Hell

[Matthew]

Let me help you then.. If there is a god and he did send a book written 2000 years ago, by fallible man as I recall, and that book has lots of funny verses, stories like fairytales and lots of contradictions, and there is no evidence to prove god in the bible exists, no more than Zeus.

That is the conclusion that your thinking has led you to, but I see no reason to take your thinking as normative based on the understanding of interpretation you have thus far demonstrated. You disagree with my interpretation of the verses which you claimed could only imply conscious eternal torment, so exhibit some critical thinking by showing that your interpretation is the correct one.

---

Because critical thinking entails questioning the assumptions you hold and evaluating the evidence for your beliefs. There is no evidence for God or the afterlife, and yet the faithful believe. Normally, a hypothesis that is not supported by evidence is modified or discarded. What makes religious claims exempt?

Let's question the assumptions you make here then. You assume that:

• there is no evidence for God or the afterlife
  
• hypotheses not supported by evidence should be modified or discarded
  

Why should I grant these assumptions? (It would be helpful if you could explain exactly what you mean by 'evidence' according to your epistemology for the sake of clarity.)

That is the first of the Ten Commandments, yes. What follows?

What follows is irrelevant, the Bible is no more sacred or valid a source of knowledge than any other compilation of ancient mythical writings.

You misunderstand my question - want I wanted to know is why your comment was in any way relevant to my quoting Jesus on what he said was the commandment of first importance.