It's honestly, too may words to attempt to prove what should be
   a simple point. Perhaps utilizing existing fallacies - there are
   many to choose from. They are the List of Mortal Sins not to be
   committed by a modern Logician. Even dipping a toe into the
   logic side and use the nifty symbolic language, while requiring
   a slight bit of effort on the part of an uninitiated reader,
   would perhaps be a step into the Universal. Also, the initial
   tone is sarcastic and bitter and not engaging to the reader, at
   least this one. Granted references are nice - I do like
   references. I often skip straight to the end after reading the
   introduction and go to the conclusion and then the references,
   if any, to get a sense of the references. I haven't had coffee
   yet and this is the first post on my list so the best I can do
   is what I normally do when I speed read: I produce first
   impressions. First impressions are not entirely favorable. It
   has a sense of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." [1]
   Now, this is not my final answer. It _could_ stand as a final
   answer but I am willing to give it a look upon awakening. But I
   wanted you to know that it will not be an unbiased analysis but
   I will give it an attempt because we are friends. I don't
   usually read long articles or watch long videos that are
   attempting to convince me of what should be a simple enough
   idea. To me, if you wish to believe that those who consider
   these historical figures anything _but_ Atheist despite the the
   efforts of historians whose whole careers are generally to
   present as unbiased opinion of history as possible that state
   the contrary to the opinion of this article, are correct due to
   an argument you would already be inclined to believe because it
   is already favorable to your position as it exists at present, I
   have no problem with that. But I'm a bit more skeptical than
   this, primarily to my bias, more information of which can be
   found in the referenced work of Shakespeare [1]. Now I shall
   have some coffee smile emoticon I hope you give my first
   analysis due consideration. === I have coffee in hand, still not
   ready. I am getting the sense of being accosted by a convert to
   a religion who has intense supporting documentation as to why
   their religion would be most suitable for me to adopt for
   myself. You are seeking cause-effect. I do not believe either
   religion or atheism is the causation of these men's actions.
   This is the issue I have that goes deeper than the arguments you
   and Michael Sherlock, who is not so much an atheist but an
   anti-theist. Is belief a valid primary cause? Is belief
   provable? [does a person hold a stated belief?] These footings
   are sandy upon which such arguments ultimately are based. An
   initial flaw in logic can lead one to strange places indeed. In
   any case, I have given my first impressions and my biases. I
   think it was fair that I did so. In exchange, I would appreciate
   a response as to why it should not appear that my Shakespearean
   reference is correct, rather than "Why aren't you agreeing with
   me despite x, y, z?" I think that is a better way to hold a
   conversation. I'm not much for debate, but I do like
   conversations. ==