Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
GldnRule you are missing quite a lot. Context.
Given that I'm British and I understand the context I will fill you in.
Gay Byrne and Stephen Fry are both well respected household names in the UK.
Gay Byrne has been a TV presenter in Ireland for 37 years. He is now onto his 10th series of 'The Meaning of Life' in which he asks all his guests the same question 'What would you say to god?"
Stephen Fry is a comedian, and also an actor. But he is perhaps is best known these days for hosting a long running comedy quiz show called 'QI' in which guests are asked mostly obscure questions that they are unlikely to know the answer to, but can get points for 'quite interesting answers'. I believe they are up to around series 12. Probably the main reason the show is so popular is because of the host, who is probably one of the most well-read people in Britain and is practically a walking encyclopedia.
You can view every QI show on You tube. I suggest you watch one at random and see if you still think Fry is a complete idiot.
Byrne's show is also entertainment. I doubt he would want every single guest he interviewed to give predictable answers. Wouldn't be very entertaining would it?
In fact I read Bynes write up in the Independent. He said this about one of his interviewees, Ian Paisley, an Irish unionist and religious leader:
This is Britain we are talking about here, not America. We have a long history of comedy and laughing at religion. It's called a having sense of humour. Fry answered in way that was in a similar vein to how he is on his own show ie the answer was 'Quite Interesting'.
Gldnrule I like you a lot. You are fun person to have on the forum but you predictably think of every single atheist the same. We are all complete idiots in your head. And I'm glad you used your usual 'moronic blowhole spew' to describe any given atheist. I wouldn't recognise you without it.
I know who Fry is...and what he has done for a living. I also know he himself has noted, and even expounded upon the fact, that he is mentally ill in a way that causes him to be unstable...even to the point of attempts to kill himself. While he may be very intelligent and knowledgeable about many diverse things...I'm sure that is still an underlying thing with him. I don't fault him at all for his illness...as a matter of fact, he has my sympathy on that...just noting that it is sure to influence him in many serious ways.
My opinion of Atheists isn't all "the same"...though I guess it could be said my view of Fundies (especially the "militant") is pretty much the same. So, my view of Militant Fundie Atheists is what it is.
One of the main problems in this world today is Fundies holding to the position that their viewpoint is the end all and be all...and anybody else holding a differing perception or perspective is worthy of at the very least insult, if not harm...even great harm to the level of brutal execution.
Fry knows full well how a great percentage of people in this world feel about their faith, their theological beliefs, and what they perceive as their connection to their Deity. But he sneers and insults and mocks anyway.
Of course we all know that anyone in the hypothetical scenario of being at the Pearly Gates, encountering God (it is the location of the "Pearly Pates" in the proposed scene that necessarily sets up what "God" is being encountered), and "discovering it's all true", that, regardless of what they ever thought up to that point, would ever be doing anything but confessing, repenting, worshiping, praying, and all that, so as to do everything they could to get into "heaven" and avoid being sent to "hell".
But Fry is so arrogant and flippant (like I said before, it could be a manifestation of his illness) that he claims that he would insult and mock God right to his face...which, of course, is preposterous, as well as completely idiotic. Though, it seems he has the good sense to not put forth his insults and mocks in any Muslim countries where he knows the Believers would deal with him. So, to claim he would insult God at the Pearly Gates (in any context) knowing the result would be eternal torment, is really over-the-top.
As I have said before...I'm hateful, toward hate...I am intolerant, of intolerance...I am biased, against bias.
Fundies like Fry are the poster children of those that are so arrogant that the deep beliefs and feelings of others mean less to them than whatever self satisfaction they get from spewing insults and mocking of the differing views and perceptions. They are no different than the religious Fundies that insult and mock those that don't see things the way they do.
Coincidentally...I was an Atheist for my entire adult life up until a few years ago. I didn't work to look for debates...but I responded in a rather militant way when I did debate with the religious. Actually, it was coming to this board that helped me find a new perspective on all that.
Its not the actual groveling part that's so tough. Its the knowing that I'd more than likely act out of cowardice; love for others and integrity be damned. When I left Christianity I realized that I had really had that mindset all along. Knowing that I would more than likely revert back to that mindset at the first whiff of sulfur is a discouraging and humiliating thing to accept about oneself.
I can tell that you are a cool person Pleroo...as are most on this board.
Something tells me you had courage, integrity, and a great love for others before...and still do. You just view it all from a different perspective.
The base philosophy of Christianity is as good as it gets: Love each other, and generally treat others the way you know that most would like to be treated. It is the texts used by the theology that have been twisted and perverted by evil men on a quest for power and wealth that at times paints a negative picture of the Deity figure used by that religion. If one can separate the pure from the dross...the story is not at all that of a badguy Deity...but of what one with a loving heart would hope a Godhead figure worth following would be. Many religious texts from a lot of theologies have suffered the same adulteration. It has been a tool of the evil and greedy for thousands of years...and unfortunately to great success. The Atheist platform has suffered similar twisting by those looking to cast a negative light on it so as to prop up their own view...but it is known the basis of that view is a good and positive vibe.
