Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Shurimgreat

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You're still not getting Fry's point. You're trying to rationalise things from the point of view of the Christian religion rather than from God himself, who surely came before that religion. He can create whatever kind of universe he wants: why did he create this obstacle course of a universe that people had to negotiate before accessing the next world? Did he get bored lying around in eternal bliss and decide to devise the ultimate spectator sport? Why shouldn't God "hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it" if he has/had the capacity to do that, rather than make the 'vale of tears' we have been landed with?

I've discussed this before in detail. The idea there is a god up there who can manipulate everything down to the finest point to make the universe perfect is ridiculous. The first thing he'd do is stop people dying and make sure they'd live forever or something like that. He'd also have to make everyone's wishes come true. No-one would have any free will, we'd all be mere puppets of an all controllable god. Your car wouldn't start in the morning, well that's ok, God will be around in 10 minutes to fix it with a few jump leads. Bone cancer, no problem, god will cure that for you. Having problems with your manager at work, its cool, god will solve it by giving your manager a good talking to. Like I side infantile and ridiculous.

Vale of tears? Jesus, I'm sure your life isn't a vale of tears compared to elsewhere.

It never ceases to amaze me how a Russel Brand or Stephen Fry can say something on a Sunday and by a Monday some people think they have said something brilliant, when they haven't. I remember when Russel Brand was saying "don't vote", thousands of people, mainly in the UK were imitating his antics and parrotting what he had to say, without even bothering to think about it.

bodice ripper

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is Fry wasn't very intellectual. I mean it says in Genesis that it was Adam and Eve who brought death and evil into the world, not God.

You would think an intellectual would know this.

whaaaaha, you are actually serious.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Again based on this Fry doesn't seem to understand Christianity.

The flawless world is the next world, supposedly. Its the number one point about christianity.

Access to the "perfect flawless world" is conditional on good deeds in this world.

The whole point about christianity is to encourage people to do good and get a reward. Its not to hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it.

Fry again fails to make a distinction between the material world and the spiritual world.

As for Evil, it comes from the so called original sin of adam and eve, in other words there will always be evil in the world.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with christian thinking, I'm just highlighting crucial facts about it.

In any case I'm being harsh on Fry. Most of Gay Byrnes questions are light hearted and in jest. He knows full well Fry is an athiest and he knows full well he will get an entertaining answer.

How do you know any of this? You have insisted that god does not interact with this universe in any way. Maybe the voices are just, ya know, in your head?

indioblack

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is Fry wasn't very intellectual. I mean it says in Genesis that it was Adam and Eve who brought death and evil into the world, not God.

You would think an intellectual would know this.

And who brought Adam and Eve into the world?

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Scuse me for interupting but I don't buy this. There was poverty in India long before Mother Theresa. There was a caste system and there were untouchables. There was all kinds of misery there before she came along. There was no family planning much either, poor people cannot afford condoms, doctors, abortions or the Pill.

Blaming Mother Theresa for the problems of India is bizarre. The problems were endemic to Indian society and still are, relating to caste and poverty.

Could you have another shot at telling us where diseases come from, when apparently they are here to test us or something yet god didn't put them here?

Loafing Oaf

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I've discussed this before in detail. The idea there is a god up there who can manipulate everything down to the finest point to make the universe perfect is ridiculous.

I don't see how it's any more ridiculous than the idea of a creator God at all. If he's capable of creating a universe out of nothing why isn't he capable of creating a flawless one?

Dan_Solo

indioblack wrote: »

And who brought Adam and Eve into the world?

Didn't you get the memo? God gave us free will, so even though he is omniscient he doesn't know what we're going to do, except when he does which is why there's prophecies of what will happen when we are bad, and we don't really know any of this because he has never interacted in any way with our universe.
Got it now?

RobertKK

bodice ripper wrote: »

whaaaaha, you are actually serious.

Yes, if Fry was talking about the God in Genesis, which it seemed he was talking about.
I don't think you can talk about God and the God of Genesis but then totally ignore what it says.


It would be like talking about Harry Potter and saying she was a lovely girl in those books who liked to play with her barbie doll, and Voldemort was her fairy Godmother.

