What are your answers?

[ElDinero]

I stuck up for you because you seemed honest and willing to consider the evidence. You've proven me wrong on both counts, so I feel like I wasted my time. I don't really understand your question. Do I think you have the ability to assess the evidence? Maybe. You seem to have explicitly stated that if it were to contradict your shitty old book, that you'd throw it out anyway, which is not an encouraging sign. You can't just ignore facts because they contradict your book. You'll have seen us mention cognitive dissonance a few times - if you're not sure what it means, look it up. Prove me wrong.

[salty]

I don't think you're a liar Salty (at least not intentionally), I think you've been lied too. I understand how important faith is to the faithful. I just wish that the concept would get treated with a little more integrity if people want to pick up the banner. If there is truth in the narrative, it is not dwelling within discredited stories. It's elsewhere.

Thank you Rhythm. I appreciate you not giving up on my right to not only answer for myself, but to think for myself. Again, there is a time for words and a time for action. I believe it is my time to act, but I cannot promise the educated argument of three topics taking only a days research. I have church activities that will require my attention all of tomorrow. I don't like to use articles to do serious research. I like to go to the library and really invest in books so that other sources can be explored. What is a fair amount of time to give my first response to the challenge of the flood? Then we'll move to creation and to the exodus. I still have the links from that website I mentioned so I realize I will need to review their articles as well. I would like to make my first stand on Wed. Sept. 28th.

This will be the topic: Did the flood of the Bible occur?

I will present what I found and compare it to the articles on the godandscience website.

[The Grand Nudger]

Salty, you have nothing if not time. You aren't beholden to me (or anyone here really) for anything. I'll be around on the 28th, and the 29th, and the 30th (and so forth). If you want to set a deadline that's cool, make it your own. I'm not going to be the guy who sets it.

[salty]

Ok. Then its set. My first response on the 28th.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, np, here's a link which might help you to give your research focus.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[Minimalist]

I haven't given my opinion because faith does not rely on facts, that's why it's faith.

Which is why rational people have dismissed "faith" as unworthy of their time.

"Facts" stubbornly remain "facts" no matter what your fairy tales claim.

[Cyberman]

I haven't given my opinion because faith does not rely on facts, that's why it's faith. The fact that the earth is round does nothing to impact the personal changes the lord Jesus Christ made in my life.

And here we see exposed the core of all religious arguments: faith and personal experience. Your bible warns of houses built on sand, yet your position really is such a house.

You say that you hold your bible to be "historical and divine". Yet you relate the fact that the Earth is round. Tell me; approximately when did the Earth float up from its pillars and lose its corners, please? After all, that is how your "historical and divine" bible describes the world, so at one time that must have been the way the world worked. Or is that one of those inconvenient facts that get in the way of faith?

If the dictates of your bible is completely at odds with the nature of the Earth and everything else in reality, then anything biblical such as your lord JC (either an avatar of your god or son of same) is also at odds with reality, or at the very least highly suspect. So perhaps those changes in your life that you ascribe to divine intervention might warrant re-evaluation?

[fr0d0]

Your bible warns of houses built on sand

Precisely... and the double standard of your argument. You misinterpret Salty's meaning of 'facts'. Just because there cannot be scientifically verifiable proof of God does not mean that there cannot be solid reasoning for belief in him and you should not dismiss that so flippantly.

Also, If you're looking at the bible for scientific information then you're looking in the wrong place, and the accusations you lay it the door of it's mistaken followers equally apply to non followers. ie the correlation you are making is spurious.

[ElDinero]

But the Bible makes claims that are directly at odds with what we are able to scientifically demonstrate. Salty believes things that are completely unscientific AS A DIRECT RESULT of what is written in that book, and her refusal to acknowledge that it could be wrong.

If you don't get your science from scripture, I applaud you. But a lot of people do, which is what we are challenging. How else could we do that without showing how scientifically inaccurate it is?

[Cyberman]

So is your bible an accurate and/or reliable source of information or not? In other words, is there anything in it which is meant to be taken literally? If so, how do you differentiate those parts from the non-literal bits?

Please don't misrepresent my position: I see almost as much science in religious texts as I do in Jack and the Beanstalk. Salty was relying on real-world facts when it supported his/her points, and as Min pointed out, facts remain facts. The word 'fact' has a particularly narrow definition; a fact is some detail of the universe which is actually the case. Salty expressed his acceptance of the shape of the world, a physical fact which is at odds with the picture presented in the bible that Salty holds to be "historical and divine". Clearly it is neither, at least on this point.