I would be what Bart Erhman would call a "mythicist" meaning that I think that from what little concrete evidence there is for the existence of a corporal Jesus, I have to conclude
that he didn't exist as a person.

Ehrman claims that "mythicists" base their position on a reactionary distaste for religion.

I'm not clear that this is true in my case.

I think religion is irrelevant and in some instances harmful.

I have many religious friends and though the topic never comes up, mainly because they intuitively know where I stand, I will not challenge them unless they inflict their beliefs on me. Here's where Creationism goes wrong. By attempting to replace honest science with this dogma, they are doing harm regardless of their status as being a "nice person". Attacking science with this dubious nonsense, using a bible as a basis for their conclusions, placing themselves as Creationists as "holier than thou" apostles, and insisting on the "rightness" of their position, going beyond the bounds of personal "faith", they are warriors for insanity and since this thread seems to be predicated on the defense of this idiocy, I have to conclude that this is not a discussion but a posted diatribe on the part of a "believer".

Operative empiricism has no place in this discussion. Fortunately, science rejects
the absolute constructs that inform religious dogma and is elusively changing day by day rather than being a dead set of ideologies that will crystalize into rigid thinking and in the process, destroy rational thought even by possibly changing the brain cells.