Do you consider anyone with strong opinions to be a "fundie"?
I have been called a "fundamentalist atheist." I found the term to be very bizzarre. There's no similarity at all between religious fundamentalism (which is based on blind adherence to a religious text or authority) and atheism (which is based on the lack of any real evidence for the existence of a deity).
Do you think the two things are similar? If so, why? Is it because some atheists are "outspoken" like many religious fundamentalists are?
I addressed these ideas in my previous post, but it is buried rather deeply now (page 5, post #49). I will just emphasize this: If God knows me and all of my thoughts and feelings, what is the point of lying to Him and pretending to love Him, etc.? Our feelings are what they are. We can't rationally choose to love someone if we don't love them, or respect them if we don't respect them. I can certainly choose to behave respectfully - and, if I felt like this would keep me from going to hell, I would probably choose to do so, but to actually say the words "I love you" to God, if I do not in fact love Him, is just to compound my sins. In addition to not loving God, I would also be telling Him a boldface lie! What could possibly be the wisdom in that? I really do believe that any God that could be even remotely worth respecting would be a God who would respect my honest statements, even if they expressed my displeasure with God.
I know you don't credit my experiences as evidence of anything, Gaylen . . . but if they are any indication the all-encompassing love and acceptance you will feel will make reciprocation a given. It is not an intellectual thing at all.
I know who Fry is...and what he has done for a living. I also know he himself has noted, and even expounded upon the fact, that he is mentally ill in a way that causes him to be unstable...even to the point of attempts to kill himself. While he may be very intelligent and knowledgeable about many diverse things...I'm sure that is still an underlying thing with him. I don't fault him at all for his illness...as a matter of fact, he has my sympathy on that...just noting that it is sure to influence him in many serious ways.
My opinion of Atheists isn't all "the same"...though I guess it could be said my view of Fundies (especially the "militant") is pretty much the same. So, my view of Militant Fundie Atheists is what it is.
One of the main problems in this world today is Fundies holding to the position that their viewpoint is the end all and be all...and anybody else holding a differing perception or perspective is worthy of at the very least insult, if not harm...even great harm to the level of brutal execution.
Fry knows full well how a great percentage of people in this world feel about their faith, their theological beliefs, and what they perceive as their connection to their Deity. But he sneers and insults and mocks anyway.
Of course we all know that anyone in the hypothetical scenario of being at the Pearly Gates, encountering God (it is the location of the "Pearly Pates" in the proposed scene that necessarily sets up what "God" is being encountered), and "discovering it's all true", that, regardless of what they ever thought up to that point, would ever be doing anything but confessing, repenting, worshiping, praying, and all that, so as to do everything they could to get into "heaven" and avoid being sent to "hell".
But Fry is so arrogant and flippant (like I said before, it could be a manifestation of his illness) that he claims that he would insult and mock God right to his face...which, of course, is preposterous, as well as completely idiotic. Though, it seems he has the good sense to not put forth his insults and mocks in any Muslim countries where he knows the Believers would deal with him. So, to claim he would insult God at the Pearly Gates (in any context) knowing the result would be eternal torment, is really over-the-top.
As I have said before...I'm hateful, toward hate...I am intolerant, of intolerance...I am biased, against bias.
Fundies like Fry are the poster children of those that are so arrogant that the deep beliefs and feelings of others mean less to them than whatever self satisfaction they get from spewing insults and mocking of the differing views and perceptions. They are no different than the religious Fundies that insult and mock those that don't see things the way they do.
Coincidentally...I was an Atheist for my entire adult life up until a few years ago. I didn't work to look for debates...but I responded in a rather militant way when I did debate with the religious. Actually, it was coming to this board that helped me find a new perspective on all that.
Ahh yes "arrogant". It's never long before that old chestnut gets wheeled out when we are talking about an atheist. As Byrne said: "Everybody says they believe in free speech until someone says something they don't like.". What you are saying Gldnrule is that there was only one correct answer that Stephen should have given ie the one you deem qualifies. We must take Byrne's fantasy question seriously and answer appropriately, nothing else will do. Screw the entertainment value or having an opinion, otherwise you are are a 'complete idiot'.
If as you say you are "hateful, toward hate...I am intolerant, of intolerance...I am biased, against bias" then perhaps you might like to spend a little time thinking about why Fry as a gay man might have an intolerance for religion.
I'm not going to go on about it. You have clearly made up your biased mind. But actually you don't know Fry at all. If you did you would not have the opinion of him you do. He is a humanist but also a humanitarian and has done more for a variety of causes than any of us could hope to achieve in 10 lifetimes.
