Getting this in now, im speaking purely from a factual sense and not demonizing anyones religion.
And for those who say science kills, Science saves a immense ammount more than it kills, the life expectancy has gone from 30ish to the late 80/90s thanks to science. While religion which has been a consistant killer throughout time, is a long way lacking in the physical "saving peoples lives" department. (I cannot quote for mentality saving as that is a different bowl of fish fingers alltogether)
Anyway ive tried to keep it as factual and as little of my personal opinion as possible.
Unless you live in Africa, in the Middle East, parts of China, the Phillipines, Mexico, India. Science isn't readily available everywhere and the life expenctancy drops like a rock depending on what part of the world you live. Life expectancy in these countries is still in the 30 to 40s and the infant mortality eye openingly bad.
Most of the religions state that the person who is writing the text is not doing so from memory but, for example, being guided by God which means it has almost nothing to do with memory. If you believe in God, and his willingness and ability to use disciples or certain chosen people, then the problem with memory is mute. The guidance alone would ensure the accuracy. The problem with claiming that facts can dispute the idea is it can't. Facts, which is often mistakenly stated as interchangeable with science is there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God so there is no way to prove or disprove that the texts were indeed written with a large amount of inaccuracies or is perfect. Its a round and round discussion, that only ends when one side decides that its perfectly okay to completely dismiss the other sides viewpoint and call it fallacy in which case the debate is not longer a debate or an argument but just a conflict that goes nowhere.
As for facts versus what exactly? Facts you read in a book, a class you took? Everyone claims their viewpoint is based on facts, and most of them are, but facts alone aren't sufficient. Facts have to be interpretted, they have to be taught, they have to be translated, they have to be believed and what you think is a fact someone else could claim is a myth.
The problem with trying to judge a religion from the outside is that many religions require a certain amount of faith. Faith isn't illogical necessarily but it's certainly not easily explained. The key is to accept other people's religions and beliefs and judge their actions, not them, not their faith, or the fact that its a religion you don't subscribe to which is where it all falls apart.
There are many religions I don't believe in, don't understand, don't agree to but I think it is pointless to setback and try and dissect that religion and claim that my so called facts are sufficient to dismiss their faith. Let them have their faith. By the way, religious war is almost never about religion at all... there is almost always something else fueling the problem underneath the surface that has nothing to do with religion, poverty, land grabs, lack of opportunities, etc. I'll judge a person by their actions, not their faith.
As for the science bit, we could easily wipe out all that we achieved with a few launches of specific missiles and bombs. Everything that science has achieved, it can also undo. For every disease that is cured, they're cooking up new weapons that create a new one. For all the lives are saved, there is a new weapon that could wipe them out in a matter of seconds. I am not an opponent of science, but I think it is misguided to praise one end of it and ignore the other.