Hey Guys, today we are going to react to - The Best of Stephen Fry | on Religion Keep Loving! Mailing Address - Joginder Singh Shop No. 1, Beside Aksar Bhavan, Opp. Dada Market, Begumwadi Surat, Gujarat - 395003 INDIA
You have to watch the whole debate where Stephen is talking about being gay, thus evil. It is one of the best I`ve ever seen. Fry and Hitchens are debating against the Catholic Church. A masterclass/piece!!!!
This is such a fucking powerful quote.. Because it's true, anyone so enlightened would have absolutely no ego, and would know that they're just part of a grander scheme in which we ALL exist. If there is a god, then where did they come from? Because existence in itself shows us there can never have been nothing... At no single point in time was there nothing
@@joshryan82 how do u know? u would not know. Nothing is not nothing without comparisen or even an spectater to recognize the nothing. even if i discover it right now and would tell u about the most peopel won't see if there mind isn#t made gor nothingness
One is born, then lives, then dies. One makes the most of it and tries to understand. One gets on with it...... ...until other people tell you that you are wrong. We are all just trying to get through life, we don't need obstacles of our own making, we have enough natural ones.
Everyone has the right to believe in whatever they wish, but they should never force their belief on others. Such people are the ones who have created centuries of wars in the name of religion, the idea is tribal and can be filled with hate agaist whose who are different to themselves. If there is no religion it would go a long way to us having a peaceful, forgiving world.
I agree entirely. I don't believe in God, if I were to consider myself religious in any way I would more closely align with a Pagan faith (appreciation for Earth and nature, along with respecting our place in it). But i don't feel the need to join a "club" in which the rules of belief are dictated. Organized religion is a scourge. People should have their opinions and their beliefs without it needing to be dictated by a cult leader. The world would be a far more interesting and diverse place if everyone could freely ponder and discuss Humanity and our existence in the universe without a set of laws and principles imposed by a "church". This would also solve the problem of tribalism. If everyone has walked their own path of considering Human existence there would be several billion individual notions, all fascinating, all worth contemplating, without this cult-like obsession of "belonging" to a collective who all have to adhere to one homogeneous notion - and that one homogeneous notion always seems to involve destroying another homogeneous notion.
I do genuinely agree, and for the record i'm not religious, however i don't agree the world would be any more peaceful without religion at all. Humans are greedy, we want land and power and gold. Religion was only ever used as an excuse and an attempt to justify it; it was relatively rarely the direct cause. If you look at the world today, we cause war and violence, but now we don't even bother to use religion to justify it. You could, in fact, argue that religion has given society a degree of moral structure, where there was once quite little. That's not to say that without it we wouldn't have morals and ethics, but the Bible - despite, as Stephen presents, the horrid examples of 'morals' in the scriptures - gave us teachings that helped distill some ethical laws and moral values in society. Ultimately, in my opinion, Religion used to have a place in human society, but it has now served it's purpose and long-since run it's course; it lingering any longer presents only risk to society. So, in that way, I certainly agree.
@@samuel.j.barker I do see your point. And if you ask me if the world would have been more peaceful without religion or not my answer is: I don't know. Religion isn't the only way we create morals and ethics in our societies. In my opinion it is impossible to say if how we would have created our societies without religion would have been more moral or not. There are two points however that might not be in favor of religion. (with counterpoints though, because I really just don't know) 1. Religion is possibly the "best" way to make otherwise good and moral people doing and believing horrible stuff. (Though as counterpoint, the fear of punishment in an afterlife is also what can hold immoral people in line) 2. Religion is uniquely capable in creating dogmatic thinking. For which I am sure you see the problems. (Though, unfortunately dogmatic thinking does seems to be in our nature. It is very possible that without religion it would have latched onto something else. Not sure there is much point in this comment, but I guess I felt like sharing. Anyway, if you read this, hope you have a great day.
