[Vanders9]

I’m not sure “bigoted” really applies here. A bigot is someone who refuses to change their opinions in the light of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, and as the author hasn’t had a chance to come back to your objections, I dont really see how you can assume he is bigoted (unless, of course, you have had prior dealings with him. Personally, Ive never heard of him before).

I honestly think you might be reading too much into this quote you give. The impression I get from it is that he is saying atheists are always having a go at Christians (hey what else is new) but on this particular point they are being aided (possibly unwittingly) by some of the religously minded (he doesnt specify whether they are RT or not incidentally) who tacitly accept the arguments that the atheists are presenting. I think he has a point there - I certainly was prepared to accept arguments that Christmas was originally a Pagan festival. It didnt matter to me, because I dont care what the pagans celebrated. I personally am celebrating the coming of the saviour. But, as he points out, does this “christmas was originally a pagan festival” theory actually hold any water? It could be another urban myth - you know, people say it so often that it kind of becomes true, because everybody thinks its true.

[brent13a]

does this “christmas was originally a pagan festival” theory actually hold any water?

It does, because it's historical fact (read a little bit about Emperor Constantine and how he shaped christianity and paganism into his vision of a religion). No one is saying that there isn't also historical fact to validate the bible (except atheists) because there IS historical fact to validate the bible. But if one accepts the history of the bible (and the historical fact that validates it) then one cannot also then ignore other historical fact as if it is then invalidated by the bible. That is revisionism.
It's amazing that there would be lauded conservatives who on one hand will complain that progressive liberals & democrats love to ignore aspects of US history and chose to revise US history to their ends.....yet then these same conservatives turn around and chose to accept revisionist history when it comes to other things. It is quite hypocritical.
Just because there are aspects to a religion's past that may make one uncomfortable doesn't mean those things need to be automatically accepted and defended even if it means revising history.