The Resurrection

[Angrboda]

This is speculation.  Please do not assert speculation as fact.

It wasn't presented to me as speculation in all my cognitive science courses. This is research that has been done and observations that have been made.

So what do you mean speculation?

Some aspects may be reducible, but even those are unproven. And I don't really care what you were taught. Or think you were taught. I wasn't in your classrooms so this is all just based upon your personal credibility. We don't even understand memory. So your entire claim is that, presumably, we can reduce all elements of cognition and self, neither of which we truly understand, to something else we don't actually understand. Are you an expert in these fields? If you feel what you said is not speculation than demonstrate that it is not.

[John 6IX Breezy]

All of this bringing up abiogenesis, amnesia therapy, and so on comes of as trying to show that Jesus’ resurrection was as least possible, or even plausible.

Boru

Well yeah, I believe I stated that up front.

The conclusion I'm driving towards is something like: You can say God doesn't exist and therefore he didn't resurrect anyone, but not that resurrections aren't possible therefore God doesn't exist.

That's why comments that rant over the Bible being fiction don't address the question. Owls are owls whether they're laying eggs in your yard or delivering you mail from Hogwarts. You can say Harry Potter is fiction therefore those particular owls aren't real, but not that owls don't exist therefore Harry Potter is fiction

[The Grand Nudger]

What's given you the impression that you're speaking with people who think christs resurrection is possible?

That magic book is fiction, otoh, is based on observation... on cognitive science... on research in the field. The things it says happened..and not just the resurrection ..didn't. The way it says things happen, things that have happened, isn't.

You can believe in a god all you like, and clearly you do, but it's also clear that the creation story in magic book is just that. A story. The resurrection story..the same..and you guys have the damned receipts as a matter of literary development...! If you need that story to be true for your god beliefs to be true, it's not me or any atheist that has a major problem.

[arewethereyet]

Word salad from the John the Jabberwocky...nothing new to see here.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have to ask. There must be some other redeemable aspect of christianity, right? It's not just a ghost story about a pixy that goes bippity boppity boo over a corpse, at least not to you, is it? You don't demand that your god be wholly explicable by science or technology or any other naturalist conceit, do you?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

All of this bringing up abiogenesis, amnesia therapy, and so on comes of as trying to show that Jesus’ resurrection was as least possible, or even plausible.

Boru

Well yeah, I believe I stated that up front.

The conclusion I'm driving towards is something like:  You can say God doesn't exist and therefore he didn't resurrect anyone, but not that resurrections aren't possible therefore God doesn't exist.

That's why comments that rant over the Bible being fiction don't address the question. Owls are owls whether they're laying eggs in your yard or delivering you mail from Hogwarts. You can say Harry Potter is fiction therefore those particular owls aren't real, but not that owls don't exist therefore Harry Potter is fiction

There’s no reason you shouldn’t believe in the Resurrection, but I’m curious as to why you’re going to such great lengths to reduce it to science, since doing so obviates the need for God.

What other miracles have scientific explanations? Did gravity boots allow Jesus to walk on water? Was he able to feed the multitude with a Star Trek-type replicator? If you’re going to look for a natural or technological process to explicate one miracle, why not all of them?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

It's just icky to say this, but the catholics had it right back in the day. They may not have known or been able to conceieve of all the countervailing information their religious beliefs would run into in future, but they did recognize the utility of adding a proviso in the establishing past explaining that not all true things would find themselves expressed in or accurately expressed by magic book.

[John 6IX Breezy]

There’s no reason you shouldn’t believe in the Resurrection, but I’m curious as to why you’re going to such great lengths to reduce it to science, since doing so obviates the need for God.

What other miracles have scientific explanations? Did gravity boots allow Jesus to walk on water? Was he able to feed the multitude with a Star Trek-type replicator? If you’re going to look for a natural or technological process to explicate one miracle, why not all of them?

Boru

My goal was simply to persuade people of the possibility: To go from thinking it was impossible, to a more moderate position that's open to the possibility. Thats it. And I picked the resurrection because it seemed like a harder proposition for me to defend than merely walking on water. I couldn't have predicted from the outset that you would think I was going easy on myself for tackling the resurrection rather than the turning of water into wine lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did christ ferment the wine? If it weren't scientifically or technologically possible to make water into wine...would you then conclude that a god couldn't do it, that the christian god is fiction, or that the christian religion is false?

[Sheldon]

All of this bringing up abiogenesis, amnesia therapy, and so on comes of as trying to show that Jesus’ resurrection was as least possible, or even plausible.

Boru

Well yeah, I believe I stated that up front.

The conclusion I'm driving towards is something like:  You can say God doesn't exist and therefore he didn't resurrect anyone, but not that resurrections aren't possible therefore God doesn't exist.

Or I can just disbelieve all claims, where insufficient (or no) objective evidence has been offered in support. 

Owls are owls whether they're laying eggs in your yard or delivering you mail from Hogwarts. 

False equivalence...

You can say Harry Potter is fiction therefore those particular owls aren't real, 

One need not say anything about Harry Potter, and the fact is owls are real, they need not be claimed to be otherwise in your example, as their existence has no relevance to the rest of your claim, this is why suggesting the claims are the same is a false equivalence, they share one similarity...owls, but they are in all other ways different. 

1. Can you demonstrate that resurrections like the ones in the gospel myths, are possible?
2. Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists, or is possible?

NB Atheism is not a claim, nor is it a belief, therefore it needn't demonstrate anything.

My goal was simply to persuade people of the possibility: To go from thinking it was impossible, to a more moderate position that's open to the possibility.

Possibility has to be demonstrated, I don't need to make a contrary claim in order to withhold belief from your claim resurrections are possible, it's your claim, stop pretending it's mine.