This is that thread. You have claimed that your argument is an inductive argument--that you are drawing a generalization based on the history of religious people being wrong. I am pointing out that any such generalization is worthless unless you include all the facts, including the times when religious people are right.

This is where you go wrong. When an issue is posited as based on God's direction, it is a religious issue. Plenty of issues that have secular dimensions are nonetheless religious issues as well. For instance, you can argue for or against abortion rights based on whether and when the embryo gains a soul, and you can also argue for or against them based on secular concerns.

The claims I identified in the original post were all religious claims. For instance, as I said, Galileo was placed under house arrest for heresy, not some secular crime. The Pope's position on AIDS in Africa is based on what God allegedly provided the sexual organs and sexual function for.

Not really. A poker player who bets is, in effect, making a claim about the strength of his hand. Whether you believe such claims depends in part on how reliable such claims have been in the past.

Of course, you would never do such a thing because you think this sort of reasoning is fallacious.

Or more likely, you do this at the poker table and are just being dishonest in this thread because you don't like people who challenge your religious beliefs.

Very good. He's making *A* claim. ("He is, in REALITY, making *A* claim...")

The fact that the Bible contains any false statements, makes it less likely that it is the divinely inspired, inerrant, word of God.

I once attended a Bible Study group that was officiated by an intellectually uninspired, but belligerent leader. He made the following statement in a way that dared anyone to contradict him.

"The Bible is the most perfect book ever written."

The environment was not one that encouraged debate.

Maybe something from this list would have impressed him.
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/75-books
Maybe not.

That's basically by definition. But I don't hold to strict biblical inerrancy. It's an unnecessary fundamentalist theological doctrine that proves itself to be false. But if you take that word out...

And now we have the same basic problem that has been hashed out more times than I'm willing to count. Exegesis precedes hermeneutics, scientific naturalism and physicalism, etc...

Actually, I agree that it is a different problem, but the fact that we have never seen a religious scripture which made a claim about the natural world that was rejected by the consensus of the time, but which was later established to be correct by science, while we have many examples of religious scriptures making claims about the natural world that were in sync with the consensus of the time but which were later debunked by science, is VERY powerful evidence that these things are nothing but fiction. Unless God doesn't understand the actual workings of the universe or is a liar.

"False" by what standard, actual observation or another faith?

If the former, cite the observation please.

You wouldn't know what perfection is if it smacked you in the face.

Enlighten us, penis breath.

Don't you know. All good things like love your neighbor, dont kill, dont steal are religious claims and God words. But all bad things like how God wants me to treat my slaves, how he wants treat me women submissively and look at Gays as sinners (the last two are still changing as some still say they are Gods words) are not religious claims or Gods words.

No. The argument is more like this

Some source makes 5 unverifiable claims. Each one is either true or false, but none can really be proved or disproved at this time.

After 2000 years, 4 of these claims are now shown to be totally false. 1 is still unverifiable. It is very reasonable to doubt this last claim.

Almost all christians readily agree with this logic. Some say that the 4 verifiable claims are actually true (creationists), some say that it didn't actually make those incorrect claims (liberal christians) etc. Or some think that jesus rising from the dead is a verifiable truth in itself so nothing else matters at all (a crazy person is correct if he says 2+2=4). Pretty much no christian believes in a way that goes against the OPs argument.

-Evolution proves that the earth was not created in 6 days.
-Evolution does not prove God does not exist.
-Evolution does not prove Jesus did not perform the miracles.
-God is not bound by time.
-God used 6 days to do what a naturalistic process would take many years.

The argument that God can create the earth in 6 days and make it look like it took millions of years is a non-starter, for all sorts of reasons. First, there's no reason to believe God could do this-- IOW, God may not be bound by time but Her creations still are. Second, there's no reason why God WOULD do this; indeed, it would constitute a grand deception of humanity, which would mean God is evil. Third, it's a post-hoc rationalization to explain away inconvenient evidence. Fourth, it is not necessary; the universe and the earth both make perfect sense if they are given the ages that science ascribes to them. It's only the scripture that doesn't make sense-- except it does, as long as we accept the most likely explanation, that it was written not by God but by humans who did not know any better.

No it doesn't

Somehow the rest of your post is even worse. Nothing you are talking about is relevant to what I wrote.

This is probably true and is likely exactly what happened, but it sort of muddles your OP to mention it here. The people that are doing the crazy post hoc stuff strongly agree with your OP. If you are committing some logical fallacy in the OP (as posters here insanely claimed) pretty much every chrisitan is as well

So? How does your conclusion follow from this premise?

No one except God knows why God would do something, unless He chooses to communicate that purpose.

What inconvenient evidence are you referring to?

Is there an empirical test that corresponds to this status of "makes perfect sense" so we can keep close to observation? If not, that's okay too. Just wondering.

For example, False in that it is not possible to turn water into "fine wine".

I meant to say the origin of humans, not earth. I've taken geology/bio classes before.

What you wrote is an illusion, an absolute joke. A scenario you made up in your head that you believe is a good illustration of the state of Christianity based on your wikipedia knowledge of Christianity.

I often think that some of the hard core christian posters are levels but I am positive you are being sincere. I specifically mentioned that christians don't think christianity follows the scenario I outlined, but you don't see to be able to read and understand posts. So really they pretty much agree with the OP, that the demolishment of peripheral claims of religion would weaken religion.

The issue isn't why She did it. The issue is that if God committed a huge deception of humanity regarding the age of the earth, than She is an evil sack of dung who isn't worthy of our worship. The fact that She may THINK She has a good reason for the deception is irrelevant.

Wouldn't it also be considered deceptive for God to make man in his image, yet have man be inexplicably similar to apes and other Hominids?

This way of understanding "religious claim" is too broad. Religious people will often, if you press them in the right way, provide a religious justification for anything. Why does 2+2=4? Because God created the world as a rational order to reflect his own nature. You have no doubt seen the claims made by the theists on this forum that logic, math, science, etc. are all unintelligible if there is no God.

This means that we would have to say that the discoveries of math and science increase the credibility of religion, because these would also count as religious claims under your definition. But in that case, religion would be just as credible as science. Even more to the point, you'll find religious people giving a religious justification for the "right" view on all of the issues you cite (remember, Galileo was a Catholic who argued eloquently for the compatibility of his own views on science with the teachings of Christianity). In that case, how can we decide whether "religion" simpliciter is credible or not? Since it doesn't have a single view on almost any issue, there is no strong sense in which it has been either right or wrong.

First, you must answer what it means to be made in "God's image". (Hint: God is non-physical.)

That would be a reasonable argument. Unfortunately, it is not lawdude's. Instead of a single source, we have all religious people everywhere at all times and whatever they say that appeals to some kind of religious justification as a source. So we have no way of saying how many statements are being asserted, and thus, how many have been shown to be false or true. Second, obviously these claims are not unverifiable (or how they later be shown to be false?). Some of them are commonly agreed with at the time (e.g. geocentrism) others are not (e.g. YEC). What is being ignored here are the actual reasons for these claims. It seems relevant to me that some religious claims are based on authority (e.g. virgin birth of Jesus) and others were based on evidence (e.g. geocentrism).