BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Donuel
Date: 18 May 17 - 07:28 AM

People create holocausts. That's what Al said Joe


For men and women educated in a religious construct of life the overwhelming emotion of abandonment was pervasive in the camps.
We are all touched by the most evil ignorance and the most loving genius among us and every variant in between.

Reconciling our unique exposures to extremes makes us who we are.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 May 17 - 08:14 AM

I've heard the words 'free will' so often regarding God. Okay, so we all have free will; the perpetrators of horrendous crimes against humanity had 'free will'. But the victims didn't! The innocent people suffering all sorts of terrible situations had no choice or free will at all.

I can't accept in my heart of hearts a God who, despite being all-powerful and benevolent, watches all this pain and horror, yet does nothing whatsoever to put a stop to any of it. It's probable that He could, but He doesn't. I find that cold, uncaring and rather sinister.

It seems to me we're at the mercy of the wicked with no support from this 'loving' God, and no intervention on our behalf.
I quite see how Stephen Fry has arrived at his conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 09:04 AM

People may have created the Holocaust but they didn't create the Plague, or HIV, or the Boxing Day tsunami. I smell a cop-out.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Stu
Date: 18 May 17 - 09:29 AM

"Crimes like Auschwitz are a consequence."

So why didn't god intervene? Why allow people to suffer so horribly. In fact, why invent suffering at all... is it a test of faith?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 May 17 - 09:35 AM

To be honest (and I can hear the Blasphemy Police coming up the path already!) I find the whole story of the Crucifixion absolutely ghastly too. This was God's Son, and apparently He had to die (not sure why, but there you are). Could he not have died in his sleep aged 100? Or fallen in the Sea of Galilee and quickly drowned? Apparently every whiplash and every nail hammered in was 'for us'. I don't get this at all. It was the most agonising death, presumably watched over by God (his Father) and imagine the dreadful suffering of Mary, His mother.

As you say Steve, humans did not create deadly diseases or natural disasters. We had no 'choice' in any of those.
Even the suffering of various types of wildlife I find enormously distressing. Drought and starvation, exploitation and cruelty.
God must be quite a strange entity, to be able to view all this yet do nothing to alleviate any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 May 17 - 10:26 AM

God must be quite a strange entity

As anyone who has read the Old Testament knows all too well.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 May 17 - 01:43 PM

Another thing I find odd is prayer. One prays for various things, and God either does or doesn't come up to the mark. One child might be cured, but He doesn't do much for the one in the next hospital bed.

It seems very arbitrary to me. Thousands go off to Lourdes, but most come back no better at all. Maybe they receive strength to bear their diseases, but could they not have obtained that by staying at home?

The very religious would say that God knows better than us what He's doing (God's will and all that) but that merely gives Him a free pass to cover His actions/non-actions. It's the religious equivalent of a 'tut' and a huge shrug of the shoulders!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 01:53 PM

My dad's always said that he'll believe in Lourdes when a one-legged man comes back with two legs.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 May 17 - 01:53 PM

The very religious would say that God knows better than us what He's doing

That's also what his supporters & defenders say about Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Donuel
Date: 18 May 17 - 01:57 PM

why do our prayers always go out WITH the family instead of for or to the family?

On a good day Religion can alleviate debilitating grief, guilt or fear. Isn't it better to learn from guilt and fear?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 18 May 17 - 02:03 PM

Literalists rule in "liberal" heaven.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 May 17 - 02:04 PM

Steve Shaw says: People may have created the Holocaust but they didn't create the Plague, or HIV, or the Boxing Day tsunami. I smell a cop-out.

Stu asks (about Auschwitz): So why didn't god intervene? Why allow people to suffer so horribly. In fact, why invent suffering at all... is it a test of faith?

Well, Stu, I guess Auschwitz pretty much rules out the idea of an interventionist God for me. And the Plague and HIV and tsunamis reinforce that. So, I don't go looking for a God that causes or prevents such tragedies. I think all those things are governed by the Laws of Science. From my own faith tradition, I see a divine presence in the Laws of Science, but I do not see a God who can or would contradict those laws. That would be illogical. I do, however, see a God who gives meaning to those laws and helps me find reason for hope.

