Stephen Fry is a hero

[Erlian]

[video=youtube;-suvkwNYSQo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo[/video]

http://mic.com/articles/109568/athe...licymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social

 

[Skarekrow]

It seems he rejects the ideas and attributions that mankind has given God…it doesn’t seems that he is denying that God could exist only that the Biblical Abrahamic God is an unjust bully - which is true.
That isn’t how I picture God in my mind…no beard or flowing robes…just a higher being, maybe our higher selves.
Secondly, to assume that God doesn’t care because children have bone cancer doesn’t take all the factors into account.
IMO, in order for us to have true free will, then that means that “God" cannot intervene in our lives or the lives of children with bone cancer.
(He certainly doesn’t help one football team beat the other *rolls eyes*)
It seems cold but we also don’t know what the true purpose of our suffering is either…you cannot know great joy without great suffering.
Also, we cannot assume to understand the mind of “God” (when I speak of God I personally mean a universal/collective consciousness).
When one stops giving “God” certain human attributes from ancient Biblical stories written, omitted, and changed by man then God becomes something better altogether.
I agree, it make zero sense…a God that would turn Lot’s wife into salt for looking back…or God ordering Abraham to kill his son to prove himself…or how about Jesus withering a fig tree because it wasn’t yet ready to bear fruit (kind of a dick move)…or the time the Israelites got tired of eating Manna so God made them eat meat until they were sick of it ("till it was coming out their noses”)….or when he killed everyone and flooded the earth…or when the angels went around and killed all the infants in Egypt….or poor Job...man, I could go on forever.

I do believe in God….but I agree with Fry in that, it isn’t how I think of God…I certainly don’t believe in Hell. (cooked up by mankind)

 

[rawr]

this, by its nature, is not heroic. Nor is it an original opinion. Just because he states it with vehemence doesn't mean he is a hero.

 

[Tin Man]

this, by its nature, is not heroic. Nor is it an original opinion. Just because he states it with vehemence doesn't mean he is a hero.

Very true. It's about as original as saying the Twilight movies aren't very good.

I'm not a fan of atheist fundamentalists. The idea that all humankind's woes comes from religion is childish at best. It completely ignores the larger issue and using religion as a scapegoat only detracts from the more important discussion.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I do not know who Fry is unless we are talking about Futurama.
Having said that Atheists have the right to say what they like just as the religious do. However here is the big thought. What is mankinds natural state? To believe in something larger than themselves or to believe in nothing at all. I ask because its relevant to how in incorporated into every day life. If you observe one religion through a government, you should have to observe all or none. Places like Iran scare me past the obvious reasons. They force you to observe their religion. A person like myself would be executed in short order there all for doing nothing more that uttering words from my mouth.

 

[Erlian]

this, by its nature, is not heroic. Nor is it an original opinion. Just because he states it with vehemence doesn't mean he is a hero.

I never meant to depict him as hero. I just looked for a word that sounded nice.
The goal of my post wasn't to show his well-known opinion, but his eloquence.
His opinion wasn't original at all. I can agree with that. But by that logic almost no opinion would be original. I think the way he presented his unoriginal opinion was very original.

But I'll follow you into this discussion and try to depict him as a hero although I never saw him as one.
Also because I'm butthurt that this became topic of discussion in the first place.

Arguably heros only exist in fiction.
If they exist in the real world, it's highly subjective.
A deed or person is never heroic "by nature". Heroic is a social construct.

And now I think of it, I think Fry resembles much of what I think a hero is like.
Heros fight against the odds. Fry did when he was younger. At those times being homosexual wasn't quite accepted. Fry fought against the odds without fear.
He was skilled in his battles. Not with the sword like Achilles, but with eloquence and charisma which is needed to win public television battles over the opinion of the viewers.
And he won. Not alone. But he was one of the "heros" that fought against religion for the homosexual cause.

So yeah, he's pretty much a hero. I might disagree with his cause. But just because you fight for one side in a war, doesn't mean the other side can't have heroes.

Very true. It's about as original as saying the Twilight movies aren't very good.

I think the way he said it was pretty original.

I'm not a fan of atheist fundamentalists. The idea that all humankind's woes comes from religion is childish at best. It completely ignores the larger issue and using religion as a scapegoat only detracts from the more important discussion.

