Hitch is dead

Just as many eye witnesses to ouija boards, psychic entertainment shows and haunted house conventions can claim to have experienced many things physically... that didn't actually happen.Again - I'm not saying that this "proves you wrong."
I'm saying that there's "reasonable doubt" on what you claim to be true. You were the one who claimed there were many, many people.
The word "mob" in the context of the phrase "mob mentality" only refers to there being "many, many people..."
It does not imply that the people were frenzied or acting hysterically as may be assumed in other contexts of the word "mob."
We don't have to use the word "mob mentality" - we can call it "many, many people all believing the same thing that still may or may not have happened."
It's all the same to me. Or believing it happened when it actually didn't. Many people believe in things that are historical that didn't actually happen. Even people in very large groups who are saying they have witnessed a physical event. Some times that physical event simply didn't happen at all.When the "claimed physical event" is a car accident - yes, usually the large group of people is correct that a car accident happened but just wrong on the details (sometimes major details...)When the "claimed physical event" is a ouija board "from beyond..." encounter, or a psychic entertainment show, or a haunted house convention... usually the large group of people is incorrect and the claimed physical event actually didn't happen at all.Up to you where "bringing someone back to life after 3 days, 2 thousand years ago..." falls in those two categories.To me, it's obvious that it's closer to the second one.

If those were the things I was comparing, I would agree - it would be a category mistake.
But, that's not the things I'm comparing.By "eye witnesses to ouija boards, psychic entertainment shows and haunted house conventions" I meant physical claims (from large-amounts-of-agreeing-people) like:
-things floating through walls
-talking to the dead while the dead are physically present in the room
-seeing the dead/demons/angels physically present in the room
-floating objects
-things being moved or broken by non-human-alive-entities (such as dead people, or spirits or demons or angels)Would you agree such physical claims are in the same category as the ressurection?
-I agree that "the ouija board pointer moving while everyone is touching it" is not in this sort of categoryWould you agree that almost every time such claims are made by those large-amounts-of-agreeing-people from ouija boards, psychic entertainment shows and haunted houses - that they are incorrect and the claim did not actually happen as described by the witnesses?
Or do you think that such claims, that occur very often, are as likely to be as correct as you claim the resurrection to be? Sure.
Of course, there's no evidence that "we are the result of intelligence."
And there is evidence that suggests "life itself appeared in a mindless universe" without any requirement for intelligence at all. Understandable.
I just don't have another term for such "things people agree to while in a large group regardless of the veracity of the facts" - I'm willing to use a term you provide, if you'd like. Just as it is hard not to believe if are able to touch and converse with the dead/sprits/demons/angels while engaging with many others in a ouija board, psychic entertainment show or haunted house convention.Such claims are rather prevalent, in certain circles. Ouija Boards - "demonic encounters, spirits physically attacking houseguests..."
Psychics - reviews from people all demanding in agreement that this guy is "for real."
Haunted Houses - including tales of "moving objects" and physical appearences/touching of the ghosts. Some have even claimed to have been raped by ghosts.
There are many, many more.
These kinds of physical claims are not rare.There are many in agreement with the originators who demand such stories must be true.
Just as you demand (in agreement with many, and the authors of the Gospels) that the resurrection must be true.There are also those (you may be among them?) who disagree that such physical ghost stories "must be true."
Just as I am among those who disagree that such physical stories of the resurrection "must be true." As is the case with many ouija board, psychis entertainment and haunted house convention stories believe whole-heartedly by their believers.

Could be.
Could also be "food and water and shelter."
Could also be "finding a place where people respect what I have to say as a teacher."
Could also be "getting away from my previous life and into this new life that I like much better."There can be many, many different motivations.At this stage (so far removed, with such minimal and unreliable information of the historical events) it would be rather unreasonable to think that any one particular motivation was "the one!" Sure. Could be.
Of course, one can have a desire to share an important feeling with others in order to help them as it helped you... while being honest about it... while it being totally not-based-in-reality-at-all as well. It can also be detrimental to others, even if your motivation is to attempt to help them. Realizing that not all people react to the same things in the same way is a sign of maturity. Any idea of "well, it helped me - therefore, it will help you too!" is immature. The real idea of trying to help other is something more along the lines of: "well, if it helped me - it might help you, or it might not - let's try it and feel free to reject it at any time without any negativity from me." There are more instances in Greek and Roman mythology.
Does that mean Achilles really was invincible except for his ankle?Or can stories just be stories - no matter how many of them there are? You can try. But the evidence is against you.
Here's the factual pattern we have:1. A claim of supernatural activity.
2. Investigation of the event.
3. Having all the information available allows us to learn that the activity was not supernatural and was actually mundane.
4. Proof that no supernatural activity was actually involved, and the event is completely explained by mundane processes.This has happened for weather-being-caused-by-the-Gods.
This has happened for the-sun-moving-over-the-sky-by-the-Gods.
This has happened for sickness-being-caused-by-the-Gods.
This has happened for earthquakes-being-caused-by-the-Gods....and there are many, many more examples of this process going from steps 1-4.Let's say the Bible is at Step 1 or 2. (As we do not have "all the information" - it seems to be lost to history.)
What are the chances it wouldn't end up hitting 3 and 4 anyway?We could have a flow like this:1. A claim of supernatural activity.
2. Investigation of the event.
3. Having all the information available allows us to learn that the activity was indeed supernatural and not mundane.
4. Proof that the supernatural was actually involved in the activity, and the event cannot be considered mundane at all.That's the other way it could go, right?Has this ever actually happened for any learning we've ever done on any other topic or event in all of human history?So... we have:-sometimes we don't have all the information and can't complete either list
-sometimes we do identify that no Supernatural activity occurred and it was entirely mundane, and all the people who "whole-heartedly believed it was Supernatural" were, unfortunately, mistaken.
-never has any event in all of human history ever been identified as actually being Supernatural activity and definitely not mundaneThis is why it is reasonable to have skepticism "beyond a reasonable doubt" that another Supernatural claim of activity will also turn out to be mundane.
Sure - it could be wrong and maybe it was actually Supernatural. But following the pattern of it-is-not-Supernatural - is reasonable. Ignoring this pattern and assuming that this is "the exception!" just because you really feel strongly that it is - is irrational.Again - "reasonable" and "irrational" do not equate to "correct" and "wrong."Yet - they are what they are.

