It wasn't me that claimed unsupported claims or making random accusations.
I was not gaming, you were the instance you realized I was right, thus you tried to attack on semantics of my perfection.
As if I am perfect or ever claimed that I was.
I do mistakes, like every body else but at least I am honest about it.
The problem with most people is that they don't accept their mistakes.

I expect honesty above all, and I was clear that my mistake in making the wrong wording(English is not my native language) does not change the fact that my argument was correct.

Yea envy makes people do wicked things, I always expect "snappy retort" from everyone.

Think negative so the good is never short. :P

Well, Z, there is the entertainment value to be considered in seeing how he responds to it. However, that could be outweighed by the potential for some sort of self-righteous response which might provide only irritation. Or, we could just go grab a beer and talk of the meaning of life. ;-)

K it is becoming annoying when people give sites for other to spend hours to read without pointing them where it is relevant to the argument.

First of all this guy clearly does not agree with Atwill, he starts the argument with "Atwill Who?"
We call that a Genetic Fallacy
He attacks mostly the person and not the argument.

I listed several pieces of evidence which neither you or Richard Carrier dared to mention in their "UNBIASED" criticism.(I'm being Ironic)

He is a christian so I don't blame him for being biased about it. However being so dishonest about the evidence presented by Atwill is unacceptable.

If you cared watching the video I linked you.
Atwill answers most of what Richard Carrier claims here.

1)"The Roman aristocracy was nowhere near as clever as Atwill’s theory requires. They certainly were not so masterfully educated in the Jewish scriptures and theology that they could compose hundreds of pages of elegant passages based on it. And it is very unlikely they would ever conceive of a scheme like this, much less think they could succeed at it (even less, actually do so)."

For a historian to say this is unbelievable.
The Flavians had many JEWS in their own army and in their own elites.
Starting with Joshephus the historian himself that was adopted in the family.
Then you had the right hand man of Titus Flavius, Julius Alexander. The second in command of the Flavians main army.
He himself slaughtered the Jewish rebellion in Alexandria. He was of Jewish origin.

Both the Alexanders and the Herods had Jewish origin and they were experts in Jewish theology. Those where the friends and family of the Flavians(a lot of marriages between them)

2)"We know there were over forty Gospels, yet the four chosen for the canon were not selected until well into the 2nd century, and not by anyone in the Roman aristocracy. Likewise which Epistles were selected."
(3) The Gospels and the Epistles all contradict each other far too much to have been composed with a systematic aim in mind.

The Gospels intention was not what this guy thinks.
They started originally to legalize their dynasty(Flavian) as divine since their family name was unpopular(the JULIA family was divine) and they feared that they will be assassinated by other roman families that wanted the throne but feared the flavian army.(they feared they would end up like Julius Caesar, back-stabbed). After all they did steal the Thrown by brute force.(once the army is dissolved they would be killed)

Then most likely they extended it to show how untrustworthy the Christians are(the zealots jews were called Christians at the time since they follow a messiah)(messiah= cristos in Greek)

Then later it must have spread throughout the empire and everyone of the provinces had their own version of it.
That is why they disagree and have contradiction, because they were not meant to be together in the first place.
They are just tools in a book to preach. Then the preacher uses the right passage(like in mass) for the right audience.

It didn't matter if there were contradictions and exaggeration/absurdities because the peasants and slaves (the target of Christianity) could not even read.(the Jews were not the target of this religion)

The Romans main objective was to stop the Christians(zealots) from convincing the slaves/poor/peasants to revolt with them.

Atwill gives evidence for his claims that the Flavians were involved in the production of this literature yet Richard Carrier does not address this evidence.

Richard Carrier is more devious then the previous guy but still nowhere to say such a claim:
"I actually know what I am talking about"

He knows next to nothing about The Flavians and the politics of that era from what he has written.

I read like 1/3 of his BS and did not find anything which in anyway infers with the evidence I presented.
He just attacks Atwill's credibility and points out some mistakes that Atwill might have made.
He is dodging the argument clearly because he knows he has nothing on the main argument.

Atwill is a man and not god and he may do less mistakes then god but he is still a man. :)

Point out a valid argument to show that Atwill main argument and evidence are wrong instead of making me read articles from top to bottom please.