The idea that you are being 'punished' for doing something you did in some past life is not a million miles away from victim blaming. "Ah, born with leukemia? Shame you deserve it". Not a cool philosophy IMO.
yeh i was thinking this when she said it. you cant reincarnate someone into a child who is innocent and unaware of their previous life and then torture and kill them to punish them for actions they did not take. think about it this way (far fetched i know but then so is this religious point of view so) lets say instead of shooting himself hitler was hit by an alien energy beam and de-aged into a newborn baby with no memory of anything he had done then given away to a kind family where he grew up to be a doctor and healer would you torture him to death because of what his previous adult self did? what would be the point? you wouldnt be punishing a hitler that was aware of his crimes and deserved punishment you would be torturing an innocent man. to want to torture an innocent being is not the act of a benevolent or intelligent god
There's no "past life" mentioned anywhere in Christianity. Your soul isn't being recycled into new people. One life. One chance to get into heaven. You make it or you don't. It's not even about "deserving" it for past sins. There is no past life. Just your life and the rest of eternity in heaven or hell. You have one life on earth before we receive and eternal judgement and verdict. "Forget the former things. Do not dwell on the past." Even if we were judged by our past life how does God gain anything from killing of infants? Let's say I'm Hitler. I'm gonna end a lot of people and cause unimaginable suffering to everyone else. How am I being punished by infant bone cancer for my next 100 lives? I don't know about you but I don't even remember the first few years of my life. None of my suffering then, if there was any, affected me or changed my view on anything.
The right reaction of someone believing such a thing is punishment for a past life, is not to heap on extra punishment but consider such a person having paid off whatever imaginary debt there is, and help that person.
I ask the exact same question of any Christian or Mormon that has the misfortune of knocking on my door, nobody is able to answer it. As Stephen says perfectly, its not a question of whether there is or isn't a God but if there is such thing as a God, what kind of God is he? The evidence around us does not remotely suggest he has caring intentions.
To be fair, this was mainly Stephen Fry arguing against mainstream Christians rather than religion as a whole. That is why he is so focused on the all-knowing, all-powerful God that is supposed to also love everyone. This argument could also work against Muslims, but I think he would have argued differently if, for example, he was asked to debate a Buddhist, Sikh, or Hindu, who answer the question of "why is pain" by suggesting that the world or reality that we live in is not the final one. Loved this video :)
That's true about mostly responding to Christians. A lot of the clips were interviews where he was responding to what he said in the first clip, which is why his examples were word for word the same in some instances. The point still stands to any religion that has a Theist rather than Deist type of God though, and not just Christians. Why so much deliberate cruelty in this world that could easily be simply not included by an intelligent designer to make a far better world? I didn't dig a pit of spikes outside my children's bedrooms as well as doing the good things for them. To do so would send me to prison, and rightly so. The idea that there's a better/proper/final place to go after this life is still not an excuse for why this world is like it is. An all knowing all powerful being doesn't need to make suffering part of any plan, it could create us with the necessary understanding that this suffering supposedly gives us in the first place. Why does simply not being the final place excuse the misery and suffering of billions of innocent people in this place over the years? It doesn't. From what I understand, Buddhist's don't believe in a classical God model, yet still hold unsubstantiated views such as reincarnation for which there is equal evidence to the God proposition, none. I would argue that our simple mortal fear of death is responsible for a lot of religious thinking, certainly the aspect of hope of reincarnation or a better place to go after this one. Any human progress is made when we stop believing in comforting things and start believing in true things.
If, as you claim, "you receive punishment according to what you have done", please tell me what the baby born with cancer, spina bifida etc. has done, that warrants that punishment?
