The resurrection of Jesus is not a reasonable historical event. There are no primary, contemporary accounts of his existence. The books of the Bible that describe him were written decades after the purported event, and most of the biblical accounts are second-, third-, or distant-hand hearsay written by people with a vested interest in promoting a religion [bolding mine].
So, if I understand correctly, the Bible is not reliable, because it is a lie, and we know it is a lie because it speaks of the resurrection of Jesus, which we have no evidence for, because the Bible cannot be that evidence, because the people who wrote the Bible had a vested interest in promoting a certain idea, namely that Jesus resurrected from the dead.
So I guess evidence for something cannot count as evidence for something if it purports to be evidence for something.
This is not even to speak of the inane "hearsay" accusations for which our empirical scientist has zero evidence, nor the inanity of considering something written a mere couple of decades after the fact, well withing living memory (and in a society which was much more adept at memorizing oral history than ours is), as somehow invalid on the face of it. Hey, where were you when the Space Shuttle blew up in '86, almost a quarter of a century ago? Liar.