Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

SMI

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Brand gives his transcendental tuppence..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Run1jpZvS4

I have to row in with Russell Brand, notionally anyway.
I'd prefer to think of it of how the universe works instead of different realms of existence/spirituality.
We have a drive to behave in certain ways, where does that originate from?
Once you put aside more tangible/coherent things like time and why we do what we do in our lifetime on earth, I'd personally find it hard to dismiss the possibility that there isn't something profound going on that is perhaps a common thread or something deliberate that runs through the universe.
I don't necessarily think that it's something like one 'God' but perhaps something tangible.
Having said all that, if I was an acquaintance of Russell Brand I'm not sure I could handle more than one chat with him a week. While I agree with his perspective on this, and I was familiar with some of the people he name checked, I admittedly lag behind in understanding half the vocabulary he uses!
I think his heart is in the right place but he is constantly wielding his intellect & insight like a f**king sword at the modern, perhaps misguided, culture or meld of communities we find ourselves in. The average Joe/Josephine on the street doesn't have the time or patience to be contending with his form of eloquence. I'd love to see him reign in his enthusiasm and try and shepherd people towards what he thinks are virtues instead of his current tact.
But to be fair, being annoying isn't akin to being a c**t, as I think some have mentioned here. I might be being unfair myself, but is that a very Irish thing? Dismissing someone as a c**t because they are spouting information that would be so challenging and different to what we are familiar with? He's trying to inform and perhaps improves peoples terms of reference. He name checks content for people to explore themselves, not his personal doctrines. How is that harmful? If it grinds your gears, ignore him. C**ts exist, but they go out of there way to do harm. Can't see how that applies here.
My take on religion is that they are the biggest, ongoing game of Chinese whispers around. In the age of the internet, where an Irish Stephen Fry interview goes viral around the globe and Russell Brand responds from his bed in London and we watch it perhaps in the same manner here, I think it's impossible for irrational, inflexible doctrines to survive against the opportunities of insight that people can achieve for themselves. And it's at their fingertips. Religion is a product of consensus between a bunch of men at a certain time or place that have fundamental short comings ("don't eat prawns [mentioned in the bible way more that anti-gayness]" "don't eat meat on a Friday...actually you're grand now") that are exasperated the more time goes on.
A sense or appreciation of 'spiritually'(I hate that term) is lacking as religious devotion wanes in Western Society. I'd encourage people to look up some of the people that he mentioned, Joseph Campbells content isn't religious or an alternative to religion, not a tough read by any means and would be probably interesting to most folk as evidence of common threads that run throughout cultural legends, of which reflect our human struggles.
Don't be put off too much by the manner of Brand, the philosophies he sometimes spews could actually have a positive impact on our day to day lives if there was some sort of awareness amongst us. Pity his particular ways of communicating will often lead to widespread dismissal.
Hoping someone or someones in the near future will be able to remind people of a thoughtful, empathetic, compassionate, way of living day to day without it being framed in religion. It won't make you vulnerable, you won't lose the ability to defend yourself, stand your ground and tell someone to go f**k themselves if absolutely necessary.
We should feel comfortable treating 'spirituality' (grrr..) like any other subject, people should be encouraged to ask questions and educate themselves about the meaning of our lives and feel comfortable picking and choosing from different philosophies depending on what they feel makes sense to them, instead of having to set their stall out with a religion or atheism like they are sports teams.

RobertKK

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Bollix. Find me a link where the Nazis specifically refer to wanting to eliminate Jews because of Judaism.

The Jewish race whose descendents came from Israel. You are trying to disassociate the religion from the race.
I don't know if you watched the late late show last Friday but they had a Jewish survivor from Auschwitz on.
He ended up there with his family after his brother confessed (due to violence) to being a Jew. Now if he had said Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or whatever he would have been ok, but it was his religion that led to him being in a concentration camp.

The Nazis did not disassociate the religion from the race.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If you need blasphemy laws to defend your faith, you must be very scared of alternatives to it.

