The bolded statement is fundamentally flawed... (maybe you already addressed this in the conversations here) If one subscribes to a belief (ie: not agnostic) you evaluate ideas with a bias towards your chosen belief whatever it may be at that time. For example fanatacism over brand (ie: ps360) can cause one to only look at positve reviews / rumors as true and negative data as less relevant. Does matter what you subscribe to in terms of agreements / beliefs people generally look for information (accurate or not) that reinforces one's choice rather than contradictory data. I mean really who likes to be wrong? Finding arguements against an opposing view is not privy or exclusive to any "exclusive" group but readily available and regularly used by all groups.

Oh, look, we did decide to hug it out after all.

Good job guys.

Now lets all hold hands and chant/pray for world peace around the pentagon... I hear it worked so well the first time! :p

Seriously though, there is not enough respect in the world today. I mean I don't always agree with my wife, but I still love her (which is a choice). It's great to have open discussions and respect other peoples varying points of view and grant understanding to one another even if we don't agree on things. 

Since you kept prodding, let's evaluate each one of the left-hand claims of the Bible. I'll stop when I find the first fallacy since you've suggested all of those are true.

Isaiah 40:22 - Earth is a Sphere

What it actually says:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Not sure if you realize this, but circles aren't spheres. In fact, they are missing an entire dimension. 

Guess all of your work is ahead of you as the initial point is false. 

I'm not making any positive claims, or proclaiming any belief. I think you are rather confused about the position I hold. 

I'll repeat it for you and you can decide if you're still opposed to what I said - there exists no sufficient evidence for the claim god exists.  

I enjoy contradictory data. I beg for it. 

I'd hate to quasi-necro a thread, but this one isn't *that* old =/.

First off, "classic atheist argument"? How so? Look up any kind of debate or look up any literary work and the only time you'll see "attacking the person instead of the point", is when some guy claims that people rode on dinosaurs and someone responds by calling him an idiot. What you just stated was an ad hominem in of itself due to its blatant falseness.

Secondly, I wasn't attacking his character. I was attacking his credibility. He has shown that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of science, so why should one trust anything he has to say on the matter. Him making a list of science things the Bible (supposedly) got right, where scientists got it wrong is suspect because he doesn't understand the science behind the claims he saying the Bible "got right". If I said "2+2 = 5" and then started going on about complex mathematical theorems, would you trust me when you *know* that as the most basic level, I don't understand math? Even if the theorems "sound right"? Didn't think so.

Lastly,  "The link you posted there relies mostly on literal poetry of the passages to disprove the Bible claims, rather than actually proving those passages were wrong" is a cop out. How can you dismiss relying on  literal interpretation....when Ray Comfort's passages are being used literally to say "science confirms the Bible"? You can't say "Ray can use them literally, but you can't". And that link went point by point showing why each passage was either wrong, contradicted within the Bible itself, or was consistent with science at the time.

For example, "the earth is free floating". The Bible says the earth sits on a foundation or pillars in Psalms 104:5, 1 Samuel 2:8, and Job 9:6. Straight up contradiction. And the earth being flat sitting on an animal was a Hindu belief.

Did you even read it, or did you going in just looking for a reason to dismiss it because you thought "science confirms the Bible" was a slam dunk point? Well:

 No, no, no