorded by Sextus Empiricus in the late 2nd century or early 3rd century AD. It was named after Pyrrho, a philosopher who lived from c. 360 to c. 270 BC, although the relationship between the philosophy of the school and of the historical figure is murky. A renaissance of the term is to be noted for the 17th century when the modern scientific worldview was born.

The second debate of Pyrrhonism in the early modern period

The traditions of ancient skepticism found a new reception in the early modern era climaxing in the 17th century in the discussion of historical doubt "Pyrrhonismus historicus" and "Fides historica" the 'belief' in history. The fundamental question of the debate could not, and cannot, be solved: How can we prove historical data? History is a realm that does not allow experimental proofs. Questions such as with how many stabs was Julius Caesar killed can only be discussed on the basis of documents. If they contradict each other historians can try to balance them against each other. Do certain documents have precedence over others as eye witness reports, can they be validated through experience, or do they include unlikely, marvelous incidents one should disqualify as legend?

The result of the debate was not a final solution of the inherent problem but the implementation of a new science of critical analysis of documents. The questions had a potential to destabilize religious histories. They lost much of their momentum with the transformation of history from a narrative project to a project of critical debate and with the 19th-century implementation of archeology as a comparatively objective and experimental science.