OK Christians. your chance. Convince me of God.

[Cyberman]

Stimbo,

If it is so unethical, then why do so many scholars do this all the time? It is simply a way of sifting out the crap and keeping what has value. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

First of all, please take a moment to acquaint yourself with the quote function. I say this not out of malice but in the interests of clarity of communication.

It is perfectly permissable to quote from others, particularly those more knowledgable in whatever subject is under discussion, in order to reinforce the points being raised. It only becomes a fallacy - unethical, as you incorrectly attributed to me - when the words of your chosen authority are carefully selected so as to include only those parts that agree with your argument and discard the rest. It's not a matter of the ratio between babies and bathwater; it is the suppression of evidence. As a matter of fact, it's not even universally unethical. In a courtroom, for example, lawyers are not obliged to include evidence that harms their case.

This is not a courtroom; anything you say will be used in evidence.

I have no personal agenda in promoting certain parts of the Bible over others. I am simply stating that to my knowledge it is not entirely devoid of merit.

And until you can present something to support what you state, you are expressing nothing more than opinion. For example, which parts have merit and why?

Stimbo,

You are correct about faith. At least as far as its dictionary definition goes. I was thinking of faith in terms of the way it is defined in the Bible, which is also an expectation, which is what Christians are employing.

So to clarify, it is ok to have a reasonable expectation. The question is, how reasonable is the expectation that the Bible is a reliable book. I say it is more reasonable to think so than most atheists would say it has. And the main reason for thinking that, is on the basis of how well it has been preserved.

So if it is so unreasonable, please provide facts to establish this.

Interesting how you expect facts to be handed to you when you in return have provided none such so far. That may sound intolerant or whatever the word of the day happens to be, but all I see in your posts is opinion and bald assertion. In what way is the bible a reliable book, especially when it's one hundred and eighty degress about-face about so much of what we know to be fact (the Universe was not made in a week, bats are not birds, sprinkling avian blood and chanting magic incantations is not a viable cure for leprosy, etc)?

Faith in terms of reasonable expectation, as you agree, is demonstrable. Faith in terms of a baseless conviction in spite of, and against, evidence is not. Switching contexts midsentence between the two definitions is unreasonable and needs to be discouraged in the interests of honest discussion.

I note in passing that your religious views seem pretty certain so far.