The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Elioenai26]

Just did...

Where?

 

[Elioenai26]

His body might be dead and buried... but his spirit and military genius is still alive and aids those who seek it out.

Still waiting for the disproof.

The point you are trying to make is not going to made with the line of reasoning you are using and I will explain to you in plain terms why.

It is your contention that there is no way to disprove the statement: "Jesus Christ lives in me".

You use the above illustration to try and convey this.

Your failure is in not taking into account what is entailed in making the Christian's statement falsifiable. It is falsifiable because when a Christian claims that Christ lives in them by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they are claiming that an actual historical person namely, Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, buried, and raised on the third day, is actually alive and well, and lives inside of them by the Holy Spirit. In the preceding, there are three falsifiable claims: 1) Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in first century Palestine. 2) Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by Pontius Pilate. 3) Jesus rose from the dead on the Sunday following His crucifixion. All three of these claims are necessary and foundational to the Christian's claim of the indwelling Christ and are falsifiable and can therefore be disproven. This means that when a Christian says that Christ lives in them, this statement can be falsified. Simply produce Jesus' body, simply prove that Christ was not actually crucified etc. etc. and the Christian's claim is rendered void. So your contention that a Christian's claim of Christ dwelling within them cannot be disproven has just been refuted.

 

[Non sequitur]

So you didn't say that Christ was just my imaginary friend? Maybe I misunderstood you....

Remove your non-demonstrated and un-provable claim, I remove my disbelief and it's explanation.

If you ask me how can I prove my elaboration on my disbelief, it would be that you have not demonstrated yours to be true and the most likely explanation of your non-demonstrated claim would be imaginary. Either it's real or it's imagined.

My claim is my response to yours; the only other explanation of disbelief to your claim.

You are trying to equate it to, since it's not ON my claim is that it is OFF and I need to prove that.

 

[Elioenai26]

Remove your non-demonstrated and un-provable claim, I remove my disbelief and it's explanation.

If you ask me how can I prove my elaboration on my disbelief, it would be that you have not demonstrated yours to be true and the most likely explanation of your non-demonstrated claim would be imaginary. Either it's real or it's imagined.

My claim is my response to yours; the only other explanation of disbelief to your claim.

You are trying to equate it to, since it's not ON my claim is that it is OFF and I need to prove that.

How do you determine if something is unprovable?

 

[Non sequitur]

How do you determine if something is unprovable?

Without having to argue over "proof", and the people that will follow, go with not demonstrable.

 

[Elioenai26]

Without having to argue over "proof", and the people that will follow, go with not demonstrable.

Wow, that really is a bad definition.

So if people argue over lets say.....the shape of the earth, does that mean that the true shape of the earth is not demonstrable?

 

[HitchSlap]

This is interesting indeed.

Right here we have five atheists (Eudaimonist makes five) that claim Jesus of Nazareth is nothing more than an imaginary friend of Christians.....

Before I engage all of you at once, I must understand what it is that you are saying.

Are all of you saying that Jesus of Nazareth was simply conjured up by the first Christians and was not actually a historical figure at all, or is it your view that the first Christians chose to project onto the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth who was simply a Galilean Jew, their conception of Messiah and make him their imaginary friend?

I'm saying that you, as an adult, claiming to have a "relationship" with a person who allegedly lived two thousand years ago, is indistinguishable from a five year old's imaginary friend.

Similarities include:

Talking to your friend.
Claiming to see him.
Shared experiences.
Believes him to be real.

Do you have any demonstrable evidence to the contrary?

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm saying that you, as an adult, claiming to have a "relationship" with a person who allegedly lived two thousand years ago, is indistinguishable from a five year old's imaginary friend.

Similarities include:

Talking to your friend.
Claiming to see him.
Shared experiences.
Believes him to be real.

Do you have any demonstrable evidence to the contrary?

It is very distinguishable.

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin.
Jesus Christ came preaching that the Kingdom of God had come among men.
Jesus Christ said that in Himself, the Kingdom of God had come.
Jesus Christ raised people from the dead, healed the blind, cleansed lepers.
Jesus Christ claimed to forgive people of their sins.
Jesus Christ knew what people were thinking in their minds.
Jesus Christ drew down the wrath of the self-righteous of His day and for His virtuous life, received the sentence of death.
Jesus Christ said that no one could come to God except through Him.
Jesus Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate
Jesus Christ was buried
Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the Sunday following His death
Jesus Christ appeared to many of His followers
Jesus Christ's followers went from a small band of Galilean fishermen to the first of what was to become the largest organized religion in the world numbering in the billions which spreads like wildfire where it suffers the heaviest persecution.

Children's imaginary friends do none of the above.

 

[Davian]

The point you are trying to make is not going to made with the line of reasoning you are using and I will explain to you in plain terms why.

It is your contention that there is no way to disprove the statement: "Jesus Christ lives in me".

You use the above illustration to try and convey this.

Your failure is in not taking into account what is entailed in making the Christian's statement falsifiable. It is falsifiable because when a Christian claims that Christ lives in them by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they are claiming that an actual historical person namely, Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, buried, and raised on the third day, is actually alive and well, and lives inside of them by the Holy Spirit. In the preceding, there are three falsifiable claims: 1) Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who lived in first century Palestine. 2) Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by Pontius Pilate. 3) Jesus rose from the dead on the Sunday following His crucifixion. All three of these claims are necessary and foundational to the Christian's claim of the indwelling Christ and are falsifiable and can therefore be disproven. This means that when a Christian says that Christ lives in them, this statement can be falsified. Simply produce Jesus' body, simply prove that Christ was not actually crucified etc. etc. and the Christian's claim is rendered void. So your contention that a Christian's claim of Christ dwelling within them cannot be disproven has just been refuted.

