Speechless

[RoadRunner79]

A bit of a change of topic, but ok...I'll bite.   The Gospel is based on empirical evidence as well.  I would also agree, that it may be superseded by a better understanding of the facts or additional evidence.   It is not a scientific process, but I don't believe that science is the only method of gaining knowledge (it is a tool to be used under the right circumstances).  


See... here's the rub;   I think that a lot of what you said here is based on the indoctrination of atheism.  I don't think that you can support much of it, and I get the feeling that you lump all religions into one large group in orderly to easily dismiss them without doing any serious thinking.

You say there is empirical evidence for the "Gospels" (the teachings of Jesus and the apostles) .... OK all ears, please give me the empirical evidence that Jesus is the son of God? .....

I treat science with as much skepticism as anything  .... I was not indoctrinated as a child to believe in atheism it came about without science just logically reading the bible .... By the way I was an atheist decades (44 years) before I even knew there was a word for a non belief in a God or that there were others out there that had come to the same conclusion ....

I said for the Gospel... meaning the resurrection of Christ.  I don't know that there is empirical evidence for Jesus being the Son of God, unless you would count Mary's seeing of the angel, or the voice declaring him so at his baptism.  Even if these where granted, I wouldn't really refer to that in empirical evidence terms.

I wasn't indoctrinated as a child in Christianity either.   For me, I came to believe in it rationally, first from learning about it from others, and then from reading the Bible.  Different point of view I suppose.