If we need laws against murder to defend the fact murder is wrong you must be very scared of the alternatives.

I we need laws against................ and so on.

The majority of people in Ireland are catholic, the disproportionate number of atheists who post here doesn't change that.

RobertKK

danrua01 wrote: »

Fella, even people in this thread were calling Stephen Fry a Jew even though he's not religious. They weren't referring to his religion.

How do you know?

mikom

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

If we need laws against murder to defend the fact murder is wrong you must be very scared of the alternatives.

Manslaughter?

SMI

And as a footnote, more bad language;
I listened to a recent podcast where Tim Ferriss was being interviewed with the comedian with Duncan Tressall.
One of them had the line, which I thought was pretty useful;
"We are all navigating through a forest of c**ts. Sometimes we are the Forest, sometimes we are the c**t."

RobertKK

kunst nugget wrote: »

That is quite the leap to make and they bear no similarity to each other at all. K4t used the disease analogy to describe how the influence of the Catholic Church could spread. He never implied that Catholics themselves were unsanitary and were the source of actual diseases like the Nazis did in relation to the Jews. You are really searching for a way to be personally offended there.

Should have used 'like a disease', not 'like any disease' which has a totally different meaning.

kunst nugget

RobertKK wrote: »

Should have used 'like a disease', not 'like any disease' which has a totally different meaning.

No, it doesn't.

Donkey Oaty

danrua01 wrote: »

Fella, even people in this thread were calling Stephen Fry a Jew even though he's not religious. They weren't referring to his religion.

As far as I'm concerned, Stephen Fry is not Jewish.

He's a secular shamanic voodoo witch-doctor who uses his power of broadcasting to apply the needles of reason to the private parts of a metaphorical believer-doll.

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

The Jewish race whose descendents came from Israel. You are trying to disassociate the religion from the race.

I'm Irish and I have no religion. Separating race and religion is obviously a ridiculously trivial thing to do.
You mean antecedents I'd imagine?
Anyway off to the internet again and find me anywhere the Nazis said they hated Jews because of their religion. They were quite vocal about hating Jews. Should be easy to find.
What was the whole point of racial purity if it was religion that the Nazis hated could you tell us?

jobbridge4life

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, Stephen Fry is not Jewish.

He's a secular shamanic voodoo witch-doctor who uses his power of broadcasting to apply the needles of reason to the private parts of a metaphorical believer-doll.

Thats like way cooler than being jewish.

pueblo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

He made us and he knows what we will do... and we still have free will? Nonsensical. Cleansing the earth of sinners would be like writing a computer program and then deleting it when it does exactly what you programmed it to do.

You are making my point for me. It appears as nonsense to us because we don't have the ability to understand it.

Dark matter appears to exist....yet we know very little about it, some of it may even seem 'nonsensical'..... is it? or is it just a case of gaps in our understanding??

Dan_Solo

pueblo wrote: »

You are making my point for me. It appears as nonsense to us because we don't have the ability to understand it.

Dark matter appears to exist....yet we know very little about it, some of it may even seem 'nonsensical'..... is it? or is it just a case of gaps in our understanding??

Then we're back to the caveman religion, I can't understand it therefore god. When it is explained we all just move on to the next thing we don't understand and call that god?
Why doesn't the bible explain dark matter to us if is beyond our possible understanding?

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Anyway off to the internet again and find me anywhere the Nazis said they hated Jews because of their religion. They were quite vocal about hating Jews. Should be easy to find.

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/responses.htm
It's bad reading, but easily understandable. Hitler himself said he had no interest in Judaism, it was the Jewish race he despised.

pueblo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Then we're back to the caveman religion, I can't understand it therefore god. When it is explained we all just move on to the next thing we don't understand and call that god?
Why doesn't the bible explain dark matter to us if is beyond our possible understanding?

Correct, we can't 'understand' it using logic and reason. We might be able to 'understand' it using the faculty of the spirit.

I realise a lot of people don't believe they have a spirit so that would rule out trying to understand God using it.

