Bold move, sir. You're using this pamphlet that comes from Ray Comfort. The guy that says that if evolution were true, we'd have a crocoduck (even though such a creature would debunk evolution) and that the banana is proof of God because it fits perfectly in the human hand.....even though the current banana is how it is because of we, humans, made them that way. And some of the words are tweaked in this version to better suit the agenda =/

Anyway, just go here

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible

I think perhaps you should learn to read more carefully.

What I stated is that since the bible is a collection of documents, you can't say "AHA this is historical, so the ENTIRE book is historical." If you can't understand basic logic, don't waste my time.

I've not read the Santa Claus book, it's entirely feasible it contains historical truths. I have no idea, have you read it? No, so your argument is obsolete.

Well, I certainly admit there is history in the Bible...in fact, I've never argued against this...

Scientific value...yeah no.

I've never been to reddit. Apparently you have, so perhaps you and your buddies should take your ball and go home?

Lol@the banana man chart. Laughing stock of scientists everywhere. He also spent several years in prison for fraud. 

Oh com'on man, of course they're insults on me as a person. And they're meant to be. It's your cheap technique to debate.
(at the same time, you are formally a very good debater, you are undoubtedly a very intelligent person, you have clarity and stringency in your arguments and how you present them. I want to be clear about that.)

This is not just about me, it is also about you. I am asking you to behave in a civilized manner.

Again, you end your post with sarcastic, snide remarks. "thoroughly confused", "take a break", "emotionally fragile".

That's so unnecessary.

I think your suffering perspective bias... generally shown from your "I know which has done more harm" comments.

As their has actually been a LOT of nasty shit done by people who follow the "Kharma" religions.  You just don't hear about it because you are from the East and don't have much of a background in Eastern history.

For example, Buddist monks have often been militirized to act as Gestapo like thought police squads mostly targeting communists and muslims.

They've also become prone to terrorism lately.  The Aum Shinrikyo come to mind.  You may remember them from such acts as unleashing Sarin Gas in a crowdded train station.

The Hinduists in India have been prone to huge ethinic cleansing like riots.

Kharma is far more complex then you portray it, much like Abrhamic religions.   I mean, arbitrary rules?  Ever look at the Buddist Monastic code?

That said the main problem with believing that good things will always happen to people who do good deeds, is to make those who do good and do their best, yet reap nothing but negativeness a feeling that they themselves are actually "Bad."  Been a good person your whole life but always be poor, struggling and have cancer?  Well clearly the "good" stuff you did must have actually been bad.  Making other people feel bad by being too good?  Making people dependent?  Who knows how.

While those who have nothing but good things happen to them?  Clearly what they are doing is actually right.  By not giving to charity they are in fact helping people learn on their own.  Etc.   Afterall, they are clearly being rewarded.

Essentially, people will just look at those most succesful and happy in life, and that will decide what is just. 

Which can be problematic.   Kharma as a belief system really only works if Kharma exists AND is eaisly demonstraitable.

A clear set of ethics where ultimate judgement reserved until death?  It's not as flexiable and may have problems due to changing culture... but as long as the message is mostly good, it will do mostly good. 

Of course, even that less flexibleness isn't as negative as you'd think.   Afterall, look at the world.  Abraham religions have their issues with gay rights and stuff like that... yet...   it's not like the Kharmic religions are leading the way in gay rights.   In fact, it's the exact opposite.  Ask the Dhali Lama and he'll tell you that gay marriage and gay sex is wrong. 

People (including me) may have issues with the Catholic Church, but it's by far the biggest charity orginization in the world.  Catholics alone likely dwarf the Kharmic Religions if we're talking "Just good deeds done."

From the most scientific perspective, being more active with charity is shown to greatly increase ones charitable giving patterns (even when taking out charity done through the churches).   I don't believe a similar study has been done focusing on Kharmic religions.   If there was, it would be easiest to measure.

Also, if you ask the Cathar it didn't start with one god.

Though granted, they don't exist anymore.

Or, TLDR, Westerners tend to focus on only the vague positives of Eastern religions, ignoring all their faults, making such comparisons poor when analyzed.

This is especially the case when people don't look at things like the Buddist codes that more or less define "good and bad."

Very well, I accept the gracious compliment.

I'm a snarky person as is, so it's unlikely to change regardless of the format. While I can be aware of this tendency, I rarely refine my posts. A little bite is necessary at times to express a particularly upsetting statement. It really is about the position of ignorance. Nothing upsets me more than that. 

I think the confusion part was necessary as I've not made claims. I've made arguments against yours. It's an important distinction to maintain during our discourse. 

Great. Thank you.

Now that you openly admit it and explain it: that ignorance upsets you greatly so that it can affect your tone in discussions, and that you are perhaps even slightly dispositioned for it in your personality, it's much easier to accept.

I understand that and I accept that. I also understand the logic behind it - the more outrageous a statement is (from your point of view), the more you have "right" to dismiss it in a less polite manner. I work the same way to some extent. Most of us do, it's natural. And then there's the element of rethorics (the added "bite") in discourse. The bigger disagreement, the more bite there will be.

I also understand the distinction, that it matters who makes the claims in the first place, then logic dictates that the burden of proof is heavier on that part (and in turn that also can affect the tone in the exchange of arguments). I just want to be clear in that I understand the distinction.

Ah, ad hominem, classic atheist argument xD. Attack the person making a point, not the point itself. 

Ray Comfort, regardless of what he thinks of evolution and bananas, made a list of scientific/medicinal things the Bibie got right (and supported them with passages) and the things others got wrong. Either adress his points and passages, or don't bother replying :)

Now, my point isn't that the Bible is the ultimate scietntific truth or that you should completely disregrd scientific claims in favour of the Bible passages. I am proving to you (and the reddit guy) that Bible is alot more credible when it comes to hisotry and science then what TheAmazingAtheist and reddit would have you believe

Anyway, just go here

http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/bibleandscience.htm

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