:
|
There is a very long paragraph after that sentence and if you would have bothered to read more then just what you need to bash me, you would have known exactly what I meant by that.
|
Incorrect! I read all of your post, and the tone of my reply wasn't actually bashful, I did just wonder what you meant. Stop constantly trying to be on top, if only for the fact I've yet to see you succeed.
:
|
What I mean by that is that religion, as a system, is not based on science. There are no scientific facts in the bible that support the existence of god, there is no chapter explaining the physics of a prayer going to heaven and there is no page detailing exactly how many degrees Fahrenheit it is in Hell. The bible is a book full of nice stories on things that may or may not have happened but for which is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
|
Which is all under the misassumption that religion is all about the fantasy elements when quite clearly, in practice, it isn't. Yus yus, it's all tied to God at the end of it, for which there is no scientific evidence (maybe BM can back me up here, and maybe he'll give us a long word associated with it). But acts of goodness are acts of goodness. I find people's absolutist and proscriptive views of religion (for instance, 'it isn't pick and choose, you know!') somewhat disheartening (heh!).
It isn't just like: I am a religious person, here's the part where I have my feet planted in the dirt, and
here, here's where I believe in giant fairies wot live in my eyeballs.
There are scientists who are religious, who see science and marvel at the work of God. Fact. One you know, but it is fact.
