Stephen Fry On God

Stephen Fry's response on what he would do or say upon coming face to face with god in heaven.

http://youtu.be/-suvkwNYSQo

Absolutely brilliant.

 

utterly, utterly naive' conception of God.

 

More BS from another boring celeb. And a man who I feel is wholly integrated into the British 'old boy' network.

 

Considering he was prompted to answer questions about a specific image of God, good response!

 

i choose to save my data for shemale porn.. Im sorry, I dont give a fuck about others god approach..

 

So you have nothing of worth to contribute. Understood.

 

We exist in a seamless chain of unfolding. No beginning, no end. Rationally we assume there must have been a beginning, but we can't know it because our minds can't apprehend the mirage.

Realistically, God is no deity. If Fry's humanised creator did exist I would wholeheartedly agree with him, he's a bit of a twat. However, that concept is flawed because it is the complimentary of the same concept that dogma is centred around. Most atheists, militant at any rate, can't seem to recognise this and move beyond it because their own arguments are propped up against this ridiculous concept. An endless tug of war with an imaginary rope.



Tell me, what is the reality that the delusion of religious faith is disguising and how does it differ from your own?

 

Have you seen his hubby, I was always a fan, QI is a great show, but hard to take him seriously now he is married to someone that looks like they didnt make the final cut to join One Direction

 

Sorry but the reality of God is not complicated. God is either a sadistic asshole, or God is incapable and therefore irrelevant, or God does not exist beyond imagination. That is all. The only further convolutions LIE in your denials of reality.

-

I now return you to the AsmoNoxDope Show, already in progress...

 

Personally I find others serious thoughts on god(s) very interesting, especially when they differ from mine, and I can even enjoy the less serious humourous approaches when they are funny.
What gets annoying is when a fixed narrowminded concept of God gets humoured (this is ok, but not always funny, especially when they take an approach which has gone old, a joke can only be funny so many times) and then projected onto all the believers of a religion, wether they have faith in that specific narrowminded view of God or not (most don't).
I shouldn't really give a fuck about their approach either (as it is just humour to the point it is not really to be taken serious anymore) but when the person themselves is taking the pun or message of the joke too seriously and as long it doesn't take me more time to tell them they are distorting shit I am happy to spend a sentence on it. But I agree with you the humourous approach of the agitating atheist is generally not worth much (except a good laugh)

 

So you invoke. You by your own invocations give the thing the reality you deny. I claim I exist lawfully in the likeness and image of creation. What you claim of god doesn't enter my mind any more than would the sound of silver and dishes rattling as you set the table, meaning I hear what you say but it is your meal not mine. Your experience of life is by virtue of your own ideals/ideas and the apparent disparity between what you see and what you think should be there. You don't realize all you see is the conflict induced by your own measures. The idea that reality is amiss is insane.

 

For example the question was what would you do first if you found yourself in heaven. For one what is heaven and what would be your perspective if you were privy to that space? It is entirely possible that in that estate your complaints may not mean much. A mind without anxiety is kind. No the guy doesn't want answers, he just wants his complaints to be justified by someone else. There is nothing brilliant about his discourse. It is in fact rather dull minded and disdainful of life in general.

There is no idea apart from yours when you make a statement. It is not the idea of, it is your idea of. If it is an insane idea it is an insane idea. It is not wise to adopt an insane idea even as in the course of if, then. Certainly not as a measure of the way it must be. Do you know how to be omni benevolent? If I am like creation I create as I am created. Where does potency exist? Is suffering absolute in the experience of man? Man makes choices that are omni effective in terms of personal experience and wholly effective when wholly shared. To have contention in your mind doesn't blow up your head but it might cause you to blow up heads. Which is more likely, that reality is fucked up or we misapprehend it?
.

 

"The Balance"

After he had journeyed,
And his feet were sore,
And he was tired,
He came upon an orange grove
And he rested
And he lay in the cool,
And while he rested, he took to himself an orange and tasted it,
And it was good.
And he felt the earth to his spine,
And he asked, and he saw the tree above him, and the stars,
And the veins in the leaf,
And the light, and the balance.
And he saw magnificent perfection,
Whereon he thought of himself in balance,
And he knew he was.

Just open your eyes,
And realize, the way it's always been.
Just open your mind
And you will find
The way it's always been.
Just open your heart
And that's a start.

And he thought of those he angered,
For he was not a violent man,
And he thought of those he hurt
For he was not a cruel man
And he thought of those he frightened
For he was not an evil man,
And he understood.
He understood himself.

Upon this he saw that when he was of anger or knew hurt or felt fear,
It was because he was not understanding,
And he learned, compassion.

And with his eye of compassion.
He saw his enemies like unto himself,
And he learned love.
Then, he was answered.

Just open your eyes,
And realize, the way it's always been.
Just open your mind
And you will find
The way it's always been.
Just open your heart
And that's a start.

 

Ha! Thanks for clearing up that was not thedope's ideas.

 

How could it be thedope's, when it is written in plain english

 

I would like to point out that we share our thoughts. I don't think intellectual property is a very liberating idea. All the same the poetry of the moody blues has had a big influence on me. Would it be disappointing if I shared a good idea? Is that what the relief of confusion was about? Otherwise it goes down easy as humor and of course I take it as I will.

 

Plagiarism is a detriment to intellectual integrity and a scourge of discourse.

 

And it is not my intent to plagiarize but to share an appropriate thought. If you notice the way I post I don't sign my name or "quote" myself if it is in fact your suggestion that I have plagiarized.

In Quotes "The balance." Look up the name to see where it comes from if you are concerned about the source. Is there something about the quality of the poem that made you suspicious of some kind of misrepresentation in comparison to what I usually say? What was your confusion about?

If is never my intent to misrepresent any information or misrepresent myself or my own capacities. You can give up the idea that I am a huckster and mind your own appearances. I never posited any mystery about my fondest affections or been less than sincere with anyone. I am of a fault to some and of great benefit to the clarity of my own perceptions, brutally honest.