That was a long way from being his 'best' thoughts on religion. Half of the video was the same brief point made again and again. Not Stephen's fault. That was down to the person who compiled these clips but to describe it as his 'best' thoughts is far from the truth. The thoughts here were valid and interesting enough but he's given much more eloquent and profound observations on religion than these few snippets. It's worth checking them out. His friend 'Christopher Hitchens' is equally interesting on this topic and is definitely worth looking at too. :)
As an ex Catholic I say, people invent religions or some kind of spirituality because since year zero people can't face up to the fact that when we die - that's it - finito! Now, I can accept that as a fact and it makes me try and fulfil the time I have in this life.
I'm neopagan but I'm not obsessed with the afterlife. I don't know if there is one, I don't care if there is one. I think the point of everything is that we are born, live and die. Our life only has meaning because it ends. So I can be spiritual without fear of death. Personally my worst nightmare would be eternal life. I'm animist and really don't even have that much thoughts towards gods. There might be god or gods but they can do their stuff (whatever that is) and I do mine.
"We are going to keep debating on this..." I mean, it's clear. One is closed-minded, and the other is much more open-minded. The debate will go on because one of them is regurgitating what they've been programmed to accept without question (even referring to a book that has something to do with a psychologist and their patient as well as the subject of previous life, current life, and afterlife - as if that someone constituted as evidence to their point?). The indoctrination and the cult-like way in which 'belief' is pushed onto people - especially the young - so that they eventually refuse to even question what they were brought up to believe is frightening and frustrating. Tell me something I haven't considered before and I'll give it time. I'll process it. I will consider it with an open mind. If, after considering it and researching it, it strikes me of haven't little to no evidence, logic, or scientific basis... especially when evidence, logic, and scientific basis give a solid argument against what you have told me... then I'll refuse to give it credence. It's simple. Religion had, has always had, and will continue to have a route purpose; to control the masses. Give them something to fear and it will make them question doing something 'wrong'... which would have had much more of an effect on people decades, centuries, or millennia ago. Ultimately, to be a decent human being does not require a higher being, it simply requires... being a decent human being. The fear of punishment after death from a higher being is what is stopping you commit a crime or being immoral in any other way? Then you need to take a long hard look at yourself, not a look upwards to a fictional character (or characters).
Thank you for this, it's very different from most of what I have seen in terms of reaction videos! I am an atheist but I am glad to see that another perspective is presented here as well, and I was impressed by that. We westerners have much to learn from India. I am Swedish but have lived almost 40 years in the far east, in Japan. I have come to realise that there is no absolute truth, right or wrong. That is what experiencing radically different cultures can teach us, and you are making a great contribution by giving your Indian perspective of the world. Interestingly you both have different perspectives. You both add a world view that we can learn something from. Thank you.
You should definitely spend some time watching the full debate from which that last clip is taken. It's a public debate discussing whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. They polled the audience at the start and displayed the numbers who agree with the statement, those who disagree, and those who are unsure. Then each side puts forth their argument, they debate back and forth, and the audience is polled again at the end to see if their views have changed. It's an amazing debate and well worth watching. You will find it extremely difficult to disagree with anything Mr. Fry says.
The concept of heaven and hell falls flat, once you consider that your love ones may be languishing in hell as by definition you are no longer in your idea of heaven
You're such a charming, engaging couple. I am an Atheist, & have been since I was fourteen years of age - now in my sixties. I was brought up to treat all I encoutered with civility, respect, honesty, & dignity - irrespective of that person's race, religious inclination, gender proclivity; the core point being: We are all part of the same fabric, that is life; we share this enormous (yet brief) journey, howsoever different - born without antagonism. Here's a brief quote from the Greek Philosopher, Epicurus, whereby he posits a very salient question in regard to this deity we call 'God'. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?” “Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” For myself, the above rationale is the most compelling of all - four irrefutable lines of logic, & in tandem with Mr. Fry's inalienable reasoning. Take care, both, Best, Andrew 🙂
The promise of reward and the threat of punishment isn’t morality, it’s obedience. Those are the focal points of most all religions which makes them immoral.
