The Resurrection

[Sheldon]

The resurrection often gets touted as the point at which Christians depart from reality. Atheists may, for example, be open to most points about Jesus' existence up until the resurrection. Together with the virgin birth, these are the famous miracles which are traditionally seen as bending credulity and reality.

The scant evidence that the character from the gospel myths existed, and met a pretty common death as a political prisoner of the Romans, does not suggest if he did exist, that he was anything but human. 

However, I've never had issues believing they could happen regardless of whether they did. 

Then what is your basis for disbelief? If one chooses to believe the anonymous hearsay of the gospel myth, written decades after the events they purport to describe, one could believe countless other such claims from competing religions and mythologies. believing just one looks like bias. 

Reality is often more mind-bending than theory.

So what? 

For example, prior to IVF technology, intercourse was the only rational route for pregnancy; and as such the virgin birth had to be believe on faith alone. Today, we have growing technology that can produce embryos from two males and no mother.  On a scale of incredulity, the virgin birth should rank lower than double-father-no-mother births, and yet the latter is reality, and the former is stigmatized as irrational.

That's a false equivalence fallacy, one is supported by objective evidence, and the other is unevidenced superstition. The fact they both seemed fantastic beforehand, does not mean the ideas are the same. 

And so, do you believe resurrections are possible in theory or even probable in practice?

Possibility has to be demonstrated, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that resurrections are possible? So far all you have offered is a false equivalence fallacy. I  don't disbelieve things just because they seem fantastic, only because sufficient objective evidence has not been demonstrated to support them. 

My question is not about the historicity of the Resurrection 

There is no historical evidence for any resurrection, and it's hard to see how the methodology of validating historical claims, could evidence a supernatural event on their own.  We are talking about the largest of claims, and the poorest or weakest of "evidence". No contemporary source, no source at all really, as the gospels are all anonymous, all derived decades after the events they purport to describe, derive from an epoch of extreme ignorance of the natural world, and extreme credulity and superstition.  
You might a well be peddling the Legends of Hercules as genuine.

[Sheldon]

False equivalence fallacy comparing resurrection/miracles to realities of technology, no matter how emotionally fulfilling it may be for you.

Beat me to it,  should've read on first. 

I should also like to point out that the definition of a miracle is itself a textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 

An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

"Argumentum ad ignorantiam is a Latin phrase that translates to "argument to ignorance". It's a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes something is true or false because there's no evidence to the contrary."

[Sheldon]

My point was about the plausibility of technological advances, 

The plausibility of something that has happened seems a pointless discussion, wouldn't you agree? We obviously can't know how plausible future events are, without some objective empirical data to examine, you seem to be taking some examples, and then producing a hasty generalisation fallacy. 

So, what I gather from these responses is that you guys concede to the argument that "miracles" like resurrections are, or will be, technologically possible endeavors, 

Nope, this is an oxymoron, since a miracle is defined as something that defies natural or scientific explanation. If something can be explained by science, then it can no longer be called a miracle, by definition. 

 One person's science is another person's miracle.

Nope, this is another false equivalence fallacy, since science and miracle are mutually exclusive, by definition. 

that they are not inconsistent with broader reality, and that your only objection is whether they happened in the Bible.

Objection? That's an odd way to phrase it, obviously I disbelieve unevidenced hearsay, from archaic gospel myths, making claims that are at odds with known scientific facts, why wouldn't I? Do believe them from all other religions and myths?

[arewethereyet]

Science has figured some things out that weren't possible before. This is true in the case of IVF but it still requires humans to be at the very base of it. So far, we can't take a blade of grass and add some air and make a baby. Humans are part of the equation...not some spirit child rapist.

As for resurrection...was it possible back in the days that Jesus was to have existed? Not without divine intervention which is a BS concept.

Will science someday figure it out...possibly. But it still won't be a goddidit thing.

[John 6IX Breezy]

That's a false equivalence fallacy, one is supported by objective evidence, and the other is unevidenced superstition. The fact they both seemed fantastic beforehand, does not mean the ideas are the same. 

There is no false equivalence because there is no comparison made between separate things. The question is about a single thing—the possibility and merits of resurrections, independent of whether they happen in a children's book or a science lab, on the planet mars or your bedroom floor.

[Sheldon]

Science has figured some things out that weren't possible before.  This is true in the case of IVF but it still requires humans to be at the very base of it.  So far, we can't take a blade of grass and add some air and make a baby.  Humans are part of the equation...not some spirit child rapist.

As for resurrection...was it possible back in the days that Jesus was to have existed?  Not without divine intervention which is a BS concept.

Will science someday figure it out...possibly.  But it still won't be a goddidit thing.

Exactly, and I would  add that even were the resurrection demonstrated to be possible, it would not in and of itself, represent objective evidence for any deity, why would it?

[John 6IX Breezy]

As for resurrection...was it possible back in the days that Jesus was to have existed?  Not without divine intervention which is a BS concept.

I think that's a valid answer as long as the argument is that God doesn't exist therefore he couldn't have resurrected anyone, and not that resurrections aren't possible therefore God doesn't exist.

[Sheldon]

That's a false equivalence fallacy, one is supported by objective evidence, and the other is unevidenced superstition. The fact they both seemed fantastic beforehand, does not mean the ideas are the same. 

There is no false equivalence because there is no comparison made between separate things. The question is about a single thing—the possibility and merits of resurrections, independent of whether they happen in a children's book or a science lab, on the planet mars or your bedroom floor.

You directly compared IVF to the belief in a virgin birth. And more generally are making the false equivalence, that objective scientific facts are comparable to unevidenced superstition, because those scientific facts might once have also seemed implausible. That they have one thing in common (seeming implausible a priori), does not make them the same. 

Scientific facts, and miracles, are mutually exclusive. 

The question is about a single thing—the possibility and merits of resurrections,

Can you demonstrate they are possible? If not then the question is moot, we might as well be discussing whether mermaids are slippery to the touch.

[Sheldon]

As for resurrection...was it possible back in the days that Jesus was to have existed?  Not without divine intervention which is a BS concept.

I think that's a valid answer as long as the argument is that God doesn't exist therefore he couldn't have resurrected anyone, and not that resurrections aren't possible therefore God doesn't exist.

No, I need not argue a deity does not exist in order to disbelieve in resurrections, the fact they are not supported by any objective evidence, nor can anyone demonstrate they are possible, and are at odds with scientific facts, is more than sufficient for me to disbelieve them, or anything else for that matter.

[zebo-the-fat]

Dead for more than a few minutes and the brain starts to fall apart, that's it, no going back from that, you can't unscramble an egg.

(What's the big deal with the resurrection anyway? theist try to make it out to be great sacrifice, more like a 3 day inconvenience then he went home to his dad!)