I come from a Catholic/Christian tradition, and that is the lens through which I ponder that which surrounds me - my Weltanschauung, if you will. My tradition has a "belief system," a written and oral outline that is shared among those who stem from that tradition. I accept that "belief system" as my own - because it has been my own for all my life. It wasn't imposed on me - I grew up in it. For the most part, that tradition is consistent within itself - it makes sense to those who hold that tradition, with a broad spectrum of understandings within that tradition. Within that tradition, God exists. Outside that tradition, God may or may not exist.

I find that most religious traditions, most belief systems, are consistent and valid within themselves. People don't believe things that don't make sense to them. These traditions are also much broader and more realistic than people from the outside see them to be. I see value in all of them as honest human attempts to ponder the universe. I also see validity and consistency in atheist perspectives. While I hold to my Catholic tradition because that's where I come from, I try my best to understand and value all perspectives and traditions I encounter. I make no attempt to refute them. Why should I need to? I can find validity and aspects of truth in all of them.

But that being said, I do find the Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins perspective limiting - because it finds its essence in attempting to prove others wrong. To me, it seems to be a dualistic perspective, one that is able to find only one correct answer to a question. Dualistic perspectives seem to see things as good/bad, black/white, right/wrong. On top of that, I find an annoying similarity between Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins and born-again Christians, who have a similar dualism that comes up with completely opposite answers.

The standard question that people ask about religious traditions, is what do these people believe. And then the questioner expects a list of things that the questioner can then judge to be right or wrong. I think a better question might be: who are these people? Part of who these people are, is their belief system. And the belief system is neither right or wrong - it simply IS. Part of understanding a people, is to understand (and respect) their belief system.

So, who am I? Well, I was brought up in a Catholic family and had 16 years of Catholic education (8 in a seminary, fer chrissake), so I might as well be Catholic. For me to be anything other than Catholic, would be inauthentic. That might not be true for others, but it's true for me. I know all the rituals and stories and traditions and oddities, and I find them to be rich and interesting and often funny - and sometimes deplorable. But they're the tradition I come from. I don't view my "belief system" as an ideology that must be right or wrong - it just is.

I also find great value in a wide variety of other faith traditions, particularly Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism - and atheism. I try to understand all of these perspectives, but I feel no temptation to take them as my own - because they aren't who I am. My wife, on the other hand, practices what she calls "women's spirituality" - a mix of Celtic, Asian, and Native American traditions and practices and perspectives that she and other women have developed through long association. It doesn't feel authentic to me, but it works very well for her; so I do my best to understand and respect that. I wouldn't dream of trying to prove her wrong, and she wouldn't dream of trying to prove me wrong - because that shouldn't be the question.

For the most part, people use their religious perspectives to explore and understand and appreciate the universe that surrounds and mystifies them. For some people, their belief system depends on finding right and wrong answers, but I find that limiting. Seems to work for them, though. So, you Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins people, do your thing. Just remember how much you have in common with the born-again Christians.

Maybe there isn't a whole lot of value in trying to prove other people wrong. There ought to be more to life than that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 May 17 - 03:47 PM

I guess Auschwitz pretty much rules out the idea of an interventionist God for me.

So what then IS his/her job description? What exactly does He/she do?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 May 17 - 03:58 PM

Well, Greg, most religions agree that God is ultimately unknowable. I think believers satisfy themselves with glimpses of what God might happen to be. I see God as That which is beyond us, and within us. Perhaps God is an essence, and perhaps not. Since I'm basically an optimistic person, I see God as the embodiment of optimism, a source of hope against all odds. If I were a pessimist, I might be likely to see God as controlling and vengeful. But I see God as offering possibilities and alternatives and freedom.

Different strokes for different folks.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 May 17 - 05:12 PM

Understood, Joe with thanks & I appreciate what you've said - but you didn't answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 05:29 PM

God is ultimately unknowable because religions have made him unknowable, a quite deliberate ploy in order to make him invulnerable to scrutiny. For belt and braces, religions have traditionally had severe blasphemy laws in place in order to stop people from even thinking of scrutinising him.

As God created everything, presumably he created the laws of science, the same laws that brought about the plague, HIV and the Boxing Day tsunami. You don't get him off that lightly, I'm afraid.

