Does it really matter…

[Dobermonster]

I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

The difference is Crow asked you what you felt about a specific hypothetical situation. He did not make any comment on the current position atheist may or may not hold. You did not answer the question, you obfuscated and are continuing to do so.

No.  I have not obfuscated.  I've said it already is seen as such and yet I remain a Christian.  Or are you denying there is evidence that Christ did not actually live or that he wasn't the son of god...??  You are Atheist, right?

I'm not sure how much more it could be stated.  I remain a Christian because of my faith...not in the word "Christ" nor whether he claimed or didn't claim...  If it is MEN that prove empirically, my faith is not in MEN.  So my answer STILL stands.  I remain a Christian today despite the claims of men that prove otherwise.  How much more plain must it be?

You're a smart person, Tank.  I answered the question long ago.

I think this might be as close to an answer as you're going to get, Tank. To paraphrase, AD would maintain his faith in Christ no matter what the evidence. (correct me if I'm wrong)

[Tank]

I'd say simply Bruce and I see the answer (and maybe the question) different.  I see that this scenario is not so outlandish to say it isn't so already (in the minds of those that oppose belief in Christ/God).  My belief is that Atheism already feels there's enough evidence that disproves Christianity and so Christians are seen as deluded...so what is the difference in answers?

The difference is Crow asked you what you felt about a specific hypothetical situation. He did not make any comment on the current position atheist may or may not hold. You did not answer the question, you obfuscated and are continuing to do so.

No.  I have not obfuscated.  I've said it already is seen as such and yet I remain a Christian.  Or are you denying there is evidence that Christ did not actually live or that he wasn't the son of god...??  You are Atheist, right?

I'm not sure how much more it could be stated.  I remain a Christian because of my faith...not in the word "Christ" nor whether he claimed or didn't claim...  If it is MEN that prove empirically, my faith is not in MEN.  So my answer STILL stands.  I remain a Christian today despite the claims of men that prove otherwise.  How much more plain must it be?

You're a smart person, Tank.  I answered the question long ago.

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

[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.

I cannot speak for all atheists, but the idea that we have irrefutable evidence in the non-existence of Jesus is a belief most atheists woud probably distance themselves.
It is almost impossible to prove the non-existence of something. What is the common atheist opinion is that there is not sufficient evidence to support the existence of a Jesus character. There is no good reason to believe that such a person existed outside the bible, which we know contains many claims that are just plain wrong.

[AnimatedDirt]

There is no good reason to believe...

And as I stated in my original answer, yet here I am...a Christian.  Answered fully.

[Tank]

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.

If it was plain I would have understood it, sorry for being so fucking stupid.

[Guardian85]

There is no good reason to believe...

And as I stated in my original answer, yet here I am...a Christian.  Answered fully.

I was not challenging your answer to that question (You did, eventually, answer it), but challanging your statement that atheists know that there is no Jesus. I said that the common opinion of atheists is that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a Jesus, rather then definitive evidence of his non-existence.
You did not adress that.

[Stevil]

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?

[AnimatedDirt]

I was not challenging your answer to that question (You did, eventually, answer it), but challanging your statement that atheists know that there is no Jesus. I said that the common opinion of atheists is that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a Jesus, rather then definitive evidence of his non-existence.
You did not adress that.

As the topic of this thread, does it really matter whether the evidence is insufficient or definitive?  *Your opinion of me is the same regardless.  To the Atheist, there is enough to disbelieve and  so s/he does lots to belittle the Christian and their belief(s).  Take the Image Dump thread...take all the times on this forum alone that people have stated that they cannot stand Christians or those that will not believe or disbelieve as the evidence shows...*you (the Atheist) is hardly claiming to be on the opposite side of an equally valid belief are you? 

[AnimatedDirt]

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?

[statichaos]

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?

Sorry to butt in, but answering the question directly with a yes or a no rather than responding with another question would probably suffice.  Not to speak for the questioner, of course.  It's just that it was more about what you believe, and not about what atheists believe.

[Stevil]

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

The question was not about me, it was about you.

Ecurb and AD this is a question to you. As Christians if information came out tomorrow (with considerable empirical evidence supporting the fact that neither one of you could deny) that no Jesus figure existed and there wasn't any other person claiming to be the son of god during that time would that be the end of Christianity for you?

[AnimatedDirt]

Sorry to butt in, but answering the question directly with a yes or a no rather than responding with another question would probably suffice.  Not to speak for the questioner, of course.  It's just that it was more about what you believe, and not about what atheists believe.

The question is answered by the Atheist him/herself.  The Atheist disbelieves for whatever reason and I believe inspite of it.  I think it answers the question plainly and in turn goes to show that (at least this Christian) does not put the weight of proof of God on Man, but puts faith in God and not in fallible Man.  I think I gave a more thourough answer than a simply 'yes' or 'no'.  I somewhat disagree with Bruce in that to me he suggests that he would put more weight on Man's knowledge than on God.  While it may do away with "Christ"ianity, it does not do away with God.  My faith would remain.  However, Bruce didn't go much further and I may simply be speculating on what he really meant if it were to be so or what he would do as far as belief.

[statichaos]

Sorry to butt in, but answering the question directly with a yes or a no rather than responding with another question would probably suffice.  Not to speak for the questioner, of course.  It's just that it was more about what you believe, and not about what atheists believe.

The question is answered by the Atheist him/herself.  The Atheist disbelieves for whatever reason and I believe inspite of it.  I think it answers the question plainly and in turn goes to show that (at least this Christian) does not put the weight of proof of God on Man, but puts faith in God and not in fallible Man.  I think I gave a more thourough answer than a simply 'yes' or 'no'.  I somewhat disagree with Bruce in that to me he suggests that he would put more weight on Man's knowledge than on God.  While it may do away with "Christ"ianity, it does not do away with God.  My faith would remain.  However, Bruce didn't go much further and I may simply be speculating on what he really meant if it were to be so or what he would do as far as belief.

"Wordy" does not equal "complete".

[AnimatedDirt]

"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.