So I've read these arguments à 100 times, but I'm in need of the refute to this argument any YouTube video, article.. Please and thank you
Religion is a human Ideal. What is the saying about "there are not perfect people only perfect intentions" Religion often does have good intentions, It does have to go through the filter of flawed people making it up and then the filter of flawed people carrying it out. Any Ideal can be perfect, any human is and will remain human no matter how perfect they try become, This is why religion is of no great help.
It is the bullshit cop out argument used by all religions when they get caught, pants down, and hand in the till.
The simple refutation is that this being the case how can anyone trust anything ever proclaimed as dogma or doctrine when it comes from an imperfect being?
Only direct revelation without an intermediary can be trusted, and since Gawd seems disinclined to do this, we only have imperfect people who by definition cannot be trusted to pass on revelation perfectly.
Everything can be looked as perfect, but humans mess it up. From computers and cars, to art, to philosophy and law. Religion can not stand on its own as it is purely an idea. It can be as perfect or imperfect as the person who is looking at it. To me, all religions fall very short of the 'perfection' ideal.
Oh God... Grace kng and myself with thine divine insights into thy Holy Word.
The religious have that wonderful thing of cognitive dissonance. Most of the people in the circles I was in would say that god was perfect and that his scriptures were too, but would actually rail against "" and 's imperfections. I mention this so that you are aware that to them the religious systems are "" and if you were to phrase your statement in the way you did while speaking to them, they would disagree with what you are saying and (according to their definition) rightly accuse you of mis-representation.
But you and I both would agree that "God" and "the Bible" are (or part of it any way), and hence your statement does make sense, and is (by that definition of ) correct as far as what they believe/think.
The basic problem is that they are likely "passing the buck" or doing "special pleading" or asserting "ad hoc" rationalizations or committing "no true Scotsman" fallacies in doing what you are alluding to. It'd depend on what the person has said specifically as to which of those fallacies are the correct flaw to point to in their actual logic. So, if you've seen actual posts which give this kind of statement, then we can try and tease apart where they are going wrong. And they are probably going wrong in multiple ways.