You have the Dawkins/Hitchens/Steve brigade (😁) all wrong, Joe. Our basic premise is that we do NOT have the answers, the only way that answers can be found being through honest scientific endeavour. That is the most UNlimiting thing I can think of. Your answers are far too easy for for our towering intellects, so unchallenging, So limiting. Everything put there by an omnipotent yet invisible God who continues to provide a driving force. End of, Joe. That's too abject for words. By the way, there is no place for divine intervention in the laws of nature. You can't bolt magic on to stuff that works so well. You'll just spoil it. The garden is already lovely enough without putting fairies at the bottom of it. With apologies to Douglas Adams.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 May 17 - 05:32 PM

I answered your question to my satisfaction, Greg, but not to yours. I see God as "That which is beyond us, and within us." I realize that's foggy, but it works fine for me. Sounds like you want a more definite answer, but I don't have that for you. You have to go to the absolutists if you want definite answers - and I don't want to go there. Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins and the born-again Christians and the Islamic fundamentalists have definite answers, if that's what you're looking for. If the answer were more definite, there wouldn't be room for the wide spectrum of perspectives among the various religious traditions. I think that to the extent we can allow for that wide spectrum, our world is much healthier, more peaceful, and more imaginative.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 05:38 PM

By the way, Joe, putting us alongside born-again Christians makes you sound just like Pleiades Pete. Hope you're happy with that!   😂

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 May 17 - 06:02 PM

You have to go to the absolutists if you want definite answers...the born-again Christians and the Islamic fundamentalists ...

Well, Joe, that's a pretty Trump-istic answer if ever I saw one. I'd expected better.

Thanks anyway.

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 06:23 PM

"Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins and the born-again Christians and the Islamic fundamentalists..."

Well I can't speak for the Islamic fundamentalists but the rest of that is twaddle. I won't associate with any atheistic type who says he has the answers or who expresses certainty or who sets out to "prove" anyone else wrong (as if that were possible). Atheists are people who don't know. Richard Dawkins has thrown his hands in the air a number of times saying that he doesn't know whether there's a God. He even said it in The God Delusion. People of faith always express THEIR certainties, on the other hand. You never say "Our Father, if you're really there, who may or may not be in heaven, if heaven exists at all, hallowed be thy name...", do you? Worse, you force children to chant those same certainties. Sorry to bring in my hobby horse, but regard it as a riposte to your accusation that it's us who have the "answers." It isn't. It's you lot!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 May 17 - 06:49 PM

Well, Steve, with the Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins cartel, it's an interesting phenomenon. They define what other people believe in very limited terms, and then proceed to attack and refute what they themselves have defined.

It's that compulsion to prove others wrong, that you and Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins and the fundamentalists have in common. Why do you put so much effort into trying to prove somebody else wrong? I get it with Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins - they've made a lot of fame and fortune that way.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 07:01 PM

Give over, Joe. You keep on saying "prove." All I ask for is your evidence. I am not in the least interested in proving anyone wrong and never have been. The trouble is, you get very defensive when challenged. Are you insecure? Personally, I feel very secure in the knowledge that I have no answers!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 May 17 - 07:07 PM

By the way, "cartel" isn't a good word here. The three of them endure mutual suspicion of each other, and I'm suspicious of all three. We atheistic types don't club together. We are fierce free thinkers. There are no ties that bind. No creed. No belief system. There is nothing there to take us into a cartel. Bum word. I'm glad we worry you. It shows in your posts, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 May 17 - 09:59 PM

Sorry, Steve, we've been down that path before. It's very clear that Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins have made a lot of money attempting to refute and ridicule religious belief, and you have a history of showing support for them.
I don't care to get into a position of defending my religious practices. I don't find it constructive to go into defensive mode.
My interest in religion is as a spiritual practice, not as an ideology.
Bye-bye.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 May 17 - 01:34 AM

It's very easy to disprove Steve, Joe. Just come back with any quotes from Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins saying that they have all the answers. As you say this is what the 'cartel' do they must be easy to find.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 04:30 AM

Well Fry for one certainly hasn't made it his life's work to refute and ridicule religion. Your post implies that making money is their motive. You can't say that. Whatever you think of think of them, they express their ideas articulately, eloquently and challengingly. Mind you, I suppose that anyone who publishes a book hopes that he won't lose money on it. There wouldn't be many colourful Good News bibles printed if the enterprise didn't make money. Even religion and atheism can't entirely shun capitalist sm.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 04:37 AM

Capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 17 - 05:37 AM

"Well Fry for one certainly hasn't made it his life's work to refute and ridicule religion."   :0)

He and his kind hate religion with a vengeance, their prime motivation is to bring down the Church in societies which are ruled chiefly by the Media and its brainwashed acolytes.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 19 May 17 - 06:01 AM

Er..what do you mean by 'he and his kind..' ?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 06:17 AM

Never ask akenaton "what he means." He never knows what he means and it's a waste of time asking him.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Donuel
Date: 19 May 17 - 07:28 AM

Hey A, the next time you feel a conspiratorial paranoia, swallow hard and ask yourself to what purpose?
Even Pense says whacky religious war words out loud but he has political manipulation reasons.

