sbsquarepants wrote: » Well that's true I suppose - no one wants a stay in the auld fiery gulag!
sbsquarepants wrote: » The sort of place an ever loving omnipotent being could easily create you mean?
sbsquarepants wrote: » I just don't get the adoration at all [...]
Nikki Sixx wrote: » People who have died and come back
Nikki Sixx wrote: » For me the seasons and the way nature moves in cycles is fascinating. I find it too hard to believe that say the seasons, the way animals hibernate each year and the dependence of flowers on honey bees to complete their life cycle, is all an accident. But I’m sure I’ll be regarded as simple for saying that.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » There are no atheists in foxholes.
Nobelium wrote: » I like Fry, but could never work out the illogicality of being so angry with something you claim you don't believes exists.
robindch wrote: » Gay Byrne posed a hypothetical and Fry replied with clarity and some wit to the question, pointing out, completely accurately, that many religious claim that their deity is in some sense, all-loving, and that this claim is demonstrably untrue. But rather than honestly accepting this and honestly replying to it, the vast majority of religious people prefer instead to ignore that it is false and simply carry on making the claim. Public dishonesty should be a matter of shame for the people concerned, but for some reason - and I believe it annoys most non-religious people and is probably what annoys Fry here - religion is simply given a free pass and the dishonesty is simply hand-waved away.
robindch wrote: » Fry replied with clarity and some wit to the question, pointing out, completely accurately, that many religious claim that their deity is in some sense, all-loving, and that this claim is demonstrably untrue.
Nobelium wrote: » I get all this, but instead Fry's reaction wasn't to complain about some of the illogical claims of some believers/religions, but instead a full on emotional and angry rant at an entity he claims he doesn't believe even exists. Not very convincing of non belief. I'd be more like "meh . . so what else it true . . .and not true"
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
magicbastarder wrote: » i have found that one of the better 'god doesn't have your best interests at heart' arguments - albeit a sarcastic one - is that when he sent his one and only son to save Man, his son didn't suggest anything along the lines of 'hey guys, you really should wash your hands after you have a ****, and boil your water before drinking it'. poor ould jesus seemed to have been restricted to passing on advice which was already known at the time, which was weird considering he was a god.
smacl wrote: » He was replying in the context of Byrne's hypothetical scenario where God did exist.
Nobelium wrote: » I know, I said that in the post, but I can't see how I could work myself up into a frenzy about hypothetically meeting something that I believe doesn't even exist and then giving this thing I don't believe exists an emotional and angry telling off.
smacl wrote: » The point wasn't what he believed or not though, it was an illustration that the notion of a loving Christian God is baloney. What he left on the table was either a god that doesn't exist or a god that was indifferent at best to the interests of humanity. If you accept that, it clearly tells us that Christianity is more about power than love.
Nobelium wrote: » Yeah but ranting at a so called God that is indifferent at best to the interests of humanity isn't actual atheism. ...
According to Juvaini, after Genghis Khan took Bukhara "he contented himself with looting and slaughter only once and did not go to the extreme of a general massacre" as he did in Khorasan, although most of the city burned. He chose a moderate path between mercy and punishment because the population readily submitted while the garrison in the citadel resisted.
victor8600 wrote: » So a merciful God may flood the whole known world, drowning everybody. But It is merciful, so selected people are allowed to live. :pac:
victor8600 wrote: » True. Also a 'merciful' God could still be a complete monster. Genghis Khan could be called 'merciful' during the siege of Bukhara: So a merciful God may flood the whole known world, drowning everybody. But It is merciful, so selected people are allowed to live. :pac:
dogbert27 wrote: » Why stop at God? How do you convince people heaven exists? How do you convince people hell exists? How do you convince people purgatory exists? How do you convince people the devil exists, angels, demons, etc.? A universal law is the conservation of energy, energy cannot be created nor destroyed but converted from one form to another so do we truly die or change to a different form of energy?
kneemos wrote: » According to the science boffins there are ten or eleven dimensions. Could be a perfectly simple scientific explanation for our consciences to leak into another dimension.
Deleted User wrote: » Yeah, but he did it because people were idiots..
igCorcaigh wrote: » Metabolised by bugs, but a fair bit of energy is dissipated by heat. Of course, the question of consciousness extending beyond the body is tied in with panpsychism, which could be argued to some extent. There are still open questions.
smacl wrote: » Deleted User wrote: » Yeah, but he did it because people were idiots.. Perfectly reasonable excuse for genocide I'm sure. Killing people that you made because you made them too stupid. Of course being omniscient he obviously knew he'd made them too stupid in advance and was going to slaughter them. All in a days work for a merciful lord no doubt.
Deleted User wrote: » It was because they were too loud.. Understandable..
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/43d5d8eb6f74f970975eb821385072d4.svg)
