I realize you're probably a true believer, but for a lot of people there is no truth. The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people. I don't believe in your religion or any other, but even assuming it's true, the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
Briefly:
> for a lot of people there is no truth
A lot of people don't think clearly and have been misled. Do you and I exist in some form? Are we having a conversation? There: two truths. Dismissing truth as unknowable is a kind of, shall we say, cognitive off-ramp one may use when uninterested in working harder to find it. It's also a rhetorical trick used by some to shut down conversations they don't want others to have.
> I don't believe in your religion or any other
Framing philosophy as a matter of religion is a common way to dismiss a line of inquiry before it begins. It's also a rhetorical trick, a form of tribalism, a way to "other" those whom one disagrees with.
The modern distinction between religious and irreligious matters is ultimately a contrivance. The question of the nature of reality knows no such distinction.
What matters is not what label we apply to a philosophy; what matters is whether it is true. In this sense, everyone has a religion, whether or not they label it so. In modern terms, one may call it a worldview.
> The bible is written by people, translated by people, and interpreted by people...the fidelity of the text is poor at best.
That is your subjective evaluation: "poor at best." How do you know this? What research have you done into the texts available? Have you studied the original languages and ancient texts? How do these texts compare with other ancient documents, ones whose authenticity is not commonly questioned in the field? Is it legitimate to boil down an entire field of research, practiced over thousands of years, to three dismissive words?
