Which is why historians subject all historical claims to rigorous scrutiny, and ancient history doesn’t deal in unevidenced magic, it only reports that ancient people were ignorant and superstitious and sometimes made such claims.
“In history, it is rare that we are completely sure that sources are 100% reliable. Therefore, when we talk about reliability of sources, we can talk in terms of ‘degrees of reliability’: Extremely - Very – Somewhat – Rarely – Not very.”
“Based upon what you discovered in your analysis of the source, the reasons provided to establish reliability can be based upon any of the following:”
Origin
The creator is someone who can be trusted. For example, an eyewitness or an academic expert. The type of source is particularly valuable. For example, a personal letter or an academic journal.
Perspective
The creator has a specific perspective on the topic. For example, a particular nationality or career.
Context
The source was created at an important point in time regarding the event. For example, it was made on the same day.
Audience
The intended audience of the source is particularly important. For example, those who would have known key details.
Motive
The specific purpose of the source was to record specific information about the topic."
Now critically examine the claims of the gospels for example using those criteria. Theists are usually so biased that they assume all atheists would convert immediately if they knew and understood what they (theists) know, but it is theists who have not properly and critically studied the claims arguments and facts, and even the bible, not atheists, who on the whole seem very well informed. You yourself were caught out getting a claim about the bible spectacularly wrong.
The claim is of course a blatant false equivalence fallacy as well. Since if an historian makes claims about the type of foods ancient people’s ate, or the weapons they used, or clothes they wore, or where and how they lived, and what religions they may have believed, those claims are very different from claiming a deity impregnated a virgin, who gave birth to that deity in human form, and remained a virgin, and that this deity in human form allowed itself to be tortured to death to appease its own anger over a longstanding and insignificant violation of some arbitrary rules about the consumption of fruit, and in order to appease itself, allowed itself to be tortured to death, then rose from the dead long after rigor mortis had set in. With no pretence of any explanation or evidence as to how this was achieved. Even Lazarus dead for weeks, came back to life with nary a word about what he experienced, the reticence of this fictional character in the bible perhaps infers something rather obvious as well. However resurrections were so commonplace at this time and place they seem almost trivial, so as the late Hitch said, even were I for the sake of argument to grant you the resurrection, the crucifixion, the empty tomb, all of it, you would still have all your work before you in evidencing Jesus was anything but human, according to the claims in the anonymous hearsay of the gospels.
Now I don’t believe that you can’t see the difference there, so yet again you are not just making an irrational claim, you are being dishonest, deluding yourself again. What an historian believes and what they can evidence are not necessarily the same thing, and I would give no credence to the former, only the latter.
Now one last word, on Wikipedia is an expansive and detailed article about the historical method. Instead of parroting false claims about what historians subjectively believe as this makes the claims historical go educate yourself on this topic. HERE
I’ll leave it at that as there are a few posters here with a vastly greater grasp of the true historicity of the biblical narratives and how much credence the evidence shows can be attached to it’s various claims.