He is an advocate that fought for education on HIV in Africa and at home, for gay rights and for endangered species. He has also been breathtakingly open about his bipolar disorder and actually changed the way people viewed this illness in the UK. His documentary "The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive" was groundbreaking in this respect. Before then very few people understood it or even knew the disorder existed.
Trying to say that his disorder has influenced his view on god or religion is well, ....how can I put this politely? I can't so I won't.
I'm not going to sit here and list his achievements, they are extensive and I'll be here all day, but you can read about them on Wikipedia. 'Complete idiot' is about as inaccurate a desription of anyone you could possibly have given, and only shows your bias against anyone who is an atheist.
I know who Fry is...and what he has done for a living. I also know he himself has noted, and even expounded upon the fact, that he is mentally ill in a way that causes him to be unstable...even to the point of attempts to kill himself. While he may be very intelligent and knowledgeable about many diverse things...I'm sure that is still an underlying thing with him. I don't fault him at all for his illness...as a matter of fact, he has my sympathy on that...just noting that it is sure to influence him in many serious ways.
My opinion of Atheists isn't all "the same"...though I guess it could be said my view of Fundies (especially the "militant") is pretty much the same. So, my view of Militant Fundie Atheists is what it is.
One of the main problems in this world today is Fundies holding to the position that their viewpoint is the end all and be all...and anybody else holding a differing perception or perspective is worthy of at the very least insult, if not harm...even great harm to the level of brutal execution.
Fry knows full well how a great percentage of people in this world feel about their faith, their theological beliefs, and what they perceive as their connection to their Deity. But he sneers and insults and mocks anyway.
Of course we all know that anyone in the hypothetical scenario of being at the Pearly Gates, encountering God (it is the location of the "Pearly Pates" in the proposed scene that necessarily sets up what "God" is being encountered), and "discovering it's all true", that, regardless of what they ever thought up to that point, would ever be doing anything but confessing, repenting, worshiping, praying, and all that, so as to do everything they could to get into "heaven" and avoid being sent to "hell".
But Fry is so arrogant and flippant (like I said before, it could be a manifestation of his illness) that he claims that he would insult and mock God right to his face...which, of course, is preposterous, as well as completely idiotic. Though, it seems he has the good sense to not put forth his insults and mocks in any Muslim countries where he knows the Believers would deal with him. So, to claim he would insult God at the Pearly Gates (in any context) knowing the result would be eternal torment, is really over-the-top.
As I have said before...I'm hateful, toward hate...I am intolerant, of intolerance...I am biased, against bias.
Fundies like Fry are the poster children of those that are so arrogant that the deep beliefs and feelings of others mean less to them than whatever self satisfaction they get from spewing insults and mocking of the differing views and perceptions. They are no different than the religious Fundies that insult and mock those that don't see things the way they do.
Coincidentally...I was an Atheist for my entire adult life up until a few years ago. I didn't work to look for debates...but I responded in a rather militant way when I did debate with the religious. Actually, it was coming to this board that helped me find a new perspective on all that.
Setting aside all the irrelevant stuff about the way people come across when they debate or discuss and the 'I used to be an atheist..like you..' ploy that used to be quite popular a decade ago, that Fry has mental health issues (I didn't know that) does not impinge on his extensive factual knowledge or his arguments, which are sound and valid, even if in the actual situation, we might not dare to put the point like that.
In your entire post, despite the rather specious disclaimer "I don't fault him at all for his illness...as a matter of fact, he has my sympathy on that.." You nevertheless, with your masterly trademark craftiness, manage to sneakily imply that mental instability is somehow reason to reject the substance of what he says. ".just noting that it is sure to influence him in many serious ways."
I didn't know you as an atheist, and only saw you as a poster with an increasingly baleful view of atheism. Unfortunately embracing some sort of Theist view has had its usual effect - blinding your ability to tell sound reasoning from faith -based wishful thinking, while at the same time increasing your levels of self -opinion and self -righteousness.
Your arguments have a number of other flaws. For a start, playing the 'respect' card. While Fry was going for it, would it have upset the religious any less if he had stated his case quietly and smiling? In siding with those who protest that they are offended, you are getting close to signing up to blasphemy laws. With some sly relish to how Muslims would deal with him should he have offended their belief.
Your bias against bias is misconceived. Even if it is directed equally at religious fundamentalist and atheist militant outspokenness (I have never noticed you posting on Christianity, now I come to think of it) you have lost your capacity to distinguish between sound arguments and unsound ones. The pretext of attacking bias is actually a blind.
