Why does existence have to be "good" to justify the universe and existence? Why can it not just be? Why is this god character so vague with his/her/it's "plan?" Why tell us bits and pieces at one time 1000's of years ago, then just stop?

I avoid historical arguments because it becomes somebody's word you have to decide without evidence that they got it right. I am interested in what archaeologist find however, while there findings are open to a lot of interpretation, there is actual real world, what we can touch with our hands evidence of the past.

For the last time, the bible is not tangible proof! It is the opposite of that. If you think the bible constitutes as tangible proof, why do you dismiss all the other major religious holy books? They also say they have "historical" proof, no more and no less than your particular book does. You just choose to pick this particular book because it was presented to you, and the human condition to rationalize their particular belief system takes care of the rest.

Your religion is still disputed by powerful religious and political systems today, it just so happens that Christianity is the most powerful today, although Christianity power is rapidly eroding on a centuries scale. %population that regularly visits church on Sunday is way way down compared to 100's of years ago. The % population that has read all of the NT or the OT is way down over centuries ago.

Your book and religious leaders like to present it as: the followers/religious leaders could not have benefited. But we have no real way of knowing one way or another. Sure, it is generally accepted that when they were less popular in an area they faced persecution and all kinds of horrible stuff, but to say back then, none of them ever benefited is stating an absolute, that you (or anyone else) have no way of proving. People gamble all the time even though most all of them know deep down they are not likely to benefit overall.

I am glad you agree that on logic alone, atheism is a reasonable position. I also surmise that on real tangible testable evidence, which logic highly prizes, the same is true atheism is a very reasonable position.

I maybe sort of agree on historical evidence christianity is, it is more like: right now anyways, it wins the popularity vote, which is why there is so much history on it. The victors write the history books, the powerful write the history books, and christianity has had a near monopoly on reading/writing for much of the world Christianity was popular in for many centuries.

I do agree we are free to make a choice. I am trying to highlight for people to make a choice with real evidence in front of you, testable, tangible evidence, do not make the emotional choice on something so important. In so many other areas in your life, everyday you make the evidence based, rational logical choice, utilize those everyday skills on all aspects of your life.

Yep, scholars have evaluated the NT critically and found that it comes up short on many levels. It is a mess of contradictions, inaccuracies, logical flaws, and inconsistency. It certainly does not read like the "divine word" of all knowing all powerful being. It reads more like a bunch of humans with an agenda would write something a couple hundred years ago.

I think about it all the time, (conclusions to be made from various "holy" books and why so many other people have come to radically different conclusions then I have.) it is a big part of why I am on these boards.

To answer your original question, "is mine a reasonable faith?"
I would say no, reasoning, logic, and evidence, tools we use every day to our advantage says: no, its not a reasonable faith. None of them are.

Do you have reason to support your faith? Yes, I believe you have very powerful reasons to support your faith for personal reasons, mainly centered around: you do not want to be wrong with all this time and effort you spent on it.