Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

ScumLord

K4t wrote: »

Firstly, I will concede to you that the world can never be rid of religion. And that is because it can never be rid of the human impulses behind it; Fear, Hatred, Anti-Intellectualism, Sadism, Masochism, Sexism. All the same really. Religion is a part of all humans; the worst part. It is a fight against our own nature.

I think your hatred of religion has lead you to a position that's almost as extreme as a religious extremist at the other end of the spectrum.

Religion was a fundamental part of our switch to larger civilisations, it came about at a time when we were noticing there was a bigger picture in nature, there were interconnected processes happening that we could take advantage of. I think religion would have been a revelation when it was developed and one of the social tools we used to live in groups larger than we should be able to deal with.

Highlighting all the bad things and completely ignoring and dismissing any positive is biased, it's blinkered and unscientific.

ScumLord

Terrlock wrote: »

So if they wrote the bible...they weren't primitive.

Yes, primitive describes pre literate societies.

Also are you sure it was just the Jews who wrote the bible?

I far as I was aware it was the jews that wrote the bible, they wrote the old testament and then another jew started a new movement and his followers wrote the new testament.

That's just made up - They must have known a lot of those things as the bible talks about them. In fact many of the scientific facts the bible talks about weren't discovered to be true for centuries later by scientists.

What scientific facts does the bible talk about? If you can provide any proof they knew about and could explain the things I mentioned I'd be delighted to hear it.

Dan_Solo

pueblo wrote: »

Have a look at the Double Slit experiment....I would be interested to hear your 'logical' reasons for why reality seems to change if it's being observed.

Come on...open your mind a little...at least have a brief read of the findings of the experiment and let me know your thoughts. You have a duty as a rationalist.

That's about observation, which you have decided to conflate with consciousness or "reality". A camera could make the observation. You are saying cameras have a spirit?

Defender OF Faith

floggg wrote: »

That was not my argument.

My argument is that if god existed, then because of the evils in this world, he is either a dick or not as powerful and all seeing as he claims.

In which case he is a liar, so would still be kind of a dick.

And this is exactly what I addressed ,it seems that you have not read what I wrote regarding this argument so I will quote it here again:

If a God is omnipotent and loving, but the world is full of suffering, then that God can't exist.

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 many precious gems and building materials that can only come from volcanoes. Opals and obsidian are produced in volcanoes. Volcanic eruptions produce pumice stones, which people have used to remove excess skin. Hardened volcanic ash, called tuff makes a strong, lightweight building material.
Regions of volcanic activity are enormous sources of geothermal energy. One of the most volcanically active regions in the world is Iceland, and they generate a sizable portion of their energy from geothermal energy.

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.

Arne_Saknussem

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

The best way to test the existence of God is to pray for something entirely random that would not ordinarily happen in a sane universe and see if it is granted.

For example, recently I prayed for a giant statue of The Stig from Top Gear to appear in Warsaw and also for a UKIP MP to tweet an invitation to play a game of "Hello Kitty World".

Needless to say, neither of these things have come true, otherwise I would have heard about them - but if they do, I'll start believing.

I remember when i was young praying long and hard to God asking him for Castle Grayskull and getting nothing, nada!

Santa, on the other hand, sorted me right out. Much less judging and much more generous Santa is.

Terrlock

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

You keep quoting from the Bible is if it's not a load of made up nonsense, full of contradictions and misinformation.

"The foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

The bible is not full of contradictions or misinformation.

It also will appear foolish to someone who denies the Lord and his word.

You need to be born again to understand the ways of God.

jobbridge4life

Terrlock wrote: »

"The foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

The bible is not full of contradictions or misinformation.

It also will appear foolish to someone who denies the Lord and his word.

You need to be born again to understand the ways of God.

Aka drink the kool aid and all will be clear.

mikom

Terrlock wrote: »

You need to be born again to understand the ways of God.

I don't think my ould wans fanny is up to it, tbh.

K4t

ScumLord wrote: »

I think your hatred of religion has lead you to a position that's almost as extreme as a religious extremist at the other end of the spectrum.
Religion was a fundamental part of our switch to larger civilisations, it came about at a time when we were noticing there was a bigger picture in nature, there were interconnected processes happening that we could take advantage of. I think religion would have been a revelation when it was developed and one of the social tools we used to live in groups larger than we should be able to deal with.