You also fiddle the parameters of being up before God. "it is the location of the "Pearly Pates" in the proposed scene that necessarily sets up what "God" is being encountered), and "discovering it's all true", that, regardless of what they ever thought up to that point, would ever be doing anything but confessing, repenting, worshiping, praying, and all that, so as to do everything they could to get into "heaven" and avoid being sent to "hell"." Quite apart from fear of reprisals not invalidating what Fry said ('practical' is merely avoiding that aspect) it overlooks the question of (assuming the hellthreat) of being damned anyway and having nothing to lose. so why not put your hopes in one last chance to make God see what an asstube he is being.
And of course you ignored my argument that your point is over -literal when the argument is actually against the likelihood of any such god actually being feasible. And despite the 'pearly gates' scene setting scenario, the same argument applies to all creator - gods.
Additionally, you seem to make the error of supposing that you fooled us and we wouldn't see through these errors of reasoning, reiteration of refuted points and a general indulgence in biased ad hom.
So in addition to some blinkered thinking and craftiness, there is also some mendaciousness, old chum. I don't berate you at all for this faith based anti -atheist irrationality...as a matter of fact, you have my sympathy on that...I'm just noting that it is evidently influencing your ability to reason in many serious ways.
I know you don't credit my experiences as evidence of anything, Gaylen . . . but if they are any indication the all-encompassing love and acceptance you will feel will make reciprocation a given. It is not an intellectual thing at all.
I think you've gotten me confused with some of the others. I do accept subjective experience as evidence (whether my own or other peoples'). I just don't take it as necessarily being convincing evidence, unless it squares reasonably well with my own intuitions and/or a lot of other stuff that I would count as evidence. If, as you suggest, being in the presence of God guarantees that I will feel love for God, then obviously I could honestly say "I love you" and I would probably do so. I'm not going to attempt to fight my feelings of love, or pretend I don't have these feelings just out of sheer stubbornness or devotion to my self-image as being an atheist or agnostic. But, unless God automatically plants all of the answers into my brain, I am still gonna wanna ask those gosh darned questions (assuming, of course, that my basic personality, etc., are essentially unchanged - I'm still basically "me" in roughly my present sense of self-awareness).
Given the drastic sci-fi/fantasy types of assumptions involved in granting the scenario by which I could come face-to-face with God in the first place, it could be that, in any such scenario, I would be so utterly transformed by the experience - or the processes leading up to the experience - that I cannot, from my current vantage point, even remotely predict what I might think or feel in that circumstance, in which case this whole discussion is even more pointless than the infamous "angels on the head of a pin" debate.
If my personal transformation would be so profound that I can't predict what I'd do, then there's not much point in trying to predict what I'd do.
Given the drastic sci-fi/fantasy types of assumptions involved in granting the scenario by which I could come face-to-face with God in the first place, it could be that, in any such scenario, I would be so utterly transformed by the experience - or the processes leading up to the experience - that I cannot, from my current vantage point, even remotely predict what I might think or feel in that circumstance, in which case this whole discussion is even more pointless than the infamous "angels on the head of a pin" debate.
If my personal transformation would be so profound that I can't predict what I'd do, then there's not much point in trying to predict what I'd do.
I'd say that this post is without a doubt the most honest and reasonable one I've seen on this thread so far.
I know you don't credit my experiences as evidence of anything, Gaylen . . . but if they are any indication the all-encompassing love and acceptance you will feel will make reciprocation a given. It is not an intellectual thing at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I think you've gotten me confused with some of the others. I do accept subjective experience as evidence (whether my own or other peoples'). I just don't take it as necessarily being convincing evidence, unless it squares reasonably well with my own intuitions and/or a lot of other stuff that I would count as evidence. If, as you suggest, being in the presence of God guarantees that I will feel love for God, then obviously I could honestly say "I love you" and I would probably do so. I'm not going to attempt to fight my feelings of love, or pretend I don't have these feelings just out of sheer stubbornness or devotion to my self-image as being an atheist or agnostic. But, unless God automatically plants all of the answers into my brain, I am still gonna wanna ask those gosh darned questions (assuming, of course, that my basic personality, etc., are essentially unchanged - I'm still basically "me" in roughly my present sense of self-awareness).
Given the drastic sci-fi/fantasy types of assumptions involved in granting the scenario by which I could come face-to-face with God in the first place, it could be that, in any such scenario, I would be so utterly transformed by the experience - or the processes leading up to the experience - that I cannot, from my current vantage point, even remotely predict what I might think or feel in that circumstance, in which case this whole discussion is even more pointless than the infamous "angels on the head of a pin" debate.
If my personal transformation would be so profound that I can't predict what I'd do, then there's not much point in trying to predict what I'd do.
Sorry Gaylen . . . I undoubtedly did confuse you with the majority of my detractors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I'd say that this post is without a doubt the most honest and reasonable one I've seen on this thread so far.
I agree, Katz. Gaylen is uniquely open-minded and sincere in his quest to understand the subjectivity inherent in our reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
