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.
Christian God will see Christians but not Muslims or other non-Christians; Muslim Allah will see Muslims but not Christians or other non-Muslims ... it's a good thing it works that way, isn't it? Or as a Christian, do you think Allah will shake your hand in your afterlife? "Did you believe me in your life? And guess what I'm gonna do to you now?"
Atheists do not have a god as far as I know.
If that's how things work, that brought up a good question: do you want to see 'a god', or do you want to see no god in your afterlife?
Christian God will see Christians but not Muslims or other non-Christians; Muslim Allah will see Muslims but not Christians or other non-Muslims ... it's a good thing it works that way, isn't it? Or as a Christian, do you think Allah will shake your hand in your afterlife? "Did you believe me in your life? And guess what I'm gonna do to you now?"
Atheists do not have a god as far as I know.
If that's how things work, that brought up a good question: do you want to see 'a god', or do you want to see no god in your afterlife?
Nice idea - we all get the afterlife we believed in.
I'm not assuming anything. The hypothetical situation calls for Steve Fry to "walk up to the pearly gates and be confronted by God". I didn't create the scenario...I just read the link.
If Fry is at "the pearly gates" then, from everything I have ever known of what is taught about that, Pearly gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, if you don't make it through, "hell" is a given.
Maybe I'm wrong...but that is how I've always understood it. Correct me if you know it to be different.
I don't believe for one second that Fry (or anyone else) would voluntarily choose to be tormented in pain beyond anything ever imagined by anyone for all of eternity just for the satisfaction of telling God off. If, given that situation, he really would do that...then he is every bit, actually infinitely beyond, how much of an idiot I could ever think he is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I'm not in any way religious...and I never have been.
Also, given the way I have lived my life, compared to what I am aware of to be "the rules" for making it through "The Pearly Gates"...I already know I sure as heck wouldn't make it.
BUT...lucky for me (and Fry)...there is no such thing. OTOH...if there was such a thing, and I was there...I'd be the most schmoozing and repenting dude I could be...the last thing I'd be doing is insulting God and telling him off.
But if such an entity which is typically given the name of "God" actually exists and has all (or even "most" or even "some") of the "omni's" attributed to Him, He already knows (and has ALWAYS KNOWN for all eternity past) how you really think at any given point in time and what you really feel in your heart-of-hearts at any given point in time. So any "act" that any of us would put on for said "God" at the so-called "pearly gates" would be useless, for He already would know and has always known what anyone's allegiances are or would become (and how those allegiances would vary over the entire course of time). In other words, it doesn't matter that, instead of Stephen Fry's acted-out demeanor with "God", if you acted like "the most schmoozing and repenting dude I could be" as you put it ... for if "God" favors you before you even came before Him (for whatever reason or collection of reasons), He favors you -- and if He doesn't favor you, He doesn't favor you! He will do whatever suits or pleases Himself and had made up His mind about any of us in eternity past ... regardless of our chosen "act" when finally appearing before Him.
It strikes me that (not referring to you, GldnRule) religionists of varied types who speak about said "God" and attribute all the "omni's" to Him say that He is "all-knowing" (omnisicient) and yet apparently don't think the whole logic of what they say or think through to its unavoidable conclusions (using THEIR logic) and therefore realize that, if such an entity is truly "all-knowing" and has always been so, then it is of no real consequnce to put on any kind of act or appeal to Him or to try to impress Him in any way ... for He already knows BEFOREHAND how we would each be throughout the entire course of our natural lives from beginning to end and how we would each choose to present ourselves before Him. So what is there for Him to "judge" at the so-called "pearly gates"? It illuminates the utter intellectual incoherency and inanity of this whole notion that we are to be "judged" by some all-knowing, all-powerful supreme creator being for virtue or lack-of-virtue (or belief or lack-of-belief or the wrong belief).
In summary, it wouldn't matter how any of us would "act" when standing before this alleged "God" in such a scenario. So if Stephen Fry would really act out in the way he described when before said "God", said "God" would have already known that Stephen Fry would do this exact act and would have already known every single thing that Stephen Fry would say or think or act out for all eternity past (before Stephen Fry was even conceived).
And to think that, for years, I used to embrace this same incoherent and unworkable logic and thinking. What the hell was I thinking (or perhaps better put as "not thinking")?
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?