Me neither. Actually a close friend is a big fan of Stephen Fry and we always debate on that. I think Stephen Fry is far too extremistic on religion. I fully agree with Fry on the negative sides of religion, but Fry is close-minded and forgets the positive sides of religion.

Stephen Fry is twice a hero. A hero for the atheist fundamentalists (not me).
And a hero for his eloquence, which I greatly admire.


On the offense
I expected to get some negative replies on a forum with Americans. After all, Americans really dislike atheists.
But I expected more on-topic critique, like Skarekrow's (which I think is the perfect counter to Fry's arguments), instead of word semantics.
It's like one just had to find something bad about my post. And seeing all the positive rep I claim lots of butthurt religious people around here.

I'm actually even more convinced now that Stephen Fry is still a hero and that he still has plenty to fight in the US.
Although I must admit that Stephen Fry is pretty far from a likable atheist in the eyes of the religous. So he won't accomplish much there.

 

[Erlian]

However here is the big thought. What is mankinds natural state? To believe in something larger than themselves or to believe in nothing at all.

Interesting question.


Define natural state.

Believing in something bigger probably started when mankind started to tell each other stories. Now only recently religion is lessening.
Were we unnatural before we could tell stories? Are we unnatural now we know how lightning works?
Were we unnatural for millenia when we told stories to explain what happened around us?

Is believing as a child in Santa the same as believing in something larger? Is believing in science also believing in something bigger?

 

[Cornerstone]

Everyone bashes the OT God but isn't He completely balanced out by Jesus.

Okay, it's one man versus a multitude in the OT but He gets as good as he gives is the point, I think.

I found this kind of crass and I'd be disappointed in Stephen Fry but I know he is a bit of a pseduo-intellectual anyway. At least, he sticks to rationalism which is a dead end in my opinion.

The mention of Greek gods was interesting though and one I've been thinking about a lot myself. I think there is something to it as well. However, the ultimate source is beyond and encompassing of all those.

 

[Skarekrow]

@Erlian

I know what I believe and it has been a struggle to have the amount of “faith” that I have about certain things.
My main turn-off with many religions is the claim to be the “ONE”.
No, not like Keanu Reeves…but the one true and only religion which frankly makes me throw up a little in my mouth.
They makes this claim by ignoring parts of the Bible and emphasizing other parts which I feel is doing a great disservice.
People also need to learn the difference between a parable and an actual event.

 

[BrokenDaniel]

I don't know who Stephen Fry is, but i don't think he is saying anything new, nor particularly controversial at this point by bashing religion. However, i find interesting his mention of greece, i remember in college a teacher who said something among those lines when lecturing about ancient history, and the lust for life that the greek gods seemed to have.

 

[Lark]

If by hero you mean fucking dickhead then I'd agree.

 

[Lark]

Stephen Fry is a miserable bi polar individual whose experience of life makes him an atheist and one which cant stand others not feeling his constant pain, misery and convictions of cosmic meaninglessness, pointlessness and such as a sort of badge of maturity and honour.

His points about God are hopelessly, stupidly anthropomorphic but typical of a lot of arrogant atheism.

There's no courage to behaving this way, its incredibly cliched and passe, consequently, lacking all courage, I struggle to see how it can be considered heroic. Its not likely at all that anyone expressing those sorts of opinions is going to be subject to the court of public opinion or any other sort of adversity as a consequence of expressing those views. They're likely to be heralded as some kind of genius but a legion of liberal, politically correct, unreflective and emoting driven enemies of tradition and religion, I've no idea who would want to be part of such a conformist herd of easily satisfied individuals when it comes to questions of metaphysics or philosophy or spirituality.

Atheists are the biggest bores ever, they hate imagination, they hate experience typical to humanity for the longest time span of human existence and history and I suspect ultimately they are not even that cracked up about themselves.