Highlighting all the bad things and completely ignoring and dismissing any positive is biased, it's blinkered and unscientific.

I extremely favour a justice system, a police force, science, philosophy and many other things. To be extreme is not necessarily a bad thing. I could also say that while I think you are may be more intelligent than myself and a lot of other posters, you take the safe ground almost in an attempt to reconcile all sides and appear more tolerant. I acknowledged the driving forces behind religion and admitted it appeals to human nature. I also mentioned that most social organisations can now do what religion does well; tennis clubs, rotary clubs, gaa, library groups etc.
To hate, which is defined as an intense dislike for, is too often seen as a bad or negative thing now due in most part I believe to terms such as hate crime and hate speech. I also hate Nazism, Murder, Rape for various different reasons, is that also a bad thing? And likewise I hate religion and the religion of Islam for various reasons. That doesn't mean I hate Muslim people, in fact I am friendly with many Muslims. I also hate Christianity, but that doesn't mean I do not love or get on with as a human being my aunt who is a nun in a Catholic convent. I have toured her convent and eaten there many times and found the nuns and other workers incredibly friendly and pleasant. Did their kind and humane behaviour towards me influence in any way my feelings about religion? No. Do I still hate Christianity and Catholicism? Yes.

Arne_Saknussem

Terrlock wrote: »

"The foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

The bible is not full of contradictions or misinformation.

It also will appear foolish to someone who denies the Lord and his word.

You need to be born again to understand the ways of God.

It most certainly does.

danrua01

Terrlock wrote: »

"The foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

The bible is not full of contradictions or misinformation.

It also will appear foolish to someone who denies the Lord and his word.

You need to be born again to understand the ways of God.

What about what I posted earlier, about everything that's forbidden by the Bible, but that people don't follow? Yet gays can't get married.

pueblo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's about observation, which you have decided to conflate with consciousness or "reality". A camera could make the observation. You are saying cameras have a spirit?

A camera can't make the observation on it's own. A camera is just a proxy method for humans to view an event.

Donkey Oaty

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.

This is the crux of the matter - if you take God's infinite wisdom as a starting point, then the world is as he wills it, and he is cleverer than us.

Would it be fair to say, Defender OF Faith, that your view of things is entirely compatible with any sequence of events that happen to occur in the world, regardless of how tragic or unforeseen they are?

Terrlock

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes, primitive describes pre literate societies.

I far as I was aware it was the jews that wrote the bible, they wrote the old testament and then another jew started a new movement and his followers wrote the new testament.

The Jews consist of only one tribe of Israel whom came out of Egypt. Moses is said to have written the first 5 books of the torah. Was he a Jew?

ScumLord wrote: »

What scientific facts does the bible talk about? If you can provide any proof they knew about and could explain the things I mentioned I'd be delighted to hear it.

They knew the world was around, when every other culture didn't.

They knew the world floats in space, while other cultures thought it sat on the back of a turtle.

they knew that everything was made up of particles, indiscernible to our eyes(Atoms and such)

They knew the ideal dimension for ship stability thousands of years before the rest of the world.


They knew when dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water.

Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

They knew the oceans contains springs - We didn't know that until the 1970's

They knew that our bodies were made from Dust - Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

The list really goes on and on. These are not something a so called primitive people would know about.

Mesrine65

They knew how to spell knew :eek:

Arne_Saknussem

Terrlock wrote: »

The Jews consist of only one tribe of Israel whom came out of Egypt. Moses is said to have written the first 5 books of the torah. Was he a Jew?



They new the world was around, when every other culture didn't.

They new the world floats in space, while other cultures thought it sat on the back of a turtle.

they new that everything was made up of particles, indiscernible to our eyes(Atoms and such)

They new the ideal dimension for ship stability thousands of years before the rest of the world.


They new when dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water.

Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste.

They new the oceans contains springs - We didn't know that until the 1970's

They new that our bodies were made from Dust - Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

The list really goes on and on. These are not something a so called primitive people would know about.

Ah ok, Trolly Troll

Icepick

Well said

You are worshipping a sociopath.

danrua01

Terrlock wrote: »

The Jews consist of only one tribe of Israel whom came out of Egypt.

