No they don’t, they might simply involve subjective bias, without any evidence that’s not an open minded rationale.
You claimed that:
I didn’t say you can’t appreciate the bibles stories as symbolism, only that your claim they “had value as symbolism” is not evidence they were true.
I disagree, the original claim is not “propped up” by making more unevidenced claims.
Is just that an assumption, and if the assumption is that these “stories” are the immutable word of an infallible deity, then they cannot be ever be wrong, and some of there demonstrable are, as they contradict scientific facts.
I don’t care to speculate without evidence, this also is not relevant to my point.
Again then I don’t accept any deity exists, that no one can demonstrate any deity exists with anything beyond bare subjective claims, is why I remain disbelieving.
Treating claims by one’s parents any differently to any other claims is again simply bias. So no, bias is never a good reason to believe unevidenced claims, if one cares about the truth. Science uses the absence of evidence to confirm ideas, as it does in the example above, so it is overly simplistic to assume that an absence of evidence if never evidence of absence. As that quote explains.