My Rant About Science vs. Religion

[Hyper Sonic]

Originally Posted by EDGE

There is no source to back up Noahs life. Other then the bible.!

Genetics also disprove the story - it is now known that for a species to survive there must be sufficient variation in the gene pool which cannot be obtained from two of each species

[silentmuffin]

Originally Posted by Gram Negative

Other sources that are not the Bible.

Oh, so you're not discrediting the possibility of his existence because he is ONLY mentioned in the Bible, but specifically because the book he's mentioned in IS the Bible? What other written accounts of an individual's existence are there from that time that Noah would fit in?

[SillyEvee]

You guys are totally missing my point! The point is that religious things aren't scientific, but are valid! That there are other methods than "the scientific method." Don't get me wrong, I love the scientific method and if a scientist tried to tell me that that G-d told him that DNA was the molecular basis for inheritance, I'd say "Great. Let's do some experiments and prove it scientifically!" But if a Rabbi comes up to me and says "Hey, let's light some Shabbat candles beacuse it's a great way to keep HaShem's commandments." I'm not gonna ask him for the peer-reviewed journals that indicate that G-d cares if I light Shabbat candles.
Science and religion do not MIX, but that doesn't mean they don't COEXIST. Like oil and water. Both have their uses, but they don't come together without an emulsifier. Fortunately, I think people have the potential to be fantastic emulsifiers. If we open our minds, we can glue science and religion together the way soap bonds with both science and relgion on different ends.
I'm not trying to say that they're the same or that they're interchangeable or it's necessary to have one for the other or even that you can back one up with the other.
I'm sort of saying the opposite. They're totally different! They're so way, if left to their own devices, a scientific way of thinking and a religious one will meld perfectly. BUT if we use our minds as soap, we can dissolve them in each other. If we WANT them to fit, we can find a way to fit them. If we want the oil and water to stay separate, that's fine, too. Personally, I like the homogenity in my life. I like being able to dissolve both polar and non-polar molecules. I feel like I'm missing out on less. Nobody catches everything in life, but if you can't dissolve organic molecules, you're seriously limiting yourself. If that's not your cup of tea, that's fine with me.
But don't try to tell me that an emulsion isn't possible. It is. I'm living it. If you're not soapy enough to live it, that's a shame--or not, if you feel totally fulfilled and OK living in only water or only oil.
It's not "cheating" or "deluding oneself." I actually believe it's in the true spirit of both science and religion to see how they fit rather than where they contradict. Both attempt to describe and commune with something higher, be it G-d, Allah, Jesus, Gaia, the Unified Theory of Everything, Satanism, the laws of Physics, the Goddess, the Principia Mathematica.
And that's art, too, right? It's all trying to describe the homogenity of the world. It's all an attmempt to translate the awesome transcendence of the world we live in into a language we can understand, finite beings that we are. It's all about bringing the infinity home.
It's not about saying the science backs up religion or that religion is necessary for true science. Trying to do that is like and English-speaking saying "the adjective comes BEFORE the noun!" and the French-speaker shouting back, "NO! The noun comes first!"

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by silentmuffin

Should there be? There wasn't photography...or newpapers, or legal documents, or anything like that. There's the Bible and the traditional story passed through generations, and that's more proof of existence than most other individuals who lived during that time have. I certainly can't prove Noah existed, but what kind of proof are you looking for? The things we have today for proof just didn't even exist during that time. It's not impossible by any means that there wouldn't be much trace of him today.

The bible is one of the most unreliable and unvalid pieces of literature out there. Stories passed through generations aren't proof, as each time it's retold, there's bound to be some distortion. Also, how are the stories meant to be proof? I could just as easily pass stories through my family's and friends' generations regarding a bottle of water that spilled and ruined a book. It's not proof, as who is to say that the original story was not only accurate but un-opinionated and was actually true? What if in my example, no such bottle existed? What if what really happened was the dog ate the paper or I pissed on the paper? You can pass stories on as much as you want but they too have large issues with reliability, validity and whether or not they're true, especially if it's retold for numerous generations.

[Gram Negative]

Originally Posted by silentmuffin

Oh, so you're not discrediting the possibility of his existence because he is ONLY mentioned in the Bible, but specifically because the book he's mentioned in IS the Bible? What other written accounts of an individual's existence are there from that time that Noah would fit in?

Other documentations from city states, other oral stories, etc.

[Xujhan]

First EV, let me say I absolutely respect what you've posted. There's a lot of pull in society to prefer either science or religion. Not many people actually choose one to the absolute exclusion of the other, but most tend to support one side. That you not only believe what you do but voice it so eloquently and so openly shows you - at least in my eyes - to be a remarkably passionate and intelligent person, and I respect the heck out of you for that.

Personally, I'm an atheist. It's just what makes the most sense to me; I probably couldn't honestly believe in god without evidence if I tried. I don't think many well-educated people will try to argue that there's actually evidence supporting god's existence, and like you said, that's not really the point. By its nature, God is impossible to prove or disprove. Ultimately, I don't particularly care either way. If I die and it turns out there is a God, I'll happily share a laugh with him/her over my mistake. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I think any less of someone who does, or that I'm going to hold it against them. Honestly, any atheist who does probably has some pathological insecurity or other.

But while I'm not going to think less of anyone for their religion, I do have a problem with religion. Not because I disagree; even if I somehow knew that God existed, I would still oppose religion. 99% of religious people are perfectly good people, and it's not because of those 99% that I have a problem. The last percent though are all it takes to cause a world of harm. I'm not going to bother listing examples; most everyone these days knows at least a few of the biggest ones.

My other main issue is that religion - not all of it, but most - opposes free will. A few of the most liberal religious couples might encourage their children to decide their faith (or lack thereof) for themselves, but most children are brought up to believe what their parents believe. In a decent family in a decent place, that's not too bad. The parents' religion is pretty harmless, so the religion the children inherit will be in turn pretty harmless. But in more extreme situations, children are brought up believe things that are pretty unarguably wrong.

Suicide bombers in the middle east aren't killers because they're horrible people, or because they hold any hatred for the people they kill; they do it because they honestly believe they're doing the right thing. Women in FLDS communities (And I hope I'm getting my reference right there, apologies if I'm misremembering) honestly believe that their polygamous, often abusive relationships are good, and that they shouldn't want to leave. Nothing else in our world comes close to religion in its ability to take the good intentions of good people and twist them to harmful ends.

