sotto voce

Why do 'atheists' so often have to be asked for their rationale?

Toto

Because their Christian opponents won't give it a rest.

Please return to the topic in the OP. Thank you.

sotto voce

Where is there Christian opposition?

Toto

Look in a mirror.

Then heed the words of the moderator and STICK TO THE TOPIC. :angry:

sotto voce

Prove that I am a Christian, Toto. In any thread you care to start, because it would be off topic in this one, or in any other current thread.

sotto voce

Is this facebook discussion based on an erroneous premise, that the miraculous is possible? Is it true that there is only one rational assumption about resurrection, that it is impossible? Or does one assume, even pro tem., that it is possible?

seeker

Wow, what dictionary are you reading?

Atheism is simply non-belief, that doesn't require any claim of knowledge. Are Christians claiming to 'know the unknowable' when they say they don't believe in Zeus?

sotto voce

Not true. Agnosticism is non-belief. Now if there is positive claim that resurrection cannot occur, it needs to be supported. Otherwise, agnosticism is the only possible approach to possibility of resurrection, other than acceptance thereof.

Every belief is unprovable by formal means. We are all existentialists, trying to make sense of experience. Even Descartes lied.

J842P

Agnosticism is lack of knowledge, not non-belief. I can believe things without having knowledge in them. So, one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. It's not some middle-way between the two positions.

sotto voce

One leads to the other.

That's why everyone is agnostic.

Or an agnostic agnostic.

One can say, "I'm an atheist," but one cannot prove it. It's not a statement worth a philosopher's time. It's self-centred, and of no interest. One can discuss what is susceptible to reasonable proof. So if I say, "I'm a atheist, because..." I begin to get interesting where I begin to finish the sentence. But atheism cannot finish the sentence rationally, because one cannot disprove the existence of deity, formally or informally, simply because it is beyond the power of humanity to look everywhere. Atheism is no more than blind guesswork, or wishful thinking. Agnosticism makes sense, and people are beginning to realise it.

Theism has at least the possibility of proof— informal proof, that is. The Bible, that is the object of interest in BC&H, forms a basis for theist belief, and that fact needs to be accepted by those who post and read here. The opening statement in the OP is defective because it infers an absolute proof, and is circularity. It would have been better as:

If Jesus (was) resurrected, it was the proof that we could trust him.