The OT doesn't mention hell at all.
The NT does once in an account of the end of the devil. The 'hell' translated in the gospels doesn't mean anything like the hell of traditional thought. I reject that tradition of 'hell' being a place of eternal torment.
I think the bible is inspired by God and at the same time an account of people of the time. That doesn't mean it loses its power or is not to be taken note of, but it does mean we need to use the tools of exegesis and hermeneutics to interpret it for today.
Sorry I didn't get back to you on the whole evidence thing Hak. In meetings all day and knackered in body and brain! For the whole evidence for the resurrection thing, let's say that Jesus was murdered on the cross and buried. There's some contemporary evidence for this event in Josephus and loads of biblical material from writers close to eyewitnesses (and some contend actual eyewitnesses, an accepted position). There's all the Pauline stuff which is a lot earlier than gospel material and a good account of what early Christians believed - the early Christians who had seen what had happened/heard from close witnesses. Some kind of worshipping community were making these credal statements from as early as 2 years after Jesus died. The earliest poetry/creed speaks of Jesus dying on a cross.
Now I'm aware that you probably discount the biblical material as evidence, but there's a perfectly valid position to call much of the gospel writings history. Mark's source material is an early source which includes an account of the burial of Jesus. The mention of Josepth of Arimethea is interesting because he was part of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish authority which condemned Jesus. He'd have been unlikely to have been a fictional invention, certainly not in his donation of his tomb. Would be really odd to have made this up, given the Sanhedrin's dislike and distrust of Jesus and his followers.
The other thing which would have been very strange had it been made up was the fact that women were reported to have found the empty tomb and to have been the first to see Jesus alive. This would completely wreck the credibility of any kind of made up story. Women, sadly, were seen as lesser than men and were not usually included in any kind of narrative, especially women 'of low morals' as Mary Magdalene was viewed by society. A story made up about Jesus rising from the tomb involving women would be scorned and derided, unless of course it happened to be true. Early Christianity would not have taken off on a lie, particularly a lie involving women. The only explanation is that the gospel writers reported the truth, however embarassing it was for them. (I love that about Jesus, that even in his death he completely destroyed the misogynism rife at the time.)
Paul and the gospel writers then went on to attest of the hundreds that saw Jesus, and early Christianity spread from that time and that place and those events, not from some story someone made up for some purpose of their own. There's the whole thing of the empty tomb, of course - there's plenty of rebuttals, I know, not the least being the disciples nicked the body. What could be in that for them I'm unsure, especially given the fact that they hid in fear after the death and weren't exactly up for a bit of a fight with a couple of guards and a huge stone. There needed to be some explanation for the spread of Christianity. Other religions spread in huge numbers, yes, but not in a couple of years over one region then more and more in ever increasing circles, all earnestly believing in this one event and finding something transformative in it, something that continues today.
There are plenty of objections, of course, and perfectly understandably so. The resurrection is hardly believable. There's the inconsistent gospel accounts (which don't take away from the main points at play, simply give another point to think about: Surely, if the early Christians wanted to spread a made up story, they would have got their facts straight? Embarassing - or possibly consistent with four accounts from four different people at four different times using oral tradition and eyewitness memory? Bound to be some inconsistency, very suspect if not) - there's the fact there's hardly any non Christian contemporary material (not that surprising, given the humble beginnings of the movement)
Resurrection is an explanation for the events reported and for the spread of this faith movement in an unprecedented way in history. It's an unacceptable explanation for many because it simply can't happen, can it. People like me are stupid and deluded for even entertaining the notion that it could. I get this. It's astonishingly foolish to even imagine this, surely. But to me it's an explanation for events. For me it's rational and experiential, though, and without the experiential aspect the rational would no doubt fall down (although CS Lewis decided to come to faith due to a completely rational, and very reluctant view) - for me it's both. It's experience of God in my life that convinces me that Jesus did, indeed, rise again. Deluded? Maybe. But, like CS Lewis said, 'I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.' [Puddleglum] Because I couldn't not. It's there, it's in me, it's life, it's incredible.