I have not read that book about reincarnation however have read other books that deal with the subject and on a personal level I do hope it is so. And that I may find those I have loved in this life meet them again in another life.
@liam loxlley. You’ve been given a platform here. What makes yours any different to Stephen’s? Is it because people are listening and agreeing with him and that it differs to your beliefs? Also, don’t tell people what to or what not to react to, it makes you look foolish
Hes an extremely intelligent man that has debunked all religion! You need to llook at religion these days in who has the most to profit of the political party.
Religion is a choice and an opinion just like the hair style you have or the clothes you put on, everyone’s entitled to believe in fairy tales but just cause you believe it doesn’t make it real . I’m with Stephen Fry 💯
The problem with the religious view is that one is being forced to take part. The idea that you are 'created' without any say in whether you want to take part in a world full of misery. So some child who is born, barely lives and gets kidnapped and murdered lived for what reason? And considering the notion of a God must include the power to know what your past, present and future will be (total omniscience), plus total omnipotence, we have a problem of evil. There is no 'human choice' in these scenarios. A baby doesn't 'choose' a congenital disease and the notion of 'punishment' is just absurd. Every philosopher (e.g. Leibniz as mocked by Voltaire) and theologian has failed to face this and instead attempted the most ludicrous get-out clauses.
Like Stephen I was sent to Sunday School/had RE lessons and got taught bunkum. To my mind there is no evidence of "God", certainly not a nice one, maybe a nasty entity... I read up on Buddhism and Hinduism, got something interesting, but I'm not convinced that the whole religion thing isn't a lot of humans telling stories to themselves.
Science and religion have one thing in common. Booth accept infinity. This is the only thing 'INFINITY' , religion then holds that a god created all things . Science will hold that if infinity and the universe are the same then there is no need for a god because every thing already existed. The world we live and die in is an infinite event and even if there is a god or gods they too will also suffer the workings of this infinite universe.
Though we have a demonstrable intelligence as a species, we are barely infants in the grand scheme of existence. Breakthrough on DMT, a molecule created not only by ourselves but also plants and animals. The experience, described similarly by so many across Our World is more true than the words of the holy books I've read. Be well, cheers from Scotland 🍻✌❤
I do not deny god, but nor am i a believer. But for you to say 'people are worse' is mind boggling.. For one, god created us (if you believe it) .. And god guides us in what we do.. Steven Frys comments here are totally valid and reasonable.. If there is a creator, adding such suffering into existence is sadistic
By definition God is almighty, everything is because of him, everything only happens with his say so, so by definition if you believe in God you have to believe he is the most EVIL being as well as the most GOOD being, otherwise he couldn't have created something evil or good to begin with, so no humans can't be worse/more evil than God that goes against what religious people believe in.
Can we try to be logical, hardships are awful, and nobody is exempt from a crisis, in any shape or form imaginable. How we cope, learn and deal from them is a lesson to learn and perhaps share with others... Judging those that are in crisis, so far as to condemn them as a bad person because of, is such a perplexing attitude toward another is nothing more than, "kicking somebody, while they are down" If one must believe, bad things happen to people that deserve it, then just that thinking so horribly of others, is too putting judgments, evils and unmoral thoughts in to aether... Anyone who demands you to worship, is a cause for concern. Anyone who can justify that, pain and suffering is deserved because of a particular god they fear and worship, is an even greater cause for concern.
