Stephen Fry on God

[remagination]

A very correct answer. Of course --- the problem of God creating insects that borough from the inside of kid's eyes out to make them blind only exists if you believe that God exists in the first place. Likewise, bone-cancer in children ---- and several other problems as well.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why would the bible be written in such an utterly confusing way right from the start? Why not just say what time periods they meant, especially if they expected the reader to somehow realize each "day" was not as long as each other "day"?

Or are you suggesting God rested for 50,000+ years? And why do you honour the sabbath if it was a 50,000 year period and nothing to do with Sunday?

In fact, God resting right now would explain a lot.

God can't rest - there's plenty of African babies he hasn't murdered yet.

Busy, busy, busy.

Boru

[robvalue]

Oh yeah. He teaches forgiveness, then can't forgive the consumption of a fruit against his wishes thousands of years ago and takes it out on newborns.

Fuck you, God. Fuck you and your ridiculous trio of ludicrous mind rapeage.

If you weren't imaginary I would so kick your arse.

[Brian37]

Bible says the earth was created in 6 days. I don't care if you claim to be a old earth believer. That does not square with what the bible says. You are cherry picking the bible.

And no, I don't feel threatened by fictional beings but that book does contain language in it that condemns people and people do read those words and act on them. No different than if someone read Harry Potter and decided to murder someone over that. Holy books are used as weapons, and the worst part is that humans are willing to murder over these antiquated myths.

Agree, it does say 6 literal days (Yom in Hebrew); however; context is important. Genesis is definition 4 which is 'literal'. Like I mentioned, Day 7 is at least 50,000 years and counting.
http://sententias.org/2013/11/21/the-mea...in-hebrew/ - "The four definitions are 1) a portion of the daylight hours (2) the entire daylight segment of a twenty-four-hour day, (3) a twenty-four-hour day, and (4) a long but finite time period. - Unlike the modern Hebrew and English, biblical Hebrew had no other word for a finite era or epoch. The four definitions of YOM are literal definitions"

That is a relatively new tactic over the past 150 years, when called out you re interpret the words. Sorry it was 6 literal days. When Darwin blew the creation story out of the water, believers got scared of that truth and have since tried to either attack evolution or have tried to square it with their antiquated comic book.

But, if we are to insist on wading through your comic book, and pretend. I find it absurd for an all powerful god to "poof" the entire universe into existence, then suddenly have a problem compiling a a book having to resort to using humans to write it only to have them argue over it's meaning. I wouldn't hire your alleged god to run a bicycle factory. The bikes would end up with squid for spokes and the workers would murder over the words in the assembly manual.

No sorry, I cannot take seriously a book that claims humans magically popped out of dirt, a book that claims women popped out of a mans rib. A book that treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light. A book depicting talking snakes and talking bushes. Or are you going to deny those depictions as well?

FYI the Hebrews stole their characters from the Canaanites. Yahweh was a lesser god in their polytheism. Hebrews simply were a splinter sect who managed to market their new sect and elevated that lesser god character to a monotheistic god.

You are not the only believer or the only religion when science calls you out to go from attacking science to attempting to co opt science to prop up your antiquated book of myth. I have been at this for 14 years and seen this same tactic from Christians, Jews, Muslims and even a couple of Hindus.

How about you considering you got sold a bill of goods? You really want me to believe that the people who wrote that back then had the same modern knowledge we have now? I find it much more reasonable that you simply like what you believe and are fishing for excuses to cling to it.

You will not find in any of those books of Abraham, words like "entropy", "thermodynamics" much less any modern math or modern science that would demonstrate they had a working knowledge of reality. It was a book written by scientifically ignorant humans who didn't know any better and it was a book reflecting the superstitions and social norms that were popular back then, nothing more.

[robvalue]

Parts of the bible confirmed to be false are metaphorical. The rest is literal, until any of that gets proven false too, then that part also become metaphorical.

Come on man. I'd have an easier time argueing Lord of the rings was a true story.

[dyresand]

Oh yeah. He teaches forgiveness, then can't forgive the consumption of a fruit against his wishes thousands of years ago and takes it out on newborns.

Fuck you, God. Fuck you and your ridiculous trio of ludicrous mind rapeage.

If you weren't imaginary I would so kick your arse.

Because if god teaches forgiveness and he himself cannot forgive original sin without a blood sacrifice aka jc he is a hypocrite and not worth anyone's time.

---

Parts of the bible confirmed to be false are metaphorical. The rest is literal, until any of that gets proven false too, then that part also become metaphorical.

Come on man. I'd have an easier time argueing Lord of the rings was a true story.

But it did happen i swear and we need to thank the heroes that saved us.

[KevinM1]

Parts of the bible confirmed to be false are metaphorical. The rest is literal, until any of that gets proven false too, then that part also become metaphorical.

Come on man. I'd have an easier time argueing Lord of the rings was a true story.

I've tried to read the bible several times. I can't really get much further than Genesis. It's just so fucking boring, and from the very first page it's clear that it was written and compiled by people who were just winging it. It's just a mishmash of nonsense and questionable genealogy. I'm astounded that it maintains its hold on people today.

