After all, atheists do rely on Arrian's account of Alexander's campaigns, do they not? Yet the burial grounds of Alexander cannnot be found, and even when such a historian lived approximately 3 centuries after the events happened, never has such faith been exercised by atheists regarding these accounts.
Funny. I don't recall any historical account of Alexander turning water into wine, or resurrecting the dead, or casting out demons, or dying on the Cross and coming back to life three days later to expunge the sins of mankind.
Neither do I recall how many people have been tortured to death because they had slightly different ideas about Alexander's biography.
The supernatural events of the Bible demand a greater standard of evidence than the natural events of the Bible or the natural events of any other historical text. The simple fact is that atheists
do accept the Bible as a reliable historical account
for the things that it is reliable about, for the things it provides evidence of.
Alexander's campaign in Asia Minor (an entirely non-supernatural occurance) isn't a feature of merely Arrian's account; it's independently verified by hundreds of contemporary sources. Where the Bible is similarly verified by multiple contemporary sources, atheists accept the Bible as accurate history.
Where the Bible makes unverifiable, impossible claims of supernatural happenings, or where the Bible is the sole source of extraordinary claims, reasonable people know not to take it at face value. Indeed, I imagine that those claims of the Bible can only be "defended" in the way you've chosen to employ - the trolling of multiple threads punctuated by long absences to avoid having to address rebuttals.
™ Version 4.2
