Without God...

So someone that does not believe in a supernatural event for which there is no evidence is, according to you, "grasping at straws." Rather an ironic comment IMHO.

 

Empirical evidence is overrated. There is no empirical evidence for the love you have for another. Yet it is real. And much develops from it. There is no empirical evidence for the light of conscience to know good from evil. Yet it is real. And we build society from it. There is no empirical evidence that a person is more than flesh and bones. Yet the more is self evident. Everything is spirit.
I agree though with your circular logic about the Bible.

 

Tomb of Jesus. See, I can post images of Jesus's existence.

 

God the Father, thru his Son Jesus Christ, spent four thousand years working and striving with the Jews to get them to obey the Fathers will. But they generally refused. At some point, it was time to show them and all others how to do it. So he sent his only begotten Son Jesus Christ to take upon himself flesh, and obey the Father in every particular, even unto dying. This he did. God essentially obeyed himself as a man. While this may seem supernatural in one sense. It is also perfectly reasonable in grace. We can only wonder at the extent of its effect, the sacrifice of a pure God in answering the demands of justice, the conquering of death and the establishing of hope in a resurrection.
So I don't see the new testament as separate from the old. I see it as a lengthening of stride, sort of a second wind and strong finish. God has made an example of the Jews to the whole world. For this I thank them and bless their Father Abraham, and of course God.

 

False analogy. There is no body in the tomb you posted. So an empty tomb is proof of what exactly? Certainly not proof of a supernatural God.

 

That’s not what the Tomb of Christ even looks like.

 

It wasn't an analogy. It was a comparison. Even if there's a body in a Washington tomb how would you prove it's actually a man named George Washington?

 

So the Christian claim as I understand is because some woman (Eve) ate an apple, God sentenced all future humans to eternal torture in a hell he created (origional sin), but then to save them from himself, he became Jesus and sacrificed himself to himself.

I find it interesting that if someone violates a Federal law, they can be pardoned (forgiven) by the President. If they violate a State law they can be forgiven by the Governor. By if they violate your God's law he can not forgive them without sacraficing himself to himself? I just don't understand how anyone could possibly believe this story. What empirical evidence can you provide to support this claim? In my experience when confronted with this question people just keep repeating their claims, provide an anecdotal experience as proof, use circular logic claiming the Bible is self proving, or just insist they know whatout being able to provide any reason. Last, but not least, they then use ad hominem attacks on the person asking the questions. The same people that accept the supernatural without proof, often reject things like geology, radiometric dating, evolution, paleontology, etc. when science conflict with the supernatural claims of Bronze age goat herders and even more astounding, many of the people who proclaim multiple scientific theories that conflict with the Bible to be BS, have never taken a basic science class.

Here is my little annecdotal story. I was forced to go to Church (United Church of Christ) as a kid. It all seemed like fairy tale story hour to me. I did not want to go. I was told by my parents if I attended Confirmation Class at 16 my questions would be answered and if they were not answered I would not have to go to church anymore. Well the the minister could not answer my questions. Just the usual cliche stuff, suffering is caused by free will, etc. Then he asked all of the kids in class to state if they would join the Church. I said I would not join the church. The minister asked the other kids what they thought of my decision. A cute girl said she thought I was crazy. (Note: I should have grasped that Chuch was the best place to hook up with cute girls) The next week I was told by my Father to put on a coat and tie to go to church. I refused. My father ordered me to put on a coat and tie. I refused. I was then punched in the face. But I still refused. Fast forward about 50 years when I had a two hour conversation with a preacher who had a hard science degree, had a divinity degree and could speak and read Greek and Hebrew. We discussed the Bible at length, science, and the question of emprical proof of supernatural claims. And after two hours all he could provide me with was an annecdotal claim of a personal experience.

 

Firstly the funeral is documented by multiple contemporary historical acccounts. We have multiple actual artifacts documenting that George Washington lived (unlike the faked Christian artifacts) as well as multiple contemporary historical accounts of his life. If there was any question, the Hamilton family kept a lock of Washington's hair that could be compared to DNA from his Tomb.

So what evidence can you produce that a historical Jesus lived? Let alone performed supernatural deeds.

Your question is really a straw man argument and the sort constantly used by Christian Apologetics. The question is not can it be proved that Washington lived? Rather, the question is can you prove your supernatural claims about Jesus?

 

Volumes has been written about Jesus Christ. Even many historians concede that he lived.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2022/04/did-jesus-even-exist/

Artifacts said to be connected to George Washington. Since you never met him personally you must believe they are authentic

See above.

Testimony of those alive at the time.

Hogwash.

 

This is said to be the Tomb of Christ, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Not everyone believes it's the actual site.

I've visited it several times while in Jerusalem.

