Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[Mister Agenda]

So everyone who believes in a false religion was told a story at one time, and trusted or had faith in the person telling the story thus translated their faith to the story itself. Many of those story's are obviously complete BS. Examples, Everything said by Mormons, the story of Noah, and the many predictions of the end of the world.

However I am concerned that some Atheists are engaging in exactly the same sort of faith based BS. Examples:

Argument for Christ never existing.
Starts invariably with "Romans were good record keepers." BS really better than us because we don't track all births and destroy many records after a retention schedule. But Ok, show me the list of records you have reviewed, you do read Latin right? Oh wait this is a faith based wives tale told by you? Ok sorry I mistook it for an actually attempted factual statement.

Who says Romans were better record-keepers than us? Saying they're good record-keepers doesn't imply that their record-keeping is better than modern, computerized record keeping. They had good roads, too; but i wouldn't want to drive on one.

Skeptics are allowed to appeal to appropriate authority, like historians on history. It's appeal to inappropriate authority, like Einstein on God, that is a fallacy. Though it may be an old wive's tale, you have to do more than assert that if you want us to think it's an actually attempted fact statement.

Jesus not existing is not an atheist position, it's a Jesus-mythicist position. Debunking Jesus does not make someone an atheist.

Moves on to "only so and so mentions the crucifixion outside the christian fake works". Ok this is a good one. Please show me the comprehensive list of crucifixions where Jesus blah blah blah is missing. No? In fact that guy you mentions is the only mention of a specific Crucifixion in roman records, wow that actually seems to argue for the possible existence of a guy calling himself Christ and making wild claims about being a king.

I think that's a fair statement, but again, you're complaining about Jesus mythicism, not atheism.

Now the stuff about the 3 wise men, and lack of tax records showing any order of the journey to Bethlehem is plausible and credible, and the history of the origin of the older forms of this story is well established, but why pollute this stronger message with the earlier faith based attempts to "convert" that more resemble religious tactics that rational thought?

Some people think they know more than they actually do. This doesn't require faith, just arrogance.

In fact, I would be surprised if in any given year before -2000 from now there was not at least 2 people claiming to be the old christ, and in all following years at least 2 people claiming to be christ 1 and christ 2 (2nd coming) just in the middle east.

So what?

Same thing with evolution vs. origin of life, the truth is we have absolutely no idea how life originated or even if we were seeded from space.

We have no idea at all? Really?

Anyone saying otherwise is simply speculating or worse, outright lying. We know all life evolved from a common source, as witnessed by us all having DNA, ribosomes, and many other chemical in common, but we have no ideal (really) what came before this common ancestor, other than plausible educated guesses.

The phrase 'plausible, educated guesses' does not match up well with the phrase 'have no idea'.

The evidence for evolution is rock solid and super strong, why pollute it with speculation about origins and not simply admit it is a mystery?

It's called forming a hypothesis. It's a necessary step in 'doing science'.

We can actively disprove most religious stories about origins without resorting to speculation, why present an alternate theology when there is just a mystery.

Speculation is not 'alternate theology', 'plausible explanations' are not 'just a mystery'. We're allowed to talk about abiogenisis if we want to. It's an intersting subject.

Why the overselling?

Why the need to try to control what other people talk about?