"Presenting" Harry Potter as fiction doesn't make it fiction. The lack of magical proof and lack of being real makes it fiction. Just like presenting the bible as true doesn't automatically make it truth or presenting as history doesn't make it history. That's why I told you intentions don't mean jack.
Yes historians evaluate every claim individually and conclude if something was true and something that was fake. You can maybe claim there are kernels of truths in the bible but you cannot claim all of it is true. HOWEVER that is a contradiction that goes against what the bible claims. We are evaluating a claim that a perfect, all powerful, all knowing god wrote this. IF its not all perfect and not all truthful then it CANNOT be called word of god. You can call it man made story with mistakes, contradictions and occasional true events.
Inspired by god doesn't mean it was god. It could mean people thought they were inspired by god or just lied. There are plenty of examples of people who think god talks to them. They think the voices in their head are from god. Thats why we have thousands of religions. Why should we treat christianity any different from a mental institution patient?
I didn't "assume" it wasn't inspired by god I "concluded" it based on the lack of proof it makes. You can't accuse me of being circular.
Since magic has never been proven to be real its a natural and logical place to start categorizing it as fiction.
The day you prove magic is the day we can begin with "it could be possible"
Humans have devised millions of stories and myths over millenia. You want me to disregard all the gods and magical explanations except for 1. Why is it reasonable to believe in magical being created 2 people in a magical garden with a magic serpent , then that magic wizard got mad at the two people he created then he drowned everything then favoured one race of people over another, then send his son/himself to pay for our sins, but didn't realy die, walk on water, cure cancer resurrect from the dead. Hell, heaven, angels, demons, unicorns, satyrs, cherubs, leviathans, dragons, nephillim, virgin birth etc etc. That is more reasonable to you over << its just another man made superstitious story>> ?
You're still assuming your conclusion as your premise.
You say, "Magic has never been proven, therefore every miracle claim should be classified as fiction." That's not a historical conclusion—it's a philosophical one.
History doesn't begin by deciding that a category of events is impossible. It examines the evidence for particular events. Whether miracles are possible depends first on whether God exists. That's why the existence of God is the foundational question.
You also keep saying I must reject every other religion except Christianity. I don't reject them because they're "magic." I evaluate them on their own evidence and claims. If one religion makes stronger historical or philosophical claims than another, it's reasonable to judge them differently. We already do this in every other area of history—we don't assume every ancient account is equally reliable simply because they're all ancient.
As for the Bible, you're arguing that if one claim were shown to be false then Christianity collapses. That's an argument about biblical inspiration and inerrancy, not about whether Jesus rose from the dead. Those are related questions, but they aren't identical. The resurrection can be investigated historically without first proving every passage in Scripture.
Finally, you asked why Christianity is more reasonable than saying "it's just another superstition." My answer is simple: because I don't think all religions have the same historical, philosophical, or textual support. I didn't start by assuming Christianity was true. I examined the arguments and found the Christian case more persuasive. You examined them and reached the opposite conclusion.
At this point our disagreement isn't really about the evidence anymore. It's about our starting assumptions. You begin by assuming miracle claims should be rejected unless they're scientifically demonstrable. I begin by asking whether God exists, because if God exists then miracles are at least possible. That's why we interpret the historical evidence differently.