Atheists: would proof of the resurrection matter to you?

[Pizza]

It would be an amazing factoid but wouldn't help Christianity too much.

What would it mean?  Not much.  It would more likely indicate that your hypothetical evidence that it really happened is suspect.

It would at least mean that it's possible to resurrect outside of scientifically verifiable scenarios. And probably that Christianity is true. The foundation of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. If he did, then the case looks promising.

I don't agree with this at all. You would have to buy into the many doubtful premises: 1.) that bodily resurrections are incompatible with both atheism and non-Christian theism. 2.) That deities resurrect people in order to communicate with humans. 3.) That deities have any desire in communicating with humans. 4) That deities are human like to any strong degree.

[Dystopia]

It would an amazing factoid but wouldn't help Christianity too much.

It would at least mean that it's possible to resurrect outside of scientifically verifiable scenarios. And probably that Christianity is true. The foundation of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. If he did, then the case looks promising.

I don't agree with this at all. You would have to buy into the many doubtful premises: 1.) that bodily resurrections are incompatible with both atheism and non-Christian theism. 2.) That deities resurrect people in order to communicate with humans. 3.) That deities have any desire in communicating with humans. 4) That deities are human like to any strong degree.

It wouldn't prove Christianity to be 100% right, but it would be a first step, specially because the Resurrection is so important. It could be that Jesus resurrected but was a messenger of Allah or any other god, but anyway it would at least make a good case for the existence of a higher power if someone did resurrect outside of normal boundaries. That being said, it would still make Christianity more likely to be true than other religions.

[Rhondazvous]

A Body of Evidence

A man was on trial for murder. All the evidence pointed to his guilt, except there was no body.
Lawyer: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I submit to you that within ten seconds the supposed dead man will walk through that door.

Ten seconds went by and nobody came through the door.
Lawyer: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I did not know for sure if anyone was coming however, you all looked which proves you have doubts and therefore cannot find my client guilty.

Then the jury went to deliberate. When they came back the foreman stood up and pronounced the defendant guilty.
Lawyer: But you can’t. You all looked toward the door. You have a reasonable doubt.
Foreman: Yes, we all looked toward the door but your client didn’t.

[Cephus]

Sure, it would make a significant difference, depending on what you were trying to prove.  Right now, there is no independent eyewitness evidence that Jesus ever existed at all  so in order to give evidence for the resurrection, you'd have to prove there was a Jesus and that right there is a million times more than anyone has now.

[Pizza]

It wouldn't prove Christianity to be 100% right, but it would be a first step, specially because the Resurrection is so important. It could be that Jesus resurrected but was a messenger of Allah or any other god, but anyway it would at least make a good case for the existence of a higher power if someone did resurrect outside of normal boundaries. That being said, it would still make Christianity more likely to be true than other religions.

Again, not if those premises I mentioned above can't be backed up non-circularly. I'm surprised by how many skeptics take these premises at face value without question. I guess that's the cultural influence of Christianity on us.

[KevinM1]

Proof of the resurrection would likely contain proof of how that resurrection happened. It's presumptuous to think that the proof would point to magic.

[Spooky]

Depends on the proof. If it was indeed "Proof" and not biblical nonsense, it could mean quite a bit. I'm not holding my breath though.

[rado84]

would proof of the resurrection matter to you?

No, unless they can give me a 100000000000000000000000000000000% guarantee that when I get resurrected/reborn I'll remember everything I knew just before I died.

[brewer]

Short answer, no.

I'm sure Ted Williams family along with many others hope that scientific resurrection is possible in some fashion.

I do prostrate myself each spring to a frog that's been frozen for 3 months. Does that count?

[Rhondazvous]

What would it mean?  Not much.  It would more likely indicate that your hypothetical evidence that it really happened is suspect.

It would at least mean that it's possible to resurrect outside of scientifically verifiable scenarios. And probably that Christianity is true. The foundation of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. If he did, then the case looks promising.

Not necessarily. This hypothetical resurrection would just be an event. That is no indication that the Christian interpretation of that event is the right one.

Think about it. According to our boy Huggy, god must abide by his own laws. Since raiding from the dead is against physical law, then the devil must have done it. That's one interpretation.