I recognize fully that this is a fairly vast minority in religion. The problem is, I don't think it's possible to entirely separate the two. As long as people have faith in the face of evidence, it will be possible for other people to manipulate that faith. And as long as children are brought up in their parents religion, they'll be susceptible to it as well. Any kind of organized religion will always create that opportunity for manipulation.

If we lived in a world where every person was encouraged to educate themselves, consider for themselves the questions of life, and through that come to find the answers that fulfill them as a person, I don't think religious beliefs would be a problem at all. Ultimately, that's the same as living in an atheist society, and I would happily live in a world like that. As long as your faith comes from yourself, not a preacher or a parent, no one can manipulate that faith. Unfortunately, once a child is brought up in a religious environment, there's no way to separate out that individual faith from the faith they were taught, or at least none that I know. Until someone finds such a way, the next best I can do is argue for and promote atheism wherever I go, and to encourage everyone to think for themselves, and more importantly to let other people - even their own children - think for themselves as well.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Xujhan: So, you don't have a problem if the faith comes from oneself or at least less of a problem but you want to promote atheism and you also don't have a problem with most of religion except the 1% that are "harmful"? The problem is, that religion by definition requires a group of people to believe in the same beliefs/faith. So, in you saying that you don't have a problem with religion but you are only for people having their beliefs in oneself, then that seems to defeat the basis of any religion; you may come in with slightly differing faiths but by the definition of a religion, you'll share and apply those beliefs to others, and possibly convert someone or slightly change their faith. That can involve preachers or priests or fathers or ministers, etc..., which you are against. BUT, somewhere in this mess that I'm pretty confused in, you want to promote atheism. So, care to clarify this up for me as you've contradicted yourself at least twice (wanting faith in onself only but still religion and wanting religion/theism but promote the world to have atheism).

[silentmuffin]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

The bible is one of the most unreliable and unvalid pieces of literature out there. Stories passed through generations aren't proof, as each time it's retold, there's bound to be some distortion. Also, how are the stories meant to be proof? I could just as easily pass stories through my family's and friends' generations regarding a bottle of water that spilled and ruined a book. It's not proof, as who is to say that the original story was not only accurate but un-opinionated and was actually true? What if in my example, no such bottle existed? What if what really happened was the dog ate the paper or I pissed on the paper? You can pass stories on as much as you want but they too have large issues with reliability, validity and whether or not they're true, especially if it's retold for numerous generations.

I'm not saying the Bible is a reliable source. There just isn't much proof of any individual from that time, so the fact that there is a lack of documented evidence shouldn't serve as a reason to discount the possibility he existed. Did they have taxes or birth certificates or anything during Noah's time? Why should we expect to have all this historical evidence of him if none of that was done then?

That's like saying Washington didn't exist because we don't have his AOL screenname. They didn't do that sort of thing then, so we can't expect to have that evidence today, and we can't use the lack of such evidence to disprove its existence.

Noah was considered important, and his story passed down through generations. That's traditionally how any individual of importance was remembered and accounted for then. Not in books. Has the story changed? Most likely. But that doesn't mean he didn't exist.

[SillyEvee]

Xujhan:
My initial reaction to your post is: You ROCK! You totally get the part about science not being evidence for religion and vice-versa. Also, as I understood it (pay attention Nightmare), you wanted people to cultivate their own beliefs, not believe only in themselves or even have unique beliefs. I totally back that up.

Personally, I was raised in a non-religious family and came to my religious beliefs somewhat late in life (read: three months ago). And if you read the "What were you raised as and what are you now?" thread, you'll see I'm not really unique in my choice to follow a different spiritual path than my parents.

I understand, too, what you said about organized religion having the potential to create dangerous jerks, but isn't that a bit like hating government because it has the potential to be tyrannical? Or hating elections because they're vulnerable to being fixed. Or even hating milk because sometimes you leave it out on the counter and it goes bad! You can hate the game, heck, I'd be OK if you hated the players, but for goodness' sake, don't hate the field they play on!

As for oppression of free will: that's only really a problem when religious leaders become corrupt. OK, even if we accept that in the real world in which we live, people will invent new religions or twist existing ones to suit their own agendas, I don't believe it's the religion doing the oppressing! Again, hate the game, hate the players, but the pitch is blameless. Frying pans are inherently heavy, so they're really good for smaking people over the head with, but that's not what they're meant for. I use a frying pan for what it's made for: cooking. In the same way, some people use religion to subdue people, to make them think they're happy or at least will be in some later life. I use it for it's intended purpose: to worship and love my creator and to remember to marvel at the awesomeness of the world. (Religion>frying pans, for sure.)

Also, I totally agree about people choosing their own religion. I chose mine! :P However, I will tell my children what I believe to be the truth about the metaphysical, as my religion requires of me and as I think is right. Every parent tries to teach a child what's right and what's true, right? My non-religious parents taught me that it was OK to believe whatever you believed, but that they believed that religion was just not true. Well, that's fine for them, but not for me. We agree to disagree on that. How lucky I am!

Nightmare: I'm not really sure where your beef is. Frankly, your post reads like you were so anxious to find contradictions in Xujhan's post that you just skimmed over it, reading key words. If you're not going to be broad-minded and open to change, why enter a debate forum?

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by SillyEvee

Nightmare: I'm not really sure where your beef is. Frankly, your post reads like you were so anxious to find contradictions in Xujhan's post that you just skimmed over it, reading key words. If you're not going to be broad-minded and open to change, why enter a debate forum?

First, if I want to enter a debate forum, I am regardless of my mindset. If it bothers you, well that's too bad. Second, I suggest you read it or you at least read my post instead of simply skimming through it. Had you read it, you would have seen a rather obvious contradiction: he wants to promote atheism yet he wants theism to come only from oneself, not from preachers, priests, etc..., yet is for religion. If you don't see the contradictions in there, then I don't know how to make it simpler for you. But, to make it even clearer for you, from Xujhan's post:

Until someone finds such a way, the next best I can do is argue for and promote atheism wherever I go

Speaking of telling me to be broad-minded, does this seem broad-minded? Seems to be quite the opposite.