 

[Lark]

It seems he rejects the ideas and attributions that mankind has given God…it doesn’t seems that he is denying that God could exist only that the Biblical Abrahamic God is an unjust bully - which is true.
That isn’t how I picture God in my mind…no beard or flowing robes…just a higher being, maybe our higher selves.
Secondly, to assume that God doesn’t care because children have bone cancer doesn’t take all the factors into account.
IMO, in order for us to have true free will, then that means that “God" cannot intervene in our lives or the lives of children with bone cancer.
(He certainly doesn’t help one football team beat the other *rolls eyes*)
It seems cold but we also don’t know what the true purpose of our suffering is either…you cannot know great joy without great suffering.
Also, we cannot assume to understand the mind of “God” (when I speak of God I personally mean a universal/collective consciousness).
When one stops giving “God” certain human attributes from ancient Biblical stories written, omitted, and changed by man then God becomes something better altogether.
I agree, it make zero sense…a God that would turn Lot’s wife into salt for looking back…or God ordering Abraham to kill his son to prove himself…or how about Jesus withering a fig tree because it wasn’t yet ready to bear fruit (kind of a dick move)…or the time the Israelites got tired of eating Manna so God made them eat meat until they were sick of it ("till it was coming out their noses”)….or when he killed everyone and flooded the earth…or when the angels went around and killed all the infants in Egypt….or poor Job...man, I could go on forever.

I do believe in God….but I agree with Fry in that, it isn’t how I think of God…I certainly don’t believe in Hell. (cooked up by mankind)

I dont know how you can say you believe in God and do not believe in hell, since hell is being seperate from God.

I dont think that God can be considered this much vaunted bully, its cherry picking of religion in extremis, contrasting bad religion, as the only example there is of religion, with a good alternative is bogus too.

It would be a little like choosing to focus upon Stalin or Pol Pot as really excellent examples of atheism, to the exclusion of any and all possible alternative forms of atheism.

 

[Erlian]

Stephen Fry is a miserable bi polar individual whose experience of life makes him an atheist and one which cant stand others not feeling his constant pain, misery and convictions of cosmic meaninglessness, pointlessness and such as a sort of badge of maturity and honour.

I like how you described him. Just like how I like Stephen Fry's words. I agree with neither of you.

There's no courage to behaving this way, its incredibly cliched and passe, consequently, lacking all courage, I struggle to see how it can be considered heroic. Its not likely at all that anyone expressing those sorts of opinions is going to be subject to the court of public opinion or any other sort of adversity as a consequence of expressing those views. They're likely to be heralded as some kind of genius but a legion of liberal, politically correct, unreflective and emoting driven enemies of tradition and religion, I've no idea who would want to be part of such a conformist herd of easily satisfied individuals when it comes to questions of metaphysics or philosophy or spirituality.

Atheists are the biggest bores ever, they hate imagination, they hate experience typical to humanity for the longest time span of human existence and history and I suspect ultimately they are not even that cracked up about themselves.

You are much like Stephen Fry. Extremistisc in your opinion. No understanding for the other side.

I won't discuss whether it's courageous, but will address your point of the atheists.

They're likely to be heralded as some kind of prophet by a legion of conservative, unreflective and emotion driven enemies of open-mindedness and science. I have no idea who would want to be part of such a conformist herd of easily satisfied individuals when it comes to questions of metaphysics or philosophy or science.

Really especially the last part. You get all that from one book? Close-minded much. I'm open to all sources equally and will critically reflect on all. On any topic.
I found some nice answers to metaphysical/philosophical/spiritual questions by atheists. And lucky you, it's narrated by Stephen Fry. Now be open-minded and check it out.
There are plenty of answers to tough questions in the atheist world, in this case by "the humanists".
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stephen+fry+narrates

 

[Skarekrow]

I dont know how you can say you believe in God and do not believe in hell, since hell is being seperate from God.

I dont think that God can be considered this much vaunted bully, its cherry picking of religion in extremis, contrasting bad religion, as the only example there is of religion, with a good alternative is bogus too.

It would be a little like choosing to focus upon Stalin or Pol Pot as really excellent examples of atheism, to the exclusion of any and all possible alternative forms of atheism.

Hell could be considered being separated from God, so one could argue that we are currently there….and then what have we done to deserve this? Sounds rather unjust to me, but of course we as humans have quite an incomplete picture of what is truly just or is truly true for that matter.
Because I was speaking of the Abrahamic bully, I was also referring to that version of Hell (the fire and brimstone and eternal torture palace) which I find ridiculously extrapolated from Dante’s Inferno which the church used to “put the fear of god” in people back in those times.
I think you would find we have more to agree on than disagree Lark, we just clash in style.