I love Fry. He is one of the greatest minds of the last 100 years. I'm not religious and agree with him on most points. But he clearly could have chosen different examples of awful things that happen to innocent people and children. I suppose "children born with bone cancer" is terrible. No gonna argue that. But he easily could've used different examples of other deceases and ailments that only innocent children suffer and die from. But his main point, despite repeating that bone cancer thing over and over, is the suffering of innocents for no reason. If there is a God it is not a God worthy of admiration. But I am a weak person. If I were to find myself at the pearly gates when my time comes I wouldn't be challenging God. I'd get down on my knees and worship. Not out of respect. Out of fear. That is not a God I WANT to worship for its greatness. It's a God I'd worship out of fear. But what kind of God is that? Sounds more like an all powerful maniacal dictator to me...
he does like the Greeks for many reasons ,i do not believe in gods , there are many cases of Egypt and India have animals as gods the ones you can see , the ones you do not see you have to have faith , the roman burnt all scriptures of the past and selected the ones at the time events to document or from mouth to mouth , the Sumerians were the ones of faith of two gods one good and the other to gave us knowledge of the dominant god who enslaved and rped the Jews copied their faith to their own
oh, ok, I see, you're worrying about your afterlife. First of all I'm always surprised by this question about what happens if they die. Why isn't anyone worrying about the time before their birth ? I was dead then, I will be dead again. If it's the same as before my birth, there is nothing to worry about. Just to comfort myself, I like to think of dying as to transition into a universe, where just time doesn't exists. Without time, there's no order to events, everything just is (hence the bright light, because there's no need for light to arrive, it already has). So, if me being is just a game of chance of an incredible number of atoms coming together to form "me", I just have to wait for that same incredible improbability to happen again. In a universe without time, how long do you think it will take for that chance to happen again ? And this is pure physics. No God required.
My problem with past lives is where do all the new live coming from, surely the population is grown to fast for us all to have had continuous passed lives. And how is that the people that claim to know there post life’s always seem to have been a famous person from history.🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🙏🏻🇬🇧😂😂
These are criticisms of Western theistic religions, but if you notice, his criticisms don't touch the Hindu or Buddhist religions, and he even said himself he had more sympathy with ancient Greek religion because within it, the dieties were more like human beings. For the West, consciousness is in the body is in the world. For the East, the world, the body, the whole universe is a happening within consciousness. The latter is true and sane. The former is merely theoretical and mistaken. The West developed the left brain: the East developed the right brain. Meditation is known to connect the two hemespheres. But now the whole purpose of Western civilization has been exhausted in the development of the world-mind. Yet the samskaras are pushing us involuntarily over the cliff edge. Hopefully Mother Nature has a number 2 humanity in her back pocket, and a spare Earth.
Way to write opinion as fact! "The latter is true and sane. The former is merely theoretical and mistaken". Both are 100% speculation and both are irrational as each other. Neither is demonstrably true, neither is demonstrably sane.
@@Robonord427 Actually, it is possible to be clear eyed and see these facts and if you can't, anyone describing these facts using words is going to sound theoretical to those who live in ideas. Ironically it is your response that was speculative and theoretical, a mere opinion without understanding. Have a nice day.
@@zeroxox777 When one starts by making bold, sweeping statements that are demonstrably untrue (no, not every single person in 'The West' developed the left brain and every single person in 'The East' developed their right brain. This doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. There isn't even any kind of uniformity WITHIN the West, or WITHIN the East), then any conclusion you attempt to draw is, AT BEST, theoretical and most likely just plain wrong. To then, having made these bold, definitely false statements, go onto extremely arrogantly and without any substantiation, declare that one way is basically madness and the other way is "true and sane", which cannot ever be considered anything other than opinion, given that the premise on which he drew his conclusion was also opinion, invites any thinking person to say 'Hang on a second here buddy, what you're saying is not just arrogantly incorrect, but extremely insulting as well, with absolutely no basis for it". And you have the audacity to try to say that I'm blind to this magical truth? A truth you can't explain or justify or quantify or substantiate or demonstrate or in any way provide evidence that it is any more real than any other idea any other human has ever had? And to top it all off you're telling me you can perceive things I cannot. Which leads me to believe only one of two conclusions is likely: you are deliberately lying, or you are deluding yourself to the point of insanity. Anyone who declares themselves certain of these, by definition, unprovable systems/events must be one of those two things. Or they're just an intellectual pygmy. I suppose that's possible too.