I do have a problem with religion

As long as your faith comes from yourself, not a preacher or a parent

This is another one of the contradictions. Read his post, read my post, in fact, read all posts carefully and think about them. My "beef" is that people read posts without thinking them through.

[SillyEvee]

I don't think promoting atheism as a reaction to corruption in religion is a contradiction. He seems totally down with theism, just not with the organized part. I think advocating removal from organized religions and respect for belief in a god are compatible. There's a big difference between "wanting religion/theism" as you wrote, and respecting theism/religious belief systems, which is the sense I got from reading his initial post. But we all read into each others' posts with our own biases.

About "faith comes from yourself," that's a central part to Christianity and Judaism. I can't speak for other religions, because I just don't know, but I know that a big part of Christianity is a PERSONAL acceptance and commitment to Jesus based on what YOU want and believe. In Judaism we are encouraged to explore our connection with G-d on our own. A Rabbi once told children that they should never ask questions because then he'd be forced to give them candy. :P

I think the point was more anti-brainwashing than anything else, really. That faith in a higher power is fine as long as you grow into it personally and don't have it forced upon you while you're ignorant of other possibilities. I thought pretty much everyone in here agreed that indoctrination of young ones was often a bad thing...

And of course you'll do what you please. I wouldn't have it any other way. When I said "why enter a debate forum?" it was in honest curiosity. (I'm actually being 100% not sarcastic here.) Why do you come if you're not interested in broadening your perspective? My note to you was in reaction to your quasi-hostile, condescending tone and confusing (mis)use of punctuation. If you didn't mean to be hostile or condescending, I apologize for misreading your posts.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by SillyEvee

I thought pretty much everyone in here agreed that indoctrination of young ones was often a bad thing...

And of course you'll do what you please. I wouldn't have it any other way. When I said "why enter a debate forum?" it was in honest curiosity. (I'm actually being 100% not sarcastic here.) Why do you come if you're not interested in broadening your perspective? My note to you was in reaction to your quasi-hostile, condescending tone and confusing (mis)use of punctuation. If you didn't mean to be hostile or condescending, I apologize for misreading your posts.

I didn't say anything regarding indoctrination of young ones, so I have no clue why you are bringing that up. Also, just as a friendly tip, don't put words into my mouth by saying "I thought pretty much everyone in here agreed that indoctrination of young ones was often a bad thing...". If you want my opinion on it, you can ask for it or I'll give it if I choose to. However, if you must know, I am against it.

I come here to debate as objectively as possible. I have changed my views quite a few times and do have a rather broad perspective on religious beliefs. I was forced to learn christianity/catholicism, I went to Satanism (LaVeyan then Theistic) and now I'm back at atheism, with philosophies from a variety of beliefs. However, when debating or responding to someone's post, I do it as objectively as possible. Also, I have to ask, what was the indication that I don't want to broaden my perspective? As far as I can tell, I didn't mention my views anywhere in the post regarding Xujhan's post.

[Xujhan]

Nightmare, EV: In essence yes, I'm against organized religion. If hypothetically you could bring together a group of people based on similar beliefs that they had each cultivated themselves, and ensure that new members in the group also had all reached their beliefs through internal thought and reflection, I think that would be an okay organized religion. I've never heard of any religion working that way though, and the facts are that most religious people are religious because that's how they were raised. Not all, obviously; EV is proof of that herself, but the majority are.

My main problem with religious indoctrination of children is that it has such a huge impact on who those people become. If you're brought up believing that the square root of 27 is 9, it's pretty easy for someone to show you mathematically that you're wrong, and no one's going to say "Well, you present a valid argument, but despite that I choose to believe that root 27 is 9." Nothing but religion has such an unarguable finality about it and if even one thing is that religion is harmful it can be incredibly difficult to break otherwise good people of that belief. Being taught religious faith too young in life robs children of the free will to decide their own beliefs. More than anything else, that's what I object to in organized religion.

I agree that religion is hardly the only means of controlling people, but I think it's the worst for a number of reasons. For one, American society is tolerant to a fault regarding freedom of religion. Without religion as an excuse, Fred Phelps and his ilk would owe literally billions of dollars in harassment and discrimination charges. Freedom of speech doesn't extend far enough to allow hate speech, but in large swaths of American communities freedom of religion does. Frankly, that disgusts me. And going back to an earlier point, corruption in religion is much more damaging than almost anywhere else because of the sheer faith people put in it. A corrupt company? Boycott their goods. A corrupt government? Elect a new party. A corrupt religion? How do you convince millions upon millions of people to find a new faith? And while being one of the greatest potential sources of corruption in our society, it also does some of the least good. I'm not so cynical to argue that it does no good at all, but what good it does do can be done in other, less potentially harmful ways.

Arguing and promoting atheism might be a little hypocritical of me, in that I support people choosing their own beliefs and here I am trying to change someone else's, but I don't think I'm causing any harm by doing so. For one, I only actually try to convince when the other person has joined the debate willingly; I try not to preach. Secondly, by necessity I only debate with people old enough to be completely capable of forming their own opinions so I am at worst broadening their viewpoint; it would be impossible for me to actually indoctrinate someone into atheism. Thirdly, atheist beliefs don't do any harm. All they do is free people to act entirely themselves, without checking their actions against a religious code. To quote someone or other; "Good people will be good, and evil people will be evil. But for a good person to do evil, that takes religion."

And just in case it hasn't been made clear yet, I have absolutely no problem with any beliefs whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, a good person is a good person even if they believe the world is flat and exists on an unusually large tea tray. At worst, they're just a slightly misinformed good person. It's organized religion and those who organize it to which I object, not the masses of good people who follow them. I count many of them among my good friends, and consider myself lucky for knowing them. All their beliefs do is give us something to argue amicably over the dinner table.

</end wall o' text, sorry 'bout that>

[SillyEvee]

Nightmare:
I want to make it clear that I'm not attacking you. I'm sorry if my posts come across that way. They're honestly not meant to be. I say this because your posts seem a bit aggressive to me. If that's not the case...well, I'm glad.
I mentioned indoctrination of youth because that's the point I thought XUJHAN, not you, was making. I thought you had misinterpreted his point and was trying to clarify, since he hadn't been on to do so himself. Now you've heard a clarification of his point from him, and can judge if mine was a good interpretation.
And I don't presume to know what you were thinking exactly. I had gotten the general sense from posts you have made in other threads that you're not in favour. But I wasn't talking about you specifically in my comment, either. It wasn't so much a personal comment as a general statement about the atmosphere of the discussion.