Totally ignoring what it says in the books and making it up to appear intelligent, when it is preaching to the ignorant who believe that.
You can't talk about some character in a book and then ignore what it says and simply make it up.

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, if Fry was talking about the God in Genesis, which it seemed he was talking about.
I don't think you can talk about God and the God of Genesis but then totally ignore what it says.


It would be like talking about Harry Potter

You can stop right there mate.

K4t

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Scuse me for interupting but I don't buy this. There was poverty in India long before Mother Theresa. There was a caste system and there were untouchables. There was all kinds of misery there before she came along. There was no family planning much either, poor people cannot afford condoms, doctors, abortions or the Pill.

Blaming Mother Theresa for the problems of India is bizarre. The problems were endemic to Indian society and still are, relating to caste and poverty.

I'll say this for Mother Theresa, I will give her the benefit of the doubt when I say that her heart was probably in the right place, even if her head was poisoned by religious doctrine.

Christopher Hitchens has already debunked the myth of Mother Theresa in his book devoted to her but if you want clarification you can at least do yourself the honour of reading this. (it will take no more than 5 mins)https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/a-new-expose-on-mother-teresa-shows-that-she-and-the-vatican-were-even-worse-than-we-thought/ It's an official press release by the Université de Montréal. concerning a soon to be released peer reviewed paper on Mother Theresa and her exploits in India.

I'll just leave this snippet from Hitchens too which fits in with the broader argument here: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” was Mother Theresa's reply to criticism, cites the journalist Christopher Hitchens. Nevertheless, when Mother Teresa required palliative care, she received it in a modern American hospital.”

RobertKK

indioblack wrote: »

And who brought Adam and Eve into the world?

God, who created them in his own image according to Genesis. It was Adam and Eve who brought sin into the world and with it death according to the old testament.

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is Fry wasn't very intellectual. I mean it says in Genesis that it was Adam and Eve who brought death and evil into the world, not God.

You would think an intellectual would know this.

Yeah, the Satan that he made tempted the woman that he made from the man he made.
Nothing to do with god at all. Hell, he didn't even know they were going to do it apparently because of the free will thing.

indioblack

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I've discussed this before in detail. The idea there is a god up there who can manipulate everything down to the finest point to make the universe perfect is ridiculous. The first thing he'd do is stop people dying and make sure they'd live forever or something like that. He'd also have to make everyone's wishes come true. No-one would have any free will, we'd all be mere puppets of an all controllable god. Your car wouldn't start in the morning, well that's ok, God will be around in 10 minutes to fix it with a few jump leads. Bone cancer, no problem, god will cure that for you. Having problems with your manager at work, its cool, god will solve it by giving your manager a good talking to. Like I side infantile and ridiculous.

Vale of tears? Jesus, I'm sure your life isn't a vale of tears compared to elsewhere.

It never ceases to amaze me how a Russel Brand or Stephen Fry can say something on a Sunday and by a Monday some people think they have said something brilliant, when they haven't. I remember when Russel Brand was saying "don't vote", thousands of people, mainly in the UK were imitating his antics and parrotting what he had to say, without even bothering to think about it.

Surely the standard Christian view of God is that he has the capability to do all these things.
I agree with you stating that if he ironed out all the errors and wrinkles of existence we would have, for example, no free will.
Indeed, I think that if God micro-managed the world to erase all errors we would probably not exist.
But the belief that he can implies, [for me], at least an indirect responsibility for these errors.

RobertKK

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You can stop right there mate.

Yes, making stuff up to appear intellectual said in the right voice can fool a lot of people.

...and the gullible go...
'Oh listen to that voice, it is Stephen Fry, oh he is so intelligent, he must be right.

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

God, who created them in his own image according to Genesis. It was Adam and Eve who brought sin into the world and with it death according to the old testament.

So if you make something you have no responsibility for its actions? Why didn't he just eff off then and leave us alone afterwards? He came back a few more times to (collectively) punish mankind for exercising the free will he gave them.
Sounds like a bit of a cnut TBH.

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, making stuff up to appear intellectual said in the right voice can fool a lot of people.

...and the gullible go...
'Oh listen to that voice, it is Stephen Fry, oh he is so intelligent, he must be right.

Priests are pretty good public speakers. I see what you mean.

