Your sources aren't exactly the most objective in this regard.
I was going to say the same thing. I prefer to have a more scholarly discussion about this subject. I feel that the truth of what happened back then is so much more exciting than the spin that some would place on the subject.
Specific objective historical facts are alleged in their refutations. Those facts are either true or they are not. Now, one can either offer similarly objective historical facts in a counter argument or not. To simply flick away their arguments on the sole basis of their authors' "Christian" perspective, however, is not reasonable.