The Great Flood

[Edwardo Piet]

Have YOU read The God Delusion?
And also, if and when I read the whole of the bible, I doubt my own personal arguments directed to it would change your mind much. Rather than what I know of it through TGD.
At the moment I consider it a waste of time. Perhaps you would consider reading the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster a waste of time for much the same reasons?

I have not read The God Delusion.

It isn't about changing my or anyone elses mind. If that is what I seem to be implying that is my mistake. I don't want to change anyones mind. I don't know about reading the Flying Speghetti Monster ... probably not, unless there were some actual parody or meaning behind it. I have read the Quran, Bhagavad-Gita, Dhammapada, Nihongi, Pirque Aboth, Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu ... education doesn't imply lobotomy, quite the opposite.

---

Your argument on the Bible is uninformed and irrelevant.

You are telling me I can't argue because I have not read it. Yet you have not read TGD and TGD has information on it. And Dawkins shows why 'the argument from scripture' isn't an argument for the truth of the God or the bible. Also I have read enough of the bible to know what its like. And seen enough nonsensical quotations from it.
If I go out and read the whole of the bible so I can argue more about the details of the scripture with you, I very much doubt it would change my mind and I very much doubt my arguments on it would change yours.
Everyone interprets scripture differently, so how can you be so sure that YOU are the one interpreting it right?
How would you like it if I'd read the Gospel of the FSM and was trying to educate you about it, and when you said that what I was talking about was nonsensical I simply said "Aah but you can't judge that because you haven't read the whole thing. Your argument is completely invalid. I have an argument on it because I have read the whole of it therefore my argument is stronger than yours."
what you ARE quoting/talking about from the bible as arguments for its truth is nonsensical.
The burden of proof is on you I don't actually need to know about the bible at all to debunk it. I actually don't need to disprove the truth of the bible at all. You have to prove it, you have to provide evidence. So until you can provide proper evidence for the truth of bible I can assume its all nonsense.
You are say that you are not trying to teach the truth of the bible, you are just trying to teach the bible for what it is. But in the quote above you say that my argument is irrelevant. It is NOT irrelevant because my argument is simply this: until you or anyone else can provide proper evidence, I can assume the bible is full of shit. If you're not trying to prove anything how can you call my argument irrelevant when it certainly is not? My argument is the burden of proof. Evidence first.
Its false until proven true, not true until proven false.