Loafing Oaf

indioblack wrote: »

Indeed, I think that if God micro-managed the world to erase all errors we would probably not exist.

This is really the heart of the matter for me. All 'evil' as we understand it ultimately comes down to various forms of pain suffered by humans and other living creatures. So if you're God why create life at all, why not just have a universe made up stars, comets, black holes etc...

indioblack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Didn't you get the memo? God gave us free will, so even though he is omniscient he doesn't know what we're going to do, except when he does which is why there's prophecies of what will happen when we are bad, and we don't really know any of this because he has never interacted in any way with our universe.
Got it now?

"He doesn't know what we're going to do, except when he does..."
I don't know if God has ever interacted in any way with our universe or not.
I may think or believe that he has or has not.

K4t

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

This is really the heart of the matter for me. All 'evil' as we understand it ultimately comes down to various forms of pain suffered by humans and other living creatures. So if you're God why create life at all, why not just have a universe made up stars, comets, black holes etc...

He was bored and couldn't afford Netflix.

Shurimgreat

K4t wrote: »

I'll say this for Mother Theresa, I will give her the benefit of the doubt when I say that her heart was probably in the right place, even if her head was poisoned by religious doctrine.

Christopher Hitchens has already debunked the myth of Mother Theresa in his book devoted to her but if you want clarification you can at least do yourself the honour of reading this. (it will take no more than 5 mins) It's an official press release by the Université de Montréal. concerning a soon to be released peer reviewed paper on Mother Theresa and her exploits in India.

I'll just leave this snippet from Hitchens too which fits in with the broader argument here: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” was Mother Theresa's reply to criticism, cites the journalist Christopher Hitchens. Nevertheless, when Mother Teresa required palliative care, she received it in a modern American hospital.”

No-one gave a cr*p about the people Mother Theresa dealt with. Not here, not there, not anywhere. The idea that Hitchens had more to give these people than Mother Theresa is laughable, he didn't. He didn't care about them, until he needed to sell a book and then he "cares".

Rich (western) people do need poor people to make them enjoy and value their lives more, no doubt about that. 99% of westerners care very little about the suffering in the third world, it hardly registers with them mostly and in some cases they are directly responsible for that misery - trade in coltan, diamonds, gold, arms, etc.

Hitchens, Fry, etc are/were rich westerners who view all the solution to the worlds problems throught rich westerner eyes.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How do you know any of this? You have insisted that god does not interact with this universe in any way. Maybe the voices are just, ya know, in your head?

Do you understand the difference between spiritual and material?

Let me help you a bit. Try to imagine god as dark matter, all around but you can't see it or even touch it, invisible and yet present.

Can he play table tenis? Can he stop a runway train? Can he grab an airplane out of the air and make it land on a runway? no he can't. That's not how omnipotence in a god sense generally works. He's handsoff. He lets you make your own mistakes. He's not going to save your a*s next time you make a mistake driving.

Your posts are increasingly immature. You seem to be holding out for a comic book superhero, not a conventional god. Please tell us you want the comic book hero version and we can both save ourselves the effort of continuing to discuss this.

indioblack

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between spiritual and material?

Let me help you a bit. Try to imagine god as dark matter, all around but you can't see it or even touch it, invisible and yet present.

Can he play table tenis? Can he stop a runway train? Can he grab an airplane out of the air and make it land on a runway? no he can't. That's not how omnipotence in a god sense generally works. He's handsoff. He lets you make your own mistakes. He's not going to save your a*s next time you make a mistake driving.

Your posts are increasingly immature. You seem to be holding out for a comic book superhero, not a conventional god. Please tell us you want the comic book hero version and we can both save ourselves the effort of continuing to discuss this.

The comic-book superhero is the version most people think of.
As long as this "conventional" God is presented to people, there will be some who offer objection - usually on the grounds of illogicality.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between spiritual and material?

Let me help you a bit. Try to imagine god as dark matter, all around but you can't see it or even touch it, invisible and yet present.

More utter hogwash. Theists think they can just grab any scientific theory that hasn't been fully explained yet and say "god's like that". A few thousand years ago you'd be saying "try to imagine god as fire".
Now, you STILL haven't explained how you know all this about got when he doesn't interact in any way with our universe.
Want another shot or just ignore because it's too tough again?

