Does it really matter…

[Stevil]

More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

It confuses the position.

Noone on this forum knows whether your answer is yes or no.

[statichaos]

"Wordy" does not equal "complete".

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

But again, it isn't about what HE believes.  The hypothetical is if YOU encountered such evidence.  I'm sorry, but this isn't a more nuanced answer: it's simple question-dodging.  You may say with full rights that you don't feel like addressing such a hypothetical situation, you may say that you feel uncomfortable with responding directly, you may even say "I don't know".  However, saying "Well, isn't that what you believe?" says nothing whatsoever about your personal belief system in terms of how you would respond to the situation presented.

[Guardian85]

That answers the question. Which is "A) No, it would not mean the end of Christianity for me."

AD you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. But if you do choose to answer then please do it directly as that facilitates discussion and this is a discussion board.

Isn't this the case today?  You* (the Atheist) seems to think this be so and yet here I am...a Christian.

Once again.  The first answer answered the question plainly.

It is not clear at all.
Are you saying that you acknowledge that there is irrefutable proof that Jesus did not exist?

I'm finding this almost unbelievable.  Is it not your position as an Atheist that there is enough to disprove Christianity?

It is my opinion, and that of many others, that it is not neccesary or possible to disprove Christianity, as Christianity, or any other faith, has not been proven yet. Again, It is not that we claim to prove the non-existance, it is that there is no evidence of existance in the first place.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I think a somewhat better question to put to yourself and Bruce would be, what would change if the resurrection was proved false beyond reasonable doubt? In other words, if archaeologists uncovered a tomb, with a male skeleton that had been crucified; bones, linen, and inscription dated accurately to the right year, with a papyrus saying something like "This is Jesus of Galilee, son of Joseph, executed in 33 AD by order of Pilate, governor of Judea, for claiming to be the Messiah". And DNA analysis corroborated the evidence. I don't think this scenario would ever occur, but this is a hypothetical round of inquiry.

This hypothetical poses a slightly different question, because such evidence would confirm that Jesus was a real person and it would give us a good basis for believing that at least the general gospel accounts about him were probably historical, if not in every detail, at least generally. But it would radically challenge my understanding of the resurrection, and undermine my faith to a great degree. I suppose I could still believe that Jesus' teachings were valid, and perhaps that there was a potential for an afterlife in some other realm.  But so much of Christianity is based on the resurrection that I don't think my faith would be anything like it is today. Again, this is a hypothetical, but if conclusive evidence on a point is presented, I can't ignore it.

[AnimatedDirt]

More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

It confuses the position.

Noone on this forum knows whether your answer is yes or no.

It does not confuse the answer.  The answer is...Atheism already believes there to be no evidence for such a belief, yet I stand as a Christian.  It more than answers the question.  

[statichaos]

More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

It confuses the position.

Noone on this forum knows whether your answer is yes or no.

It does not confuse the answer.  The answer is...Atheism already believes there to be no evidence for such a belief, yet I stand as a Christian.  It more than answers the question.  

Actually, it does no such thing.  Was it does prove is that no matter the proof for the existence or nonexistence of Jesus, we have definitive and conclusive proof of your unwillingness to provide a direct answer to the question as stated.

[Tank]

More wordy than a 'yes' or 'no', but explains the position more.

It confuses the position.

Noone on this forum knows whether your answer is yes or no.

It does not confuse the answer.  The answer is...Atheism already believes there to be no evidence for such a belief, yet I stand as a Christian.  It more than answers the question.  

No AD you are still missing the point. Crow asked YOU what YOU would do if presented with incontrovertible evidence that YOU believed was true. This crap about atheism is irrelevant.

[AnimatedDirt]

Actually, it does no such thing.  Was it does prove is that no matter the proof for the existence or nonexistence of Jesus, we have definitive and conclusive proof of your unwillingness to provide a direct answer to the question as stated.

I'm sorry you refuse to accept a direct answer to the question.

[Tank]

Actually, it does no such thing.  Was it does prove is that no matter the proof for the existence or nonexistence of Jesus, we have definitive and conclusive proof of your unwillingness to provide a direct answer to the question as stated.

I'm sorry you refuse to accept a direct answer to the question.

Quit the trolling AD or you'll find yourself with an 30 day suspension. - Tank

[Stevil]

It does not confuse the answer.  The answer is...Atheism already believes there to be no evidence for such a belief, yet I stand as a Christian.  It more than answers the question.  