I don't think you are clear on the concept of falsifiability.

For your claim "Jesus Christ lives in me" to be falsifiable, there must be something measurable about you that would not be preset is the statement was false.

Propping up your claim with unfalsifiable conditions (provide accurately identified 2000 year old bodies, "prove" something did or *didn't* happen to someone in the absence of independently verified documentation) renders your claim unfalsifiable.

Are you new to this philosophy stuff?

So, if there is nothing about your claim "Jesus Christ lives in me" that is measurable in some way that would be different if your claim was false, then no, there is no way to disprove it. It is unfalsifiable. It is of no significance.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't think you are clear on the concept of falsifiability.

For your claim "Jesus Christ lives in me" to be falsifiable, there must be something measurable about you that would not be preset is the statement was false.

Propping up your claim with unfalsifiable conditions (provide accurately identified 2000 year old bodies, "prove" something did or *didn't* happen to someone in the absence of independently verified documentation) renders your claim unfalsifiable.

Are you new to this philosophy stuff?

So, if there is nothing about your claim "Jesus Christ lives in me" that is measurable in some way that would be different if your claim was false, then no, there is no way to disprove it. It is unfalsifiable. It is of no significance.

Give me good evidence or reasons to maintain that Christ did not rise from the dead and I will admit that my claims are falsified.

Now, I will wait.....I won't hold my breath....but I will wait.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is very distinguishable.

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin.
Jesus Christ came preaching that the Kingdom of God had come among men.
Jesus Christ said that in Himself, the Kingdom of God had come.
Jesus Christ raised people from the dead, healed the blind, cleansed lepers.
Jesus Christ claimed to forgive people of their sins.
Jesus Christ knew what people were thinking in their minds.
Jesus Christ drew down the wrath of the self-righteous of His day and for His virtuous life, received the sentence of death.
Jesus Christ said that no one could come to God except through Him.
Jesus Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate
Jesus Christ was buried
Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the Sunday following His death
Jesus Christ appeared to many of His followers
Jesus Christ's followers went from a small band of Galilean fishermen to the first of what was to become the largest organized religion in the world numbering in the billions which spreads like wildfire where it suffers the heaviest persecution.

Children's imaginary friends do none of the above.

Incorrect, imaginary friends are often credited with accomplishing miraculous feats of daring-do.

 

[Davian]

Give me good evidence or reasons to maintain that Christ did not rise from the dead and I will admit that my claims are falsified.

Now, I will wait.....I won't hold my breath....but I will wait.

You are still not clear on the concept of falsifiability.

 

[Elioenai26]

You are still not clear on the concept of falsifiability.

Of course I am.

Is the proposition: "Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead on the Sunday after His crucifixion."

Falsifiable?

 

[HitchSlap]

Of course I am.

Is the proposition: "Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead on the Sunday after His crucifixion."

Falsifiable?

Using Bayesian logic and probability, of course it is.

Unfortunately for you, since you've made a positive claim, the burden is yours to support with demonstrable evidence. Otherwise, asking us to accept your claim based on faith is asking us to jettison reason and logic, and to take the gullible position.

 

[Elioenai26]

Using Bayesian logic and probability, of course it is.

Maybe you can explain to Davian why it is????

 

[Non sequitur]

Give me good evidence or reasons to maintain that Christ did not rise from the dead and I will admit that my claims are falsified.

Now, I will wait.....I won't hold my breath....but I will wait.

That's not how it works.

Give me good evidence or reasons to maintain that pink is not 3's favorite color and I will admit that my claims are falsified.

It has has to BE falsifiable.

 

[Elioenai26]

That's not how it works.

Give me good evidence or reasons to maintain that pink is not 3's favorite color and I will admit that my claims are falsified.

It has has to BE falsifiable.

what does that have to do with what I said?

Is this all you guys have?

Is this what atheistic responses to theism is reduced to???? talking about 3's and the color pink????

Engage what I said and refrain from throwing red herrings out all over the place.....

 

[bhsmte]

Folks,

Save yourself some time and go on youtube and watch some of william lane craig's debates. He debates Bart Ehrman on the resurrection thing and brings up the probability, which Erhman laughed at it and asked Craig to explain how it could be considered legitimate. But you have to watch it to appreciate it.

 

[Elioenai26]

Folks,

Save yourself some time and go on youtube and watch some of william lane craig's debates. He debates Bart Ehrman on the resurrection thing and brings up the probability, which Erhman laughed at it and asked Craig to explain how it could be considered legitimate. But you have to watch it to appreciate it.

Post the video here in a new thread and let us discuss it.

 

[HitchSlap]

what does that have to do with what I said?

Is this all you guys have?

Is this what atheistic responses to theism is reduced to???? talking about 3's and the color pink????

Engage what I said and refrain from throwing red herrings out all over the place.....

Yes, all we have, is that we require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims theists make. It's why we think you're gullible and feel threatened when we ask for evidence.