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Your posts are increasingly immature. You seem to be holding out for a comic book superhero, not a conventional god. Please tell us you want the comic book hero version and we can both save ourselves the effort of continuing to discuss this.

Please tell us anything at all about your god and how you know this so we can tell that you aren't just making up ****.

Dan_Solo

indioblack wrote: »

The comic-book superhero is the version most people think of.
As long as this "conventional" God is presented to people, there will be some who offer objection - usually on the grounds of illogicality.

No wait, we have this new god that doesn't do anything and we have no idea about him at all. Something we don't and can't know that does nothing... gee, most people would just call that "nothing" but that's what god is these days it seems1

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Please tell us anything at all about your god and how you know this so we can tell that you aren't just making up ****.

I am going to assume you want the comic book superhero who intervenes when his great plan goes awry or when a runaway train full of orphans threathens to crash, he will intervene to stop it happening. Or will zap eye worms, stop wars and punish pickpockets. If so, I'm done with you.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between spiritual and material?

Yes, one is delusional and the other is real. I think you don't understand this difference.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No wait, we have this new god that doesn't do anything and we have no idea about him at all. Something we don't and can't know that does nothing... gee, most people would just call that "nothing" but that's what god is these days it seems1

Seriously how old are you? And how many comic books do you own?

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I am going to assume you want the comic book superhero who intervenes when his great plan goes awry or when a runaway train full of orphans threathens to crash, he will intervene to stop it happening. Or will zap eye worms, stop wars and punish pickpockets. If so, I'm done with you.

Assume any **** you want, that's why you're a theist after all.
I asked you for any evidence whatsoever of this god which you insist doesn't interact with our universe. You can't.

Shurimgreat

indioblack wrote: »

The comic-book superhero is the version most people think of.
As long as this "conventional" God is presented to people, there will be some who offer objection - usually on the grounds of illogicality.

Like Dan Solo for a start!

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Seriously how old are you? And how many comic books do you own?

Can't answer the question? Try some insults and that'll convince people you aren't just talking ****e!

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Assume any **** you want, that's why you're a theist after all.
I asked you for any evidence whatsoever of this god which you insist doesn't interact with our universe. You can't.

Where did I say I was a theist? Where did I say he was my god. And did you miss the part where I said I was pointing out cornerstones of christianity, not condoning them. I'm laughing here at the irrationality of most of your posts.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Like Dan Solo for a start!

Oh, big man. Still can't answer the question so likes to lash out a bit.
You've got nothing. Your anger is pitiful.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Can't answer the question? Try some insults and that'll convince people you aren't just talking ****e!

And on that note, you're on ignore because I can't be dealing with your childishness.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Where did I say I was a theist? Where did I say he was my god. And did you miss the part where I said I was pointing out cornerstones of christianity, not condoning them. I'm laughing here at the irrationality of most of your posts.

You stopped talking about Christianity and waffled on into your crap about spirituality a looong time ago. Suggestion: Maybe people are just too smart for you to try to lie to them like that?

K4t

Shurimgreat wrote: »

No-one gave a cr*p about the people Mother Theresa dealt with. Not here, not there, not anywhere. The idea that Hitchens had more to give these people than Mother Theresa is laughable, he didn't. He didn't care about them, until he needed to sell a book and then he "cares".

Rich (western) people do need poor people to make them enjoy and value their lives more, no doubt about that. 99% of westerners care very little about the suffering in the third world, it hardly registers with them mostly and in some cases they are directly responsible for that misery - trade in coltan, diamonds, gold, arms, etc.

Hitchens, Fry, etc are/were rich westerners who view all the solution to the worlds problems throught rich westerner eyes.

I understand and would agree with a lot of what you say there (except for Hitchen's intentions which were I believe solely to investigate and uncover the truth and obtain and relate factual evidence - another reason I believe this is that his book would almost definitely have been threatened with libel action had it been untrue. And as well as that this new research paper seems to support Hitchen's viewpoint with further evidence.)

Concerning Mother Theresa, while her intentions may have been noble, the answer was not to inflict extra needless pain and suffering on people, no matter how badly off they already were. And Mother Theresa is guilty of that no matter what argument you use to the contrary. The new research paper which supports this argument is peer reviewed and written by academics who have investigated all aspects of her work in India, and by the press release it obviously favours and corroborates Hitchen's view.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

And on that note, you're on ignore because I can't be dealing with your childishness.