So perhaps the question to be asked before 'Is there a God?' is 'Do I have a spirit?'

Apologies but I don't understand your last question 'Why doesn't the bible explain dark matter to us if is beyond our possible understanding?'

RobertKK

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm Irish and I have no religion. Separating race and religion is obviously a ridiculously trivial thing to do.
You mean antecedents I'd imagine?
Anyway off to the internet again and find me anywhere the Nazis said they hated Jews because of their religion. They were quite vocal about hating Jews. Should be easy to find.
What was the whole point of racial purity if it was religion that the Nazis hated could you tell us?

The religion was part of the racial hatred, otherwise no need to mention the word Jew.

Dan_Solo

pueblo wrote: »

Correct, we can't 'understand' it using logic and reason. We might be able to 'understand' it using the faculty of the spirit.

We should try to understand one thing by using another unprovable thing there is no actual evidence for?
Sorry, that logic escapes me.

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

The religion was part of the racial hatred, otherwise no need to mention the word Jew.

No, Hitler said very specifically it was separate.
Hang on, you don't even know the word "Jew" can be used to describe either the race or the religion?!?!

EDIT: Actually, I'm out RobertKK. You know so little, including the basic definitions of common English words, that it is completely impossible to have a sensible conversation with you. Again.

InTheTrees

Good for Stephen Fry.

I've always hated the expression "intelligent design" because it isnt.

Its a "design" based on the strong slaughtering and consuming the weak.

K4t

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

A person and their beliefs are one in the same.

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

You posting is highly offensive to Catholics you know that, I don't even know why you are allowed post the bile you are spewing.

And people criticising Arcade Fire and the 1st amendment to the US constitution is perhaps even more offensive to my beliefs. Tough. That's life.


To hate religion is not to hate human beings. To hate Islam is not to hate Muslims. In fact my aunt (also my fairy godmother) is a Catholic nun who lives in a Catholic convent in this country. I do not hate my aunt and my love for her is not influenced by my hate and utter loathing of the Catholic Church.

Dan_Solo

K4t wrote: »

I do not hate my aunt and my love for her is not effected by my hate and utter loathing of the Catholic Church.

LOL, Freudian?

floggg

feargale wrote: »

You have made a very valid, rational case that very many will agree with. The difference is that, unlike so many others you have done it without resorting to the usual bullying and baiting and snide ridiculing of people who genuinely believe otherwise, an activity that I'm sure you will have seen yourself on Boards particularly. But I suppose that is a natural reaction against the strictures of boarding school life by those who have just been released from it. One expects better from others who are old enough to know and behave better. Have you ever noticed how many of them speak reverently of their religious mothers whose beliefs they don't share, while mocking other mothers for professing the same beliefs? Of course not all A&A people are assoles. In fact one of them opened a thread about A&A intolerance in which he opined that Christians are more fun. As a non-believer I would go further and say that if my own experience is anything to go by Christians are as a whole, barring some exceptions, nicer people. Europe tore itself apart for centuries over such differences of opinion. Eastern Europe was only marginally better at dealing with them in the 20th century. And today's handling of the same in the Middle East is a disaster. A&A people have genuine concerns about their relationship with the Irish state, not least in the field of education. They are being articulated by spokespeople who have more cop than is being shown by some here, and they are being addressed however slowly. People of different religious and political views have to live together, despite the triumphalist predictions that religion will vanish. Too much A&A stuff is a replication of the worst aspects of Catholic triumphalism witnessed here in the past. If people want to devote their lives to A&A evangelising and proselytising that's their business. But would you trust tomorrow's world to some of the wannabe supremos around here? Many of them will grow out of their bigotry. Sadly, some won't and others are beyond seeing the light.

That's all fine and agreeable except the bit about Christians being nice people on the whole.

Sure, that may be your experience, but subjective generalisations are generally bull****.

There are nice people and assholes on both sides (though atheism doesn't teach anybody discrimination in the same way religion does - but that doesn't mean there aren't bigoted atheists).