How does "Atheism already believes there to be no evidence for such a belief" equate to
"if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed"

It seems to me that you have rewritten the question and then answered your own question.

Many of us on this thread are interested to know your yes/no answer as it pertains to the original question.

[statichaos]

Actually, it does no such thing.  Was it does prove is that no matter the proof for the existence or nonexistence of Jesus, we have definitive and conclusive proof of your unwillingness to provide a direct answer to the question as stated.

I'm sorry you refuse to accept a direct answer to the question.

"Yes", "No", and "I don't know" would have been direct answers.  Instead, you're acting like Jesus before Pilate, throwing questions of his divinity back in the man's face with "Thou hast said it".  That's fine if you're looking to play games, but please don't insult my intelligence or the intelligence of the questioner by acting as if it's direct.

[AnimatedDirt]

No AD you are still missing the point. Crow asked YOU what YOU would do if presented with incontrovertible evidence that YOU believed was true. This crap about atheism is irrelevant.

What you seem to be missing is all the times on this forum I have stated that I believe there is enough proof to believe and just as much or more proof to disbelieve.  Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians) proves that the notion already exists that there's enough evidence to disbelieve to the point that *you poke fun at Christians and yet I still stand as a Christian.  Even more so, I've already stated (here in this thread) that proof that comes from Men does not change my faith.  This hypothetical proof simply does away with "Jesus" and his claims...not God.  So...again.  Here I stand...a Christian or make up a new name for it.

[Tank]

No AD you are still missing the point. Crow asked YOU what YOU would do if presented with incontrovertible evidence that YOU believed was true. This crap about atheism is irrelevant.

What you seem to be missing is all the times on this forum I have stated that I believe there is enough proof to believe and just as much or more proof to disbelieve.  Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians) proves that the notion already exists that there's enough evidence to disbelieve to the point that *you poke fun at Christians and yet I still stand as a Christian.  Even more so, I've already stated (here in this thread) that proof that comes from Men does not change my faith.  This hypothetical proof simply does away with "Jesus" and his claims...not God.  So...again.  Here I stand...a Christian or make up a new name for it.

AD I am now telling you to answer the question Crow asked in a straight forward manner or make no further comment in this thread. If you don't do either of these then I'm going to suspend your account for 30 days for trolling. Your behaviour in this thread is no longer conducive to reasoned or rational debate, you're just taking the piss in my opinion - Tank

[statichaos]

What you seem to be missing is all the times on this forum I have stated that I believe there is enough proof to believe and just as much or more proof to disbelieve.

All of which is irrelevant to the question as stated, which presupposes that you have discovered incontrovertible proof that this evidence was absolutely incorrect.

Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians) proves that the notion already exists that there's enough evidence to disbelieve to the point that *you poke fun at Christians and yet I still stand as a Christian.

Saying that Atheism exists to the extent that it does (making fun of Christians) is like saying religion exists to the extent that it does (oppressing gays).  While such things do occur, this is a gross overgeneralization of the stance in question.

Even more so, I've already stated (here in this thread) that proof that comes from Men does not change my faith.  This hypothetical proof simply does away with "Jesus" and his claims...not God.  So...again.  Here I stand...a Christian or make up a new name for it.

If it does away with Jesus and his claims, you're absolutely correct that it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.  This actually comes close to answering the question, but not totally.  Would you still consider yourself  to be a Christian under these circumstances?  Not what other people would consider you to be, not what others think, but what would you consider yourself to be as a result?  Would it radically alter your way of thinking about the New Testament, or how you've interpreted the ministry of Jesus? How about your moral code?  Or would you simply shrug, say "I was mistaken about the specifics, but I still believe in God, though not in his son"?

[Asmodean]

Furthermore, that Atheism exists to the extent it does (making fun of Christians)

Don't take it too personally - I, for one, mock everybody who believes the extraordinary without credible evidence to support it.

...proves that the notion already exists that there's enough evidence to disbelieve

You don't need evidence to disbelieve something. When an extraordinary (Which all things supernatural are pretty much by definition, by the way) claim is made, the default position is "it's bullshit".

Even more so, I've already stated (here in this thread) that proof that comes from Men does not change my faith.  This hypothetical proof simply does away with "Jesus" and his claims...not God.  So...again.  Here I stand...a Christian or make up a new name for it.

...And you would likely continue to believe as you do, possibly with minor changes, even if absolute and irrefutable evidence to the contrary was presented.

The "strength" of your beliefs and the beliefs themself are nothing to be proud of. The accumulated knowledge behind them, however, can be.