Stephen Fry calls God an ‘evil, capricious, monstrous maniac’

That God exists.

 

But you have "no idea what He's like"?......so "God" could be evil or cruel?

 

Could be...in a universe of limitless possibilities. But that's projecting your own feelings on him
just like evangelists and bible thumpers would project pure love on God.

I would certainly prefer that God ultimately be of good will. But I don't know the guy.

The thing is, God is a litmus test of our own good heart and inherent nastiness. Whatever you want to see you'll see. That's why I feel pity for people like Stephen Fry and the trolls that perpetually post "Jesus is more evil than Hitler" threads. They seem entrenched in darkness.

Btw...you understand that your fellow human beings, the people that put others in cages and set them on fire
and torture helpless animals, are far more a threat than a deity that, as far as anyone can tell, has no hand in our daily lives at all. Right?

 

The main problem with all of this talk is the underlying belief that if God exist, he cares one bit about man's ideals specifically. Now granted God may, or God may not. Fact is though that a being that is beyond human understanding (which anything supernatural would be by definition) would likely not see the universe (something he would have created) the same way we do. Likewise multiple things that mankind suffer from (such as diseases and poverty) to him may simply not matter. Perhaps such suffering is a part of the process of creation and destruction, that is as needed in creation as black holes, absolute zero, and universal expansion and contraction.

The underlying problem of Fry's argument is that he is viewing a being that would be far beyond his understandings on Fry's flawed views and terms, without understanding that by the very nature of him being Stephen Fry he doesn't understand how the universe works, and why. Again remember by definition when dealing with such a supernatural being, we are natural dealing with something that is well beyond our ability to understand. To argue against such a being, and believing that you have any moral argument against such a being would be similar to a single cell organism arguing against a man who destroyed him because he scratched his forehead.

Man's belief in his own cosmic importance may in the end prove to by highly overrated. In other words the only thing Fry is really doing here is demonstrating his own egoism, for the sake of his own egoism, and for no other purpose. He isn't making any great statement. Fry falls for the same problem that many other supposed atheist and theist fall for, and that is that God if he exist would feel like he would have to follow the ideals and beliefs of creatures that are by their very nature inferior to him, by the creator's very design.

The interviewer's follow up question should have been this. "What if God responded with this phrase: "The answer you are looking for I can not give you, because you are by your very design unable to understand it. The only way you may one day come to realize the answer you search for is to stay with me." What then would your response be Mr. Fry? Would you continue to live in your own ignorance in order to feel the positive feeling of moral superiority? Or would you instead submit to a being who's very existence is beyond any views and understanding that you could possibly hold?"

My guess is Mr. Fry would rather live in ignorance in such a hypothetical situation in order to massage his own ego, and sense or moral supremacy.

 

Did you actually read your link. It states "Robert Ballard thinks he has found proof that the biblical flood was actually based on real events"

We already know a lot of the area in question has been succeptable to floods. There are many other flood stories in other religions. But the actual world wide flood that was decribed in the bible is scientifically impossible.

 

Yes. There is scientific basis for a massive flood in the so called "fertile crescent" region. But there was no world wide flood. The bible got the scope of the flood all wrong. But not the flood itself.

 

Nah, was one for a good many years. Serves no real purpose if one has goodness from within.

 

I'm glad we agree that since the story of Noah was just a tale.....so that likely means that the whole Bible is highly, HIGHLY suspect as to it's validity, obviously. If a Richard Dawkins book described him, say, having a conversation with a donkey, and made no indication that it was not actually real, we'd think Dawkins was nuts - and we have the same suspicion about the people who accepted a talking donkey in the Bible.

 

Well I've already given my assessment of the bible...ancient people trying to
account for the world all around them and make some sense of things.
If I read the bible at all, which I almost never do (just saying), it's not for the fables enclosed therein. Therefore I don't give talking donkeys much notice.

 

Align does not mean become a believer. This is a religious battle that you will not be able to sit out no matter how Godless you become.

 

Depends on how many animals there are. Funny how some ignore all possibilities.

- - - Updated - - -

Fry is clueless. Why do some have such a hard time understanding a simple concept like spirituality?

 

Ignoring the possibility of a God is the childish copout.

 

"....if they chose not to." Well, at least you are admitting to the existence of 'free will' during your little rant about what your opinion of god is... ya know, the opportunity to make choices of your own volition.

 

If He is all-knowing, as you say, then He knows how humans should act. So how can He not be judgemental?

 

Easy, by just creating a Heaven in which everything is great and nobody is able to act inappropriately, or should I say, according to his personal definition of inappropriately. There's no need for this silly test.

Yeah, and what about choice? What good is free will, if we're not supposed to use it? This god person is like a child, and we're his cute little playthings.

 

Why do some have such a hard time understanding a simple concept like "reality"?

- - - Updated - - -

So then we can all agree that if the the Bible got that important point wrong, that god would obviously know better, then it's not "breathed on" by god like it claims.

 

The Bible believes in a flat earth, so we can glean, say, philosophical advice from it possibly, but we of course can't trust it for advice about how the universe was created.....so it's possibly good philosophy, but bad at being a trusted guide to life/world. SCIENCE is our best guide to questions about the universe....not the Hindu texts, the Jain texts, the Egyptian texts, or the Christian texts.

 

Keep in mind: since fry is GAY, their god says to kill him, so of course he would hate that monsterous god. Can't blame him. Hopefully, someday, Christians will become compassionate enough to remove those parts of their moral guide book. Until then, Fry is a better role model than the Bible is.

 

Heaven is a reward, and one has to earn the right to be there.

 

But it's an UNFAIR reward, because if a decent, moral, honest, hard-working person - who is more moral than the average heaven-bound person even, doesn't believe that magic is real (and therefore can't bring themself to be religious) then they apparently burn, burn, and burn some more. Clearly religions are unfair.

 

That would depend on whether this moral person was sincere about finding God; had access to the proper knowledge concerning God; his reasoning for rejecting or not believing in God; etc.....

 

If he follows science, because religions are too inconsistent/immoral, he'll burn in hell. That's not fair. Religions are simply unfair. He doesn't "reject god", but rather "embraces science and morality".

 

It doesn't have to be. This god could have simply created a heaven and inhabited it with people who had no choice but to abide by his rules.

I would like to know what his point is. I don't understand the need for this test he has created for us to endure.

 

I have no idea what this sentence could possibly be trying to say.

 

Choice is part of that free will. Exercise it. Who said you are not supposed to use it? I don't recall reading that anywhere in scripture. First of all, "god" (if you are referring to the God of Abraham) is not a person. However, if you are talking about a lesser 'god' such as mentioned in scripture ("Is it not written in your law that I have said that ye are gods"), yes that 'god' could be like a little child, but in that case we can be his cute little play things, if you are willing to submit to the whims of such a 'person'. The God of Abraham looks upon us as His Children, not "cute little play things."