The current religious right lies involve gays and trans people dedicated to getting conservatives fired from their job with evil rumors. Amplified nonsense is just loud, not more true .

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 17 - 08:04 AM

Don, in the current election in Scotland four of the main party leaders are homosexuals.

Accusations of "homophobia" are already being used against our present SNP leader about something said by a Party member on twitter.

Accusations of racism, homophobia etc, when picked up by the Media are a strong political weapon.......We are rapidly approaching a deeply Orwellian society.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 May 17 - 08:45 AM

Your very mistaken about the nature of Stephen Fry. He is a good man and a great writer and artist.

I have read several of his books and seen many of his acting roles.

I profoundly disagree with you on this point Ake. I cannot imagine why you are saying such incorrect and observably wrong and cruel things.

i have always disliked the way you seem to be badmouthed by other mudcat members. please reassure me that they were wrong and you are a decent human being by disowning these abusive and totally untrue remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Stu
Date: 19 May 17 - 09:57 AM

Joe: Thanks for the thorough and thoughtful reply to the question of intervention. I'm a tad busy at the moment and so struggling for time to reply, but this thread is giving me a lot to think about. Good stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 19 May 17 - 10:06 AM

I know you are a really decent guy Al....one of the best in my book, but I've got to say as I see.....I have listened to his opinions on plenty of interviews, and he's a tactician and activist first and foremost.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 May 17 - 12:43 PM

i doubt if that's on his income tax return.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 May 17 - 12:50 PM

I doubt if Akenaton can hold a reasoned opinion on Stephen Fry because of his utter revulsion of homosexuals.

Thus I treat anything he says about people of that nature with extreme suspicion.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 May 17 - 02:36 PM

I dunno, Al. I did a YouTube search for stephen fry bible and came up with lots of the same haughty ridicule that I hear from Hitchens and Dawkins and their ilk. And the problem with that, is that these three take a shallow, fundamentalist view of the Bible and religion, and then proceed to condemn ALL religious thought and tradition.

The Bible is a sacred, ancient document that is the product of a thousand years of written and oral tradition. Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins paint a cheap caricature of this ancient book and then subject it to ridicule. Certainly a document so ancient and so complex in its origins should be given more serious consideration. I believe the same respect and serious consideration is due to the sacred writings and traditions of all cultures. Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins write them off too quickly.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy - Torah Study
From: robomatic
Date: 19 May 17 - 03:37 PM

I go to Bible Study (Actually we call it Torah Study, but we also think that IS the Bible give or take Kings, Psalms, Prophets, etc. (The Tanach), and there's a lot of nastiness therein. Our heroes have feet of clay, wives of wandering feet. Lies get told, brothers get sold, Bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad people (Never mind Job). And that capturing of human character, from best to worst cultivates my belief. I have no resonance with rosy colored glasses. The Torah captures a people in development in what we now call primitive times. stone age to bronze age. Yet their cares and motivations are ours. God offers a blessing AND a curse. We ignore the vital human message therein at our peril.

One can find the message in Gilgamesh, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Greek Myths, and many other earlier works of our common human history. I have only perused the Koran and found a lot of diatribe in it, but I can't be fair without spending a lot more time in it. The New Testament is a somewhat gladsome follow-on to Scripture, and spends too much time IMHO trying to establish the divinity of Jesus, which I do not accept, yet there are some great quotes in it, such as the one about putting away childish things upon adulthood, and the one about: "Be ye not conformed to this world but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind". That quote was included in a college math text about transforming equations and I love it!

I once succeeded in getting my girlfriend, a religious person, to freeze solid in the midst of a hug when I said: "If there is a God, He's got a lot to answer for." (And God DOES answer, after a fashion, in Job).

While I have us on the story of Job, I must recommend a movie called "The Revolt of Job" about a Jewish couple living in Hungary. They go to an orphanage and adopt a vigorous young boy who is NOT Jewish. The object being to have someone to leave their culture and property to. That orphan was the writer/director of the movie. It is not only a decent movie but the title captures the theme perfectly.

