The Jesus debate: Man vs. myth

[hlthe2b]

31. And I ask.. while it is understandable to question the myriad of stories attributed to Jesus...

the miracles, the supernatural, and all the rest--why are some so convinced there was no simple man, whether exaggerated and mythologized to the nth degree, that may have existed? Why is it so important--even necessary for atheists or many agnostics to deny even that? That doesn't imply you believe in Christianity, God, or anything else, just to be able to accept the possibility that there is at least that most tiny of glimmer of historical truth over the thousands of years referenced in the saga? why does it have to be all or nothing? i.e., that Jesus existed as the son of God and all that OR, conversely that he didn't exist at all?

Even if you look at more contemporary history, there is usually some little tiny factoid to whatever big lie or myth is concocted over the years, decades, centuries. And in reference to your CS Lewis quote, why on earth is that even relevent? Only those whose philosophies you believe to be "worthwhile" could have existed?

I'm just curious on an intellectual basis. I can understand taking a hard line as an atheist, but why is it so necessary to have this absolute dichotomy on existence?