How then do you explain the story of his death and resurrection?

How do you explain any historical story? Someone made it up, or many someones, with or without incorporating elements of real history.

I could do the research to give you a historical etymology of Christianity. I could quote the pre-existing mythologies that include messiah prophecies, world-destroying floods, and resurrection. I could raise the point that many Jews of the time, and since, did/do not credit the story or they would all be Christians. I could point out the contradictions in gospel accounts of Christ's life, the lack of objective documentation of his existence, the exclusion of non-canonical gospels in the bible, which raise their own contradictory accounts. If that is what you really want, then I strongly suggest you email the people at The Atheist Experience (tv@atheist-community.org). They include ex-seminary students who are extremely well versed with biblical history and can probably give you any detail you might need.

But instead, I'll question the essence of your argument, which is, if you'll forgive the paraphrasing: there's a story making outlandish claims about historical reality, so it must be true. The authors say they didn't really "get it" until later, so it must be true. People are willing to die for it, so it must be true. It's a story that's been told for a long time despite or because of the above, so it must be true.

This reasoning is deeply flawed. By these standards not only would Christianity be true, but Buddhism, Islam, Nordic mythology, Scientology, ghosts, homeopathy, new world order conspiracies, the legend of Romulus and Remus, and who knows what else. How can one, skeptically, justify the claim that having a widely, passionately, long-term held but irrational and inevidential belief makes it true, or even gives it any legitimacy other than a starting point for real research?

Response to Thursdaysgeek's Comments

So, what DID happen? If the man was still dead, why wasn't that proven at the time? The question isn't "there's a story making outlandish clamis about historical reality" but rather "there're people making outlanding claims about something that they claimed just happened." If I claim that I and a bunch of my friends just found the wreckage of a UFO, or something else outlandish, it can be easily proved or disproved right then.

And yet stories about Roswell continue to abound... You are asking me to explain exactly what happened in events that, if they took place, happened 2000 years ago and are documented in a collection of self-contradictory writings that were written 35-80 years after the events supposedly took place and probably built upon two sources, one of which no longer exists in toto. The events described are themselves implausible and not independently corroborated. There is nothing to suggest the claims weren't misreported, misinterpreted, misunderstood, or fabricated from scratch, in whole or in part.

So I ask you: what is it that you find seriously, and critically, compelling about such a claim?

I don't know exactly what happened when Jesus either lived or was fabricated. Nor do I know exactly when and why stories were created about Zeus. I don't know exactly what happened when the Book of Mormon was supposedly being translated from mystical plates either. The onus is not on me to know, the onus is on those making the claims to provide evidence they are supported in proportion to the incredibility of the claims. In the absence of evidence and a logical case to support such fantastic claims, I, skeptically, consider them false. Should such a case be made, I am open to revising that opinion.

We all put our faith in the studies of others. You can provide links to ex-seminary students who are athiests, and I can read their studies and explanations. I can also find ex-athiests who attempted to explain what really happened 2000 years ago, and read their studies and explanations for why christianity is true. Both can make good arguements.

Actually I don't have faith. I try to find more than one source, so that I can be more certain, but I also reserve the right to be wrong. Prove me wrong, and my opinion will change. I also like to see opinions supported by peer-reviewed publications that have withstood review and criticism. If you have faith in your sources and accept them credulously, then I assert you are not skeptical about the issue.

I directed you to the Atheist Experience people, not because they are infallible, but because I am not a biblical historian - if you want to get at the basis, the real, fundamental, on-the ground and in-the-text analysis of early Christianity, then they are a great resource you could draw upon to compare and contrast with the other opinions you receive. Why not take those supporting opinions and run them past the TE crew? If you must, post the questions and I'll do the legwork for you, but in this case I'm trying to get at the essence of your specific posted question for you.

I could give links for explanations (and not just non-thinking fundamentalist type thinking) for the objections raised above, such as why other gospels weren't included, and more.

Run them past the Atheist Experience people - I think it likely they have heard the arguments again and again and have ready responses. Critique their responses. Weigh the evidence. Consider the biases of the authors, and the rigor of the process that supplied any supporting evidence or publication. Or post them here for further insight, if you so wish. I'm open to discussing any arguments I make.

We all have faith in our sources, and none are completley objective.

It's extremely hard to be completely objective, but that's the point of looking at things scientifically and skeptically - you minimize the opportunity for subjectivity, and maximize the chance to be corrected by others if you do fail. If you have faith in your sources in the face of contradictory arguments, without good supporting rationales or evidence, then you are not looking at them skeptically.

