(December 24, 2013 at 4:05 am)savedwheat Wrote: Because I can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.
Others have ably dealt with the bulk of the idiocy on display in that sentence. I'll simply add that you are making a hell of an assumption that the gospels are in any way reliable eyewitness testimonies of the apostles. I call bullshit. These were documents written decades after the fact by people who were not eyewitnesses, who relied on uncertain oral testimony passed from person to person to person (don't tell me you're the only one who never played the telephone game), and who freely adapted earlier written accounts for their own purposes (see Matthew's and Luke's use of Mark).
This was an ignorant and credulous age, when stories as equally preposterous as the Christian founding myth freely circulated and were believed by many. That you, living in the 21st century, display the same craven tendencies as the hysterics of ancient religious cults should be nothing but a source of shame.
But judging from your trail of droppings so far, I'd say that you don't really have a problem with shame, do you?