Sorry but I thought you said earlier that the word "Jew" only describes religion, not a race, peoples...? And you didn't answer my question!

Donkey Oaty

Mesrine65 wrote: »

They knew how to spell knew :eek:

But not in the biblical sense, boom-tish.

Terrlock

danrua01 wrote: »

Why force your religion on someone else?

I don't force anyone.

kunst nugget

K4t wrote: »

To be extreme is not necessarily a bad thing.

It is because it robs us of rationalism and pragmatism and encourages oppression.

floggg

ScumLord wrote: »

It played a role yes but many colonisations were just a change of management. Some lands were so used to being invaded that it was just a matter of them getting a new tax collector. It all depends on the era but in the early days I think the church was probably a much nicer, more open and less of a tool of power mongering and that their intentions and actions were pretty decent. The Catholic church wasn't really the Christianity that came to Ireland originally, we had our own pretty unique version that saw colleges and hospitals popping up and Ireland becoming known as the island of saints and scholars. Europe was in turmoil, there were never ending power struggles and a culture of violence. That wasn't the fault of the church, sure the church got involved but they were just a player rather than the instrumentors.

You can't really judge people back then by modern standards. It was a different society and what was considered normal was different.

Please do tell that to the indigenous peoples of the Carribean Islands.

Oh thats right, you can't. They are all dead.

(My hatred for missionaries can probably be attributed to Things Fall Apart. Poor Okonkwo).

K4t

kunst nugget wrote: »

It is because it robs of rationalism and pragmatism and encourages oppression.

No. And that is quite ironic considering my argument is in opposition to religious faith. To be extreme can also be seen as farthest from the ordinary or average, and that is not always a bad thing nor does it mean any of the things you mentioned. Most people in Ireland are Catholics or atheist, I would be deemed an antitheist. That could be viewed as extreme I suppose.

Terrlock

danrua01 wrote: »

What about what I posted earlier, about everything that's forbidden by the Bible, but that people don't follow? Yet gays can't get married.

Just going back through your posts are you referring to these Law in the OT?

There are some great things that are banned by the OT...:

- not being circumcised;
- breaking the Sabbath;
- being a town that believes in another god;
- eating anything that mixes meat and dairy;
- eating fat
- working on the Sabbath;
- being a stubborn, rebellious, and drunkard son;
- planting more than one kind of seed in a field;
- cutting the hair on the sides of our head;
- living in a city that failed to surrender to the israelites

let's not forget the NT disallows women from speaking in church.


If you read the NT especially acts you see that these Laws don't apply to the Gentiles.

Also Jesus refers to the circumcision of your heart not your flesh.



Also for Gays getting married?


Marriage is a blessing from God uniting Man and women as one.

That's its purpose. Scripture talks about towards end times there will be more and more people coming out as gay and this shows how fallen and corrupt man has become to even the extent as his own nature is corrupt.

God won't unite two men or women in marriage no matter how much anyone would want him too. There isn't much that I or anyone can do to persuade him otherwise I'd imagine.

floggg

Terrlock wrote: »

Sorry I'm not trying to be condescending, I genuinely will pray for him.

What is this bunch of fables that you talk about?

Where are these sky faires?

Also what primitive farmers are your referring too? How were they primitive?

What basic understanding of the earth and universe did they not have?


As for death, my flesh may die, however my soul and spirit will not.


I have everlasting life, do you?

If you need me to explain to you why farmers and shepherds who lived between 5000 - 2000 years ago, who believed the earth was flat and was orbited by the sun, and thought the sky was a dome which 'separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome' were primitive or lacked a basic understanding of the earth or the universe, then its really not Stephen Fry you should be praying for.

Terrlock

Mesrine65 wrote: »

They knew how to spell knew :eek:

Quite right they did. Thanks for that.

Arne_Saknussem

Terrlock wrote: »

Quite right they did. Thanks for that.

Does the Lord have a definite view on internet Trolls?

floggg

pueblo wrote: »

Ok, your sarcasm is noted.

I don't expect to 'explain' spirituality to anyone. The problem here is the word 'explain' which implies use of logic.