Xujhan:
I understand that you don't agree with "giving" children a religion from a very young age, but then why is your response to promote atheism? Why not promote free-thinking instead? Why not tell people you're engaged in the debate with to evaluate their beliefs and see if they really fit?

[Xujhan]

Promoting free thinking is certainly an option, and ultimately it's the goal I'm trying to reach, but I find it's almost impossible to get anywhere with it in a debate. If someone actually has the stones and the self-awareness to up and say "Okay, I see your point, I suppose my family and community have brainwashed me into believing this," then they probably didn't need me to point it out in the first place. I've certainly never run into anyone like that. Everyone wants to believe that their thoughts are their own.

Instead of simply suggesting the someone review their beliefs, arguing atheism actually forces them too, assuming they're a willing participant in the debate. One might argue that forcing a person to do something is wrong, but I don't think being forced to think does any harm. Either they retain their faith and wind up with a broader perspective, or they abandon their faith. Either way, they end up with more power over themselves from having honestly thought about it than they had before.

And as a slightly less relevant point, I do feel that atheism is the "ideal" belief, in that even free-thinking religion always carries the risk of devolving back into organized religion. I'm well aware that if humanity ever does reach a state of total atheism, it'll be many, many lifetimes after I'm dead and buried, but every time I hear another person come forward as being an atheist my hope for the future grows just a little more. That's only my personal belief though, and not something I try to throw in people's faces.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by SillyEvee

Nightmare:
I want to make it clear that I'm not attacking you. I'm sorry if my posts come across that way. They're honestly not meant to be. I say this because your posts seem a bit aggressive to me. If that's not the case...well, I'm glad.
I mentioned indoctrination of youth because that's the point I thought XUJHAN, not you, was making. I thought you had misinterpreted his point and was trying to clarify, since he hadn't been on to do so himself. Now you've heard a clarification of his point from him, and can judge if mine was a good interpretation.
And I don't presume to know what you were thinking exactly. I had gotten the general sense from posts you have made in other threads that you're not in favour. But I wasn't talking about you specifically in my comment, either. It wasn't so much a personal comment as a general statement about the atmosphere of the discussion.

Let's make it incredibly simple: debate the debate, not the debater. If I state my argument in such a way that offends you or you feel is too aggressive, then you can PM me and I'll consider it. I debate as objectively as possible and no, I will not butter up something if it sounds a tad bit too aggressive. I don't intend to make it offensive nor aggressive but I refuse to change how I write my posts simply if someone cannot deal with it. This is getting to be irrelevant to the debate of this thread, so if you want to discuss this further, PM me.

We debate what is in this specific thread, ignore what is in other threads unless the content of those have some relevancy. If they don't, then ignore them, they're irrelevant to this discussion.

[SillyEvee]

Point taken. Now that we've established that neither of us intends offence, I'm game to move on.

I don't think your views about religion and its validity or place in society are irrelevant to this thread. How can you be objective about your opinion on a subject? I gave my opinion about the interaction between science and religion. It is appropriate for you to give yours. In order to have a more intelligent and efficient debate, it's useful for me to consider information I have learned about you in other contexts, no?

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by SillyEvee

Point taken. Now that we've established that neither of us intends offence, I'm game to move on.

I don't think your views about religion and its validity or place in society are irrelevant to this thread. How can you be objective about your opinion on a subject? I gave my opinion about the interaction between science and religion. It is appropriate for you to give yours. In order to have a more intelligent and efficient debate, it's useful for me to consider information I have learned about you in other contexts, no?

The objective part I meant was in analyzing other people's posts. Obviously I cannot objectively give my opinion.

Using other contexts is good and bad, I think the bad outweighs the good. You outlined a key point of the good, however, the bad includes being biased if I have something you don't like, you may (sub)consciously associate that with me. Also, you may introduce irrelevant or point to other threads that are irrelevant. Also, I could be joking or being more of a jerk in another thread, or being sarcastic and via only text, that can be ambiguous, thus, you could perceive it as "oh, he is against/for _____ because ______" when it's really a joke or sarcasm on my part. This is one reason why when posting, I tend to ignore the name of the user. Unless you can guauntee me but more importantly yourself that you won't be biased, then go for it. No human, you included, can, hence, the bad outweighs the good. But, if you wish to do so anyways, then go right ahead, however, just note that the same will not be done to you.

[Lillywho?]

I don't really see why science and religion can't be mixed.

Big Bang - an explosion.
God said let there be light - an explosion, lots of light.

7 days of creation. - The Bible states that one day in Heaven isn't the same as one day on Earth.

I could go on and on...

[SillyEvee]

Nightmare: I like to think that I'm pretty good at detecting sarcasm, but your point about tone struck me. It hadn't occured to me that you would use different tones in different threads. As a result, I have a conception of you in my head as being a pretty curt guy, which has biased me. I reacted to your initial post based on its tone, but also on the tones of the other threads I have seen you post in. I'll watch out for that in the future.

Xujhan:
You're right, forcing someone to think is a good thing (at least your book and mine). However, you don't have to push atheism in order to get someone to explain and defend their beliefs to you. Asking usually does the trick. In my experience with Christians, it's works really well. Since they're always trying to spread the Love of Jesus, they're delighted to tell you all about it. (Of course, that's not universal, but it has been my experience.)
And even though "free-thinking" religion (as you put it) can devolve into corrupted, organized religion, can't free-thinking, open-minded atheism also devolve into jaded, militant atheism?

Also, I wanted to add an interesting observation. If you follow the Genesis creation story literally, G-d created the world in six days, with one day of rest at the end. If you follow the standard model for the creation and evolution of the year, it happened over six geological time periods. It lines up nicely, eh? That doesn't prove anything (which I say with 100% conviction and sincerity), but I think it's neat.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Lillywho?

I don't really see why science and religion can't be mixed.

Big Bang - an explosion.
God said let there be light - an explosion, lots of light.

