Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[TheMessiah]

By that logic, the vast majority of respected Atheist Historians and scholars (who accept his historicity) are not ''true Atheists'' either because they do not toe the line.

You see, Mess.  I don't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks.  Also don't tell  us what "atheists" think.  You have enough trouble with your own bullshit.  I am not, like you, always looking for some "authority" to tell me that I'm right.  I am capable of independently evaluating evidence and all you have are the rantings of later believers who survived the purges of your 'holy' church long enough to make it into the Big Book of Fables. 

Find some real evidence.  You have singularly failed to do that.

You do care what people think.

Your comments towards me proved it.

Instead of just tackling my argument - you attempted to label me as not an Atheist. Another user did this, and you agreed with him --- this blatantly happened, so attempting to deny it is up to you - that is quite damning, because you made Atheism a label which can be given to people with differing opinions.

Perhaps that you're ''independently'' trying to look is the problem; I cross-check my arguments with scholarly standard - I don't say ''I think this might not be true'' because that's not how analysis works; you ''don't care what people think'' because your argument doesn't hold up once put to a scholary standard, you need to apply it to a standard of which it is studied in, hence:

More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging, and "print on demand" self-publishing services. But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives.

Either way, you attempted to dismiss dissenting opinion as ''non Atheist'' which suggests you view Atheism as an ideology, which is something it is clearly not.