Thread: Do you believe in Hell?

You're missing the point. Religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam claim their holy books are the word of God. These books have various rules, commandments, values, and beliefs in them. I am not referring to religion by its more obscure meaning where it collectively addresses the overall concept of the various belief systems out there, and quite honestly to purposefully pick that meaning of the word in this conversation seems a bit disingenuous on your part. Rock n' Roll doesn't tell people that they have to use drugs, be violent, or act depraved or they will go to hell/if they want to get to heaven, and it isn't possible to misinterpret what it tells people to do, because it doesn't try and tell people to do anything. Rock n' Roll is a genre of music, not a belief system with a holy text whose author is God Himself. Again, the Beatles as a band were just playing music. Music has never been a belief system that must be adhered to and commands its listeners/believers into doing something if they want a divine reward and to avoid a divine punishment. The case could be made that he misinterpreted their lyrics or whatever, but the fact of the matter is as I've already outlined.

Even though millions of people see the Pope as a religious leader, it's not even that important of a factor in my original argument. All I need is the Bible/Quran/Torah or any other holy book. All I need is the fact that a religion is a belief system with its own set of values that demands faith in God and to adhere to His will. Your argument is the one that's flawed. When it comes to your argument about scientists and smoking, scientists did not force anybody to smoke, lest they receive eternal damnation/if they wanted eternal salvation. This isn't even mentioning the fact that they were simply mistaken, and actually owned up to that mistake--something that can't possibly happen when it comes to religion. Either the Bible or whatever book is the word of God, or it isn't. Also, I would have to argue that your claim that nobody dared to question the "massive propaganda" isn't something you can back up. First and foremost because we know better today. If nobody dared to question it, how did we wise up to the fact that smoking is bad for one's health? And now it sounds like you are conflating scientists with tobacco company public relations representatives. When scientists make a statement about something, it isn't propaganda. It's what the evidence currently points to. Propaganda is information that's either false or deceptive that is spread for either financial or political gain, something that "science", a process of understanding one's reality, cannot take part in.

And that leads me to my next point: that you are also conflating scientists with science. Whether a scientist chooses to engage in shady behavior or not doesn't make what that scientist does science's fault. Again, I can see where you are coming from if you want to say that what one follower does wrong doesn't mean that religion is wrong, but when a religion clearly states its rules in its holy text, its clear in this case that we're no longer talking about the same thing. Some of the bigger atrocities aren't the fault of religion, but plenty still are. Stoning prostitutes to death, genital mutilation, condemning homosexuals to death, denying homosexuals equal civil rights, and various other issues.

Now, I'm fine if you want to get one last word in about this, but we're starting to stray from the topic. Please refrain from continuing this particular debate.