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.