My overall thought is that to think things through REQUIRES blasphemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 May 17 - 03:53 PM

The Bible is a collection of ancient documents, sacred to some people but not to others. That qualification is essential. There has been much discussion here of the serious flaws of the New Testament, basically a cherrypicked collection of "books," with lots of exclusions, put together tendentiously by advocates of Jesus and the new religion. Not to speak of the serious discrepancies between the four gospels that did actually make it through. The trouble is, Joe, you are trying to protect the Bible in the same way as you try to protect God. You want to take offence at challenges to sacredness (whatever that is). Ironically, that is precisely the attitude that seeded the blasphemy laws, which you profess to oppose, in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 May 17 - 03:56 PM

I believe the same respect and serious consideration is due to the sacred writings and traditions of all cultures. Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins write them off too quickly.

Well, I dunno, Joe - you certainly seem to write Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins/et.al. off pretty expeditiously with a good dose of haughty ridicule.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 May 17 - 05:53 PM

Upon reading Tolkien's "Silmarilion" for the first time I had the idea that if someone with no knowledge of either was confronted with that work and the bible, they would be hard pushed to tell which one billions of people followed as a religion.

Apropos of nothing in particular...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 May 17 - 06:04 PM

And then there's L. Ron Hubbard........

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 17 - 08:13 PM

find it extremely amusin that eveything good that happens is attributed to some mystical but unproven (therefore non-existent) being yet everything evil is the result of human failing
If there is a god, he seems to be a bit of an arrogant self-absorbed prick
Of course there is evidence that God is an invention to provide a career for the ambitious
"Darwin was wrong. Man's STILL an ape!"
A point of accuracy - Darwin never suggested he ever was - he merely pointed out that they and we evolved from the same source.
Christianity has been kept alive by spiritual blackmail, promotion of ignorance, torture and mass murder - without that, it would have dissipated with all the other primitive beliefs.The church's response to science and knowledge had always been a violent one
It is up to those who believe in bogeu-man to prove their existence, otherwise, unless they make themselves visible they don't exist.
I think the high point of the "there is a god" argument has to be Ake's Stephen Fry must be wrong because he is such a bad entertainer (if that is not what he is arguing, why does it have any relevance here?)
Bonkers!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: robomatic
Date: 19 May 17 - 11:01 PM

Jim:

"A point of accuracy" I'm smiling because your line there is precisely the same as I've said in discussions with so-called creationists. I tell them that Charles Darwin is MY "Saint Chuck".

Nevertheless it's a fine movie line if not so fine in absolute accuracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 May 17 - 11:33 PM

I think that Fry/Hitchens/Dawkins are standard-bearers for an attitude that has overtaken the European Left, and to an extent also in the United States and other countries. The Left has purified itself and has espoused an anti-religious attitude that has also become increasingly cynical of the uneducated class, along with the working class and immigrants. As a result, the Left has betrayed and destroyed many of its traditional alliances. The result? Have you noticed the rise of right-wing "populism" in our world?

Here, for example, is a good example of what I'm talking about:

find it extremely amusin that eveything good that happens is attributed to some mystical but unproven (therefore non-existent) being yet everything evil is the result of human failing
If there is a god, he seems to be a bit of an arrogant self-absorbed prick
Of course there is evidence that God is an invention to provide a career for the ambitious
"Darwin was wrong. Man's STILL an ape!"
A point of accuracy - Darwin never suggested he ever was - he merely pointed out that they and we evolved from the same source.
Christianity has been kept alive by spiritual blackmail, promotion of ignorance, torture and mass murder - without that, it would have dissipated with all the other primitive beliefs.The church's response to science and knowledge had always been a violent one
It is up to those who believe in bogeu-man to prove their existence, otherwise, unless they make themselves visible they don't exist.
I think the high point of the "there is a god" argument has to be Ake's Stephen Fry must be wrong because he is such a bad entertainer (if that is not what he is arguing, why does it have any relevance here?)
Bonkers!!!

Is there anyone who professes a religion who wouldn't be insulted by a statement like this? Is there anyone who professes a religion who would feel safe calling the writer an ally? Why is it that the writer thinks people would want to worship a God who isn't good? Why is it the writer hadn't heard that Ake professes to be an atheist?
Oh, and the Darwin quip displays the same annoying (and humorless) literalism so common among fundamentalists. Has the Left also taken on the monodimensionalism of the fundies?
Oh, and this: "Christianity has been kept alive by spiritual blackmail, promotion of ignorance, torture and mass murder." No doubt, there have been instances of all such things within Christianity; but they are hardly the usual conduct of Christians...and many "primitive" belief systems, not only Christianity, continue to exist because many people find value in them that has nothing to do with "spiritual blackmail, promotion of ignorance, torture and mass murder."