 

[Skarekrow]

[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]
The other half of that question.

I am not cherry picking any more than the major religions are cherry picking…and the religious extremist are really cherry picking.
I have read the Bible several times…I have also read the book of mormon, and the Koran.
The old testament God (Elohim) was a bully…he wouldn’t even let Abraham look upon his face (or he would die) so God revealed his “back parts” to him.
All that shit he did to Job to win a bet with Satan, whom he supposedly had power over.
Anyone who says that the Bible is the original text is insane and is deluding themselves because that answer is easier than the real one.

 

[rawr]

I never meant to depict him as hero. I just looked for a word that sounded nice.

OK, so maybe you should have picked a different title. I know you're stating an opinion, but something like "I really like what Fry has to say, what do you think?" would work better.

Also because I'm butthurt that this became topic of discussion in the first place.

maybe you should have thought of that before posting the title in a subforum known for debate.

So yeah, he's pretty much a hero. I might disagree with his cause. But just because you fight for one side in a war, doesn't mean the other side can't have heroes.

So which one is it, is he a hero, or not?

Again, i understand what you're saying but just because you state something eloquently doesn't make you a hero.

On the offense
I expected to get some negative replies on a forum with Americans. After all, Americans really dislike atheists.

way to make broad generalizations...Sure, there are on average more atheists in Europe than the US, but still, that last statement is just wrong and abrasive.

If by hero you mean fucking dickhead then I'd agree.

uncalled for, regardless of your opinion. It's posts like these that make me not want to read your legitimate opinions. If you want to discuss things, and even bring pathos into an argument, at least be rational and decent about it.

Stephen Fry is a miserable bi polar individual whose experience of life makes him an atheist and one which cant stand others not feeling his constant pain, misery and convictions of cosmic meaninglessness, pointlessness and such as a sort of badge of maturity and honour.

His points about God are hopelessly, stupidly anthropomorphic but typical of a lot of arrogant atheism.

There's no courage to behaving this way, its incredibly cliched and passe, consequently, lacking all courage, I struggle to see how it can be considered heroic. Its not likely at all that anyone expressing those sorts of opinions is going to be subject to the court of public opinion or any other sort of adversity as a consequence of expressing those views. They're likely to be heralded as some kind of genius but a legion of liberal, politically correct, unreflective and emoting driven enemies of tradition and religion, I've no idea who would want to be part of such a conformist herd of easily satisfied individuals when it comes to questions of metaphysics or philosophy or spirituality.

Atheists are the biggest bores ever, they hate imagination, they hate experience typical to humanity for the longest time span of human existence and history and I suspect ultimately they are not even that cracked up about themselves.

while i agree with some of your opinions, i don't think this should be an attack on a group of people and their characters just because you disagree with one person who shares a similar belief. This is textbook ad hominem fallacy and fallacy of composition and not at all suited for these kind of discussions. What if i said all Christians were dicks and angry people, based on how you responded?

 

[INFJok]

[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]
The other half of that question.

I am not cherry picking any more than the major religions are cherry picking…and the religious extremist are really cherry picking.
I have read the Bible several times…I have also read the book of mormon, and the Koran.
The old testament God (Elohim) was a bully…he wouldn’t even let Abraham look upon his face (or he would die) so God revealed his “back parts” to him.
All that shit he did to Job to win a bet with Satan, whom he supposedly had power over.
Anyone who says that the Bible is the original text is insane and is deluding themselves because that answer is easier than the real one.

Thank you for bringing this point up. There are a lot of wholes in the Bible that leave us a lot of questions, like there were already people (not fallen angels) in the garden before Adam and Eve!

 

[Skarekrow]

[/B]


Thank you for bringing this point up. There are a lot of wholes in the Bible that leave us a lot of questions, like there were already people (not fallen angels) in the garden before Adam and Eve!

The whole Gnostic side of Christianity, the side that believed Heaven was inside us all…they were trying to see around the curtain/veil, they were wiped out for the most part as were many of the writings, many were other accounts of Jesus.
The winning side always gets to write history.

 

[Skarekrow]

[video=youtube_share;Gzvs2Fex6ms]http://youtu.be/Gzvs2Fex6ms[/video]

BBC:
The Gnostic Origins of Christianity
​