7 days of creation. - The Bible states that one day in Heaven isn't the same as one day on Earth.

I could go on and on...

You can have religion and science, however, if you begin analyzing science using religion or analyze religion using science, then that's where things fall apart.

SillyEvee: I do vary the tone in different threads and I do become more subjective (unfortunately) in different threads. I may be good at detecting sarcasm and you may be also, however, you're not perfect at it, neither am I. It's like when you talk to different people about the same topic: if it's to your professor then to your friend, your tone will change. You won't, or at least unlikely to get up to the professor and be "Yo, wat up dawg, eh man, can u xzplain 2 me jus how da fluid dynamics works bro". Granted, on here, it does vary also, although not to that extent, usually being more subjective or sarcastic at certain times. Also, something I may say in all seriousness, you may think is a joke or vice-verca. I think you now understand the basic reasons why sifting through my other threads and posts aren't going to be a great idea. And as I said, it has biased you.

[Lillywho?]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

You can have religion and science, however, if you begin analyzing science using religion or analyze religion using science, then that's where things fall apart.

It's not analyzing, it's just random things you come across or think about before falling asleep at night

It's like... In my church we use testimonials (is that the right word?).
So, if we want to, we get up and tell a story where something we prayed for happened (although I have written an "andakt" - didn't find the English word, but it's like a mini sermon - about unanswered prayers).
It's kind of the same thing.
- Proof.


And by the way: What falls apart?
Our faith? Will that "fall apart" if we find similarities between the Bible and science?
Will we not have Jesus in our hearts because of it?

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Lillywho?

It's not analyzing, it's just random things you come across or think about before falling asleep at night

I haven't a clue what you're on about. What you do in your bed is none of my business, or at least it shouldn't be, so keep your bedtime fun to yourself.

Originally Posted by Lillywho?

It's like... In my church we use testimonials (is that the right word?).
So, if we want to, we get up and tell a story where something we prayed for happened (although I have written an "andakt" - didn't find the English word, but it's like a mini sermon - about unanswered prayers).
It's kind of the same thing.
- Proof.

That's the farthest thing from proof. You prayed to your invisible man, he supposedly (this is the key: SUPPOSEDLY) did his spooky magic and whatever it was you said came true, or something close to it came true. Is that proof? No. I could pray to get a good mark on my test or pray that I get laid and the next day, it happens. Proof? No, coincidence, yes. I suggest you look up the meaning of what proof is, as scientifically, it's not. "Religious proof", well, to me it's just making up something or having a random coincidence. If you call that proof, then might as well call asking a friend for him/her to do a favour and lo' and behold, it happens! Your friend may not be a god, however, it's just the same thing as you randomly slapping on the idea of proof.

Originally Posted by Lillywho?

And by the way: What falls apart?
Our faith? Will that "fall apart" if we find similarities between the Bible and science?
Will we not have Jesus in our hearts because of it?

No, you appear to have misunderstood what I said completely. When I said it falls apart, I meant the scientific aspect or perhaps the theory that you're analyzing with religion falls apart, or the aspect of religion falls apart. Your faith can stay the same, increase or decrease, that has nothing to do with it. It's the idea of the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes "science" and what constitutes "religion" falls apart.

I didn't mean finding similarities. I meant you ANALYZE (hence, why I said that in the first post, not random playing around in your bed) science using religion or analyze religion using science. For example, theistic evolution. You take the scientific theory of evolution and you APPLY or ANALYZE it with a religion. When you do that, the theory of evolution it twisted to high hell so it's no longer scientific. Your religion may still be a religion but the theory of evolution has now "fallen apart" because you've distorted it (BTW, I'm not accusing you per say of doing this, it's just an example).

Likewise, I can apply the theory of evolution to how god supposedly made humans and earth in 7 days. Your faith in god can be the same or change, it doesn't really matter to what I'm saying.

The basic thing that I'm trying to say is analyzing a scientific paradigm via a religious paradigm or vice-versa. It's inevitable that you're going to distort it. What happens to your faith doesn't matter one bit.

[Lillywho?]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

I haven't a clue what you're on about. What you do in your bed is none of my business, or at least it shouldn't be, so keep your bedtime fun to yourself.



That's the farthest thing from proof. You prayed to your invisible man, he supposedly (this is the key: SUPPOSEDLY) did his spooky magic and whatever it was you said came true, or something close to it came true. Is that proof? No. I could pray to get a good mark on my test or pray that I get laid and the next day, it happens. Proof? No, coincidence, yes. I suggest you look up the meaning of what proof is, as scientifically, it's not. "Religious proof", well, to me it's just making up something or having a random coincidence. If you call that proof, then might as well call asking a friend for him/her to do a favour and lo' and behold, it happens! Your friend may not be a god, however, it's just the same thing as you randomly slapping on the idea of proof.



No, you appear to have misunderstood what I said completely. When I said it falls apart, I meant the scientific aspect or perhaps the theory that you're analyzing with religion falls apart, or the aspect of religion falls apart. Your faith can stay the same, increase or decrease, that has nothing to do with it. It's the idea of the philosophical underpinnings of what constitutes "science" and what constitutes "religion" falls apart.

I didn't mean finding similarities. I meant you ANALYZE (hence, why I said that in the first post, not random playing around in your bed) science using religion or analyze religion using science. For example, theistic evolution. You take the scientific theory of evolution and you APPLY or ANALYZE it with a religion. When you do that, the theory of evolution it twisted to high hell so it's no longer scientific. Your religion may still be a religion but the theory of evolution has now "fallen apart" because you've distorted it (BTW, I'm not accusing you per say of doing this, it's just an example).

Likewise, I can apply the theory of evolution to how god supposedly made humans and earth in 7 days. Your faith in god can be the same or change, it doesn't really matter to what I'm saying.

The basic thing that I'm trying to say is analyzing a scientific paradigm via a religious paradigm or vice-versa. It's inevitable that you're going to distort it. What happens to your faith doesn't matter one bit.

Haha! I'm sorry, language barriere (sp?).

