@Jo

Do you believe all unfalsifiable claims? As no unfalsifiable claim can by definition be objectively evidenced or disproved, and this is what you are asking the atheists here to do. To disprove a broad undefined and therefore unfalsifiable claim, or accept the belief in that claim has been successfully argued.

It's an argument from ignorance fallacy.

@Jo

Ok, it's time for me to pay a visit to this thread, and present yet another instance of my usual dissertation on the subject of applicable concepts. Starting with the proper rules of discourse, as understood in every properly constituted rigorous academic discipline.

Rule No. 1. An assertion, when presented, possesses the status "truth value unknown". An assertion retains that status, until a proper test of the assertion is conducted, allowing us to remedy the epistemological deficit. (NOTE: do not make the mistake of thinking that this principle consists of asserting that an assertion does not have a truth-value: this is an elementary error. An assertion does have a truth-value, but what is not known until test is conducted, is what truth-value is applicable to the assertion.)

Rule No. 2. Whoever presents an assertion, with the intention of having that assertion treated as fact, is required to provide proper evidential support for said assertion. Those who do not accept the assertion as constituting fact, merely have to sit and wait for this to be done by whoever presented the assertion.

Rule No. 3. Whatever method is brought to bear, to test an assertion, must be capable of providing a rigorous distinction between true and false statements. A method that cannot provide said distinction is useless as a proper test.

Rule No. 4. Ah, the complicated one. Which covers the matter of a proper, rigorous definition of 'true' or 'false'. This is introduced, because a definition that operates in a reliable manner in one methodology, may be completely inapplicable in another. The two canonical examples are pure mathematics, and the empirical sciences.

In pure mathematics, 'true' is defined as consistent with the axioms of the currently employed formal system. At this point, it may be a source of shock to many to learn that pure mathematics is not in the business of Absolute Truth™, however that may be defined. Lay persons are used to thinking of statements such as "2+2=4" as being universally true, but even this statement is subject to conditions. The statement "2+2=4" happens to be true in the algebra of the natural numbers, the rational numbers, the real numbers and even the complex numbers, but it is NOT true in modulo 3 arithmetic (within which the numeral "4" is not even defined!). From a technical standpoint, the nature of the field is a determinant of the validity of this statement. Likewise, the statement does not make sense in the realm of matrix algebra, in which the 'atoms' of the relevant formal system are matrices. Another illustrative example is provided by the statement "a×b=b×a", which happens to be true for numerous fields, but fails to be true in the realm of matrix algebra, where in the general case, if a×b is defined, then b×a may not even exist. In the case of the algebra of square matrices, where both a×b and b×a exist, in the general case the two are not equal. The cross product in vector algebra is another example where this statement (the commutativity of multiplication) is false. The examples just given, on their own, should be cautioning you to tread carefully with respect to any claims of "truth".

In the case of the empirical sciences, 'true' is defined as 'in accordance with observational data'. Which again, is subject to some interesting caveats. My favourite example centres upon the transition from Newtonian Mechanics to General Relativity. For 250 years, Newtonian Mechanics appeared to enjoy a fantastic level of success, as a description of the behaviour of the physical world. Then, scientists began, as a result of the progress made possible by said apparent success, alighting upon instances of phenomena that did not admit of a Newtonian description. The behaviour of light being perhaps the driving example leading to the transition. Einstein then produced the theory of General Relativity, which did provide an observationally consistent explanation for the newly observed behaviours. But, it is important to note here, that General Relativity also provides an explanation for all of the other behaviours previously considered to be supportive of Newtonian Mechanics. If General Relativity didn't do this, it would be a pedagogical curiosity, instead of the replacement for Newtonian Mechanics as our best description of the large-scale universe.

But, General Relativity went even further. It provided an explanation for the apparent success of Newtonian Mechanics. Namely, that the error involved in using Newtonian Mechanics in everyday situations was too small to be observable when the system was devised. When dealing with everyday velocities and weak gravity fields, the error doesn't appear until one is able to measure quantities with at least 15 decimal places of accuracy, which takes considerable effort and expense even now. Which also explains handily why we still teach Newtonian Mechanics in schools: quite simply, Newtonian Mechanics can be applied with nothing more intimidating that high school calculus as the underlying mathematical toolkit, and therefore has the benefit of being conceptually and computationally simple in situations not requiring 15 decimal places of accuracy, or not involving exotic phenomena such as neutron stars and black holes. General Relativity, on the other hand, requires one to master tensor analysis and the Ricci calculus, which is formidable going even for undergraduate university mathematics students. As a tangential diversion, this should increase one's appreciation for the late Stephen Hawking, when one learns that he could manipulate the Ricci calculus in his head, and do so in 11 dimensions.

