Read on Twitter
Contemptuous apologetics: Believing that Jesus rose from the dead is totally rational, but believing a naturalistic explanation (instead of the Resurrection) is "bullshit." https://twitter.com/BoiYusaku/status/1353451468129333248
I think Christians can be rational to believe the Resurrection and non-Christians, not just atheists, can be rational not to believe the Resurrection.
Unlike some atheists, I think there was a historical Jesus. I also think some / many of the traditional naturalistic explanations (such as the swoon theory) are extremely implausible.
If some atheists have over-reached by denying the historicity of Jesus, I think some Christians have over-reached by making absurd claims such as, "The Resurrection is the best attested claim in all of history." That is absurd.
Most (or all?) Christian scholars are careful to avoid such hyperbolic Christian claims. What is much more common is the tendency among Christian apologists to overstate the strength of the evidence to be explained.
An example of this would be the fact that the gospels report the empty tomb was discovered by *women*. I think that is some evidence for the historicity of the empty tomb, but by itself it isn't the killer argument some people think it is. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/05/12/draft-paper-on-the-jewish-hearsay-testimony-and-the-empty-tomb/
I personally think the extant historical evidence makes it likely that Jesus existed, was crucified, died, placed in a tomb, and the tomb was later discovered empty.
