Just for the sake of quoting this very important post I will explain what sapphi means by "circular logic."

By saying that the truth of the story confirms everything you know about god, you are stating that God logically proves himself. "God is because he is." Makes no sense.

It's like saying, "I know God is real and perfect because God says so."

A statement of logic cannot prove itself. Circular.

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the Lord your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you.

The Gods are overrated I say.

Yeah the bible is pretty messed up, if some of the stuff that Jesus says in the NT was said by any person today, we'd think he was some megalomaniacal monster

Good explanation! I didn't bother with one because I think it would be in vain, but who knows? Maybe he (or someone esle) will learn something from this.

:D Thank you. Providing perspective is the key to gaining new knowledge!

If I don't see a video of the flood on youtube, it didn't happen.

Nope, thats impossible. IF He indeed exists, he cant possibly be evli, wicked or sinfull. The power of sin is not above him

What? Is the story is real, than God is real too. And the story itself doesnt confirm everything i know about God. My knowledge of a God unrelated to this story does.

"I know God is real and perfect because God says so."

No, thats not what i meant. I meant, if the story which mentiones God in it IS TRUE , that means that God must be real too. Because if the events in the story are all correct, God sent a big flood on mankind and left only a handfull of men alive. Now ASSUMING this is right, God would have to be real, because he sended a flood on mankind. Whats so hard to understand about this???

I want to read through the comments, but I know there's going to be a lot of religion basher so I'll save myself the heartache and just carry on without reading them :3

Wicked gods are nothing new. There are some of them in cultures with multiple gods. As to whether their actions can be called sins, probably not. The concept of a god committing a sin against humans just doesn't match the idea of what a sin is. Neither does a god committing a sin towards other gods (underhanded pranks, crime etc would be more fitting since multiple gods also usually tended to be arranged in some sort of hierarchical society among themselves).

The Japanese Shinto god of the seas and storm Susano-O is pretty fitting of that, for example. Did some nasty stuff to other gods, was punished but not because his action were a sin or wrong, but because they were hurting and disturbing them (pranks/crime alright).
The Japanese also don't seem to have a big flood myth, although no doubt they've had a fairly large share of floods with the nature of their islands. Maybe a consequence of having the sort of god reign over those calamities who wasn't all good and nice and was prone to go a bit berserk without needing to punish anyone.

In any case, like it's been pointed out, "global" was a fairly narrow term for people some couple of thousands years ago. The sort of "global" that we'd call "local" nowadays. Plus it's absolutely certain there hasn't been a global flood anywhere close to those periods that myths deal with.