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

[Mudhammam]

You want to accept this jesus shit and so you do.  It's okay.  Nothing to be ashamed about.

But remember, we only have one source which tells the story:  What is now known as "Mark."  The rest are add-ons.

I like to accept the most reasonable hypothesis. So even though we know nothing, for example, about the life of Diogenes Laertius, the most reasonable hypothesis granting the evidence is that he was the man responsible for compiling a "history" of the Greek philosophers.

The same goes for Jesus. I'm not saying you have to accept the most reasonable hypothesis given the evidence. I acknowledge, to the pleasure of religious nuts that point out the fact, that atheists can be just as irrational as believers, though unlike believers, they're really not required to be.