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 notice how upset you are over what I have said about S. Fry...it is so strong it is just about coming through the screen. You are upset because your personal opinion of Fry is that of admiration.
So...think about this: How do you think those that have a deep reverence (way beyond admiration) toward some Deity they perceive view how Fry refers to that Deity they worship?! Most DON'T find it at all "funny"...MOF they are very emotionally hurt by it and become incensed over it...and he KNOWS that.
I really don't have a horse in the race...I'm neither religious or Atheist. It really is my "Biased toward bias and Intolerant of intolerance" standpoint that gives me my opinion of what Fry said.
I wasn't cutting Frys' Atheist view, cuz I take no issue with that at all...it was his acerbically rude and intentionally mean (as well as foolish) cut on what he is fully aware that hundreds and hundreds of millions hold dear that I saw as the ultra-negative vibe he was putting forth. It was on that I was commenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
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.
This stuff slamming other peoples' views and faith IS starting to go too far. It is so bad...that you now see it starting to cause violence and killings.
We already have United Nations Resolution 16/18. Basically a international law that designates the heavy criticism or insult of any and all aspects of a religion or faith to be "hate speech". The POTUS Obama and then Sec of State H. Clinton were all for it...and have advocated for it to be more promoted since its passing a few years back. I suggest you check it out.
It's a "cause and effect" thing. They don't pass laws against insulting religion and religious Deities and what is known to be considered by the majority of the people in the world to be "sacred writings"...if people aren't insulting them and "stirring the pot".
I've been saying it all along...If you keep standing under the big hornets nest and hitting it with a stick...you'll be sure to see where that gets ya!
Is it right that people are assaulted or killed for the criticism of religion? IMO...no, not at all. But only a complete fool sets himself (and his family, friends, and co-workers) up to be hurt or killed for nothing more than whatever headtrip satisfaction they get over insulting and mocking others. And I stand by my assessment that only a "complete idiot" does that.
That is my opinion...as opposed to those that feel it's cool (even a good thing) to mock and insult what they know others embrace and hold dear to them.
The views of the Mods here reflect very well the legislation you point to regarding 'hate speech'. Stating your views and backing therm up with arguments, even if forcefully and vehemently expressed is not 'hate speech'. Those who protest, get upset, want to silence, prosecute, ban or burst into their office and shoot them, because they feel their faith is being insulted, are the ones who are in the wrong. And they can expect infractions or jail, as appropriate.
I might point out that you are probably as well aware of this as I am because you try to use this argument to discredit Cruithne's post by trying to force on her a supposed near -religious reverence for Stephen Fry. I would suggest that this is just a crafty ploy on your part, but quite a clever one, until it is exposed for the sham gambit that it is. I would suppose that she respects his knowledge. I don't know about his powers of logical reasoning, but his argument from evil is pretty sound.
That and that alone is what we are supporting and to try to make it like some kind of faith -based crusade is simply damaging your credibility, not that of Cruithne.
This stuff slamming other peoples' views and faith IS starting to go too far. It is so bad...that you now see it starting to cause violence and killings.
We already have United Nations Resolution 16/18. Basically a international law that designates the heavy criticism or insult of any and all aspects of a religion or faith to be "hate speech". The POTUS Obama and then Sec of State H. Clinton were all for it...and have advocated for it to be more promoted since its passing a few years back. I suggest you check it out.
It's a "cause and effect" thing. They don't pass laws against insulting religion and religious Deities and what is known to be considered by the majority of the people in the world to be "sacred writings"...if people aren't insulting them and "stirring the pot".
I've been saying it all along...If you keep standing under the big hornets nest and hitting it with a stick...you'll be sure to see where that gets ya!
Is it right that people are assaulted or killed for the criticism of religion? IMO...no, not at all. But only a complete fool sets himself (and his family, friends, and co-workers) up to be hurt or killed for nothing more than whatever headtrip satisfaction they get over insulting and mocking others. And I stand by my assessment that only a "complete idiot" does that.
That is my opinion...as opposed to those that feel it's cool (even a good thing) to mock and insult what they know others embrace and hold dear to them.
Poppycock! This is utter and complete rubbish! Let me paraphrase what you have just said. Only idiots will be willing to say that beheading Coptic Christians is wrong, because it might hurt the delicate religious sensibilities of ISIS. Only a complete fool would challenge the religious views of the KKK ( and yes it was religious), because they might make them angry, and hurt their widdle feefees.
