I'm asked how I can reject the fact that Paul writes about 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus' reincarnation.
A few men some 2000 years ago wrote about supernatural events that made their way into a collection of writings called the Bible. Other than appearing in the bible, the "findings" of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul are totally uncorroborated, repetative and contradictory.
Matthew, Mark and Luke obviously have used each other as a source; whereas, John contradicts much of what MML promote. Paul is on his own - having had a halucinogenic encounter with Jesus (or was it God?) himself.
On the other hand, approximately 500,000 scientists have written directly (geologists, astronomers, astrophysisists, cosmologists, phalentologists, biologists, molecular biologists, botanists) and indirectly (physicists, chemists, ...), within the last 50 years and continuing onto this day, about the creation of the universe (Big Bang) and the origins of human beings (evolution) .
Their truth of their findings is beyond doubt for every educated person except for those who cling to a semi-literal (they explain away God's 2 million + killings in the bible) belief in the bible.
Why should I believe the ramblings of several men who wrote, 30 to 70 years after the fact, about events that allegedly took place 2000 years ago? These men believed in the creation and Adam and Eve, prophets, a flat earth, a sun that stands still, stars the size of pinheads, and the supernatural. Why should I begin to believe that their ramblings represent truth?