You can't answer a question so you put me on ignore... wow, that'll convince everybody you could answer the question, won't it? Laughable.

Loafing Oaf

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I am going to assume you want the comic book superhero who intervenes when his great plan goes awry or when a runaway train full of orphans threathens to crash, he will intervene to stop it happening. Or will zap eye worms, stop wars and punish pickpockets. If so, I'm done with you.

No we (well I and Fry) are asking why he doesn't create a universe where these things can't and don't happen. I think it's instructive that RobertKK ultimately falls back on Adam and Eve for answer to this question: it seems to me you have believe in Eden or something like it for the Christian 'explanation' for the problem of evil to make any sense.

indioblack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No wait, we have this new god that doesn't do anything and we have no idea about him at all. Something we don't and can't know that does nothing... gee, most people would just call that "nothing" but that's what god is these days it seems1

And yet it might be closer to reality - though I take your point about the possibility of it being thought of as nothing.
I'm getting the hang of your sarcasm now - it went over my head the first time round!
Again, most people are given the one view of God - the God most Christians were raised on.
I find that when people raise objections to this perspective of God the usual response is to change the original description.
I wouldn't mind, but all the main religions, and some of the small sects too, keep that original description.

Dan_Solo

indioblack wrote: »

And yet it might be closer to reality - though I take your point about the possibility of it being thought of as nothing.
I'm getting the hang of your sarcasm now - it went over my head the first time round!
Again, most people are given the one view of God - the God most Christians were raised on.
I find that when people raise objections to this perspective of God the usual response is to change the original description.
I wouldn't mind, but all the main religions, and some of the small sects too, keep that original description.

How can a religion possibly be based on a god where the followers consider that god has never interacted with our universe in any way? How would we know about him? Why would be bother praying to him? How can anybody say what this god considers good or bad?
Even most religions aren't that stupid.

Shurimgreat

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

No we (well I and Fry) are asking why he doesn't create a universe where these things can't and don't happen. I think it's instructive that RobertKK ultimately falls back on Adam and Eve for answer to this question: it seems to me you have believe in Eden or something like it for the Christian 'explanation' for the problem of evil to make any sense.

Of all the explanations for the existance or not of God, or a benign God even, the argument as to why he hasn't created a perfect universe is without question the weakest. There are litterly thousands of books dealing with the question and you'd want to read at least some of them to be in a position to answer the question.

In short, if god created you, you should be thankful he created you in the first place. However, some people aren't happy enough they have been created, they want a perfect existance, they want a job and a car and a house and this and that, and an ideal world, and everyone to be perfectly happy, and no-one should be depressed, no suicide, poverty, and so on.

You can't please some people! Like I said, typical spoiled westerners, I want it all and if I don't get it, I will be very very upset!

indioblack

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Like Dan Solo for a start!

And yet this other view of god - the universe as god - as presented by a poster earlier - may gel more with our experience of existence.

indioblack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How can a religion possibly be based on a god where the followers consider that god has never interacted with our universe in any way? How would we know about him? Why would be bother praying to him? How can anybody say what this god considers good or bad?
Even most religions aren't that stupid.

Indeed. If that version of god has were true it would put established religions out of business!
If there is anything beyond the material it has to be more than conventional beliefs offer.

bodice ripper

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, if Fry was talking about the God in Genesis, which it seemed he was talking about.
I don't think you can talk about God and the God of Genesis but then totally ignore what it says.


It would be like talking about Harry Potter and saying she was a lovely girl in those books who liked to play with her barbie doll, and Voldemort was her fairy Godmother.

Totally ignoring what it says in the books and making it up to appear intelligent, when it is preaching to the ignorant who believe that.
You can't talk about some character in a book and then ignore what it says and simply make it up.

What? Surely the idea of an all powerful god who creates flawed beings, and then throws a strop when their behaviour is flawed is ridiculous, and if true would mean we were created by an irrational and very suspiciously human bully.

Saying "look, it says in Genesis that it is our fault" rather misses the point.