Perhaps though your view may be coloured by the fact you only notice the most opinionated and obnoxious atheists - the rest of us tend to blend into the background unless and until religion arises (or tries to force its way into our lives).

floggg

hinault wrote: »

Many accept that God was the cause for the creation of what we call the Universe.

And actually if you read the first few lines of the Book of Genesis, it records that God created light before he created Earth, the stars, the Sun and all the rest of the universe.

Why does Genesis record that God created light first? Obviously whoever wrote Genesis was more than aware that in order to create anything you need energy/light.

If a Scripture written centuries ago was able to identify the fundamental property, light, to create substances, that knowledge appears to predate by centuries our limited understanding of what is the cause of creation.

That's far from obvious, considering they lacked any idea of the nature of the sum or light energy. They didn't even realise what the universe was, or our place in it.

I imagine it could have just as much to do with the idea that light represented goodness and darkness evil.

sbsquarepants

floggg wrote: »

That's far from obvious, considering they lacked any idea of the nature of the sum or light energy. They didn't even realise what the universe was, or our place in it.

I imagine it could have just as much to do with the idea that light represented goodness and darkness evil.

I think this version sounds a lot more plausible.

Doesn't it mention that the sun was created on day 3 or something like that? What exactly made it day 3 if there was no sun? The in depth knowledge about the workings of the universe that you're trying to shoe horn in there don't hold much water I'm afraid!

danrua01

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think this version sounds a lot more plausible.

Doesn't it mention that the sun was created on day 3 or something like that? What exactly made it day 3 if there was no sun? The in depth knowledge about the workings of the universe that you're trying to shoe horn in there don't hold much water I'm afraid!

I answered this earlier, god was orbiting a teapot!


But it does bring in some questions on time dilation. How long was a day? And what gravitational force was being exerted on god? He obviously wasn't on Earth, so it wasn't 24 hours...

Defender OF Faith

floggg wrote: »

I think you are really misunderstanding this discussion.

We are having a hypothetical discussion about the nature of god IF he actually existed.

IF he did exist though, then I would blame him because he has created a world which allows and encourages it.

I spoken about this subject on a subsequent post which you appeared to have missed whereby a Poster argued that because of the Evils in the world an All loving God cannot exist turning the argument into a refutation to God existence rather then a discussion of his nature; so I will quote it here:

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

This argument only works if God is all good and all powerful, but your forgetting that he's also all wise and he's also all knowing, you have the pixel he have the picture, you have the puzzle piece he has the puzzle. You do not have his knowledge or Wisdom to understand why X or Y exist.

Secondly from a theistic perspective we are created to have a relationship with God, there's not a single thorn that will prick you except that you will be expiated for your sins and elevated in terms of your rank in paradise, hardship and suffering in this life is not only temporary but will not go unrewarded in the next life, as this life is nothing but a mere test and trail.

God gave mankind free will, the freedom to choose between right and wrong. What that mean is that inevitably it's the choice to do the Evil which is the Evil and not the fact that God created it.

It's the choice of Man that's evil, but that does not mean God is happy with that decision nor pleased with it, but because God has given him the choice he had created and given that choice an external manifestation.

That does not mean that there isn't a plan or wisdom to the fact that it occurred; we see that when a catastrophes occur what do people do? you see them flocking to centres where they can donate their wealth and time so that they can help the poor and weak.
We don't have the knowledge or information about everything, calamities bring out the true nature of people it also bring the best of people.

There is Good and Evil {including all of what they entail} in existence, but Good is the norm and Evil is the exception. Good Health is the standard and norm and illness is but a temporary situation. The stability of Earth is the norm but an earthquake is but an exception for a few minutes, after a while everything will return to normal, similarly wars are but short periods in history followed by long periods of peace. Hence Good is the rule and evil is the exception.

To add that evil is not evil from both sides, for every evil there's a good side that accompanies it. A Volcano eruption brings much Evil but at the same there's a Good that will follow which we cannot ignore here's but a few:


The same can be said about earthquake and the goodness which follows after the destruction caused, which you can read about to avoid extending this post.