What I meant was:
Okay, so I don't really know an English word for this, but... It's at night - when you're all alone, all the thoughts come... Like, that's often the time of the day you feel the worst about yourself (at least for me, that is), you know, you're kinda stuck with yourself - and it seems that people judge themselves harder than they judge others.
So, if you don't want to think of all the bad stuff about yourself, you might try to think of something else.
And they say that your thought process is much better while laying (on the floor or in your bed, or...), so you might get brilliant ideas.
(I don't know if that made any sense, but if it didn't, ust ask again, and I'll find another way of explaining - although I don't think it's that interesting)

Proof might have been the wrong word. It was more something to hold on to if your faith is wearing weak.

So what you're saying is that if people believe in both science and religion, it all falls apart because you have to chose?

I'm not "twisting" anything, though...
'Cause, okay, let's go back to the big bang theory:
You know, people tell me that it's foolish to believe in God, 'cause, it's already been proved that God didn't create the Earth. But why couldn't God have created big bang? I just don't see why that can't be.
The Bible doesn't say that God didn't, and science doesn't say that God wasn't the power behind it.

7 days? How did I twist that? Tell me, because, the Bible says that one day to God isn't one day to us.

If I understood what you meant, you were afraid that we would start bending what the Bible said so that it would fit with science (and vice-versa), and by that create something that was neither religion (well, it might make a new religion) nor science?
- But that's not what I'm trying to do. And I cannot say: That's what happend, because that's right in between science and what the Bible say, because I wouldn't know. I could guess, but it wouldn't be something that I would protect with every penny I had, you know?
It's mostly about... I don't know, things to make us smile.
- I know this doesn't really have much to do with it, but in my youth club, if you want to, you can write something called an "andakt" (I didn't find any English words for it, but it's like a mini-sermon, often more personal) and "perform" it. A friend of mine wrote one about when Jesus silenced the storm. She talked about how Jesus was all calm while the other people on the boat were terrified. Jesus asked them how little faith they had and with only his two arms silenced the storm. She said that this is kind of how it is to us now, that if we ask for His help, he'll silence the storms in our hearts.
I know this isn't the same thing, but this is more like what I meant.

I hope I didn't cause any confusion with this post.

[Hyper Sonic]

"7 days? How did I twist that? Tell me, because, the Bible says that one day to God isn't one day to us."

where does it say that?

[Grizabella]

7 days? How did I twist that? Tell me, because, the Bible says that one day to God isn't one day to us.

No. Once science showed that the earth had clearly been made in more than 6 days, religious leaders needed to compensate and keep their followers faithful. Before scientists showed that the earth was millions of years old, biblical scholars would never have proposed the idea that 6 days is actually millions of years, or that the earth is more than 6000 years old. The bible says that the earth was created in 7 days, and that's what Christians believed before science proved them wrong. Similarly, before science showed that organisms evolved, christians adhered striclty to the idea that the story of Genesis was true, and that all animals had been created exactly as they look today. Then the theory of evolution shot that to hell, and they had to change their beliefs again and come up with intelligent design.

Religions constantly have to compensate. Science shows that they're wrong, and so religions have to come up with excuses as to why they're actually right.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Lillywho?

So what you're saying is that if people believe in both science and religion, it all falls apart because you have to chose?

NO. You're really not understanding this at all, are you? If you are religious and go with science, that's fine. BUT, if you analyze science with religion or analyze religion with science, then it causes problems.

Originally Posted by Lillywho?

I'm not "twisting" anything, though...
'Cause, okay, let's go back to the big bang theory:
You know, people tell me that it's foolish to believe in God, 'cause, it's already been proved that God didn't create the Earth. But why couldn't God have created big bang? I just don't see why that can't be.
The Bible doesn't say that God didn't, and science doesn't say that God wasn't the power behind it.

No idea, god could have created the big bang. However, as science continues to progress, what is generally attributed to as being god's work becomes less and less. In a sense, it sometimes serves as a placeholder for something we don't understand much of.

Originally Posted by Lillywho?

7 days? How did I twist that? Tell me, because, the Bible says that one day to God isn't one day to us.

I never said you twisted that. I said, one could apply the theory of evolution to this idea that god created everything in 7 days/time for 1 day according to the bible. If you do that, you're analyzing something subjectively via an objective paradigm. That is where the problem is. Also, as Grizabella pointed out, religions have to change along with science and religions then must give some reasons (usually without an ounce of proof) that they're right, and nothing more than mere factless opinions.

Originally Posted by Lillywho?

If I understood what you meant, you were afraid that we would start bending what the Bible said so that it would fit with science (and vice-versa), and by that create something that was neither religion (well, it might make a new religion) nor science?
- But that's not what I'm trying to do. And I cannot say: That's what happend, because that's right in between science and what the Bible say, because I wouldn't know. I could guess, but it wouldn't be something that I would protect with every penny I had, you know?

The bolded part it was I was building on and saying before. Everything after that is random babble that I didn't say nor imply.

The youth club thing, that's amazing, however, it has nothing to do with this, thus it is irrelevant and I don't really care nor do I have any interest in it.

[Lillywho?]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

No idea, god could have created the big bang. However, as science continues to progress, what is generally attributed to as being god's work becomes less and less. In a sense, it sometimes serves as a placeholder for something we don't understand much of.

I never said you twisted that. I said, one could apply the theory of evolution to this idea that god created everything in 7 days/time for 1 day according to the bible. If you do that, you're analyzing something subjectively via an objective paradigm. That is where the problem is. Also, as Grizabella pointed out, religions have to change along with science and religions then must give some reasons (usually without an ounce of proof) that they're right, and nothing more than mere factless opinions.

I get what you're saying, I do.


BUT: There are two ways of reading the Bible; A liberal one and a fundamentalistic one.

Basically, the fundamentalistic way of reading the Bible, is to interpret everything that is written, literal, whilst the liberal way will be to not interpret everything as literal.
(Keep in mind that this is trivial, banal, but I think you get the picture?)


That probably wasn't a good enough answer, but, in my opinion, as long as you believe in the creed (and don't bend it), that's what matters. And whether you chose to analyze some small parts or not don't really mean all that much in the big picture.

[Grizabella]

Originally Posted by Lillywho?

I get what you're saying, I do.


BUT: There are two ways of reading the Bible; A liberal one and a fundamentalistic one.