@@Robonord427 I'm not into ego warfare which has no value: a personal attack is not an attempt to understand what is, so there is nothing left to say. Your argument is a series of intellectual criticisms and assertions. To the extent I made statements that were not articulations of inner experience may I burn instantly in the hell flames of the karma I created, because I don't want to dirty up the Earth. I am not one for unsolicited toxicity anyway and I don't understand why a brother would be. Have a nice day.
@@zeroxox777 Ok, so what's happened here is you made a ridiculous claim, I pointed that out and now you're playing the victim and acting all butthurt. You were QUITE happy to play ego warfare in your first statement, which was categorically "I understand things you don't because I'm better than you. You just have an opinion, without understanding". You say you are not one for unsolicited toxicity and I assume that's when you're on the receiving end, because you're sure happy enough to dish it out: stating someone's opinion is born of ignorance is pretty damn toxic. Having spent my entire education in ultra-religious organisations, studying the Bible, Torah, Koran, the Sutras, the Yamas and Niyamas, and having lived in India, Singapore, China and Japan, I can assure you my opinion does not come from a place of ignorance, nor lack of understanding. I understand your position entirely, I just don't agree with it. More than that - I refute it entirely. Saying that your proclamations are speculative is not remotely speculative itself. It is beyond doubt that you do not know what you are preaching is true. That is why it is called faith.
If you don't find it in yourself to be a decent person to others, you're not a decent person. But don't blame it onto others, even if some deity. And if you are a decent person, you're welcome to pretend it's because of the God you believe in. As long as your theistic paradigm is that your personal wellbeing is defined by the wellbeing of others, no matter their faith, I don't have any issues with that. In human society, it's not about competition, it's about cooperation. And if your God wants to win, he's an a**hole.
Regarding this video Reagrding faith and when people say if God was kind , loving or great whoe would children suffer the troubles they do it was said to me once that god is a loving god and loves man kind the bad , painful and horrible things that happen to us is the acts of Satan to make people doupt and stop believing in god . Rgarding Stephen fry speaking about tthe pope saying harrid things about gay people . the pope and priest's are in the end mere humans carrying no more authority than any other humans . I am a hetrosexual man but I have no problem with LGBTQ people . As God is so powerful let him be the judge not me
Arguably true, but both entirely irrelevant to whether or not what he is saying makes sense. An absolute guarantee that your debating opponent cannot refute your argument is when they attack the messenger rather than the message. Incidentally, one cannot buy ones way into Cambridge University and to even suggest that Stephen Fry, of all people, didn't earn his place on the basis of his formidable intellect rather indicates you're not really invested in this and just trying to desperately score points.
@@Robonord427 Desperate from you,Cambridge Univerity have never accepted anybody from a working class background who had served prion time for burglary.Learn the subject before you comment
@@apintofbeer1667 I suspect that massive chip on your shoulder is blocking your view. Do you have any evidence that Fry's parents intervened to smooth his entry into Cambridge? Or is this just an unfounded accusation? Do you have any evidence that Cambridge has never let anybody from a working class background who had been to prison into the university? Or is that just another unfounded attempt at creating a class war? Do you have any evidence he broke into people's houses, or is that yet another made up accusation designed to besmirch the man's reputation unfairly? Spoiler alert: No, you don't have any evidence of any of these because none of them are remotely true. You seem to be labouring under the, completely false, impression that he was from a family of landed gentry, whereas his grand parents emigrated to the UK from Hungary to avoid persecution (the rest of the family that remained all perished in Auschwitz). He also did not go to prison. He spent three months in a remand centre, on remand. For stealing a credit card that was in the pocket of a coat he stole. He did not break into anybody's house. Ever. He did not go to prison. Not only did his parents not intervene in his application to Cambridge, he was actually offered a Scholarship by the College, they were that keen he should attend there rather than somewhere else. I have no doubt there are many things on which you could legitimately criticise the man, but you have picked three that are very easily proven to be totally made up. Oh, and for completeness, you may find the story of Leslie Abrokwaa a good read. His story is entitled "From prison to Cambridge University". And yes, he is very much working class.
