"Every atheist I've ever known has been bitter, cynical and had some horrible life experiences that bring them to this point."

None of those apply to me so now you know one who isn't/hasn't.

Clarity is not a substitute for facts and evidence - something that I am afraid the LDS church significantly lacks.

The abbreviated ending of Mark does describe a resurrection. Jesus' body is, after all, gone from the tomb. But the woman run away in fear and don't tell anyone - and that's the end. None of these early editions of Mark would have ended there if they knew about the "appended" ending. But then suddenly we read that they did an about face and told everyone! If they were afraid of an empty tomb, wouldn't they be more fearful of a actual appearance? I can't imagine what about any of that strikes you as authentic.

Certainly, it is plausible that the post-resurrection appearances in Matthew, Luke, and John probably drove later writers to add the AE to bring Mark somewhat in line with the others. But there is no basis to claim the others to be eye-witness accounts any more than Mark.

Just because a story might be invented doesn't mean that it was invented to try and fool people into thinking that it was historical. What you fail to understand or appreciate is the role that myth played in ancient cultures. We live in an age of scientific objectivity and wish to read the gospel tracts as either true to reality or not. But that is not necessarily how an ancient person would have approached such a text. The use of myth or narrative invention would not have had any nefarious motive behind it. The storytelling serves as a vehicle for uncovering some greater truth. The details of the story are important only so far as they convey the right symbolism or assist in unlocking this deeper truth. Luke and Matthew, who almost certainly read and used a copy of Mark, in my opinion treated the text of Mark in this fashion. That is to say, they read it not as a strictly historical document but as a symbolic story because they freely changed the details when they wanted to make a point different from Mark or emphasize something in a different way. The revelation of the empty tomb is a perfect example of this. The details are different in all four gospels and have different implications for the overall message.

At the very least - even the most casual reader of the gospels can understand that they are neither written as nor presented to the reader as eyewitness accounts. They are all with almost almost no exception written in narrative form from the perspective of an omniscient third person narrator. The only exception is the preamble to Luke, where he explicitly tells us that he himself is not writing as an eyewitness but basing his version on writers who came before him.

You apparently didn't read far enough, as I explain the first part of this in the article:

"The reality is that the gospel authors never signed their names and their names do not appear anywhere within the body of the text. The titles, “The Gospel According to Mark”, “Matthew”, “Luke”, or “John” are headings that were added sometime late in the second century."

Thanks. Looks like the evidence is as scanty as I remembered it to be.

At best you might say that Flew took a deist position before he died. Was he in sound mind at that advanced age? I don't know. But what I had read of his 'conversion' gave me the impression that he had succumbed to some very sloppy thinking. But I digress. What is the fallacy?

I would have a different point of view, but my opinion would remain the same. Facts are still facts.

This is not about what we want to be true or what might feel good if it were true but what is probably true. And none of what you said is probably true.

Sounds dreadfully dull to me. What could possibly keep me happy for an eternity?