Unfortunately the only way to 'understand' spirituality is to experience it, using your spirit, not your mind.

I get your whole point, and in a way it makes sense.

But it still boils down to "woo, god/spirituality are mysterious and more complex than the puny human mind can handle so it doesn't make sense" - which is an answer that can be applied to any question we ask of god/religion.

It makes for terrible debate though, because you never have to provide any answer - just keep applying the same answer to everything.

Terrlock

floggg wrote: »

If you need me to explain to you why farmers and shepherds who lived between 5000 - 2000 years ago, who believed the earth was flat and was orbited by the sun, and thought the sky was a dome which 'separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome' were primitive or lacked a basic understanding of the earth or the universe, then its really not Stephen Fry you should be praying for.

They didn't believe the earth was flat, the believe it was a sphere and also was in space.

I would invite you to a bible study if you wish to understand that whole passage.

kunst nugget

K4t wrote: »

No. And that is quite ironic considering my argument is in opposition to religious faith. To be extreme can also be seen as farthest from the ordinary or average, and that is not always a bad thing nor does it mean any of the things you mentioned. Most people in Ireland are Catholics or atheist, I would be deemed an antitheist. That could be viewed as extreme I suppose.

I'll be honest in saying I can't tell where the irony is here. I'm an atheist and am critical of the practices of different religions and my desire is to live in a secular state. That doesn't mean I want to live in a state free of religion - that is oppressing people who are religious. People should have the right to believe in whatever religion they want as long as it doesn't interfere with people who are not part of that religion. If you want to live as antitheist, knock yourself out. Pragmatism comes from realising that we're all sharing this country or world and trying to some agreement that works for us all.

To be extreme when it comes to a sport or past time - fair enough. To be extreme in a theological or political sense - not so good.

Terrlock

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Ah ok, Trolly Troll

How is that trolling?

Donkey Oaty

If anyone wants to take spiritual guidance from some Arab lad who lived in the desert many centuries ago, I can recommend the poet Al-Ma'arri (973-1057), noted atheist.

Here's a sample:

What is religion?
A maid kept close that no eye may view her;
The price of her wedding gifts and dowry baffles the wooer.
Of all the goodly doctrine that I from the pulpit heard
My heart has never accepted so much as a single word.

Want to hear another? Yeah, you do...you do...

They all err—Moslems, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians:
Humanity follows two world-wide sects:
One, man intelligent without religion,
The second, religious without intellect.

He was in the news a while back - see paras 4, 5 and six of this Fisk report on Syria from The Independent in December 2013.

Terrlock

danrua01 wrote: »

Sorry but I thought you said earlier that the word "Jew" only describes religion, not a race, peoples...? And you didn't answer my question!

No I never said anything about religion, maybe it was some one else.

What question did I not answer?

K4t

kunst nugget wrote: »

It is because it robs us of rationalism and pragmatism and encourages oppression.

Also if you read my posts, instead of perhaps reading other's replies to them, you will know that I support a secular state, and that I actively oppose religious oppression. I do however extremely encourage the freedom to criticise and even hate the idea of religion and religious belief. That does not mean that I support the oppression of any person(s), especially not because of what they believe or how they practice that belief and so on, if that is what you mean by your sentence. Mostly I just want separation of church and state.

danrua01

Terrlock wrote: »

Just going back through your posts are you referring to these Law in the OT?

There are some great things that are banned by the OT...:

- not being circumcised;
- breaking the Sabbath;
- being a town that believes in another god;
- eating anything that mixes meat and dairy;
- eating fat
- working on the Sabbath;
- being a stubborn, rebellious, and drunkard son;
- planting more than one kind of seed in a field;
- cutting the hair on the sides of our head;
- living in a city that failed to surrender to the israelites

let's not forget the NT disallows women from speaking in church.


If you read the NT especially acts you see that these Laws don't apply to the Gentiles.

Also Jesus refers to the circumcision of your heart not your flesh.



Also for Gays getting married?


Marriage is a blessing from God uniting Man and women as one.

That's its purpose. Scripture talks about towards end times there will be more and more people coming out as gay and this shows how fallen and corrupt man has become to even the extent as his own nature is corrupt.

