Quote:I think Christianity has the strongest evidence for it, particularly the resurrection and empty tomb which will of course had to be based on something.
You can't reject the resurrection quite as easily as say you would reject Mohammed claim that he flew up to heaven on a winged horse or Joesph Smiths translation of golden tablets only he could read through magical stones inside a hat. So if you believe in God to begin with for other reasons and you're interested to know which of the religions is the most likely to have derived from God then the resurrection and the empty tomb is as good as it's going to get. You can still argue against it but you have to explain why people started to claim they had witnessed Christ after his death and explain why someone didn't just point to his body if it was still where it was meant to be.
Quote:What evidence? Number of followers? Your use of the word think is adorable, especially as you claim strong evidence for the necromancy of zombie godson, failed messiah. (Sounds like a TV show...one of them works of fiction played up as a biography.)
As an atheist/non-believer you have to work a bit harder at explaining what this event was based on and what it was people apparently experienced. You can still do it of course but you need to put some more effort into this one.
Quote:And why not....sure, it 'of course' was based on something. Myth? Legend? Wishful thinking? Depraved imagination? Political agenda? Shall i continue, or are your fingers already in your ears?
If you think God is a ridiculous concept with no real chance of existing then you will just have to explain away the resurrection and the empty tomb as some kind of hysteria. It's a little different if you're convinced that God must exist to begin with, evidence from human experience, philosophy, science and so on.