Shurimgreat

Well what sort of god would it be if he for example wished the eye worms out of existance? Someone else would be saying, that was really mean!

You see what happens when you start playing god! You think you are doing the right thing but then you annoy someone else! Probably can see now why he wouldn't intervene. When you fix one thing you end up breaking something else. You solve one problem and create another.

indioblack

bodice ripper wrote: »

What? Surely the idea of an all powerful god who creates flawed beings, and then throws a strop when their behaviour is flawed is ridiculous, and if true would mean we were created by an irrational and very suspiciously human bully.

Quite so.
And because we live in a very real world - and because I have to work in a very dull factory in the morning - I'm off to bed!

Shrap

bodice ripper wrote: »

What? Surely the idea of an all powerful god who creates flawed beings, and then throws a strop when their behaviour is flawed is ridiculous, and if true would mean we were created by an irrational and very suspiciously human bully.

Saying "look, it says in Genesis that it is our fault" rather misses the point.

Haven't read the thread, but I'm assuming someone has posted this pre-Christian philosopher? If not, FFS it's all that needs saying on the subject.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

K4t

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Of all the explanations for the existance or not of God, or a benign God even, the argument as to why he hasn't created a perfect universe is without question the weakest. There are litterly thousands of books dealing with the question and you'd want to read at least some of them to be in a position to answer the question.

In short, if god created you, you should be thankful he created you in the first place. However, some people aren't happy enough they have been created, they want a perfect existance, they want a job and a car and a house and this and that, and an ideal world, and everyone to be perfectly happy, and no-one should be depressed, no suicide, poverty, and so on.

You can't please some people!

That's fair enough, you're entitled to your beliefs. But why are you so certain that your beliefs are in fact correct? I could reference books that say your religious beliefs are full of nonsense and cause more pain and suffering in the name of those beliefs than good. But I still don't maintain that my beliefs concerning religion are more important or hold greater significance than yours, and I wouldn't want my beliefs being exclusively taught in schools, and I wouldn't want them strongly influencing state legislation. Why do so many people with religious beliefs want those beliefs to be taught to children in state funded schools as correct and right beliefs? Why can't religious people be happy to hold their beliefs, practice them, and share them to their heart's content; why instead do religious believers oppose the equal teaching of other beliefs and oppose the separation of church and state in favour of a secular state, where all beliefs concerning religion will be equal under the law. Why is it so hard for religious people to not attempt to enforce their beliefs on others? And before the accusation is labelled against atheists forcing their beliefs on people, I'm arguing for a secular state, where all beliefs are treated equally in state schools and under law., where my belief is explicitly not forced upon others any more than religious beliefs.

bodice ripper

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Well what sort of god would it be if he for example wished the eye worms out of existance? Someone else would be saying, that was really mean!

You see what happens when you start playing god! You think you are doing the right thing but then you annoy someone else! Probably can see now why he wouldn't intervene. When you fix one thing you end up breaking something else. You solve one problem and create another.

A merciful god wouldn't have made the worms in the first place.

K4t

Shrap wrote: »

Haven't read the thread, but I'm assuming someone has posted this pre-Christian philosopher? If not, FFS it's all that needs saying on the subject.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

Don't worry, you'll get a far from convincing rebuttal.

I think the debate here is not so much whether the posters of faith actually truly believe much of what they are writing about Christianity or God, but that they are so convinced by the idea of it, and so entrenched in the defence of that idea, that they simply cannot conceive of allowing themselves to be told any different. You can throw all the logic and reason in the world at them, and some of it might stick, but it will never sink in. We're not arguing with fundamentalists here, but make no mistake these people are seriously conditioned to believe what they do, for god knows how many years, and how many sermons, and from presumably a very young age. That is why these arguments, are as another poster said, always the same, the same arguments repeated time and again, and nothing ever changes. And that is exactly why we owe it to our children to spare them from the indoctrination of religion and the catholic church in this country through the gradual implementation of a truly secular state. Many kids in state funded catholic schools in this country are baptised, have confessed, done communion and confirmation before they've even heard of other religions or their existence, never mind atheism. This is a crime imo, a crime against those who the church all too often attempts to use as a defence in debates on issues such as abortion and most recently same sex marriage, it is a crime against our own children, a crime against their minds.