Lighthearted Atheist
Active member
As many of your know I believe that the only way to prove if something is real is with empirical evidence. I think that we cannot determine of God is real based on non-empirical evidence like feelings of joy in church, eyewitness testimony of encounters with Jesus, or references to 2,000+ year old texts that we cannot validate.
I also think that if you get used to believing God is real without empirical evidence that it may spill over into other parts of life. Here is an example.
I am not trying to spin up anything political - that has no place here and I know it. However, I think what is happening now is the perfect analog to what I have been saying: you need empirical evidence to back you claims.
Example: In the US election several people have made a claim that there was wide spread voting fraud. And what is the first thing the American people and the courts asked for? Empirical evidence to back up that claim. We basically said what I have said on these boards for years - if you claim there was election fraud then you need to provide empirical evidence or we do not believe you.
This is common sense and it is how the world, and the justice system, works.
Yet we see people that seem to think there is no need for such evidence. They think that eyewitness testimony of a few people is enough proof to conclude that fraud happened. Or they think that non-empirical evidence like vague references to voting machines stories of dead people voting are evidence.
As we have seen in the courts these people are very, very wrong. You need real, testable, empirical evidence to back your claim.
If you claim there was fraud you need to prove it with empirical evidence. If you say Jesus rose from the dead you need empirical evidence to prove it. If you say a politician is corrupt you need empirical evidence. If you say God parted the Red Sea you need empirical evidence.
Anyhoo, I'm hoping that this helps some of you understand why I harp on this so much. Empirical evidence is the universal bedrock fro truth in our courts, in science, in business, in legal documents, in checking your kids homework, in proving anything is real.

I also think that if you get used to believing God is real without empirical evidence that it may spill over into other parts of life. Here is an example.
I am not trying to spin up anything political - that has no place here and I know it. However, I think what is happening now is the perfect analog to what I have been saying: you need empirical evidence to back you claims.
Example: In the US election several people have made a claim that there was wide spread voting fraud. And what is the first thing the American people and the courts asked for? Empirical evidence to back up that claim. We basically said what I have said on these boards for years - if you claim there was election fraud then you need to provide empirical evidence or we do not believe you.
This is common sense and it is how the world, and the justice system, works.
Yet we see people that seem to think there is no need for such evidence. They think that eyewitness testimony of a few people is enough proof to conclude that fraud happened. Or they think that non-empirical evidence like vague references to voting machines stories of dead people voting are evidence.
As we have seen in the courts these people are very, very wrong. You need real, testable, empirical evidence to back your claim.
If you claim there was fraud you need to prove it with empirical evidence. If you say Jesus rose from the dead you need empirical evidence to prove it. If you say a politician is corrupt you need empirical evidence. If you say God parted the Red Sea you need empirical evidence.
Anyhoo, I'm hoping that this helps some of you understand why I harp on this so much. Empirical evidence is the universal bedrock fro truth in our courts, in science, in business, in legal documents, in checking your kids homework, in proving anything is real.