There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

And that's exactly the point of this thread. Christians tend to loudly exclaim the historical veracity of the Bible, and are woefully ignorant of the rather significant areas where there is either no external support at all or actual contradictory evidence that conclusively shows the literal Biblical account to be complete bunk.There never was a global Flood as depicted in Genesis. The formation of life on Earth had nothing to do with the Creation story. There is no support for the Exodus account outside of the Biblical account itself. There's more, of course, but that's enough. The Bible is no different from any other ancient mythological text. It's the attempt by teh Hebrew culture to explain the world around them, just like the Creation and historical myths of all other cultures. Some of the historical events are based in fact, but to say that the Bible is literally true in its historical claims completely contradicts direct observation.It's fortunate that you're able to admit that you have no evidenciary support for your beliefs, but the mere fact that you believe without ever having seriously investigated the accuracy of your beliefs is one of the most disturbing results of theological dogma. And for most everyone, that's just fine. Faith has nothing to do with evidence, and at worst simply having faith means that you might be gullible. Problems only ensue when people insist that their beliefs are factual rather than simply faith. That's when we get people who try to force their religious faith to be taught to people who don't share their faith-based beliefs in public schools, and worse people who try to establish a theocratic government.

I'll try and close this in an hour or so, but I might forget. Either way, consider this space for your summations.

Well, I'm not embarrassed to believe in the Bible and by extension God. I do realize that organized religions have gotten pretty over-zealous and some of what they insist on is unrealistic. Still I don't think there is a true conflict between science and belief in God.One can find impossible situations in several places of the Bible and they are a mystery, but at least they are allowed to be there. I would be more suspicious of a flawless document.All in all I think the Bible provides a fairly good historical record, even if from the perspective of devout Jews for the most part. I think more people should read it before casting their opinions, including those who claim to live according to it.

Few who reject the flood possibility think there's anything wrong with others accepting it. Most people are very tolerant of the religious beliefs of others. Belief in the flood and other related beliefs, such as a young earth and the impossibility of evolution beyond the species level, only become a problem when people insist these views are science that should be taught in public school science classrooms.--Percy

Nor should you EVER be. There isn't, the conflict only arises when people insist on the bible being literally true and demanding it be taught as science.Once again, glad to have debated with you and I hope you stick around

---

I hunt for the truth

What should be realized though is that we must recognize the ease by which subjective experiences are believed to be true, before objective facts are.Religion and faith are simple to digest because they depend on a persons own subjective interpretation of reality. If one feels that God is the most plausable answer, then no amount of evidence from the objective PoV will sway them, at least not fully IMO.But we must press on though, continuing the work of studying nature using the only true un-bias method, the scientific method. If enough people are educated then rather than stuggling to convince someone that their own personal subjective experiences don't counter what the laws of physics and nature say about our universe and planet, they'll just be able to understand it on their own...subjectively.