God won't unite two men or women in marriage no matter how much anyone would want him too. There isn't much that I or anyone can do to persuade him otherwise I'd imagine.

Not applicable. Convenient. Who do they apply to, then? And what about before it was specified in the NT?

You also said you weren't forcing your religion on anyone, but you will pray that Jesus makes that other poster believe...

jobbridge4life

K4t wrote: »

Also if you read my posts, instead of perhaps reading other's replies to them, you will know that I support a secular state, and that I actively oppose religious oppression. I do however extremely encourage the freedom to criticise and even hate the idea of religion and religious belief. That does not mean that I support the oppression of any person(s), especially not because of what they believe or how they practice that belief and so on, if that is what you mean by your sentence. Mostly I just want separation of church and state.

With respect your capacity to be 'moderate' in your extremism doesn't preclude the truthful application of Danrua's point to wider society and certainly doesn't nullify the inherent dangers of extremism.

floggg

TireeTerror wrote: »

Offence is a very personal thing. You should not allow yourself to be offended by the opinion of another.

The whole "you should respect what others believe" is nonsense, its pandering to the weak of mind. It is precisely this kind of sentimentality which is damaging to the advancement of society.

There is as much truth in the belief of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy as there ought to be in religion. The notion that a grown adult genuinely believes in Santa Claus would be ridiculed and people would consider them to have mental issues. Believing in an entirely man made fiction such as religion is just as insane.

I genuinely pity people who have wasted their short time on this planet devoting themselves to a cult like Christianity or every other form of the insipid bile contained in various bibles.

I imagine an alien species coming to earth and asking me to explain religion and all I would feel is shame and I could only explain it as the weakest part of humanity.

In reality, the human species is pretty vile and disgusting. Only yesterday I saw a news report on ISIS throwing a blindfolded man from a rooftop several stories from the ground. The victim did not die from the fall, however the baying crowd then stoned him to death. His crime? Well he was alleged to have been gay.

I think no further words need to be said to said to prove how vile all religion is.

That whole "offence is a personal thing"/don't let yourself be offended thing is nonsense.

If somebody comes up and whacks you over the head with a bat, nobody would say don't choose to be hurt by it.

However, while words don't cause physical pain, they can hurt all the same, whether you want to or not. So you can't really choose what does or does not offend you (though you can pick and choose your examples).

Would you tell a black person who was racially abused to get over himself and don't let himself be offended for example?


The issue isn't people choosing to be offended, its that people placing too much importance on some things in live, and not being able to separate criticism of something they choose to do/believe from criticism of them as a person.

kunst nugget

K4t wrote: »

Also if you read my posts, instead of perhaps reading other's replies to them, you will know that I support a secular state, and that I actively oppose religious oppression. I do however extremely encourage the freedom to criticise and even hate the idea of religion and religious belief. That does not mean that I support the oppression of any person(s), especially not because of what they believe or how they practice that belief and so on, if that is what you mean by your sentence. Mostly I just want separation of church and state.

I was reading your posts. I was merely pointing out why I think a statement like 'extremism isn't necessarily a bad thing' is completely wrong imo.

floggg

dark crystal wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't put any store in what The Bible says any more than I put any store in What the Qu'ran says or what Hans Christian Anderson says.

At least I've actually seen cygnets grow into graceful swans.

K4t

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'll be honest in saying I can't tell where the irony is here. I'm an atheist and am critical of the practices of different religions and my desire is to live in a secular state.

This was the irony I meant as I share your desire for a secular state.

That doesn't mean I want to live in a state free of religion

I do want this, not through oppression, but through reason and logic and education and enlightenment. But I'm rational and realistic enough to know that it will probably never happen, at least not in my lifetime. I do not wish to force it to happen through oppression like you seem to think.

- that is oppressing people who are religious.

As said, I am just as against religious oppression as you proclaim to be.

People should have the right to believe in whatever religion they want as long as it doesn't interfere with people who are not part of that religion. If you want to live as antitheist, knock yourself out. Pragmatism comes from realising that we're all sharing this country or world and trying to some agreement that works for us all.

Agreed.

To be extreme when it comes to a sport or past time - fair enough. To be extreme in a theological or political sense - not so good.

