Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[The Reality Salesman01]

---

Say a notorious and worldwide respected Archaeologist calimed: "We've found Jesus' bones in an ancient tomb in Israel"

(Which would mean Jesus didn't ascend to heaven and the myth would be exposed as such)

Wouldn't you want to know how he knew they were the bones of Christ?

What sort of answer would satisfy you?

I mean, what would he have to say to you to convince you that they were indeed the bones of Christ?

---

Well, considering that neither I nor just about anyone else is convinced that the James ossuary is 100% genuine (although it may be, but I don't know), I can't imagine that it would be an easy thing to prove.

I don't understand how you could not have a response to such a straight forward question regarding something that is so central to your life. You don't seem sure about what it would take to make your belief falsifiable.

But I don't think that's the type of evidence that would be likely to come forward if the gospel is false. There is plenty of other evidence you'd expect would be more likely to see.

What evidence would it take to satisfy you that they were actually the bones of Christ? You haven't answered my question.

If you could never know-or if there would be no way for you to know-that they were the bones of Christ, then your belief isn't falsifiable. If your belief isn't falsifiable the do you really believe on the basis of evidence?

I don't say this lightly, but I don't think you're being sincere. You know that there's absolutely no evidence one could present that would make you change your mind.

You say that there is, but that's just verbal behavior. You've created impossible conditions and you're okay with that? That's not the intellectual attitude one has when forming one's beliefs on the basis of evidence.

Here's what I don't get. Why don't you just say that you're not open to evidence and that you're going to believe anyway? Isn't that a more honest and sincere way to live your life?

You're pretending that you're open to evidence, but you're not really open to evidence at all.

You say that you are, but when pressed you can't provide details of that evidence. Specifically, what would that evidence look like?

I'll give you one last chance to show me that I've misunderstood you.

If a famous archaeologist announced that he'd discovered the bones of Christ, what evidence would you need to believe that he was telling the truth?

If you don't have any idea of what it would take, you can't say he has mistaken. Do you see?

( I'm sure I don't need to remind you that this evidence would also discredit The Bible, so saying that it would have to say it in The Bible for you to believe it would be outrageously circular and a non sequitur.)