Once upon a time, when the Left espoused tolerance as an ideal, religious people felt they could ally themselves with the Left in opposition to oppression. The Left has betrayed and insulted that alliance, and many former allies have no idea where to go.

Too bad, that.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 May 17 - 02:02 AM

i don't feel insulted by JIm's post (on this occasion - his views on folk music are another matter).

why don't you have enough confidence in yourself and your belief Joe - to say - that's what this bloke earnestly believes - its not what i think, but he's totally entitled to have that point of view and express it?

thers nowt to get insulted about. that's what he thinks.

JIm is like that. He can't even see anything in Bob Dylan, why would he get religious belief? Its like some people never got to work the video.

its like some people look at Kandinsky and PIcasso. And they don't get it that this what clever people put their lives into, and as such its worthy of respect - even reverence. THey just don't get it. they just see daubs of paint, and what you take as insult is really only annoyance at their failure to comprehend.

Joe, try to value people for what they have to offer. not for what they honestly can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 17 - 02:48 AM

Great stuff Joe, there's still fire in the blood! I was afraid the B's had put you so much on the defensive that you had forgotten how to punch your weight.
I could not agree more.


Al, these people have nothing to offer, they see Christianity as an impediment to their agenda......they have no positive message.
They are prepared to stamp all over decent folks who happen to live above the stones physically and mentally.

Although I am an atheist, I admire those who have the strength to hold a faith against the tide of sociopaths.

What the fuck happened to the much vaunted mantra of "diversity"?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 17 - 03:36 AM

The Left has purified itself and has espoused an anti-religious attitude that has also become increasingly cynical of the uneducated class, along with the working class and immigrants. As a result, the Left has betrayed and destroyed many of its traditional alliances. The result? Have you noticed the rise of right-wing "populism" in our world?

I agree with that, Joe, but it is not all "The Left", just a very substantial part of it.

Let me put in a rather long extract from the foreward to the 2017 Labour manifesto:


Britain needs to negotiate a Brexit deal that puts our economy and living standards first. That won't be achieved by empty slogans and posturing. We cannot put at risk our links with our largest trading partner. Instead we need a jobs-first Brexit that allows us to upgrade our economy for the 21st century.

Labour will invest in the cutting-edge jobs and industries of the future that can improve everybody's lives. Which is why this manifesto outlines a fully costed programme to upgrade our economy. From childcare to transport, housing to lifelong learning, Labour understands how a successful economy depends on services that support us all.

" FOR THE MANY NOT THE FEW "

So yes, this election is about what sort of country we want to be after Brexit. Is it one where the majority are held back by the sheer struggle of getting by? That isn't the Britain Labour is determined to create.

So let's build a fairer Britain where no one is held back. A country where everybody is able to get on in life, to have security at work and at home, to be decently paid for the work they do, and to live their lives with the dignity they deserve.

Let's build a country where we invest our wealth to give everyone the best chance. That means building the homes we need to rent and buy, keeping our communities safe with more police officers, giving our children's schools the funding they badly need, and restoring the NHS to its place as the envy of the world.

Don't let the Conservatives hold Britain back.

Let's build a Britain that works for the many, not the few.


I find that a good summary of what I see as the Left objectives. Childcare, housing, lifelong learning, decent pay for work, live their lives with the dignity they deserve and so on,

There is nothing whatever anti-religious in that. In fact if expressing your religion is part of your dignity, that is fully in line with the Labour party view.

Anti-religion is not a Leftist principle. Sure, there's 'opium of the people' stuff (But as Wiki points out the full quotation is "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". Often quoted only in part, the interpretation of the metaphor in its context has received much less attention. It the same with Nietzsche; his "God is dead" quote is in a context that is rarely considered).

The core Left principles are, to my mind, like espoused by the manifesto. Forcing religion in there, pro or anti, simply weakens the coherence of the left.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 17 - 03:44 AM

"Anti-religion is not a Leftist principle."

Very true "D", depending of course on what you mean by "leftist"

Anti-religion is certainly a "liberal" principle, if that's not a contradiction in terms.