Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

No but having 27 documents that carry the same basic message and churches the believe that same basic message BEFORE the documents adds to the probability of the reliability of the accounts--as they would in any series of ancient documents for any events.

Emphasis mine. That there is one of the many problems with the NT. The Gospel message isn't consistently the same throughout the 27 books. Prime example being James' salvation through works vs. Paul's salvation through faith. Only a biased Christian mind sees the opposite.

Did you read that on an atheist bullet list? What exactly did James say? 

James 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect?

So, as a student of the Bible, tell me how that contradicts Paul and that they cannot both be right. Please be specific with references. 

That theory would contradict Acts. We have no reason to believe Acts is not as it claims to be: a history of the early church. You can't just throw out theories without thinking about how you are going to deal with this or that evidence. More below on Acts.

No reason? Considering that the historicity of Acts has been called into question, with scholars themselves pointing out various contradictions regarding the depiction of Paul in Acts vs. the Pauline epistles, your statement is clearly unwarranted. Again, you only say this because of your strong theological biases.

What are you talking about? You did not get any "authenticity" problems from what you just quoted. You cataloged a couple of interesting points if you were really really into church history and the life of Paul. You are taking leaps because you actually don't understand the references being made. Read it again, no one thinks that Acts was revisionist. In fact, minor differences are evidence of authenticity. A revisionist account would have cleaned up the little discrepancies or questions that you would expect an investigative reporter (Luke) would write down a few years later.

Revisionism is exactly what "Luke" did himself by rewriting history to favor the unity of the early church. Do read that paragraph from Wikipedia again.

Here is your reference.

Acts agrees with Paul's letters on the major outline of Paul's career: as Saul he is converted and becomes Paul the Christian missionary and apostle, establishing new churches in Asia Minor and the Aegean and struggling to free Gentile Christians from the Jewish Law. There are also agreements on many incidents, such as Paul's escape from Damascus, where he is lowered down the walls in a basket. But details of these same incidents are frequently seen as contradictory: for example, according to Paul it was a pagan king who was trying to arrest him in Damascus, but according to Luke it was the Jews (2 Corinthians 11:33 and Acts 9:24).[1] Acts speaks of "Christians" and "disciples", but Paul never uses either term, and it is striking that Acts never brings Paul into conflict with the Jerusalem church and places Paul under the authority of the Jerusalem church and its leaders, especially James and Peter (Acts 15 vs. Galatians 2). Acts omits much from the letters, notably Paul's problems with his congregations (internal difficulties are said to be the fault of the Jews instead), and his apparent final rejection by the church leaders in Jerusalem (Acts has Paul and Barnabas deliver an offering that is accepted, a trip that has no mention in the letters). There are also alleged major differences between Acts and Paul on Christology (the understanding of Christ's nature), eschatology (understanding of the "last things"), and apostleship.

SO, in 28 chapters with over 1200 verses spanning 30 years of time, how many details contradict some other detail based on the letters of Paul? Scanning above... 1

Questions about why Luke left out this or that detail? Taking a wild guess...he didn't know.

Questions about "alleged" doctrine differences...Luke was reporting history. Don't really know what the specific references of this objection, but it is extremely likely that he did not have Paul's letters. Luke never claimed to be writing doctrine. 

It is quite interesting that you get "revisionist" and "historicity called into question" about such a list. You accuse me of a charitable reading of Acts because of my "theological bias". But really what we see here is your dismissal of Acts with no real reasons. You went looking for reasons to dismiss it and you came back with some lame-ass list you thought might be compelling--because, really--you don't know if that list is significant or not--because you don't know shit about the NT. Now who has the bias?