If that's the case I can say without doubt that I am much better since I studied the Bible and became what I think and believe is a Christian.
But have you really studied the Bible? If you make the error of assuming that it is true and only read the Bible to "study" the Bible then you are relying on circular reasoning. If one wants to prove that the Bible is reliable one has to go outside of the Bible at times.
For example if one claims that science agrees with the Bible one would have to see what is actually supported by the sciences. To do that one has to have a minimum understanding of the sciences and we quickly find out that the Bible is contradicted by the sciences if one understands the sciences.
Or if one claimed that history supports the Bible then one has to follow the rules of history and we find out rather quickly that once again, the Bible is not historical.
The same applies to archaeology. We find that the Bible fails when one uses the rules of archaeology.
Prophecy is another area where the Bible fails. In that case one has to use consistent rules for prophecy, in other words, the same rules that one would apply to other beliefs have to be applied to the Bible and we quickly find out that it fails then too.
Of course believers of the inerrancy of the Bible will have to say "real science does not do that" and "real history does not do that", and "real archaeology does not do that". And we soon find out that when they mean "real" they actually are redefining science as observations that agree with the Bible. They are redefining archaeology as findings that agree with the Bible. Etc, and so on. If some aspect of reality disagrees with the Bible those that make the error of assuming the Bible is inerrant tries to redefine those disciplines. That is why people keep pointing out the use of circular reasoning by many believers.