Stephen Fry On God

Good fucking grief! I clearly don't believe in God, neither does Stephen Fry. We're not angry at a God that we don't believe in either. We're angry that billions of people really are foolish enough to believe in this kind of God. Clearly, this should go without saying but the whole message seems to be over your head. Same for Nox, he called it Fry's "conception of God"...

We don't hold any concepts of God,
WE DON"T BELIEVE IN GOD!
wake up and smell the cornflakes. As you say, and try to pay attention.

 

Good fucking grief. Who the fuck is this kind of god you don't believe in Who is it, what is i?. If you are defining proportions they are your proportions. Who are these billions of people who believe in your god? I don't hear billions of people speaking up for your version of god. I don't even hear one. I hear you say you don't hold any concepts of god and then turn around in the next breath and say you are pissed at the people for the concepts they hold. Other way around peaches you are pissed because of the role you assign them not for what they do for themselves. Pitiful argument there. Seems to be over your head that you cannot use the word god without entertaining some concept about what the word means. Your position is completely dishonest on an intellectual level, claiming you do not do what in fact you do. I don't think you are dishonest on purpose, you just don't understand the effects or contributions of your own thinking on this issue. Overall you are what is called ignorant on the subject by definition.

 

LOL, What a load. You fucking know damn well what Gods people believe in and that make YOU dishonest and ignorant on an epically mind numbing scale.
BILLIONS of people on this planet believe in the Abrahamic God, as if i even have to say it.

You're so dishonest, you can't even produce a definition of God. "God is what you invoke", your God is a joke! That is what I invoke!
With common sense because you're a joke.

 

I know what you believe, you state it over and over. I can't speak for billions of persons beliefs and point is you can't either. You only speak of the abundance that is in your mind and heart.
I know exactly the proportions of your argument and you are in self denial. Putz.

 

This reminds me of a certain poster who creates several threads in his dislike of God and the belief in It:

 

Reminds me of some idiot who thought he knew what car I drove when I said that I don't drive a Jeep.
- "I know what that guy drives, he drives a nonjeep. He drives all over the place with that nonjeep of his".

Intellectual honesty, he talks about.

 

ZOOM...
Right over another head.

 

Just like it goes right over your head how you yourself are the best example of selective ignorance where it comes to the concept of god. Maybe some less parrying and some more interpreting of the replies you are always getting (no worries, most of us seem happy to )? Well, if you are really in it for sharing thoughts on the subject instead of simply ridiculing and provoking in the same way on the exact same matter all the time. There might be a reason you are so repetitive on this subject, after all we are not the ones starting this shit over and over again. You make all the threads (this one is an exception) and posts with all the same statements. We're merely reacting to your outbursts

 

Really. what car are you driving there sport? Can you tell me even what color it is? You are a freekin pedestrian with a ferrari mouth. I'll have to reassess my view that you are self deceived and move on to intellectually atrophied from about age twelve. Putz.

 

My own 'anger' if that's the right word would not be towards 'god', but directed against the insane ideologies that have become attached to the concept over millennia.

That's what causes most of the trouble in my opinion. If people want to believe in some higher power, that's fairly harmless in itself. It's when they have a book which tells them in fixed terms what that being (imagined or real) demands of them, and prescribes a pattern for human societies which is often at odds with our basic biological nature.

Right - back to Narnia.

 

Lol!

Yes, a quick search of the Attributes of Christian God (which even stand on an editable site like wikipedia) will suggest Fry's and Relaxxx's grievances are justified to the particular depiction of God which is generally held by Christians.

 

That is of course very understandable. What I find sad, closeminded and frankly baffling is how often this dogmatic behaviour is simply projected on or unified with the belief in God. They may be related but they are very different things.

Are you sure or are you assuming that (perhaps because it was once historically true or because that is the common image of christians for people who don't have any need for religion)? I am pretty sure the depiction of an angry unforgiving god is not the general depiction held by christians anymore. Sure there may be plenty of christians in the bible belt and else where who still do, but the world and the amount of christians is bigger and more diverse than that. The general depiction of God around here (netherlands) would definitely not fit this narrow image anymore. It's not absent (at all), but it is not the majority either.

 

It's a complex issue. Part of it is that people generally get to hear about god from the established religions. As children, many are indoctrinated with a particular religion. Mainly, these religions are formulaic - they all have their own particularities, whether it's the virgin birth or the caste system.
The ideology is imbibed along with the particular concept of god. Questioning it is discouraged, and in some cases, punished, or threats of punishment by god are used.

In cultures where religion is still a predominant social force, there is pressure to conform, and often a lack of education, as well as other factors that result in people not questioning their belief system

But there are people with no religious beliefs who are just as ideologically driven.

People who believe, but in an unstructured way, are few and far between.

 

If you believe in all-loving, infinitely good God (omnibenevolent) and still maintain that God is all powerful (omnipotent) and know everything (omniscent) then you run into logical paradoxes with the examples that Fry gives.

Cancer in children is something not good by pretty much anyone's standards. Therefore God would either be not all-loving, not all-powerful or not all-knowing in preventing cancer in Children. God becomes an illogical concept.

If one is attempting to adjust one of those qualities to say "God works in mysterious ways" or something, you are still conceding the point because God necessarily still slacked off on at least one of those attributes, which your experience has led you to arrive at that conclusion.

I guess you could pray to an illogical God but I'm not sure why you want to follow a book written by humans in that case or you could reform/reinterpret a depiction of God to where his powers are not unrestrained in the same way, but then you have effectively ascribed to a lesser God, which would be odd because that means we could fathom beyond God's reformed attributes.

 

I know precisely where you stand, I shared this view between the ages of about 13-16/17. I was an arrogant little shit of an atheist, militant as all hell. When I joined this forum I remember have a bitch fit at Older Water Brother because he just wouldn't get it. Turns out, "it" was my own view about a God that I was convinced I didn't believe in. Didn't even realise it! I felt like a right tit, wasn't fun. I'd say that was the spark that set off my existential crisis, it left me in a kind of a meaningless abyss.

You may not believe in God, but you still have a concept about God because that concept is what you don't believe in. The mind is so subtle like that.

 

Some people have good instincts, I think.

 

Fry was obviously referring to the biblical, Abrahamic God who is indeed a vile, narcissistic, tantrum-throwing, genocidal monster.

 

Happening?

 

Well no, Fry's particular depiction is not present in the material you searched. There is not even a particular depiction for any one entry in that article. Many of the entries contain positions of different nuance of meaning in the same category. There is a word you use in your description that does not necessarily apply and that is "generally held," A definition that seeks to define all conceivable aspects is not one that necessarily speaks at all to the issue of generally held or who in particular believes what. For example in the case of words and the dictionary there are entries that include the archaic use of the term, i.e. the word can mean this, but few speak like that anymore.

So the suggestion is made by you and relaxxx here that I am being intellectually dishonest in not adhering to or recognizing some common definition of god that we all understand is less than circumspect of the facts. Of course anyone's complaints are legitimate based on their own parameters. Fact is Fry doesn't speak for anyone but himself, about himself. He doesn't illumine anyone else's positions or beliefs. On the other hand what I have said about god being invoked here accounts for every contribution on that subject by everyone in this thread. This is a fact quite apart from what you guys believe about what others believe. You guys demand a level of belief to complain about that just doesn't exist for most. Certainly doesn't exist for me. I don't mean in your devotion but the way you conceive the issue.

Since this is the philosophy and religion thread i would say that this entry of stephen fry is not good philosophy or religion nor is the point of this discussion, but is very cheap drama.