Illness will create resistance and make us value health, and from poison antidote is made, and while on on one side War brought horrible destruction a good side follows as will, for example all the efforts to unite the world were brought about after periods of wars. The united nations security council, NATO and the league of Nations, so from the struggle of war these attempts were made so humanity as a family might come together to prevent such tragedies.
To include that many inventions that advanced humanity were made during the time of war such as the mass production of penicillin by the US during the Invasion of Normandy, depth Charges,hydrophones, air traffic control,air craft carriers pilot less drones. The list is very long just search about technological advancement made during war.

Billions were invested to make weapons but forcefully and unwillingly advancement were made in both fields of destruction and Good. Evil is not evil from all its faces, it's evil from one side and Good from one, I think its even safe to say that they complement each other Good can exist on its own in a pure form but never Evil.

Hardship and struggle will also strengthen people, their wills will increase, their wisdom and understanding; as they say what ever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. As the Arabian poet Al Mutanabbi have said:

"Without hardship everyone would prevail, The generous are poor, and courage kills its own.”


The poet meant that without hardship & evil everyone will be a leader and the two leading qualities found in leaders that will bring about struggle and hardship is generousness which lead to loss of wealth and courage which might lead to death in wars.

To say that the world if full of evil,misery,suffering and struggle is a very naive and incomplete poor outlook on the realities of life and the world around us; what's even more naive is for an atheist to blame it all on a God which he does not even believe in.

ScumLord

The bottom line for me with religion is the fact that the only thing religious people could say with any certainty about their god stories is that god created the universe. All the holy books are second/third hand accounts from people who claim they are speaking on behalf of god. But the world is the only real tangible thing he supposedly left behind.

So the only way to learn anything about god is to study his work, the only way to study his work is through science.

Ever since science has shown that the holy books are incorrect in all their creation theories and theories behind social problems, religious people have moved to the concept of the holy books only being metaphors and stories to help us develop as spiritual beings.

But that's not how these books were sold to people in the beginning, these were intended to be factual documents describing how god made the world and that's why you should worship him. If your going to start saying the bible is just stories then it's based on fiction and none of us should give the books any credit for being anything other than interesting historical artifacts.


Stephen Fry is right about the gods described in the holy books, they are simply ancient kings with magical powers. They show behaviour that is no better than a spoilt child, they don't describe an all knowing being that's been around since before the beginning of time because human knowledge has quite clearly superseded the dogma of the holy books.

Terrlock

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Religion a curse upon humanity...

"Christianity, like most religions, was set up to disempower people & control them.
It was set up as a political vehicle.
Sell people on their unworthiness & guilt and you can control them."

John Kaminski, Devils From Heaven

Your thinking about the Roman catholic church here, not Christianity.

RobertKK

kunst nugget wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does...
The flu like any disease...
Religion like any disease.

Compared to
The flu like a disease - this makes no sense as the flu is a disease.
Religion like a disease, is a comparison.

K4t

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/responses.htm
It's bad reading, but easily understandable. Hitler himself said he had no interest in Judaism, it was the Jewish race he despised.

It's says a lot about the person who feels they need to twist that around to defend their beliefs. The Khymer Rouge was thrown at me yesterday for simply arguing that scientists of faith give intellectual cover to real believers and many poor religious people. It is terrifying that they will literally stoop to any level to defend religion and oppose any criticism of it. And then they attempt to make it seem like it is out of fear of persecution! Where the advocates of Seperation of Church and State simply ask for a secular state! It really shows the true colours of so many of these defenders of religion and faith. They want power. And they want everyone else to think and believe as they do, and they would have no trouble using the law to force these beliefs on others.

Ghost Buster

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

You posting is highly offensive to Catholics you know that, I don't even know why you are allowed post the bile you are spewing.

Or..........



The truth hurts.