[Brian37]

Parts of the bible confirmed to be false are metaphorical. The rest is literal, until any of that gets proven false too, then that part also become metaphorical.

Come on man. I'd have an easier time argueing Lord of the rings was a true story.

I've tried to read the bible several times. I can't really get much further than Genesis. It's just so fucking boring, and from the very first page it's clear that it was written and compiled by people who were just winging it. It's just a mishmash of nonsense and questionable genealogy. I'm astounded that it maintains its hold on people today.

I really hate the argument "Have you read it"? I got the same argument from an atheist when I told him Buddhism was as much bologna. "Have you studied it"?

All of them were started in an age of scientific ignorance. How much of a comic book do you have to read before you realize it is a comic book. Religion is a result of gap filling, a flaw in humans perceptions. It is good for creating groups for resources and numbers, but it is still a sugar pill.

There is not one thing in any religion that depicts good acts or explains our bad acts as a species. They all are attempts at explaining life. But life is explained by our evolution, not the artificial clubs humans invent.

Lots of atheists and Buddhists like to claim Buddhism is atheistic. That is no different than claiming Jews can be atheists. Yes you can find Jews who like the religion and the rituals who don't believe in a god.

But, Asia and the Orient are full of Buddhists, from Japan to China and still contain different sects that have their own superstitions. Reincarnation, Karma, and "nats"=spirits. Buddhism is not superstition free.

[dyresand]

I've tried to read the bible several times. I can't really get much further than Genesis. It's just so fucking boring, and from the very first page it's clear that it was written and compiled by people who were just winging it. It's just a mishmash of nonsense and questionable genealogy. I'm astounded that it maintains its hold on people today.

Try reading the Jefferson bible it cuts all those bits out.

---

I've tried to read the bible several times. I can't really get much further than Genesis. It's just so fucking boring, and from the very first page it's clear that it was written and compiled by people who were just winging it. It's just a mishmash of nonsense and questionable genealogy. I'm astounded that it maintains its hold on people today.

I really hate the argument "Have you read it"? I got the same argument from an atheist when I told him Buddhism was as much bologna. "Have you studied it"?

All of them were started in an age of scientific ignorance. How much of a comic book do you have to read before you realize it is a comic book. Religion is a result of gap filling, a flaw in humans perceptions. It is good for creating groups for resources and numbers, but it is still a sugar pill.

There is not one thing in any religion that depicts good acts or explains our bad acts as a species. They all are attempts at explaining life. But life is explained by our evolution, not the artificial clubs humans invent.

Lots of atheists and Buddhists like to claim Buddhism is atheistic. That is no different than claiming Jews can be atheists. Yes you can find Jews who like the religion and the rituals who don't believe in a god.

But, Asia and the Orient are full of Buddhists, from Japan to China and still contain different sects that have their own superstitions. Reincarnation, Karma, and "nats"=spirits. Buddhism is not superstition free.

I tend to like Buddhism over christianity even though Buddhism has its share of bullshit and violence i still like it. Considering how inhuman christianity is.

[Brian37]

I've tried to read the bible several times. I can't really get much further than Genesis. It's just so fucking boring, and from the very first page it's clear that it was written and compiled by people who were just winging it. It's just a mishmash of nonsense and questionable genealogy. I'm astounded that it maintains its hold on people today.

Try reading the Jefferson bible it cuts all those bits out.

---

I really hate the argument "Have you read it"? I got the same argument from an atheist when I told him Buddhism was as much bologna. "Have you studied it"?

All of them were started in an age of scientific ignorance. How much of a comic book do you have to read before you realize it is a comic book. Religion is a result of gap filling, a flaw in humans perceptions. It is good for creating groups for resources and numbers, but it is still a sugar pill.

There is not one thing in any religion that depicts good acts or explains our bad acts as a species. They all are attempts at explaining life. But life is explained by our evolution, not the artificial clubs humans invent.

Lots of atheists and Buddhists like to claim Buddhism is atheistic. That is no different than claiming Jews can be atheists. Yes you can find Jews who like the religion and the rituals who don't believe in a god.

But, Asia and the Orient are full of Buddhists, from Japan to China and still contain different sects that have their own superstitions. Reincarnation, Karma, and "nats"=spirits. Buddhism is not superstition free.

I tend to like Buddhism over christianity even though Buddhism has its share of bullshit and violence i still like it. Considering how inhuman christianity is.

Yea, seemingly less violent is really a POV, humans have always been violent and no religion has ever been peaceful 100% of the time.

All religions are volcanos, some are simply currently more dormant while others are currently more active.

---

I also have to add that not even the word "atheist" is a moral code. I don't like it when atheists claim they are above theism's actions. Our species ability to be cruel or compassion is in our evolution, not our labels. "atheist" is merely the "off" position on one claim. It is not a religion, a political party, moral code or loyalty oath or economic model. I don't like the idea of "atheist churches". It sounds harmless to atheists now, but after they are dead they won't be around to prevent "atheist" from going from a mere position to becoming "Atheist" a religion.