I complain often about others' unwillingness to dialog on issues of emphatically mutual interest. People erect false justificatory edifices, as they are embarrassed: they don't feel confident in their ability to withstand head-to-head combat, even when rules-governed. So they cook up some ad hominem.
People feel far greater anxiety about open-field repartee than they let on; conflict avoidance much pervades bloggers, too.
We deem saying nothing more honorable than stupid talk, so there's a strong incentive to remain mum. People who rock the boat inflame anxiety--and are disliked by the herd.
If you challenge a cleric, you can get them to make ridiculous statements. Where there is frisson there is fun. A widely-shared lunacy--embraced both by Catholics and Protestants--is their offering of 'the empty tomb' as strong evidence for Jesus' Resurrection.
Ministers and priests are highly shielded from open questioning, invariably viewing it impertinent, pointing an intimidating you're-weird! look at the skeptic.
My cat died. We buried it in this crypt. Look into the crypt, will you? See: It's empty.
Have I provided you with convincing evidence that my cat has been resurrected?
So even if an empty tomb actually were produced, it would constitute no evidence on behalf of a claimed resurrection.
That said, we have no evidence any empty tomb presented itself, after Jesus' non-death. We have some ancient writings, often in conflict, written by unknown non-eyewitnesses decades after the events they appear to describe, which make many magical claims.
To conclude that any naturalistically inexplicable disappearance occurred would implicitly express belief that saying things makes them so--though it's by no means clear what even is being claimed, in the good book.