Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 12:33PM

danrua01 wrote: »

I like how Terrlock backs up his information.

In the original Aramaic, Jesus clearly says "though shalt not have in vitro fertilization or genetically modified babies. And nuclear fusion is sinful.". They knew all about that stuff back then you see.

danrua01 · 04-02-2015 12:36PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In the original Aramaic, Jesus clearly says "though shalt not have in vitro fertilization or genetically modified babies. And nuclear fusion is sinful.". They knew all about that stuff back then you see.

That's true. I also remember him saying "I have shall give Hollywood producers all information regarding time dilation and black holes, specifically for Interstellar".

Terrlock · 04-02-2015 01:59PM

floggg wrote: »

The God of gods? You mean Zeus?

No I'm not talking about any so call God of Bal.

I'm talking about the one true God, whom through all things were created.

PopePalpatine · 04-02-2015 01:59PM

Terrlock wrote: »

No I'm not talking about any so call God of Bal.

I'm talking about the one true God, whom through all things were created.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 02:05PM

Terrlock wrote: »

No I'm not talking about any so call God of Bal.

I'm talking about the one true God, whom through all things were created.

It's my arse, isn't it? Well the sun shines out of it so that's close enough to Genesis for me.

jobbridge4life · 04-02-2015 02:15PM

Terrlock wrote: »

I'm talking about the one true God, whom through all things were created.

Ah cool that leaves us with literally millions to choose from.

Donkey Oaty · 04-02-2015 02:28PM

Terrlock wrote: »

No I'm not talking about any so call God of Bal.

I'm talking about the one true God, whom through all things were created.

Speaking of Ba'al, does everyone know that he was into GAA?

seamus · 04-02-2015 02:32PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In the original Aramaic, Jesus clearly says "though shalt not have in vitro fertilization or genetically modified babies. And nuclear fusion is sinful.". They knew all about that stuff back then you see.

No, no, it's not that. It's because the bible is so perfectly written that the information it contains is only revealed to humanity when they are sufficiently advanced to interpret it in that way.

Never mind the fact that a new interpretation may be the complete opposite of the original interpretation, or that the actual ideas seem to come about before they are found in the bible....one eh....cannot know the will of God, and so on.

K4t · 04-02-2015 02:42PM

Arguing with people like Terrlock is extremely stupid. You are repeatedly using reason and logic against an argument which requires the absence of both. You cannot reason with a person like that and rarely if ever will you change their mind through discourse, and if anything, by simply prolonging the argument, it only serves to strengthen their beliefs. They are exactly the people that should be left alone on a personal level as you are only encouraging their convictions concerning faith. That is why it is so important that the youth of the country is free from the indoctrination legally permitted being perpetrated by his kind in our schools. We as a society owe it to future generations to make our state a secular one. And that is why we must be vigorous and unrelenting in our strive for that state (absolutely not through religious oppression I must stress but through simply separating the church and state and making Ireland a truly secular state), even if moderates, atheists and religious believers alike see it as an extreme view.

kunst nugget · 04-02-2015 02:50PM

K4t wrote: »

And that is why we must be vigorous and unrelenting in our strive for that state (absolutely not through religious oppression I must stress but through simply separating the church and state and making Ireland a truly secular state), even if moderates, atheists and religious believers alike see it as an extreme view.

This isn't an extreme view. Why do you keep thinking it is?

danrua01 · 04-02-2015 02:53PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

This isn't an extreme view. Why do you keep thinking it is?

Because the meaning of that word to K4t is probably....inconceivable!

04-02-2015 02:56PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

:pac::D

Sure they are, hun.

84.2% to be precise.

K4t · 04-02-2015 03:04PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

This isn't an extreme view. Why do you keep thinking it is?

Firstly, that could easily be seen as an extreme view in Ireland where people actually influence and shape public debate as well as write legislation (the blasphemy law came in in 2009). Boards has a predominantly younger more liberal and atheistic user base.

Secondly, these have always been my views but because on a personal level I also hate the idea of religion and the Catholic church (for rational and logical reasons) I have been called extreme in my views. And therein lies the problem, the moderates are the problem, many of whom would identify themselves as atheists. Terrified of being labelled intolerant of religion and religious beliefs and so simply choose to both ignore the issue or cave in to its demands all too easily in an attempt to appear tolerant (when they already are entirely tolerant).

pueblo · 04-02-2015 03:04PM

floggg wrote: »

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.

