I'm on my way to hell, Care to join me?

[Daystar]

*joyous cries*

Another rational believer!

Yee'as!

... And Daystar is right, I don't agree that the Bible is about as good as evidence for God as it gets. In fact my issue with the bible is not so much stories in them, my issue is with the fact that 2000 years after the fact we still need discussions on what it all means. That to me is the hallmark of a poorly written book, and a deity such god should have been capable of conveying his message a lot clearer and making sure nothing gets "lost in translation".

Actually, nothing has been lost in translation. We can go back to the earliest manuscripts ... those written thousands of years ago and the only mistakes we see are a few copyist errors regarding numbers and dates etc.

If you compare that with secular histories like For Cæsar’s Gallic War (c. 58 - 50 B.C.) there are only 9 or 10 manuscripts that are good and the earliest is about 900 years after Cæsar. Or the Roman History of Livy (c. 59 B.C. - 17 A.D.). Of the 142 only 35 survive only through 20 manuscripts only one of which contains mere fragments of Books III - VI is as old as the 4th century. The Histories of Tacitus (c. 100 A.D.)? Of the 14 books only 4 1/2 survive, of the 16 books of Annals 10 in full and 2 in part, but the text of the portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on 2 manuscripts - one from the 9th century and one from the 11th. The History of Thucydides? (c. 460 - 400 B.C.) There are 8 manuscripts, the earliest of about 900 A.D. and a few papyrus scraps from the Christian era.

The same is true of the History of Herodotus. These pale in comparison to the Bible and yet historians who would never question these won't take the Bible seriously?!

Because of the supernatural or alleged mythical nature? All secular histories have a mythical nature and many have supernatureal references.