Comments by "" (@titteryenot4524) on "An Atheist in the Realm of Myth | Stephen Fry | EP 169" video.
-
Atheism, a ‘failed father’? How so? Just because one is an atheist/agnostic, this does not intrinsically determine whether one is a social/moral/political ‘failure’, as you term it. You seem to be politicising the term ‘atheism’ and assuming all of them are leftist/liberals. I’m aware of many atheist/agnostics of multifarious stripes politically, some conservative, some liberal, some socialist, some none of these. Fry’s simply making the point, as I see it, that his ‘empiricism’ has lead him to decide that there is no God. You have labelled yourself as a ‘Christian Conservative’. Any reasonably educated man (eg Fry) can see how you might have empirically/rationally come to be the Conservative part of that epithet; that same man, however, has difficulty understanding on empirical/rational grounds how you came to the ‘Christian’ part. Everything Fry said here concerning this was sound. Rather, as I watched, it was Peterson who offered next to nothing as to why he has chosen to hold a belief that there is a God.👿
1
-
@marcfalsetti9381 ‘The constants of God and the Bible are the reference points I personally use as my map towards the pursuit of righteousness and truth.’ Really? Have you looked closely and with any notion of a critical faculty at your God of the Old Testament recently? The God that is the ‘father’ (allegedly) of your personal saviour? Anyone, believer or non-believer, cannot, in my opinion, read the Old Testament and read about the nature of the character of God therein, and not be struck by something. This is, that that God is a quite horrendously brutal character, however way you want to cut it. I’m no particular fan of Richard Dawkins (a debate for another day), but, in my view, he was 100% spot on about his take on this Old Testament God: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Now, Fry, for example, has used his empiricism, that is read this text, and seems to have come to the conclusion that this will not do. I happen to agree with him, although I am not an atheist. Fry, no doubt, has also interrogated the traditional ‘proofs’ cited for the existence of a God (personal or otherwise) and found them wanting. These proofs (Aquinas’ 5 ways) being : the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument. Also in all this, I would question why and how individuals choose to believe in a given religion. Why, for instance, are you not praying to Mecca? After all, the God of Islam is yours. Why, for instance, are you not attending the Jewish temple on a regular basis? After all, the God of Judaism is yours. Wider than this. If you believe in a God, why not the God(s) of the Hindu tradition? Why, indeed, aren’t you following the Norse gods, or the Greek gods, or the Egyptian gods? I would suggest that you opted for the barbaric deity of the Old Testament is due to an accident of birth and the tradition you were/are culturally swimming in. If you had been born in Baghdad, you would be defending, more than likely, the Islamic version of your God. If you had been born in Tokyo, this conversation would, more than likely, be centred around the Buddhist or the Shinto religious inheritance. I hope you see my point. You have, as far as I can determine, opted to put your eggs in the Christian basket (case?) and the God of the Old/New Testament. You have opted for believing, something which is wholly your prerogative, in someone for which beyond the self-contradictory gospels, there is scanty historical evidence. But, for me, a non-atheist, and empiricist, you have chosen as your ‘map towards the pursuit of righteousness and truth’, a God of the quite most repulsive nature, on any dispassionate, unbiased reading, one could possibly imagine. As I say, this is your right.☀️
1
-
@marcfalsetti9381 A book with about 40 authors, cobbled together over 1500 years or so, is, with the best will in the world, not a book I can put much credence in, if you expect me to believe it in toto the ‘word of God’. No, for me, I cannot get beyond the sanguinary, revolting nature of the character therein we are expected to love/fear. (<A contradiction right there if ever I heard one). I am not willing to jettison my critical faculties and be browbeaten into believing something and someone so grotesquely nasty and vicious. Jesus? Well, as I said, after extensive research throughout my life, my conclusion is that he never historically existed. As I say, beyond the terribly self-contradictory and unreliable gospels there are a couple of nebulous mentions in the Judeo-Roman historical chronicles, but that’s not enough. The bottom line for me is you earn my love and respect. The Old Testament God singularly fails in this task. You, if I may say so, simply fit the pattern I outlined in my previous post, that is, swimming in the pre-ordained religious waters you were randomly born into. This, for me, is the single biggest reason you chose the Bible as your book of choice in the market of religious texts. You chose, as a Catholic, the one you were most familiar with. I repeat, if you had been born elsewhere on this planet, somewhere where Christianity is a minority religion, I’m willing to bet very good money you would be telling me your God was A.N. Other. And I’ve never placed a bet in my entire life! Anyway, all the best.✌️
1
-
@marcfalsetti9381 One other addendum, as I feel it’s important in this debate. I will say it straight: anyone who chooses to adopt any unquestioned and not able to be questioned religious text as their guide to get through this sublunary existence is, in my opinion, simply someone feeling powerless. For whatever reason(s), there has been a felt inadequacy with who and what they are. Therefore they look outward in search of an ‘authority’ they can latch on to, something that ‘empowers’ their, hitherto, weak sense of self. This doesn’t matter one iota if it’s kept private and doesn’t intrude into the lives of others. Alas, all organised religions cannot claim immunity when they are imputed as being something very inimical to a settled, peaceful human existence, and mutual coexistence with others. I would say this: organised religion, along with nationalism/patriotism/tribalism, has been the cause of most egregious blood-letting in human history. I’m willing to bet, correct me if I’m wrong, that you would be quite prepared to defend your unsubstantiated, and unable to be substantiated, theories to the death. What I see with those who pick this or that religion/God, are simply frightened, powerless individuals seeking something they can wield to correct and assert that perceived self-emasculation. Any philosophy/faith/religion of any stripe, that feels the need to threaten potential adherents with an everlasting eternal Hell, on pain of not buying the creed, is a belief system very, very unsure of itself. Moreover, it is incredibly dangerous for the peaceful coexistence of humanity.😉
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcfalsetti9381 I fear you’re a tad unhinged, dear fellow. I was curious. I did some due diligence. Checked out your Facebook page. As I had feared. The stereotype par excellence of the militant (‘I am right, you are all wrong, and what’s more, damned to eternal Hell for being wrong!’) It’s just boring, man. You and your rigid claptrap ain’t gettin’ me jivin’, man. I have met with your type since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, and there’s no debating with you. You’re in a trance and until that spell is broken, then there is no hope for reasonable debate. Smoke on this little quotable doobie from Steven Weinberg and then I’m done: With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. Just for the record, I’m not an atheist, something you have singularly failed to establish throughout this interlocution. Think on, but stay away from anything that matters, as you’re akin to a toddler with a box of matches in a nitroglycerin factory. ☀️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1