Look my friend, I'm an atheist, but I didn't come to that conclusion because I'm ignorant or a fool. I studied the Bible as a devout JW, and then again in the source languages (which, as you certainly know, are Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). If you have a specific point about the bible or evolution that proves your case, I would love to discuss that with you rationally, but calling people fools just because they don't believe in your God is very judgemental and much too easy... don't you see there is just no way to defend yourself against such a thing?
You would not be an atheist is an angel appeared to you or God spoke with you personally or performed some miracle. I have had that happen to me personally so I believe. But I understand that doesn't help you. Per the Bible, though, God gives more to those who have much, and for those with nothing he takes that away.
12 For whoever has, more will be given him and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
What this means is those that believe and already have a lot of faith, they get to see the miracles first, more than confirming their faith. But for those who have no faith at all or don't believe, God throws stumbling blocks in their way. He puts them into darkness and leads them to a steep cliff then Jesus comes from behind and pushes him over the edge. So it's kinda one-sided.
But of note, everybody was a believer in Noah's day when it started to rain. You mentioned the Flood and some other thigns in another post. There are some things that were not videotaped back then so we don't have absolute proof of it. God is invisible so, sorry, no photos of God. But some things in the Bible that can be confirmed are impressive and those things lend to faith. For instance this chart:
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/rehov872.html
Per the Bible, if you really believe it, you are required to date the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. That represents a difference of 82 years from what secular chronology claims. Secular chronology thus contradicts the Bible's timeline and thus some feel the Bible is not true. But when you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE you can calculate the Exodus to 1386BCE since it is exactly 19 jubilees earlier (931 years, 19 x 49), and also the rule of Solomon which would fall from 910-870 BCE. Shishak's invasion, the one that destroyed Level IV of Rehov, a city mentioned in Shishak's inscription of conquered cities can be dated by radiocarbon testing of some grains/cereal found burned at the time of the destruction. Under the presumption the grains were no more than a year old, you have a scientific indicator for when this event happened, completely independent of any historical references. It's simply the best dating for the age of that grain that was found at that level burned at the time the city was destroyed. As you can see from the chart the middle range of that event is 871 BCE with the highest probability peaks for dates from 874-867BCE. Shishak's invasion occurs in teh 39th year of Solomon per the Bible so this scientific dating agrees with the Bible. But it contradicts the current dating used in the secular records, which was revised and thus dates Solomon's rule 54 years too early.
But you can see, how some not knowing this, might think per what the archaeologists tell them, like Israel Finkelstein, that Solomon is a myth and archaeology does confirm him in the period he is now dated. Of course, the archaeologists use the wrong dating in the first place, not the true Biblical dating. The result is, by research (since you wanted some arguments of why to believe) the Bible gains added credibility and the secular chronology becomes obviously less believable.
You also mentioned the Book of Daniel. I'm not sure of the specifics but the books of Daniel and Ezra/Nehemiah were completely suppressed during the Greco-Persian Period and substitute books created by the Jews in their place that didn't reflect the entire picture of the chronology. Ezra/Nehemiah was actually one book called "Esdras" and an apocryphal version of that book was written. That's because the Jews were cooperating to hide the identity of Xerxes who was the same king as Artaxerxes. Ezra/Nehemiah though showed Nehemiah returning with Zerubabbel as an administrator and likely at least age 30 along with Ezra, yet they were both present during the reign of Artaxerxes. Tis would have made them far too old with the expanded Persian chronology which was expanded to make the ages of Xerxes and Artaxerxes align better and make more time for the separate reign of Xerxes. So that's why the substitute book of "Esdras" was created. It leaves off the part of Nehemiah's history where he is with Artaxerxes. But getting back to Daniel, that book would have been supressed as well because of the chronology and likely was out of circulation until much later after the Persian Period ended and that might explain the Aramaic terms in the book when it was recopied and again came into circulation.
Wanna see something else that helps confirm the Bible is true regarding this? Nehemiah is already cupbearer during the co-rulership of Darius and Xerxes. The Bible confirms that Nehemiah was the cupbearer to Artaxerxes and since Artaxerxes shows his cupbearer with him in several bas-reliefs at Persepolis we know exactly what he looked like and what he wore. This same person is with Xerxes. Now archaeologists and anthroplogists don't note the similarity in their research nor make the identification of Nehemiah here. But that's because it would be too obvious to most that these are the same person and that causes problems since it would mean a historical contradiction with secular history, but also once you start to look into the history of Nehemiah, you find out the Jews have always historically placed him with returning with Zerubabbel. Thus seeing Nehemiah with Xerxes and Darius tells us that Nehemiah was already cupbearer early on and that since he is seen with Artaxerxes, is consistent with Xerxes and Artaxerxes being the same king.
Below you see the cupbearer following immediately behind King Artaxerxes. Note the cuptowel in his hand and his floppy headwear. That distinguishes him as a Jew. Also his beardless face is covered suggesting he is eunuch.
HERE is Nehemiah again, only alone with Artaxerxes, proving he was greatly honored and esteemed by Xerxes/Artaxerxes. The Bible confirms he was his cupbearer throughout his entire rulership and he even outlived him into the reign of his son, Darius II.
Here he is again, seen with Xerxes, immediately behind Xerxes and thus the highest court position, which is that of the cupbearer as evidenced by his holding the cuptowel, his badge of office.
Now as far as FAITH goes. You wanted something objective, right? Well this is objective but can we trust archaeologists to pinpoint these things when they have their own agenda? NO! Thus one of my claims is that those who doubt the Bible often are not aware of what evidence directly supports it and are often ill-informed about the Bible because anti-Biblical archaeologists and others are constantly misrepresenting it on one hand and then hiding or avoiding pro-Biblical evidence on the other. The above is consistent with Nehemiah already being present in Persia by the beginning of the reign of Xerxes. That's consistent with the Bible showing he returned with Zerubbabel and served as the "Tirshatha" to the king for a while but apparently by the time of Xerxes had traveled to Persia and was appointed Prime Minister of all of Persia during the reign of Darius, as you can see. We get that by comparing the Bible with the actual archaeological findings, but you won't get that story from any archaeologist or Persianologist.
Thus I don't blame many for not believing the Bible, because it's an uphill struggle to get past all those academic folk who either are ill-informed or biased or downright dishonest. On the other hand, my faith in the Bible is not entirely just because I was raised a witness, but because I've found things like the above to directly support what the Bible says, particularly when the Bible contradicts the popular history.
The above is just one of many evidences that confirm the Bible as a true book of history.
JCanon