And I disagree with you here. Extreme views are sometimes the most sensible and humane views in a society where the dominant view is evil or draconian. It's just that we usually only associate extreme views with religious extremists or left or right wing politics extremists in the western world nowadays. The moderate view has become the norm, and that isn't always a good thing either.

Donkey Oaty

floggg wrote: »

At least I've actually seen cygnets grow into graceful swans.

Don't forget "The Emperor's New Clothes", which is really what all these religious discussions are about.

floggg

TireeTerror wrote: »

I think you should have a wee cup of tea and calm down.

I wonder what you would think if I decided to write a book extolling the glory of molesting innocent children. I would promise an eternity of joy and wonder for those who tampered with children and babies. I would call it my bible. I would threaten an eternity of suffering to those who did not follow my every word.

For those that did decide to follow this "bible", would you so generously afford them the respect to carry on with their beliefs?

An extreme example for sure, but I could provide hundreds if not tens of thousands of examples of vile barbaric actions by the Catholic Church over the years, and these things are ongoing.

When believers are so willing to turn away from the truth of religion, despite their leaders abusing children in this very country, and the elders then covering it up, I will not respect them, for they are weak and worthy of no respect.

EDIT: Actually believers in religion are not necessarily weak, I have been too harsh and too quick to judge. With more thought they are actually victims themselves and they require assistance to try and awaken them from a lifetime of brainwashing. Its unlikely to help though, the best bet is to loosen the shackles of religion in the schools and eventually with each passing generation, religion will die.

That is condescending drivel. There have been stronger, smarter believers than you or I will ever be. I don't share their beliefs, but it would be arrogant and ignorant to dismiss as weak or victims simply for believing.

If it works for them fine (I wont apologise for mocking people who insist on telling me they will pray for people who clearly couldn't give two ****s for their prayers).

It is rather stupid to make assumptions of anybody just because they have a different viewpoint or belief.

Also, child abuse really has no relevance to this argument. It doesn't prove or disprove anything about religion or god - only the men that claim to be believe in him.

floggg

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

The best way to test the existence of God is to pray for something entirely random that would not ordinarily happen in a sane universe and see if it is granted.

For example, recently I prayed for a giant statue of The Stig from Top Gear to appear in Warsaw and also for a UKIP MP to tweet an invitation to play a game of "Hello Kitty World".

Needless to say, neither of these things have come true, otherwise I would have heard about them - but if they do, I'll start believing.

Thats not how it works.

God answers your prayers - but only if they are for things which could otherwise happen in the ordinary course without divine intervention.

He is particularly good at answering prayers where the probability of the thing prayed for occuring is reasonably high - such as your sports team winning, passing the exam you worked hard enough to achieve a passing grade in, airplanes landing safely etc.

He will also answer prayer in relation to things which are less probable to occur, such as recover from certain illnesses, missing persons turning up ok etc, but the chances of him doing so decrease in line with the odds of said event occuring.

Generally speaking though, he refuses to answer prayers relating to things which are either impossible or extremely unlikely to occur - such as lightning bolts smiting your enemy (or any form of smiting really), saving innocent people from wars or genocides or Kildare winning an All Ireland.

It's not that he can't do those things, he's just thinks those sort of requests are taking the mick a little.

K4t

jobbridge4life wrote: »

With respect your capacity to be 'moderate' in your extremism doesn't preclude the truthful application of Danrua's point to wider society and certainly doesn't nullify the inherent dangers of extremism.

With respect, I am only an extremist in the sense that you as a moderate see me as one. To start throwing terms such as religious oppression at me shows only the warped mind of the moderate, as I simply advocate a secular state and the freedom to criticise and hate religion, as well as the freedom to encourage that way of thinking. And all of a sudden I'm in favour of the oppression of people for their religious beliefs. (which I state again I am not). Moderates cannot get their heads around the word hate, they are in fact extreme in the way they view the word, associating it only with their own way of thinking and terms such as hate speech and hate crime. Freedom of speech means freedom to hate and a lot of moderates simply do not understand this. And neither freedom means you have a right to impose or are in any way in favour of religious oppression.

Donkey Oaty

floggg wrote: »

Thats not how it works.

I'm a bit confused now, because I have been alerted to this and this.

Are you saying they would have happened anyway?