Basically, the fundamentalistic way of reading the Bible, is to interpret everything that is written, literal, whilst the liberal way will be to not interpret everything as literal.
(Keep in mind that this is trivial, banal, but I think you get the picture?)


That probably wasn't a good enough answer, but, in my opinion, as long as you believe in the creed (and don't bend it), that's what matters. And whether you chose to analyze some small parts or not don't really mean all that much in the big picture.

And how do you decide which parts are literal and which parts are not? If you agree with or like something in the bible, that part is literal, and if you don't agree with something, it's figurative?

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Lillywho?

I get what you're saying, I do.


BUT: There are two ways of reading the Bible; A liberal one and a fundamentalistic one.

Basically, the fundamentalistic way of reading the Bible, is to interpret everything that is written, literal, whilst the liberal way will be to not interpret everything as literal.
(Keep in mind that this is trivial, banal, but I think you get the picture?)


That probably wasn't a good enough answer, but, in my opinion, as long as you believe in the creed (and don't bend it), that's what matters. And whether you chose to analyze some small parts or not don't really mean all that much in the big picture.

The problem is, you're picking and choosing which parts get which interpretation. If you take the liberal way, then if you don't take everything as literal, then something must be taken as literal in order to get the basic beliefs down. So, this goes back to picking and choosing.

[SillyEvee]

Is picking and choosing necessarily a bad thing? I mean, it CAN be a bad thing, that's for sure. But I think it mostly depends on your criteria for choosing. If you say "I'm going to interpret as literal all the passages which promote love and kindness because I think that's what Jesus's true message was and I'm going to take metaphorically or allegorically the passages which talk of war, because clearly Jesus was just telling us that we have to struggle to bring peace" then that seems pretty reasonable to me.
Personally, I'm in favour of an all-or-nothing belief. It's either the literal truth, inspired by G-d, or it's a bunch of stories to teach morality. Or maybe it's a bunch of stories inspiried by G-d to teach morality. (?) That seems like the most sensible approach to me. But if someone presents me with reasonable criteria for picking which parts of the Bible are literal, then I can probably respect that.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by SillyEvee

Is picking and choosing necessarily a bad thing? I mean, it CAN be a bad thing, that's for sure. But I think it mostly depends on your criteria for choosing. If you say "I'm going to interpret as literal all the passages which promote love and kindness because I think that's what Jesus's true message was and I'm going to take metaphorically or allegorically the passages which talk of war, because clearly Jesus was just telling us that we have to struggle to bring peace" then that seems pretty reasonable to me.
Personally, I'm in favour of an all-or-nothing belief. It's either the literal truth, inspired by G-d, or it's a bunch of stories to teach morality. Or maybe it's a bunch of stories inspiried by G-d to teach morality. (?) That seems like the most sensible approach to me. But if someone presents me with reasonable criteria for picking which parts of the Bible are literal, then I can probably respect that.

The problem lies with when you attempt to present the beliefs to others as it dictates in the bible as you should (the bible says to preach but I'll go with "presents" which does not necessarily require one to preach simply so I cover all aspects of how you tell someone the beliefs). Hopefully the believer in the belief could realize it sooner but if not, then perhaps the person being told the beliefs spots the issue: if you decide to pick and choose using whatever criteria it is that you make, there is a very big issue of whether or not you keep what is written in the bible the same. If you believe it metaphorically, then there is an issue with whether or not you are practicing exactly what the bible says and not distorting it. With the literal approach, you may miss or not apply a metaphor that the bible may have. With doing both literal and metaphorical, you're mixing inconsitencies and it will lead to a problem. If you go only literal or only metaphorical, you may indeed get an issue, however, they will all be along the same lines.

It's either the literal truth, inspired by G-d, or it's a bunch of stories to teach morality. Or maybe it's a bunch of stories inspiried by G-d to teach morality

The main issue here is define morality from god. God is meant to be all-perfect, powerful, etc..., so how can a perfect, amazing, all-knowing being teach their morals to someone who is flawed, not all-knowing and far from amazing? Morality is very subjective, and comprehending that from god will require that the receiver of the moral teachings is also as intelligent, as perfect, etc... to ensure that no information is left out.

But the main issue is to define morality. Regardless of what your definition ends up being, it will have some amount of subjectivity. If it's coming from god, then one could say that his opinion is perfect, it's 100% purity with no evil or anything in there. But, then you have to consider that god is also the father of all evil. You'd be getting your morals from the father of both all light and all darkness.

That all aside, for us mortals, morality is subjective.

But if someone presents me with reasonable criteria for picking which parts of the Bible are literal, then I can probably respect that.

This begs the question, do you respect the criteria for the parts that are metaphorical or non-literal?

Also, how do you know that the criteria you find reasonable is indeed reasonable to the maker of the criteria? What if the maker of the criteria believes that their criteria are perfect, that they are the way to go, then you come along and say they're "reasonable", they're "dandy"? Ignore whatever reaction the maker of the criteria would give, I'm not concerned about them one bit, however, what is more concerning and what is more objective is are you going to use the criteria as the maker of them outlined? I know this seems like a rather silly question but hear me out: if you find them only reasonable, then that begs the question, are they reasonable or good enough (or whatever term you wish to use) to use 100%? Granted, if you don't think that the criteria are perfect, then the question I'm going after is, are you actually going to use the criteria for the entire bible? Naturally, it seems fitting to say that you are, but why use it in certain areas of the bible where you just don't agree with the criteria (hypothetically-speaking, supposing that there is such an area of the bible where this would occur)?

[Potato]

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”
- Stuart Chase.

And I think that's what it's all about.

I've thought about belief lately... What is that?
Cause saying "I believe in the Lord" and saying "I believe I'll be home by 8" are two different things. But... I don't know... There's a difference in "believing in" and "believing".

Science tells us "This is how it is", but I think that what's so amazing with the Bible, it doesn't tell you to "know this" it says: "believe this". - Which gives us a choice. And that's kind of what free will is all about, yeah?

You get to choose to believe it, or you can choose not to. Like Thomas, the apostle, who didn't believe in Jesus' Resurrection when first told of it, then proclaiming "My Lord and my God" on seeing Jesus in John 20:28. But in Joh 20:29, Jesus answers: "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

How this effects babies who die, and those who grow up without hearing about God, I do not know.
But when we can't even fully understand our own brain (If our brains were simple enough for our understanding, we'd be too dumb to understand it anyways), how are we supposed to understand God's?

