nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

cloud493

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

I don't agree with him. But it was a good answer. Fair play to him for his beliefs and what not.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

floggg wrote: »

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.

You will pay a lot more heavily if the church pulls all their property from use due to people pushing for the removal of teaching the catholic faith in schools. After all it would be ridiculous to if it wasn't taught in a catholic school owned by the church.

That's a lot of new schools that would have to be built....

floggg

Montallie wrote: »

That reminds me of the New Testament story where the disciples ask Jesus, 'Was it this man or his parents who sinned that he was born blind?' One tiny little mention of reincarnation that somehow got left in when the rest was removed.

What was JC's answer?

shruikan2553

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

You will pay a lot more heavily if the church pulls all their property from use due to people pushing for the removal of teaching the catholic faith in schools. After all it would be ridiculous to if it wasn't taught in a catholic school owned by the church.

That's a lot of new schools that would have to be built....

Doesnt the patron only pay 5-10% of the costs of land and buildings anyway?

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Well that is the problem, some people focus on the religious faith of the school, rather than the educational outcome.

It is the religions instruction that people object to - which doesn't add anything of (objective) value to the educational outcomes.

The State should also not fund schools which can fear people due to their sexual orientation, or even for having a child out of wedlock which I believe happened in the past, nor that teach people that homosexuality is wrong, women are inferior (mainly an issue for islamic schools I'd say) etc.

danrua01

My issue with the Catholic Church is the money spent on churches. Way too extravagant. You just need a normal building that people can come and worship in, the rest could be spent to help those in need. But I suppose everyone has some greed in them.

ScumLord

floggg wrote: »

This couldn't be further from the truth.

We already pay heavily through taxes for our education system.

While we do now the Christianity would have been instrumental in developing the education system in Ireland. Christianity did spark the initial drive to educate people on the island.

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

You will pay a lot more heavily if the church pulls all their property from use due to people pushing for the removal of teaching the catholic faith in schools. After all it would be ridiculous to if it wasn't taught in a catholic school owned by the church.

That's a lot of new schools that would have to be built....

That doesn't mean we shouldn't start building our own schools. We should gradually replace those Catholic schools. It doesn't make sense for a country to depend on a charity organisation (charity in that's how they get their daily income) to fund our schools. What if the Catholic church ran into funding problems and couldn't afford to contribute to our education system?

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

You will pay a lot more heavily if the church pulls all their property from use due to people pushing for the removal of teaching the catholic faith in schools. After all it would be ridiculous to if it wasn't taught in a catholic school owned by the church.

That's a lot of new schools that would have to be built....

Which are all paid for by the state anyway.
Do you think religious orders are paying for school construction out of their own pockets? Shure.

kunst nugget

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

You will pay a lot more heavily if the church pulls all their property from use due to people pushing for the removal of teaching the catholic faith in schools. After all it would be ridiculous to if it wasn't taught in a catholic school owned by the church.

That's a lot of new schools that would have to be built....

Considering most funding for school buildings and wages comes from the state, in a hypothetical situation if the Church pulled out of all schools, I'd imagine emergency legislation would be enacted to compulsorily purchase the land the schools were on.

Terrlock

danrua01 wrote: »

My issue with the Catholic Church is the money spent on churches. Way too extravagant. You just need a normal building that people can come and worship in, the rest could be spent to help those in need. But I suppose everyone has some greed in them.

As a Christian, the catholic church has many more issues then simply extravagant buildings.

Catholic Church != Christianity.

ScumLord

danrua01 wrote: »

My issue with the Catholic Church is the money spent on churches. Way too extravagant. You just need a normal building that people can come and worship in, the rest could be spent to help those in need. But I suppose everyone has some greed in them.

How the church wants to spend it's money is up to them. I'd be disappointed, in fact I am disappointed by the current lack of impressive churches. I can appreciate the buildings, they've been a driving force behind human architectural achievements over the past thousand years and there's been some stunning buildings created. To be fair religion has inspired people to create some of the greatest art in history.