Ghost Buster

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

Please, he is attacking Catholics by calling their religion a "disease" many other offensive terms.

You analogy with a spider is stupid.

If I went and kicked you in the face would you be offended? The posts by that (and many other) posters are along the lines of that.

So. Saying smoking causes lung disease is attacking smokers?

K4t

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes it does...
The flu like any disease...
Religion like any disease.

Compared to
The flu like a disease - this makes no sense as the flu is a disease.
Religion like a disease, is a comparison.

Keep digging, you might find your way to hell.

kunst nugget

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes it does...
The flu like any disease...
Religion like any disease.

Compared to
The flu like a disease - this makes no sense as the flu is a disease.
Religion like a disease, is a comparison.

You are arguing semantics here to support feeling offended by the statement. It's not hard to understand the sentiment behind what k4t was saying. He was comparing religion to a disease not saying that religious people were diseased. The only accusation you could throw at it is that it is hyperbolic but considering what you've wrote in reply to it, it's a minor quibble.

Ghost Buster

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

A person and their beliefs are one in the same.

For some perhaps.
But i find that the majority of irish catholics I know, friends and family, are so vague, wishy washy and, lets face it, quite suspicious that its all a load of old cobblers to begin with, that they are barely connected to their beliefs let alone one and the same.

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I wasn't claiming otherwise, regardless of the culture your brought up in, the concept of a God and a supernatural creator of this universe will remain universal and basic cross cultural belief that transcend above any cultural bounds. If I visit Brazil or a small African village and ask them if they know about Icelandic Elves its likely that they would not know but if asked about a God or a being that created this universe the response regardless of the culture will be the same.

This response seems like a very neat answer at first glance, but it doesn't really stand to to scrutiny.

If you say God is all seeing and knowing, then God cannot say he gave us free will or be disappointed when we go astray. If God created man, with all his baser instincts, immoral tendencies and weakness then God knew who we would behave once he set us out into the world.

He could foresee all the evil we were capable of doing from the outset - yet still built us this way. If we do bad things, it's because the nature he gave us.

So he cannot disclaim responsibility for it when we are just acting in accordance with the design. Think of us like windows vista - yes, are flawed and horrible to deal with at times, but ultimately you have to blame microsoft (God) for that.

The only alternative is to conclude that God didn't no idea how things would turn out and was hoping for the best, in which case he's hardly the seeing and all powerful being he's claimed to be, now is he.


Further, you cannot say he gives us free will if he created us with inherent lustsful desires, tempers, anger and greed.

If for example we are meant to have free will in the sexual realm, why design us to crave sex? And if he doesn't wish to practice certain sexual practices, such as homosexuality, why create some of us gay? Why desigh us to want the one thing you told us we can't have?

It's akin to forcefully injected somebody with heroin until they are hooked, then leaving them alone with a syringe and a kilo of heroin and telling them it's their choice whether to use it not.

Sure, they have a choice but you've made it nearly impossible for them to say no.

So that's not true free will, and God is a dick for stacking the deck against you like that.


As for you argument that good things come out of bad things, what a load of crap.

I really doubt the establishment of the League of Nations or the UN is much solace to the millions of innocent people who died during both world wars. Nor does the fact that communities came together afterwards provide much comfort to those who lost their lives, families or homes in the Indian ocean tsunami.

If Gods plan was to let ****ty things happen to some people in order to show others how nice they could be too each other in the aftermath, he is again a dick.


Note: for clarity purposes, I would like to state that the above was based on the hypothetical premise that God existed. Since he doesn't, I don't blame him for anything or have any feelings on him either way.

K4t

kunst nugget wrote: »

You are arguing semantics here to support feeling offended by the statement. It's not hard to understand the sentiment behind what k4t was saying. He was comparing religion to a disease not saying that religious people were diseased. The only accusation you could throw at it is that it is hyperbolic but considering what you've wrote in reply to it, it's a minor quibble.