Agreed it can be applied to any question you ask about God/spirtuality, but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

I also agree it makes for terrible debate!

pueblo · 04-02-2015 03:11PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It most certainly can. The interference pattern can be generated and stored and multiple people can view it at any later time. Did all these people therefore change the original reality of the interference pattern?
At heart it's no more complex than looking at a cylinder from the top and seeing a circle and then looking at it from the side and seeing a rectangle. The reality is constant despite the observation changing.
No spirit/ghost/beards required.

That is not what the results of the Double Slit experiment show, they show that reality seems to change depending on how it's being observed.

kunst nugget · 04-02-2015 03:23PM

K4t wrote: »

Firstly, that could easily be seen as an extreme view in Ireland where people actually influence and shape public debate as well as write legislation (the blasphemy law came in in 2009). Boards has a predominantly younger more liberal and atheistic user base.

Secondly, these have always been my views but because on a personal level I also hate the idea of religion and the Catholic church (for rational and logical reasons) I have been called extreme in my views. And therein lies the problem, the moderates are the problem, many of whom would identify themselves as atheists. Terrified of being labelled intolerant of religion and religious beliefs and so simply choose to both ignore the issue or cave in to its demands all too easily in an attempt to appear tolerant (when they already are entirely tolerant).

I'd suggest, for all your posturing about extremism, that your viewpoint is not that different to the moderates you dismiss. You proclaim loudly your hatred for religion but you still believe in freedom of religion which would be the pragmatic approach most rational people would take..

floggg · 04-02-2015 03:23PM

Terrlock wrote: »

No I'm not talking about any so call God of Bal.

I'm talking about the one true God, whom through all things were created.

Mbombo?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbombo

You really need to be more specific.

floggg · 04-02-2015 03:36PM

K4t wrote: »

Firstly, that could easily be seen as an extreme view in Ireland where people actually influence and shape public debate as well as write legislation (the blasphemy law came in in 2009). Boards has a predominantly younger more liberal and atheistic user base.

Secondly, these have always been my views but because on a personal level I also hate the idea of religion and the Catholic church (for rational and logical reasons) I have been called extreme in my views. And therein lies the problem, the moderates are the problem, many of whom would identify themselves as atheists. Terrified of being labelled intolerant of religion and religious beliefs and so simply choose to both ignore the issue or cave in to its demands all too easily in an attempt to appear tolerant (when they already are entirely tolerant).

"If your not with us your against us it seems."

This is the problrm with extremism. You become irrational and intolerant. Sure you don't want to go around bashing believers heads in, but when you start to label anybody who won't agree with your outlook as a problem, you're not that far removed.

Why would or should I seek out and challenge religious views?.

I know plenty of kind, decent and caring people of faith - my mother very much included. She knows I don't agree with her views but never aggressively pushed them on me even as a child, and respects my position and right not to have any beliefs.

Moreover, her faith provides Her with great personal comfort at various points in her life, usually at the hardest moments.

Why would I wish to challenge that or take it away from her or anybody else?

In ways, I sometimes envy the comfort and solace religious beliefs can provide. In times of bereavement for example, I wish I could convince myself that the deceased was in a better place or that I'd see them again. Hell, I wish that I could even be able to say it convincingly to their friends and family in the hopes it might provide them with comfort.

Also, I think labelling yourself as an antitheist is absurd. Why in the world would you seek to define yourself by what you are opposed to, rather than something you stand for or believe in. It is a warped outlook in my view.

At least the term secularist conveys something about how you wish the world to be, rather than what you wish to attack or destroy.

K4t · 04-02-2015 03:37PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'd suggest, for all your posturing about extremism, that your viewpoint is not that different to the moderates you dismiss. You proclaim loudly your hatred for religion but you still believe in freedom of religion which would be the pragmatic approach most rational people would take..

Indeed, we agree on a lot, but what we differ on is also the most important. It is everything. And it is why change and progress takes many years longer than it often could and should.

TireeTerror · 04-02-2015 03:40PM

I think the simplest solution is to place all religious material in the "Fiction" section of libraries and shops, or perhaps "Fantasy" would be even more realistic.

K4t · 04-02-2015 03:45PM

floggg wrote: »

"If your not with us your against us it seems."

This is the problrm with extremism. You become irrational and intolerant. Sure you don't want to go around bashing believers heads in, but when you start to label anybody who won't agree with your outlook as a problem, you're not that far removed.

