FT, moderate Christian:
Awwww, Gary – Don’t you find having an opposing view to be of value? I mean, you’ve got plenty of opportunity to explain your worldview, which (as best as I remember, is “agnostic”, and if there is a God, then it is the God of Deism) Really, this is your Greatest Opportunity to artfully explain why agnosticism is the most desirable position, but you squander the opportunity by spending all your energies on telling others why they’re *wrong*, and not why *you* are providing the True Light of the World.
Gary, agnostic, skeptic of the supernatural claims of Christianity and all other forms of theism:
My goal for this blog is to assist in dispelling the fear and mind control used by purveyors of religious superstitions. However, I will never be able to prove that invisible spirits and supernatural powers do not exist. All I can do is provide arguments why they PROBABLY do not exist. So if you are demanding that I provide absolute proof that doubt/disbelief in your invisible spirit god (agnosticism/atheism) is the true and only correct worldview, I will be unable to do that.
If my inability to provide you with absolute proof that your resurrected Jesus the Christ does not exist constitutes a victory in your mind, start celebrating. I freely admit my failure.
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Sure I can’t disprove the resurrected Jesus. I also can’t disprove that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, or that Krishna had blue skin, or that Thor dressed in drag to trick the Ice giants. If a christian cannot disprove that “In the beginning the Flying Spaghetti Monster created a mountain, some trees, and a midgit” then is he under any obligation to give that statement the “benefit of the doubt”? Expecting me to disprove anything is just trying to shift the burden of proof to me, and I’m not going to let them do that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely right, Ubi. It isn’t up the sceptic to disprove any of religion’s fanciful claims.
However, it is possible to determine their likelihood by comparing the claims religion makes with the evidence. In the case of the resurrection, implausible stories of a dead man walking compare poorly with a) what we know about the actvities of dead bodies and b) the unreliability of subjective experience, given our capacity for elaborating and (re)interpreting them in story form. These two factors alone mean the ‘resurrection’ is highly improbable.
This is the best anyone can do; we’re not about ‘proving’ but determining probability. Christians have decided they’ll believe the improbable (not to mention the impossible) – this is ‘faith’, a pretty impoverished way of living one’s life.
LikeLike
Very true.
However, if one believes in an invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing, magic-working superhero in the sky ANYTHING is possible, therefore everything is equally probable. I’ve given up arguing probability with theists.
How do we get these deluded people to see that magic (the supernatural) is not real???
LikeLike
If everything is equally probable then we have no basis for disbelief in anything and should believe everything, even if it contradicts an existing belief. You can see what kind of mess that turns into.
LikeLike
Of course Christians will correct you by saying, “Yes, everything is possible since (the Judeo-Christian) God is all-powerful, but the only things that are probable are those things ordained by (the Christian) God as described in the Bible. For instance, the world will not cease to exist prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ according to the Holy Bible. So such an event is not only improbable but impossible.
LikeLike
Well isn’t that convenient…
LikeLike