The Atheist Internal Argument for Jesus Existence

This information is taken from the Atheist website:

It is only in 180 CE, with Irenæus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds. Thus, unless one supposes the argument of Irenæus to be other than ridiculous, we come to the conclusion that the gospels are of unknown origin and authorship, and there is no good reason to suppose they are eye-witness accounts of a man named Jesus of Nazareth.

It is clear that the gospels of Matthew and Luke could not possibly have been written by an eye-witness of the tales they tell. Both writers plagiarized (largely word-for-word) up to 90% of the gospel of Mark, to which they add sayings of Jesus and would-be historical details. Ignoring the fact that Matthew and Luke contradict each other in such critical details as the genealogy of Jesus…

But what about the gospel of Mark, the oldest surviving gospel? Attaining essentially its final form probably as late as 90 CE but containing core material dating possibly as early as 70 CE, it omits, as we have seen, almost the entire traditional biography of Jesus, beginning the story with John the Baptist giving Jesus a bath, and ending - in the oldest manuscripts - with women running frightened from the empty tomb. (The alleged post resurrection appearances reported in the last twelve verses of Mark are not found in the earliest manuscripts, even though they are still printed in most modern bibles as though they were an "authentic" part of Mark's gospel.) Moreover, "Mark" being a non-Palestinian non-disciple, even the skimpy historical detail he provides is untrustworthy.
**************************************************
The problem with the Atheist argument is that they attempt to discredit the documents based on the already perceived hatred for Christianity. They do not intellectually analyze the evidence. They assume Irenæus was incorrect because they don’t agree with some of his views. If they conclude a writer is insane, then they will discount anything the writer has to say. If I followed that rule today, then I would conclude that most of Hollywood is insane, and most of our government is insane. I mean, I don’t agree with so many people it is hard to count. Our government has used 900 billion dollars to bail out Wall Street, and if that isn’t insane, then I don’t know what is. Just because you don’t agree with someone, doesn’t mean that they are inaccurate when they are talking about a particular event.

Plagiarism wasn't the evil word that it is today. I don't see any problem if Mathew and Luke took some of the information from Mark's Gospel. That doesn't mean that what Luke and Mathew said was not accurate information. They also state that Mark's Gospel is untrustworthy because he wasn't a disciple. Why is that? You can't be an eye witness unless you are a disciple? There they go again making an assumption without any logic. The Apostle Paul wasn't an original disciple and he wrote most of the New Testament.

These Atheist will do what ever they can to discredit the Bible, but the accuracy of the Bible is a whole lot better then the evidence they have for Evolution.