Why not? The claims of these physical events have as much support as the claims for your physical events.
The people who report them believe they are just as real as you believe your claims to be.
I think that your hesitation comes from social acceptance and popularity - which are both factors that have no relevance on if the event actually happened or not. I gave you books and lists chock full of specific examples.
If you want to pick a few, we can still do that:Here's a specific example of a girl claiming to have sex with ghosts.That seems a lot more physical than just come "seeing and basic touching."Does that mean this ghost is more likely to be real than the resurrection?Here's one experienced by many people - all with "similar stories that only differ on the details"
The Mackenzie Poltergeist
-many, many eye witnesses
-many getting "cuts, bruises and burns" from the poltergeist - again, more than just touching.Does this mean this poltergeist is more likely to be real than the resurrection?These are not uncommon.
Any library you go to will have entire sections devoted to people who believe in their experiences as much, or maybe even more, than you believe in the resurrection.
All with the same sort of "eye witness" evidence of "physical events" occurring. Some to single people, other to many, multiples of people.
Many have recorded evidence, even - this is even more evidence the resurrection has.They use exactly the same terminology you use to claim the resurrection is real.
-so many different people have witnessed it
-physical things have occurred that cannot be explained any other way
-no one is lying about it
-these people are all just searching for the truth and trying to let others know what they know
-there is no motivation for them to be trying to trick othersI don't see how you can claim the resurrection is "highly likely" but these stories are not.
Unless, of course, your measurement on "likelihood" is very much attached to your personal connection with the event - which is what I think is happening.
Unfortunately, such a "personal connection" is well understood to lead one away from reality, not towards it.

Sex hardly sounds physical?
I think you need to have "the talk" with your parents... Yes, this particular ghost seems to be monogamous. Again, you're simply dismissing reality. Many, many people have "changed their world view" because of it.
If you're comparing with mainstream religions - it's only a difference between popularity and social acceptance. Yes, such "more balanced articles providing possible scientific explanations" exist for the resurrection and all the Biblical stories as well.Does that mean the resurrection is now less likely to have occurred? And the term "resurrected" is synonymous with "zombie."
Using derogatory terms should be frowned upon, not encouraged.The claims here are all about the ghost/poltergeist doing physical things: being physically seen (just like Jesus); being physically touched (just like Jesus); physically affecting the environment around them (just like Jesus.)You can use whatever term you prefer - it doesn't take away from the physical similarities. And there are many, larger religious sites that promote the resurrection of Jesus Christ that gain a much larger profit than this as well.Are you equally arguing that the resurrection is any less real because of that? Are you talking about people believing in ghosts?
Or people believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?Because this kind of statement, again, equally applies to both. In the case of the Mackenzie Poltergeist, we know from Scottish historic records that no one thought the poltergeist would happen, and were surprised by it.This doesn't seem to add much credence, to either story. Again, you could be talking about the Mackenzie Poltergeist or The Resurrection here - seems equally appropriate. I can guarantee you that more people have read the Bible and had their world view changed away from believing in Jesus Christ - then people have heard about the Mackenzie Poltergeist and had their world view changed away from ghosts.Does this imply the Mackenzie Poltergeist is more likely to be real than the resurrection of Jesus Christ? The are in exactly the same category. Your reasons do not apply, and only include you mis-characterizing things.
Why is "Jesus Christ being physically seen and physically affecting reality after death" not in the same category as "the Mackenzie Poltergeist being physically seen and physically affecting reality after death?"The only difference you have is one of popularity and social acceptance.
Differences known to have zero effect on "likelihood of being real." Except, of course, for the Mackenzie Poltergeist.
You can even visit the place yourself and see.
Can't seem to be able to do that with Jesus Christ's resurrection.Does this make the Mackenzie Poltergeist more likely to be real? The accounts of the resurrection are open to consideration regardless of life being the result of intelligence or not.
And full-on Jesus-Christ-like resurrections do not depend one way or another on materialistic or atheistic beliefs.Reality is whatever it is.
GDR's beliefs may place restrictions on what GDR thinks about reality.
However, Stile's atheistic "beliefs" do not place restrictions on reality at all, in fact they PROMOTE that "reality is whatever reality is" and we become aware of whatever we're capable of learning.Your projections of your beliefs limiting your ability to accept reality onto others is very telling about how your personal beliefs shape your own "world-view" apart from "reality."