​

 

For those claiming proof of a supernatural Christian diety being real, here is a similar sort of "proof" that proves Krisna was real.

https://www.krishna.com/evidence-krishna

Well, there’s evidence that He does come. For example, when He came five thousand years ago, millions of eyewitnesses saw Him, He did things only God can do, and Vyasadeva, a reporter with impeccable credentials, kept track of it all.

Vyasadeva recorded not only Krishna’s matchless deeds but also the testimonials of the greatest spiritual authorities of the time

 

I think it's pretty expectable that someone would build a shrine to Jesus.

 

Well I said the Christian god. The problem that all gods share is that there is no evidence any of them exist. I know this doesn't prove there are no gods, but I don't hold beliefs based upon optimism alone. Christianity is especially illogical. To make people as they are, and then punish them for not being perfect when they were made imperfect makes no sense. The rules and morals expressed in the bible, particularly the old testament, are actually quite immoral and evil. Then there is no crime for which somebody deserves eternal punishment. There is no virtue for which somebody deserves eternal bliss, nor is eternal bliss possible. But the most ridiculous, illogical thing is that god can send himself/his son, to get killed in order to change his own rules so that people can be okay simply for believing in that sacrifice. It is beyond stupid, and a god who would set up such a system would not deserve worship (at least as a benevolent god) if it existed, and the fact that this god wants worship, shows just how petty this god is. In reality, it's just the figment of a bunch of old bronze age guys imaginations, and his personality is reflected in that. Reading the bible, you can see it's simply a product of a more morally primitive time.

Not at all. People who are happy and productive and respect each other's rights makes society better and more powerful. It's not everything, particularly in the old days before modern weapons, but still such a society has an advantage over more lawless societies. No bronze age imaginary friends are required to respect others' rights and expect the same in return.

 

Exactly. National Geograohic did a documentary on the efforts to preserve it. I think it’s on Disney+

 

One of the main issues is what we consider to be evidence.

That permeates a LOT of what we need to think about today - religion, medicine, space aliens, sex, etc.

Science has been incredibly successful in figuring out how (not why) things work, using a methodology that has pretty strict limits on what evidence is and how to treat that evidence.

 

IMO the ostentatious displays are a distraction, particularly in various Catholic Churches. As a protestant I prefer small, simple churches, house churches even.

 

That's a point which probably won't be agreed to. Even those seeing the same thing won't always agree on what they saw.

Agreed.

Yet not all scientists agree on some things. And new discoveries have a way of changing previous scientific "facts". Sometimes it seems that for many people science has become a religion with its own dogma. And the priests of science will excommunicate from their ranks those that rock the boat.

 

I can't believe that Jesus would be happy with the grandeur and excess that one sees in some quarters.

He didn't tell the rich man to build a temple to himself.

 

If it were religious dogma, then it wouldn't change, would it?

Scientific studies take serious care in test designs such that individual outcomes can be assessed without any doubt.

There was more variability in policy, as policy has to consider what means are available, what people are willing to do, how serious the problem is at any given time, general experience with the policy, etc. For example, initially policy allowed bandannas to be counted as masks, since there weren't enough masks available - even though it was known that bandannas, stretch fabrics, etc., aren't nearly as good as N95 and some other masks.

So, even what counts as a mask was changing.

Those were policy changes, not science changes. I think policy and science often get confused.

Science is always going to be improving. The same goes for technology, which has engineered the new types of vaccines we now have available.

Most importantly, the fact that science and technology are improving is NOT justification for ignoring the best of what is known at any given time. It's also not an excuse for ignoring policy or policy changes.

 

Even within Christianity there are hundreds of different sects due to change in dogma.

The basis upon which science rest upon is questioning the findings of scientists. But even when a consensus is found new data can change the established opinions.

 

But, there is no methodology or measurement to determine whether the previous or new dogma is "better". Is it better dogma for Episcopalism to accept same sex relationships? There is no way to answer that question, so they split.

That's change, but it's not a demonstration of increasing understanding.

Yes. If someone can find an improvement, there are ways for that improvement to be accepted. Those ways include testing, duplication by unrelated others, review of methodology, etc.

Clearly there are areas of difference between scientists, but on the major questions (physics, human activity causing Earth to heat, evolution, vaccination, ...) there is serious world wide agreement. There are differences, but that is because new ideas are encouraged, there are issues within these sciences that aren't all worked out and there are questions for which nobody has an answer.

We aren't learning if there isn't a way to figure out and accept new ideas.

 

The point isn't about it being "better" dogma it's about being different than previous dogma. Analogies can only go so far. I used it only to draw attention to how science can be like a religion to some in that some followers think it will answer all questions, eventually. That requires faith which is hope in things not seen.

 

But, I pointed out pretty much exactly how science is NOT like a religion.

And, no scientist believes that all questions will be answered.

Then, you switch to "followers".

What do you mean by a "follower"?

Do you think it is acceptable for science to be ignored???