The question was asked, not to convince others to consider christiantity, but rather to help me to learn how to think better, and to recognize when I am not being objective.

Sure, I get that, but you seem to think that believing in the bible as an inerrant source of events that may have happened 2000 years ago is objective, and it simply isn't. I would love to know why you think it is. I'm not trying to deconvert you or anyone - in my opinion rational atheism is something one can only come to by one's own reasoning and exploration - but I am questioning your claim that accounts in the gospels need to be explained as though they literally occurred.

Let us assume there was an historical Jesus, and his life and death events as outlined in the bible did actually occur more or less as described. That is, the people who witnessed Jesus throughout his life believed what they saw, first-hand; they believed what he said; and they believed what he said and did according to the accounts of others (second-hand).

Your question could be viewed as more direct than it first might appear. I read your question not as an attempted proof for the resurrection as opposed to death because it does not include the word Christ (Messiah) and because that is your claim in response to Skrivener:

The question was asked, not to convince others to consider christiantity, but rather to help me to learn how to think better, and to recognize when I am not being objective.

I will take the question at face value: Why would people at the time be convinced there was a resurrection (and other miracles) when other, less mystical understandings of Jesus would have also competed for acceptance?

..

A Question of Faith/A Question of Dissonance

An answer might simply be found in faith. Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), the father of existentialism, was a Christian. Kierkegaard argued what made Christianity strong was its absurdity. He felt the more outlandish the claims, the more faith was required. The more faith one had to have to possibly accept a religious doctrine, the more powerful the religious experience. From this position, we can see that to believe in the resurrection, even in the face of contrary evidence, reinforces one’s faith. Today, 2000+ post Jesus, when not only time has faded the memory, but science, especially social science, gives us explanations for the varieties of religions experience, faith in the face of absurdity may be even more important. This, however, requires one to suspend (at least in one’s religious life) critical thought.

So, if the body did not ascend, why was it not found? Critical thinking requires we suspend our beliefs and look for contrary and not confirming evidence for our position. Groupthink is a psycho-social phenomenon where as a group we fail to suspend belief and look toward familiar explanations instead of new, contrary explanations. Irving Janis (1971), defined groupthink in terms of decision-making:

I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.

Decades of research continue to support this phenomenon, and extend its influence into all types of social groups and all manner of group dynamics. Such research has shown unconscious group dynamics emerge normally, naturally. The larger the group, the more similar the group members, the more effort is required to think critically and outside the box. According to groupthink theory, the followers of Jesus would be inclined to look for supporting evidence of the resurrection. To this end, finding Jesus’s body, or even admitting a body might be his would have been contrary evidence.

Leon Festinger offers another well-grounded explanation for the inability to critically think: Cognitive dissonance. Essentially, the more central a belief is to our conception of self, the more strongly we will resist contrary evidence. As with groupthink, cognitive dissonance research is extensive, and has seen replication in across the most diverse situations. This theory predicts strongly and regularly what we do when faced with decisions or information contrary to our beliefs. The more core the belief (in our present example, the resurrection belief) is to our self-concept and world view (religion), the more cognitive, emotional, and physical distress we feel. This has been shown to be one of, if not the primary, motivators in almost every decision. Groupthink is a social (or group) expression of cognitive dissonance. This being the case, the group-dynamics reinforce strongly held beliefs, which when challenged, will produce dissonance. Together, these two promote non-critical thinking…belief over proof. They push us toward confirming and away from contrary evidence. In fact, they push us away from evidence altogether.

Given all of this, it is not surprising followers of Jesus did not find the body: Finding the body would have been contrary to core belief. And why would a non-follower be overly-concerned about his body…he was not central to such a person’s self-concept and world-view (religion) or in-group definition. Jesus’s followers had a vested-interest in not finding a body, in supporting their view of themselves, their Messiah, and their religious beliefs. Others could care less.

Kierkegaard’s position can been seen as an attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance by rationalizing the irrational. His position "I believe because it is absurd” indicates a person in great internal conflict; which is what he was, “Kierkegaard was an unhappy, neurotic, and terribly suffering man.” Here was a rational man who had to believe in what he found absurd. This is an ideal example of religious-rational paradox at the core of one’s beliefs: Cognitive dissonance par excellence.

This, of course is just one account of how one can think clearly about the problem. It might be that one or more of Jesus's followers simply hid the body or claimed the body had disappeared. If so, it would likely be for the same reason, cognitive dissonance, given above. Either way, such explanations do not require positing a super-nature, or a supernatural explanation.