I guess I don't see it. To use your words, he prefers something that has evidence. Fine, but that would mean that there would have been a time when he didn't want to believe in atoms. Pure, undeniable logic. When faced with that prospect, he pulled out some babble about too many possibilities and choosing which ones he wanted to give credence. That's completely his choice, but treating that as some sort of "proof" with global application is ridiculous. Pointing that out is pure, undeniable logic. Faced with that, he pretty much punted. That's honest, me thinks.
See, I agree that there's not a lot of logic to a resurrection story. I doubt a 2000-year-old oral tradition is going to serve as scientific proof of jack shit, but I also acknowledge that we don't have proof that the stuff is false. We merely have a lack of proof that it's true. Equating the two positions is a rather elementary logical fallacy and I'm sure we can find someone to supply the appropriate impressive latin.
I'm glossing over the bits and pieces of biblical stuff that does sorta kinda fit into history, which isn't really fair to that side, but I'm not really knowledgible enough about them to make any legit use of them and I am decidedly anti-motivated (to create a word) to invest the time to properly study them.
Perhaps the confusion is that I don't really have a problem with Roq's choice. It makes good sense to me, in truth. My beef is his choice being presented as logical fact and his insults toward anyone that doesn't follow his choice.
Secondly, I come back to a point I tried to hit home earlier in this thread--logic is an inappropriate framework for a discussion of religion. If someone presented religion as a logically sound and empirically proven system, it would be appropriate to tear them a new asshole. I suppose there's a few wide-eyed zealots that might fit that category, but I don't see the vast majority of religious people fitting that description. Most religious folks will tell you that the foundation of religion is faith, not logic. Sure they'll try, with varying degrees of success, to justify that faith with a few patches of logic and historical evidence, but at the end of the day it's all about faith. It's a zombie story. Arguing about it is about the same as the people that argue about bad physics in Star Wars. Yep, they might be 100% correct, but that's simply not the point, and it imposes current day understanding on future events.