At this point, the reasons for exercising care and diligence when applying the concept of 'accord with observational data' should become apparent.

The above lengthy preamble should provide an insight into the reasons why the word 'truth' is fraught with difficulties in any rigorous endeavour. It is not a word to be deployed lightly.

As a corollary of the above, it is time to move on to the less formal principles of proper discourse, and central here is the need to eliminate emotional attachment to ideas. This, of course, requires particular diligence on the part of those taking part in the requisite discourse, and sometimes, that very human part of our natures intrudes in a manner that is ultimately unwelcome, resulting in the arena of discourse taking on the aspect of a gladiatorial combat zone. It's entirely comprehensible that those who invest effort in a hypothesis, will be passionate in its defence, and some of the bitterest exchanges have taken place in what should be a calm and dispassionate endeavour. But at bottom, what those of us who care about the world of ideas, and the proper development thereof, recognise and strive to apply to our own labours in this arena, is another major principle of proper discourse: namely, that ideas are disposable entities. Becoming too attached to an idea could be our undoing, if reality turns round and says emphatically, "sorry, you are wrong".

As a further corollary of the foregoing, those of us who maintain a proper respect for the world of ideas, and a proper respect for the rules of discourse, realise that we have to be relentlessly and brutally honest with ourselves at every step. We have to be prepared to acknowledge and address honest error, and when we find ourselves in a situation requiring us to improve our discoursive standards, we have to exert the relevant effort.

It is at this point, that you should be in a position to understand why so many here express views of supernaturalist output, ranging from disdain to open contempt.

We are the ones who exerted the effort to pay attention in the relevant classes, learning all of the above, along with, in some instances, a vast panoply of specialist technical knowledge in various disciplines. We are the ones who paid attention to that call to conduct discourse in an honest and rigorous manner wherever possible, and to be prepared to jettison ideas once held to be correct, yet subsequently to be found in error. We are the ones who spent time learning how to be honest, diligent and careful in the arena of discourse, and after exerting that effort, we naturally expect others to provide signs that they are willing to exert the same effort, even if they are not able to master the more difficult points. Indeed, one of the greatest lessons we can bestow upon others reading our output, is to say to them that is entirely proper to admit when they are experiencing difficulties with relevant concepts, and I am reminded at this juncture, that the real purpose of philosophy is not to answer questions, but to learn what questions are relevant to ask, and how to ask them.

It should not, therefore, be too difficult to realise, why we bristle at being asked to accept flagrant violations of the rules of discourse given above, at being asked to treat mere assertion as fact, or to give manifest fabrication equal status to evidentially supported postulates requiring titanic effort to verify. Even more do we bristle at being accused of egregious violations of discoursive rules, by individuals with agendas who have already demonstrated discoursive malfeasance on a grand scale.

The fundamental difference between supernaturalists and ourselves, is this: our primary concern is the rigorous correctness of ideas, no matter where those ideas may take us, whilst their primary concern is upholding their doctrines at all costs. Supernaturalists think they "win" debate by turning it into a gladiatorial contest, and keeping their doctrinal assertions shielded from scrutiny, which means that their idea of "winning" is itself a discoursive failure. All too often, supernaturalists have no conception of any of the above account I've given of the proper rules of discourse, or the effort we exert to uphold them, and their smug, complacent thinking that apologetic fabrications count for more than properly supported postulates, is merely another reason why their concept of "winning" is as deluded as their attachment to their doctrines.

@ Jo

If I am right, I want to be a sure as possible. One of the best ways is to be challenged by someone who disagrees with you. If I am wrong, I want to know. So I hope some people here will help me with that. I have been a truth seeker all my life. I don't want to live or believe a lie. I admit to closely held beliefs that are dear to me, and that I am capable of being biased. But I suspect we are all in the same boat.

No, Jo, some of us deal with facts and evidence not "belief" or "faith".

You say you are a christian.

What evidence (apart from personal revelation) do you have for the existence of the Jesus Figure,in 1st Century Judea, as described in the gospels ? This would be the heart of your faith would it not?