I agree that civility is generally the best way to handle disagreement, but there comes a point when civility is actually just servility, crawling around licking the boots of religious authority. there comes a point when men and women of backbone and courage have to stand up and say "No more." I am sorry that you feel that is stupid, foolish, and ignorant, but that will not convince me tht the best response to religion is to cower spinelessly. No, I will try my best to be civil, to be respectful, but to also call a spade a spade. If religion is doing something shameful, then it needs to be called on it, even if it does make the religious angry.
The whole religious hatespeech stuff is just insanity. The remedy for speech you don't like is more speech, not government oppression. Religion is not such a powerful force that it cannot be changed. Look at what the godless Enlightenment has done for Western Christianity. Even if Christians don't like it or don't want to admit it, freethought, humanism and rationalism have change the way their faith is praciced in a lot of ways, some I like, some I don't. Like it or not, critics of a religion are as much a part of its development as proponents. To silence one and not the other is to stunt both society and religion.
I notice how upset you are over what I have said about S. Fry...it is so strong it is just about coming through the screen. You are upset because your personal opinion of Fry is that of admiration.
So...think about this: How do you think those that have a deep reverence (way beyond admiration) toward some Deity they perceive view how Fry refers to that Deity they worship?! Most DON'T find it at all "funny"...MOF they are very emotionally hurt by it and become incensed over it...and he KNOWS that.
I really don't have a horse in the race...I'm neither religious or Atheist. It really is my "Biased toward bias and Intolerant of intolerance" standpoint that gives me my opinion of what Fry said.
I wasn't cutting Frys' Atheist view, cuz I take no issue with that at all...it was his acerbically rude and intentionally mean (as well as foolish) cut on what he is fully aware that hundreds and hundreds of millions hold dear that I saw as the ultra-negative vibe he was putting forth. It was on that I was commenting.
This stuff slamming other peoples' views and faith IS starting to go too far. It is so bad...that you now see it starting to cause violence and killings.
We already have United Nations Resolution 16/18. Basically a international law that designates the heavy criticism or insult of any and all aspects of a religion or faith to be "hate speech". The POTUS Obama and then Sec of State H. Clinton were all for it...and have advocated for it to be more promoted since its passing a few years back. I suggest you check it out.
It's a "cause and effect" thing. They don't pass laws against insulting religion and religious Deities and what is known to be considered by the majority of the people in the world to be "sacred writings"...if people aren't insulting them and "stirring the pot".
I've been saying it all along...If you keep standing under the big hornets nest and hitting it with a stick...you'll be sure to see where that gets ya!
Is it right that people are assaulted or killed for the criticism of religion? IMO...no, not at all. But only a complete fool sets himself (and his family, friends, and co-workers) up to be hurt or killed for nothing more than whatever headtrip satisfaction they get over insulting and mocking others. And I stand by my assessment that only a "complete idiot" does that.
That is my opinion...as opposed to those that feel it's cool (even a good thing) to mock and insult what they know others embrace and hold dear to them.
"Upset" would be a wild exaggeration. We are just having a chat here on the internet. "Defensive" would be a far more accurate word to use. I don't deny that Stephen Fry is one of my heroes, because I view life the way he does.
Setting yourself up as some sort of neutral arbiter who is here to come to the rescue of those treated with injustice is a smokescreen because the only people you speak hatefully about are atheists.
I am an atheist and yes that is a part of my character and who I am, so I am always going to defend my stance. I know what is hateful and what is not hateful. I have managed to spend three years on this forum without an infraction. I know what it is to speak nicely to people. I'd be sorry if I ever offended anybody.
But free speech is vital to civilised society. You as an American should know that.
The minute you start curbing your speech, ISIS and organisations like them have won.
Slamming other peoples views and faith is not the cause of the recent killings. The people with the swords and guns in their hands, in the name of god, are the cause of the killings.
It would be rare indeed to find anyone who has killed in the name of atheism. 99.9999% recurring, it is in the name of god.
You don't even need to be an atheist with these people. ISIS just beheaded 21 Egyptian Christians just for being Christian. You can even be the wrong type of Islamic.
Free speech is even more important than it ever was. We will continue to think for ourselves and speak up about the injustices of religion.
I'd say "I stand by my deeds -- you know what they are, and you know the spirit that motivated them. I'll match them against anybody you've got in there hiding behind your skirts."
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.