Exactly. And you wouldn't think that would be hard to understand given that I have stated clearly that "To hate religion is not to hate human beings" and that I have mentioned my Catholic nun aunt who I love, despite hating Catholicism.
But I guess it goes back to the old religious trait of taking all truth from one source, and then often twisting that source to suit your own agenda.

Ghost Buster

RobertKK wrote: »

Enda Kenny on that program on the other hand...

Claimed he was a devout Catholic, didn't believe in the Eucharist, didn't believe Jesus was the son of God and mass was a community get together.
Plus something about energy that I remember was strange at the time.

Is Enda an example of one of these people you mentioned for whom they and their faith are "one and the same" then?

Philo Beddoe

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

A person and their beliefs are one in the same.

This is a meaningless statement.

pueblo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

We should try to understand one thing by using another unprovable thing there is no actual evidence for?
Sorry, that logic escapes me.

That logic escapes you because it is not trying or claiming to be 'logical' at all!

danrua01

You should all read this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Second-Coming-John-Niven/dp/0099535521

I liked the version of God in that. Good craic.

pueblo

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Or..........



The truth hurts.

or.........



The Truth shall set you free

RobertKK

K4t wrote: »

Keep digging, you might find your way to hell.

Maybe you used just bad grammar and it was not saying religion is a disease. But if it was not bad grammar then my point still stands.

I am not digging, why would I want to be in hell with you...:pac:

K4t wrote: »

If there is a gates of heaven I'd sooner walk as far as possible in the opposite direction in search of a hell.

RobertKK

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Is Enda an example of one of these people you mentioned for whom they and their faith are "one and the same" then?

Well to him, being a devout Catholic means those things, and is a part of who he is.
But for most people that is not the definition of a devout Catholic, more a confused one.

K4t

K4t wrote: »

that scientists of faith give intellectual cover to real believers and many poor religious people.

Why is a scientist of faith not a real believer. I'm a scientist and don't see myself as any different to any one else at mass on a Sunday just because of my chosen career.

floggg

danrua01 wrote: »

I suppose you're right there. The first three I'd personally put down as being trivial annoyances, but the rest are huge issues, absolutely...

Good Friday might seem trivial, but the principle behind it is rather more serious.

In essence, I should not be forced by law to recognise or respect a religious day in your holiday, or curtailed from carrying on my usual activities in deference of it.

Equally, it should offend other religions who see respect for Christian holidays enforced through law, but not their own.

On the other hand, I get a day off work on Good Friday, so as long as I remember to pre-buy my alcohol and pork products, I tend to shut up and stay quiet about it.

Dan_Solo

pueblo wrote: »

That logic escapes you because it is not trying or claiming to be 'logical' at all!

LOL. You want us to investigate dark matter by studiously avoiding logic... so we can just say we know what it is now. It's a fish.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Some don't understand that the beliefs of a person that is a part of who they are, a part of their identity.

I think K4t should be careful linking the words religion and disease together, they did this in Germany before WW2 against the Jews. It shows a deep unhealthy hatred towards fellow human beings.

Bit rich coming from the guy posting biblical justifications for the holocaust, no?

Though I agree religion shouldn't be called a disease. If you want to believe in whatever, you should be entirely free (provided you keep those beliefs to yourself and don't try to force them on me in any way).

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is religious groups have put education as being very important and were proactive, those against it just moan and want everything handed to them.

This couldn't be further from the truth.

We already pay heavily through taxes for our education system.

So I don't want anything handed to anybody - and that goes for state funding for religious education.

I simply want my tax money spent on an impartial, objective, secular education system.

danrua01

floggg wrote: »

Good Friday might seem trivial, but the principle behind it is rather more serious.

In essence, I should not be forced by law to recognise or respect a religious day in your holiday, or curtailed from carrying on my usual activities in deference of it.

Equally, it should offend other religions who see respect for Christian holidays enforced through law, but not their own.

On the other hand, I get a day off work on Good Friday, so as long as I remember to pre-buy my alcohol and pork products, I tend to shut up and stay quiet about it.

Agreed.