Can you still be an atheist after this?

[ElDinero]

Ok, so to remind the viewers at home, we started here:

You’d have a tough time finding one historian who believes Jesus was a myth no matter whether the historian was a Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever.

So to recap, the personal leanings of the historian don't matter, whether they are Christian or not. We will have a very tough time finding someone who believes Jesus was a myth. Hope we're all clear on that.

*El Dinero easily finds just such a thing*

Now watch as famous illusionist Statler Waldorf uses distraction techniques to move the goalposts!

Not weird at all, can you name a historian who does not have a vested interest in scripture being untrue who denies the resurrection of Christ?

You found an 18th century French philosopher who thought Jesus may have been a myth, wow very impressive.

So from 'you won't be able to find anyone' it moves to 'that person doesn't count because of their personal leanings which I previously said were irrelevant'. And why does the fact that they were French or lived in the 18th century matter? Hilarious changing of the criteria, and a convenient ignoring of the fact that I told you he was the first name among several just among one Wikipedia article, which as we all know should be used for a rough overview of subjects. I'm quite confident that I would be able to find many more examples if I searched further. But since I've already conclusively disproved the original challenge above, is there any need?

I don't give a toss about the rest of your boring argument that contains your usual mental gymnastics, doublespeak and logical fallacies. But try not to make stupid statements that can be refuted using Wikipedia in the space of two minutes.