TireeTerror

floggg wrote: »

That is condescending drivel. There have been stronger, smarter believers than you or I will ever be. I don't share their beliefs, but it would be arrogant and ignorant to dismiss as weak or victims simply for believing.

If it works for them fine (I wont apologise for mocking people who insist on telling me they will pray for people who clearly couldn't give two ****s for their prayers).

It is rather stupid to make assumptions of anybody just because they have a different viewpoint or belief.

Also, child abuse really has no relevance to this argument. It doesn't prove or disprove anything about religion or god - only the men that claim to be believe in him.

Its actually an insult to the intelligence of all of mankind to try and make sense of religion.

I honestly do not even know why I am wasting my time discussing such a silly matter, religion is a fabricated steaming pile of dog turd that does not even stand against the slightest of reasoning.

For some reason it is acceptable to have places of worship where we indoctrinate people and brainwash them into believing in a complete and total fantasy.

The Vatican should be held accountable for its sins against humanity and all places of worship raised to the ground or converted into something that betters humanity. Any establishment that shelters and covers up murders, child molestation and many more heinous crimes ought to be disbanded.

Vile corrupt evil men praying upon society's weak and vulnerable. They have managed to become so ingrained into our society even more intelligent beings have succumbed to their con. It is all a lie and anyone saying otherwise is a weak victim and is delusional.

Donkey Oaty

TireeTerror wrote: »

It is all a lie and anyone saying otherwise is a weak victim and is delusional.

Or possibly avoiding the sack from their school or company, being demonised in their community or indeed a bullet in the head.

floggg

K4t wrote: »

No. And that is quite ironic considering my argument is in opposition to religious faith. To be extreme can also be seen as farthest from the ordinary or average, and that is not always a bad thing nor does it mean any of the things you mentioned. Most people in Ireland are Catholics or atheist, I would be deemed an antitheist. That could be viewed as extreme I suppose.

You seem to evidence of his point though. You have become extreme to the point of seeming intolerance as regards religion.

To crusade against religion is as bad as to crusade for it.

floggg

Terrlock wrote: »

Just going back through your posts are you referring to these Law in the OT?

There are some great things that are banned by the OT...:

- not being circumcised;
- breaking the Sabbath;
- being a town that believes in another god;
- eating anything that mixes meat and dairy;
- eating fat
- working on the Sabbath;
- being a stubborn, rebellious, and drunkard son;
- planting more than one kind of seed in a field;
- cutting the hair on the sides of our head;
- living in a city that failed to surrender to the israelites

let's not forget the NT disallows women from speaking in church.


If you read the NT especially acts you see that these Laws don't apply to the Gentiles.

Also Jesus refers to the circumcision of your heart not your flesh.



Also for Gays getting married?


Marriage is a blessing from God uniting Man and women as one.

That's its purpose. Scripture talks about towards end times there will be more and more people coming out as gay and this shows how fallen and corrupt man has become to even the extent as his own nature is corrupt.

God won't unite two men or women in marriage no matter how much anyone would want him too. There isn't much that I or anyone can do to persuade him otherwise I'd imagine.

I really wasn't sure whether that was sarcasm or not until I got to the anti-gay crap.

Don't worry, I don't want god marrying me. I plan to be married before a much higher authority - a HSE official.

K4t

floggg wrote: »

You seem to evidence of his point though. You have become extreme to the point of seeming intolerance as regards religion.

To crusade against religion is as bad as to crusade for it.

I didn't think you would fall into that trap, and it's interesting that you would use the word crusade knowing it's historical significance. Intolerance towards religion is the favourite line thrown at those who disagree with the idea of religion. And now it is thrown at me because I hate the idea of religion, and people are viewing the word hate as being too extreme. I am tolerant of religion insofar as I would never suppress such beliefs or encourage the suppression of those beliefs, just as I would not engage in or condone religious oppression. That is not to say I will not use my right to freedom of speech and expression to dismiss and show disdain for any and all religion.There is a difference, even if it is clouded by religious believers and moderates alike. I criticise the idea and the beliefs, not the people. Never the people. And we do have laws for people who physically harm others and I support those laws.
Nobody should ever be physically harmed or oppressed, especially not for what they believe in, be it religious beliefs or any other kind.