Catholic Church Collapsing

Oh, I think there is evidence, or somethng you can call evidence.

It is unverified, uncoroborated, and there is no proof that the evidence can be attributed to that which it is supposed to prove.

So in other words, while there might be evidence, it fails to achieve any reasonable burden of proof.

I had asked this before - what happened to all of the saints raised when jesus was raised?

http://edwardtbabinski.us/religion/resurrected_saints.html

Where is the corroboration? The documentation from some other source?

That webpage asks more questions than I thought of regarding this resurrection.

Surely this central part, this foundation event of the whole religion, couldn't be mixed with parable and story and teaching point and other things that shouldn't be taken literally.

So, what happened to the saints? Why was nothing ever recorded about them anywhere else?

I'm also still unclear as to what happened to Jesus after the resurrection - did he retire to a ranch in Montana?

If this is an example of the evidence, then I say that I just don't believe it.

Quote: FrGamble

Wouldn't the reverse also be acceptable: I will assume He does exist until proven otherwise?

Would that be acceptable if I were to take up belief in leprechauns?

Quote: Nareed

That's a completely irrational position. The claimant has the burden of proof. In this case, those who claim any kind of god exists must prove their claims.

Oy! Where did I say anything contrary to that?

Quote: Dalex64

.
I had asked this before - what happened to all of the saints raised when jesus was raised?
.

"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

Most Christians won't talk about this because,
well, it's stupid beyond belief that hundreds
of bodies that had been dead for centuries
came flying out their tombs and graves
fully resurrected and walked their smelly old
bodies around the city. For one thing, it makes
the resurrection of Jesus look like nothing. And
it makes the rest of the NT look like a joke.

Quote: FrGamble

A healthy stance. Wouldn't the reverse also be acceptable: I will assume He does exist until proven otherwise?

Yes, that's how the world of the 12th century
worked, they believed anything and everything
because they could prove nothing either way.
That's what you should tell your flock, that
you believe in god because you can't prove
he doesn't exist. What a compelling case you
have there.

Quote: FrGamble

"the tidbits of real science" that point towards the creation of the universe

That's not what I meant AT ALL! Religion likes to
cherry pick what science has found and CLAIM
it points to their argument, when science has
said nothing either way on the matter. You're
so desperate for what you believe to be real that
you'll twist anything around to make it look like
science agrees with you. It can't and never will
because there is no god to be found.

Quote: Evenbob

"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

And I thought the Walking Dead was just a TV show.

Quote: Wizard

And I thought the Walking Dead was just a TV show.

lol, nope, the Bible is full of resurrected folk. Besides
hundreds of dead saints flying out of there graves
and tombs, all needing a bath desperately, at least
10 others were the walking dead also.

https://bible.org/illustration/accounts-people-raised-dead

Quote: Wizard

Would that be acceptable if I were to take up belief in leprechauns?

I don't think anyone is saying abandon common sense. If there was science that at least pointed to the existence of leprechauns, if anyone had actual evidence one ever existed, if you or those you trust had experiences with leprechauns, or if leprechauns helped you understand your purpose and meaning in life than I would say it would be acceptable to assume their existence until proven otherwise.

Also don't let anyone who makes a statement that there is no God pretend they are not a claimant on whom some burden of proof rests. The belief that there is no God is completely devoid of any proof or evidence whatsoever, besides the emotional and strong desire that there not be a God. It is the atheist who believes in fairy tales.

Quote: Evenbob

Yes, that's how the world of the 12th century
worked, they believed anything and everything
because they could prove nothing either way.

Boy you are not only prejudiced against the Church but you have some serious issues with the men and women of the past. You think that they really just believed anything and everything because they were helpless fools who could prove nothing?!? Read some history and learn about the mazing discoveries and brilliant people who lived in the past.

Quote:

That's not what I meant AT ALL! Religion likes to
cherry pick what science has found and CLAIM
it points to their argument, when science has
said nothing either way on the matter.

So a vast majority of scientists have not said that the Big Bang and an expanding universe points to a beginning to our universe?!? While you are researching the scientists of the past you should really read some of the modern day as well.

Quote:

It can't and never will
because there is no god to be found.

And your scientific evidence to prove this is......

Quote: FrGamble

I don't think anyone is saying abandon common sense.

Asking an atheist to believe in god is
asking them to abandon their common
sense.