Why Should Someone Be an Atheist?

[popeyespappy]

So if you accepted the authorship and their genuine testimony, you would have to deal with what they were claiming. For example, if the Apostles said they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings then how would you account for this naturalistically if it was not true?

Well Wheat, this is the problem. I don't accept traditional authorship of the New Testament nor the claims it makes.

Most Biblical scholars follow the two source theory for the origins of the synoptic gospels. They believe Mark and an unknown source called Q were used as sources to write Matthew and Luke. If this is true Matthew and Luke and fabrications. They are not the eye witness accounts you want them to be. Mark did not include an account of the resurrection in its original form. We know this because the oldest copies of Mark do not include the resurrection. That was a latter addition to the text.

So the evidence says Matthew and Luke Luke are not the eye witness accounts to the resurrection you want them to be. Mark can also be discounted as the resurrection is known to be a later addition to that text. Paul never met Jesus. He saw a bright light light and heard a voice. The people with him at the time saw and heard nothing. His account can also be discounted.

Now, what evidence do you have for the resurrection of Christ or the validity of the religion you follow in general that is not contained within the pages of the unreliable Bible?