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Potato

Science tells us "This is how it is", but I think that what's so amazing with the Bible, it doesn't tell you to "know this" it says: "believe this". - Which gives us a choice. And that's kind of what free will is all about, yeah?

How is that any different from science? If the bible says "believe this", I fail to see where the element of choice comes in. Science has to do with explaining, and if you don't agree with that explanation and have a reason not to, that's fine. Saying "believe this" is a command, not an option.

Originally Posted by Potato

But when we can't even fully understand our own brain (If our brains were simple enough for our understanding, we'd be too dumb to understand it anyways), how are we supposed to understand God's?

Why would we be too dumb to understand our brains supposing it were possible?
Isn't god said to be not a human or human-like, so how would he have a physical brain?

[Potato]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

How is that any different from science? If the bible says "believe this", I fail to see where the element of choice comes in. Science has to do with explaining, and if you don't agree with that explanation and have a reason not to, that's fine. Saying "believe this" is a command, not an option.



Why would we be too dumb to understand our brains supposing it were possible?
Isn't god said to be not a human or human-like, so how would he have a physical brain?

No. The Bible doesn't command it, it asks you too, - for your own sake, but it is all up to you.


Thing is, our brains are so complicated and we still don't understand it completely. - But if our brains were so simple that we could understand it, we still wouldn't be able to understand it, because then our brains would be too simple. - You know?

I never said God had a physical brain - He may have, He may not.
BUT when we aren't able to understand our own brains, how in the world are we supposed to understand something that's even greater?

[Grizabella]

Science tells us "This is how it is", but I think that what's so amazing with the Bible, it doesn't tell you to "know this" it says: "believe this". - Which gives us a choice. And that's kind of what free will is all about, yeah?

You left out the important part where the bible says "believe this - or suffer an eternity of torture." It doesn't really give you choice. Using coercion and duress to force a belief or action are never free will. I could hold a gun to your head and tell you to believe something. You would have the choice to listen to me or to die. But I'm sure you wouldn't think I was giving you free will if I was threatening you like that.

Science doesn't just tell us how it is and then leave it for a thousand years never to be touched. The bible does. Right now, science says that the Big Bang Theory is probably right. So scientists follow it. But if in a few years evidence showed up pointing us in another direction, scientists (once it had been reasonably proven) wouldn't fight it. They wouldn't gnash their teeth and call all non-believers in the Big Bang heretics and satan-worshippers. They wouldn't make private Big Bang schools where they stubbornly insisted on teaching outdated materials. They would welcome the opportunity for growth in their knowledge of the universe.

When evidence against the bible shows up, however, believers fight it. They start holy wars and persecute anyone trying to improve knowledge. They make private schools to teach their own foundless ideas. But they don't even rest at their own schools. They try to infiltrate the public school system and slander scientific advances (particularly evolution) in an effort to try to salvage their own ideas. They try to insist that scientific institutes teach supernatural ideas. The bible does not welcome change or progress, it tries to stifle it.

[Potato]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

You left out the important part where the bible says "believe this - or suffer an eternity of torture." It doesn't really give you choice. Using coercion and duress to force a belief or action are never free will. I could hold a gun to your head and tell you to believe something. You would have the choice to listen to me or to die. But I'm sure you wouldn't think I was giving you free will if I was threatening you like that.

Science doesn't just tell us how it is and then leave it for a thousand years never to be touched. The bible does. Right now, science says that the Big Bang Theory is probably right. So scientists follow it. But if in a few years evidence showed up pointing us in another direction, scientists (once it had been reasonably proven) wouldn't fight it. They wouldn't gnash their teeth and call all non-believers in the Big Bang heretics and satan-worshippers. They wouldn't make private Big Bang schools where they stubbornly insisted on teaching outdated materials. They would welcome the opportunity for growth in their knowledge of the universe.

When evidence against the bible shows up, however, believers fight it. They start holy wars and persecute anyone trying to improve knowledge. They make private schools to teach their own foundless ideas. But they don't even rest at their own schools. They try to infiltrate the public school system and slander scientific advances (particularly evolution) in an effort to try to salvage their own ideas. They try to insist that scientific institutes teach supernatural ideas. The bible does not welcome change or progress, it tries to stifle it.

I can't remember ever having read in the Bible that you'll "suffer an eternity of torture" (If you've read it somewhere, feel free to let me know where it's written) all I've read is that to believe is the only way of being saved.
- Still, that givess you a choice. Cause, if you believe, you also believe that that's how you can be saved. If you don't, you choose to give a rats ass about it.


The bible: There isn't much more that's needed to be said, we know the basics.

Science: There are still lots of things to unravel.


When has there ever been evidence against the Bible?

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Potato

No. The Bible doesn't command it, it asks you too, - for your own sake, but it is all up to you.


Thing is, our brains are so complicated and we still don't understand it completely. - But if our brains were so simple that we could understand it, we still wouldn't be able to understand it, because then our brains would be too simple. - You know?

You didn't answer my question at all, you just restated what you said then randomly slapped on "you know?". I don't know, so, please explain.

When someone says "Believe this", that's a command. It's the same as saying "Stop right now" or "go away". Those are commands.

Haven't read anything about eternal suffering in the bible? I have to ask, have you actually read the entire bible? It's the very basis of the concept of Hell. So, here are some of the many quotes:

Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell (Psalms 55:15)

fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28)

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:43-48).

Naturally, if you're told to cut off your hand, foot and pluck your eyes out to avoid going to Hell, then there's a pretty good chance that Hell is going to be much worse than that. Hence, torture.

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. (Luke 13:28)

And there are far too many to post. If you've read the bible, then it's very clear that hell isn't a land of bunnies and rainbows.

[Grizabella]

Originally Posted by Potato

I can't remember ever having read in the Bible that you'll "suffer an eternity of torture" (If you've read it somewhere, feel free to let me know where it's written) all I've read is that to believe is the only way of being saved.

Um...how about the entire book of Revelations for starters?

When has there ever been evidence against the Bible?

How about when science showed that the earth isn't only 6000 - 10 000 years old?

Or when science showed that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around?