"Evidence" "Proof" "Reputable source"

These are words I hear often from atheists and evolutionists. Unfortunately bias plays a massive part in how they see things like this. A reputable source is anyone who sees it their way. Atheists rarely accept scholars who are in favor of the religious view yet gladly accept claims by persons who are of the same world view even when they provide little to no actual support for their claims. The number of persons who have bought into the Christ-Myth Hypothesis is interesting especially since the "scholars" in support of that view are shaky at best. The book I mentioned before (The Pagan Christ) was written by such a scholar.

I understand we are all biased and we usually go for information that supports our point, but what do they have to lose in checking out the other side? Why fight so hard on even simple things?

When I deal with these things I don't automatically call the atheist source a phony. I look at what they say and why they say it. Usually, its very weak.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, its my experience with several atheists. There is also this assumption that atheists know more about religion than  religious people do. Making that assumption I guess works defensively.