I didn’t say that. I would definitely believe. I wouldn’t change my lifestyle though. I do not claim the title of atheist, as I believe you have assumed.
History books are a little different. They don’t try to dictate how I live my life, threaten me with eternal hell for not believing, and don’t claim to be divinely inspired.
Don’t we have it dictated to us we must abide by “human rights” and democracy? Boith being ancient beleif systems that predate Christianity etc? We are forced to live in that system as much as Afghans are now forced to live under the Talibans version of Sharia.
All our understanding of democracy and individualism comes from books where we are taking on faith several historical figures existed with less proof than that Muhammad existed or Jesus existed.
I do, but a history book would lose all credibility if it started to make claims about the supernatural. The bible isn’t like other history books in that regard.
No I wouldn’t call it faith. It is more likely to be true than a book filled with the supernatural. There are no consequences for not believing in a history book.
Muslims believe yes the other revealed books were true but their core message of tawheed or pure monotheism was corrupted. So from that perspective you can indeed make that consistent argument.
I think some other religions have a perennial perspective where all religious books hold truth about divinity,
You and @fitafter40 have both posted bible scripture to explain/answer questions. What I’m trying to get at is why do you believe the bible to be true versus the thousands of other religious books that say different things.
Do you agree with Muslims that the bible has been corrupted? I assume not.