Why would or should I seek out and challenge religious views?.

I know plenty of kind, decent and caring people of faith - my mother very much included. She knows I don't agree with her views but never aggressively pushed them on me even as a child, and respects my position and right not to have any beliefs.

Moreover, her faith provides Her with great personal comfort at various points in her life, usually at the hardest moments.

Why would I wish to challenge that or take it away from her or anybody else?

None of what you wrote has any relation to what I have said so I'm not sure why exactly you quoted me. And we can all add emotion to appear to strengthen our side of the argument. I hate religion and the religion of Islam for various reasons and I have no qualms about that. I do not hate Muslim people, in fact I am friendly with many Muslims. I do however 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.

Also, I think labelling yourself as an antitheist is absurd. Why in the world would you seek to define yourself by what you are opposed to, rather than something you stand for or believe in. It is unhealthy to see yourself e

That's my point when I argue for a secular state. What I am opposed to (i.e. religion) does influence and have control over this country in the form of the Catholic church. I would also be opposed to a dictatorship but it wouldn't define me or my own beliefs, I would simply be opposed to it because I don't think it is right, others might think it is.

TireeTerror · 04-02-2015 03:49PM

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 03:55PM

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

84.2% to be precise.

I'd hazard a guess 84.2% of the Irish population wouldn't fit in all the churches in Ireland every Sunday, so somebody's fibbing.

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 03:57PM

pueblo wrote: »

That is not what the results of the Double Slit experiment show, they show that reality seems to change depending on how it's being observed.

But as you've completely ignored, that observer could be a camera. Or a dog. You are now postulating that anything that can sense an interference pattern has a spirit. Which is daft really.

kunst nugget · 04-02-2015 03:58PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess 84.2% of the Irish population wouldn't fit in all the churches in Ireland every Sunday, so somebody's fibbing.

Most people would culturally define themselves as Catholic in this country even if they don't darken the door of a church besides funerals and weddings and don't actually practice the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Hence the high representation of the religion on the census.

K4t · 04-02-2015 04:03PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess 84.2% of the Irish population wouldn't fit in all the churches in Ireland every Sunday, so somebody's fibbing.

See, this is another major problem. Of course 84.2% of the population aren't Catholic, never mind devoutly so, but every time an atheist or an agnostic tick the Catholic box on a census or a job application or any form, it is a victory for the Catholic church and those who would see their influence on Irish society not only remain but return to a position of strength once more. The catholic fear and the shame and the guilt all still remain among Irish people, including those who do not attend mass every sunday. And it suits the religious conservatives down to a lower cased t.

floggg · 04-02-2015 04:09PM

pueblo wrote: »

Agreed it can be applied to any question you ask about God/spirtuality, but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

I also agree it makes for terrible debate!

The fact that argument can be applied to the numerous loopholes in every religion known to man doesn't make it more likely that there is a god either though.

It doesn't add anything to a debate, other than a get out of jail free card for those trying to argue for a god's existence.

It isn't too far removed from "you can't prove there isn't a god so there must be one" type arguments. No matter what re prove in relation to god (or his absence), it could be countered with your argument.

What that argument does do though is undermine any argument for the god of genesis.

According to genesis, we are made in god's image. If we have learned anything about reading the bible, and OT in particular, is that it should not be read literally - so presumably does mean that we were created to be similar in nature to God.

This account is therefore entirely inconsistent with any explanation of god which requires him to be of a nature which is unknowable or incomprehensible to man.

floggg · 04-02-2015 04:13PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess 84.2% of the Irish population wouldn't fit in all the churches in Ireland every Sunday, so somebody's fibbing.

I know at least one confirmed but reluctant atheist, who ticked catholic on the census form out of some weird sense of habit or tradition.

He doesn't believe in God whatsoever, but still likes to think of himself as catholic for some reason.

My father's beliefs would likely not be too far off that either - he admitted to me once that he doesn't believe in God, but still feels some sort of obligation to keep up the mass charade (at least on the religious holidays).

04-02-2015 04:19PM

Terrlock wrote: »

No I'm not talking about any so call God of Bal.

I'm talking about the one true God, whom through all things were created.

Odin?

danrua01 · 04-02-2015 04:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Odin?

Hey, I believe in God, man. I've seen him, I've felt his power. He plays drums for Led Zeppelin and his name is John Bonham, baby!

Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Comments