The word "contemporary" taken to a perfectionist extreme
Little more can be said about this form of denialism. Those people who use it have an extremely narrow, almost robotic definition of "contemporary" based on the notion that members of some ancient civilizations, such as Egypt, Greece, and Rome, had very short average lifespans due to rampant disease, unhealthy eating practices, and poor sanitation. Those traits however, couldn't be more inaccurate when talking about ancient Israel. Unlike the former societies, Israel actually had a very strict sanitation code, one that is even reflected in the Old Testament. They wouldn't do a thing without first washing their hands, then proceeding to wash them again after accomplishing such tasks. They disposed of sewage in the utmost faraway of places, either outside Israel's borders, in the Mediterranean (during the sporadic times that they had access to it), or buried in the Negev Desert (a hostile environment for pathogens, to say the least, and one that few, if any, bacteria or viruses can survive in), just to make sure disease did not have even the slightest opportunity to spread. Members of neighboring empires, I'm sure, probably would have the nerve to call the Israelites mysophobes!
As a result of this militant emphasis on sanitation and cleanliness that was unmatched by any other major civilization of the ancient world, it's conceivable that lifespans in Israel, as, once again, reflected in the Old Testament (with people living, according to the Bible's claims, 130 years on average), were far longer than they were in any other ancient civilization. The reason? Many of those other, shorter average lifespans were primarily due to either A, disease, or B, war, with disease, by far, coming out on top. Plagues ravaged many parts of the ancient world, and in places that had loose family morals (unlike Israel, the island of monogamy in a sea of polygamous empires that believed sex was a religion), it's likely STDs such as syphilis, hepatitis B/C, meningococcal disease, gonorrhea, and chlamydia also spread much more rampantly. What's more, there's the poor eating habits of Israel's neighbors, who often lived sedentary lifestyles while eating large, fat-rich meals (I'm looking at you, Rome); thus, while it wasn't widespread in Israel, it's likely that obesity was far more widespread in Israel's neighboring civilizations. If you've ever seen how a Jewish chef cooks his meat, he first drains all the blood possible out of the meat in question. With good reason, of course: blood spreads bloodborne pathogens. Then, as if that's not enough, he also washes any remaining blood out. Then, when it comes time to cook, he cooks it thoroughly for hours while draining all the fat out as it cooks. What's more, they ate small, modest portions, unlike the Romans who threw large, lavish, all-you-can-eat buffets, and their bread, unlike that of their neighboring civilizations, was (and still is) unleavened and made with whole grains. As we all know, if bread is flat, it's not going to fill someone up to the extreme that a leavened piece of bread will; thus, those who eat unleavened bread don't take in as much carbs.
These dietary factors that contributed to the Israelites' long lifespans compared to their surroundings bring us straight to the point: Because Israelites lived longer due to their eating and sanitation habits, the probability of at least some of them having lived long enough to still write about Jesus 30 or 40 years after seeing Him is much greater. Thus, this variable ― lifespan ― is a variable that builds the case for these demands for "contemporary" evidence being extremely outlandish ones. Alright, moving on...
Using uneducated language in what is supposed to be educated discussion
I have written a long critique of this practice before, but they still don't get it. It's the old adage: actions speak louder than words. Or, in this case, it's the adage of "language speaks louder than claims of intelligence": If you claim to be an intelligent person, act like it! I've seen several examples of atheist mythicists ― at least 5 of them, and counting ― claiming to be intelligent skeptics while at the same time throwing S- and F-bombs at Christians every chance they get, as if they're just trying to make themselves look uneducated. Instead of responding to our intelligent arguments with equally intelligent counter-arguments (as a scientist would do), they respond with a simple "F*** you" or "That's B******t" in a blatant attempt at (or demonstration of) street-grade immaturity that is much more typical of uneducated thugs who spend their lives looking for rival gangster blood than of scientists or professors. It certainly is enough to make anyone who sees that behavior want to question its users' acclaimed intelligence, to say the least.
Not only is this behavior uneducated-looking, but it's also immature-looking. It's the language that middle-schoolers use. It's something that people use just to bully people, to make themselves look macho instead of making themselves look intelligent. Yet their claims are the exact opposite: "F*** you, you fool!" "B******t! I'm far more intelligent than you!" and on and on they go, with those same immature attitudes that they have in common with fighting teenagers. Just like a bully, an atheist like this is just trying to get a reaction out of us, in the most immature of fashions. What atheists like these don't realize is that we Christians, by judging their actions, certainly know who the real fool is. The real fool is the one who acts in a manner inconsistent with his claims about himself. What part of "Hypocrite!" do these atheists not understand? Yeah, exactly.
Bottom line, this atheist tirade against Christianity has gone from civil discussion to an immature man's punchline. They won't quit. No, as if atheism is itself a religion, they take this discussion to new lows, deliberately trying to make themselves look like fools. Until they can learn to act civil, well, blog posts like this one that point out their hypocrisy must continue to get posted...