What makes one holy book more trustworthy than another?

What makes one holy book more trustworthy than another?
In the end of the day, they all ask you to take a leap of faith and just believe in some concept, before the rest of it can logically follow or make sense.
Why trust this one and not trust the other ones?

Its just faith. Anyone arguing otherwise is both wrong and completely missing the point

If the Quran was true why didn't Allah make sure it was the biggest influence of my life. Since my life is the most relevant to my appreciation of religious the book I was raised with must be the legit one.

There exist people who are raised with the Quran, thus it must be legit.
Whooops, its a paradox. I guess you need to go back and approach the issue in another way.

Quran is closer to the original "holy" text while Bible had some updates and forks over the years.

It might be safer to believe in Bible because according to Quran they both are the same god so you wouldnt get punished for believing in the Bible.

but those people are just Satans NPCs

Why not both?

Because each says the other is wrong.

>Because each says the other is wrong.
Thats wrong though.
Bible obviously doesn't talk about quran at all and quran says bible is not wrong but it got twisted in time by people.

The Bible was never supposed to be taken entirely literally, so the Bible wins, because they're both retarded.

Also, Bibles are easy to get >for free, but you have to buy the Quran. Muslims need to step up their proselytising game.

Bible says that if you believe other cults you are wrong, a heretic, a sinner and will suffer for it after your death.
Quran says if you believe other cults muslims should torture and kill you.

>The Bible was never supposed to be taken entirely literally

It was supposed to, people just started realizing how retarded it is and invented the "its a metaphor!" meme to rationalize it.

>Revelations is real guiz!!

'no.'

>god is real guiz

'you'

Actually I never claimed that.

In that case you shouldn't be the one to argue weather the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally.

That's perhaps the stupidest thing I've heard in the last week, and I spent the entire weekend on Veeky Forums.

>One iteration and released 6 centuries later

>Multiple updates and patches. Not meant to be 'literal'. Church completely disregards.

A person who doesn't believe in religion shouldn't comment on which religion is better to believe.
Clearly for you the answer is none, as they are all false, and its best to believe neither.
You have nothing further to contribute.

>A person who doesn't believe in religion shouldn't comment on which religion is better to believe.
I never said any religion was better

>Clearly for you the answer is none,
I never claimed that either

>A person who doesn't believe in religion shouldn't comment on which religion is better to believe.

Who else could be objective?