Why does He allow such cruelty etc... Maybe because we are given a free will and we are learning how to use it? This world is what it is because we have used our free will. Only we are responsible.
Then you have 2 problems, apart from the obvious one, that such a statement is ridiculous... Firstly, nature is full of pain, cruelty and suffering, whether humans have free will or not. How is that justified. Religious dogma doesn't claim free will for lions, sharks, tuna, or for micro-organisms or growths either, for that matter. So how is pain and suffering throughout the natural World justified. Are you saying that only human suffering counts? The religious often seem to forget that we're as much a part of nature as anything else. Secondly, the Bible itself, claims that we didn't use to have free will but even assuming it both exists and is inherent, two big unproven assumptions, if anything this state has generally improved the human condition. Generally speaking humans are better off now than 500 years ago. Those from 5000 years ago were generally better off than those who lived a thousand years before them and they were better off than those living 10,000 years ago. I'm not just talking materially either, we've progressed morally too, usually against the determined opposition of religion. Living 3 times longer than our ancient ancestors is pretty good too. More importantly, human 'free will' doesn't answer the question as to why there's pain and suffering in the World, it just attempts to move the goalposts. If this alleged god really is all-loving, omniscient and omnipotent, why didn't he give us free will but with no pain or suffering, or at least with less of it? Why does 99.999999999999% of the natural World have to suffer, when they don't have free will. Is he incapable of removing or reducing suffering? If so, then he's not all powerful. Is he capable but unwilling? Then he's not all-loving. If he's neither capable OR willing, why call him god? God/s didn't create man. Man created god/s. Every god ever worshipped displays all the emotions, pettiness and flaws inherent in humans themselves. They definitely don't behave like omniscient, all-loving beings. Most take on the mantle of bullies, abusers and tyrants, ordering unquestioning worship and obedience, with dire and cruel punishment threatened otherwise. Instilling a slave mentality in humanity is hardly the sign of someone in favour of free will! Gods are all too human, full of all the same flaws and foibles as the humans that created them, in their own image. Reflecting humanity's own beliefs, laws, codes and beliefs, mainly from the time's of ignorance in which they were created. Unsurprisingly, they're overwhelmingly male and their priests are almost exclusively so, even today. Once again, reflecting the societies and cultures in which they arose... Strange how gods always reflect the beliefs and morals of the individuals and societies that worsip them and hoe 'divine' laws change over time, to reflect the societies in which that religion is strongest. Every believer believes that THEIR god/s is the right one and all others can be dismissed out of hand, even though most of the belivers of the thousands of gods ever worshipped, believed, just as sincerely, that THEIR god was the right god and how they reject/rejected all the others, including yours, just as easily. Believers lack belief in thousands of gods. Atheists merely lack belief in one more god than most believers. A handful more, out of thousands, than polytheists. Why is YOUR religion any more valid than any other? Especially when there's no real evidence for the truth of ANY of them. Your religion is real to you, due to your personal belief, nothing more... There's a reason why faith is a central dogma in virtually every religion. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, evidence. It's definitely nothing to be proud of. Without 'faith', the whole nonsensical edifice collapses, because nothing else is supporting it. A final quote, from the great Tim Minchin: "Science adjusts It's view based on what's observed. Religion is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved". :)
@@Codex7777 yep,god doesn't like critical thinking,or should I say, religious authority doesn't like critical thinkers. So many parallels with Russia and religion, brainwashing it's citizens with lies and propaganda so it can control it's oppressed obedient people. The truth is hidden for them.
Could you elaborate? I could say you are small minded etc. I could say a lot of things. But I have to argue for them to make them mean anything at all. Otherwise it's a statement, nothing more.
