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

[kdmorris]

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/01/stephen-fry-god-evil-maniac-irish-tv|

On the short clip, Fry is asked by veteran Irish TV presenter Gay Byrne what he would say to God if he died and had to confront him.

In his imaginary conversation with God, Fry says he would tell him: “How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault? It’s not right.

“It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?”

Pressed by Byrne over how he would react if he was locked outside the pearly gates, Fry says: “I would say: ‘bone cancer in children? What’s that about?’

I have often thought that the Bible's description of God is of a fairly evil person. I was told as a young girl that god allows these things to happen as "tests of our faith"... but if a human did the same things, we would be sociopaths.

How can you worship a god that lets children get leukemia? That lets murder and violence and injustice happen all around the world, every day?

I am still baffled at how anyone can have faith that something so evil exists... and then goes on to worship it.

[trotsky]

1. And the "best" answer that 2000+ years of theology has come up with is...

"Well, it can't be any other way. Because reasons."

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Didn't take long for the douchebag apologists to craft a response.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/02/stephen-fry-god-christianity-evil-maniac

[skepticscott]

4. And not even a very original response

Just the latest in a long line of attempts by ivory tower theologians and other academics to morph the Christian "god" into something immune from criticism or critical examination, despite the fact that it renders "god" into something utterly unrecognizable to the vast majority of Xstian believers.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. Well, that certainly is a bunch of bullshit.

What a bullshit answer! This is the reason it is so much bullshit:

For if we are imagining a God whose only power, indeed whose only existence, is love itself – and yes, this means we will have to think metaphorically about a lot of the Bible – then God cannot stand accused as the cause of humanity’s suffering.

But......we are supposed to see the Bible as the word of God. Which is it??? Or is his word just more jibber jabber for us to try to interpret? (And make sure you interpret it correctly.)

[trotsky]

6. That's just leaving the escape hatch open.

The bible is embraced and believed literally until that section over there is shown to be nonsense, at which it becomes "metaphorical" and we carry right on as if nothing changed.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. If god's only power is love, what power does it have to craft a universe?

Much less, a universe full of child leukemia and parasites that eat you from the eyes outward.

[AlbertCat]

9. For if we are imagining a God whose only power, indeed whose only existence, is love itself

Uh....


That character is not in the book...

[truebrit71]

16. Total bullshit...

...

[Curmudgeoness]

3. I loved his answer to that question.

It was the same thing that I have thought. But instead of asking what we would say to God if he does exist and we are face to face with him, I wonder why anyone created such a mean God. It is apparent to me that this mean God didn't go over so well 2000 years ago, and needed to have a softer image, so Jesus came along to show a kinder, gentler God. The new and improved god...not that he still wasn't an asshole, persecuting and killing Jesus and all.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. the numskulls can wiggle out of human inflicted misery and evil via the "free willy" canard.

but they have a much harder time with "children get leukemia". There is no test of moral agency there. It is just a child inflicted with a horrible disease, and frequently rescued from that fate by "science", which as we are told repeatedly, it just as baseless and unfounded a belief system as "religion".

[kdmorris]

18. Yeah, I love when SCIENCE is called a belief system

And scientific method likened to faith... as if you don't have theory, testing, peer review and attempts at recreating in the scientific method.

[onager]

10. Let's hear from the Kim Kardashian of theology...

Karen Armstrong.

Who, like ol' Kim, is a media celebrity capable of changing her ideas about religion as quickly as a Kardashian can change clothes. It just depends on her audience. Muslims? Mohammed was great! Liberal Xians? Gawd is Love! If Armstrong could have gotten a speaking gig at the People's Temple, she'd probably have complimented them on the refreshments.

So OK, Dr. Armstrong, what exactly is theology?

“Theology is-- or should be-- a species of poetry, which read quickly or encountered in a hubbub of noise makes no sense. You have to open yourself to a poem with a quiet, receptive mind, in the same way you might listen to a difficult piece of music... If you seize upon a poem and try to extort its meaning before you are ready, it remains opaque. If you bring your own personal agenda to bear upon it, the poem will close upon itself like a clam, because you have denied its unique and separate identity, its inviolate holiness.” ― Karen Armstrong, The Spiral Staircase: My Climb Out of Darkness

Got that? Theology is "a species of poetry." So if you read theology and come across something like "kill the unbelievers" or "treat women like cattle," you just haven't opened yourself up correctly with a quiet, receptive mind. The REAL MEANING is in there somewhere, you're just too thick to grasp it. Or some such shit.

“Religious ideas and practices take root not because they are promoted by forceful theologians, nor because they can be shown to have a sound historical or rational basis, but because they are found in practice to give the faithful a sense of sacred transcendence.” ― Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History

Got that? Virgins thrown into volcanos, tribes slaughtered, infidels tortured and burned at the stake, and innocent people beheaded on camera.

See, that stuff isn't "promoted by forceful theologians." It just gives "the faithful a sense of sacred transcendence.” Well, I'm glad she cleared that up.

Actually, she clears nothing up, ever. As Jerry Coyne explains in this article, "The Incoherence of Karen Armstrong:"

Karen Armstrong earns her living by making liberal believers feel Sophisticated, for she writes books and gives lectures about The Real Nature of God. And that is A God Who is Awesome But Can’t Be Described. (Yet Armstrong manages to write and utter thousands of words about that apophatic God!)

How she found this out, and how she knows she’s right in the face of the majority of the world’s believers, who see God as a bodiless human, defies reason. I’ve listened to her palaver for a long time, and not only does she get acclaim and awards for it, but credulous interviewers and journalists refuse to ask her the hard questions like, “You mean God isn’t really some kind of being who can do stuff, but merely embodies Love, Longing, and Awe?” or “How do you know all this, Dr. Armstrong?”

...Give me a good honest fundamentalist over Armstrong any day. At least you can figure out what they’re trying to say!

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/the-incoherence-of-karen-armstrong/

[trotsky]

12. "the Kim Kardashian of theology"

LOL, nice.

[Promethean]

13. Looks to me like another version of Deepak Chopra.

[Curmudgeoness]

14. So all I have to do is write a bunch of feel-good crap

and I can also be a theologian. Cool.

[skepticscott]

19. Yes, and then NPR will kiss your ass

and have you on speed dial.

[kdmorris]

17. LOL!! n/t

[Ron Obvious]

11. Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

Pick any two.

[eppur_se_muova]

15. Don't blame me, I never voted for Him. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

20. Excellent interview.

Quite good answers.
Loved the stumped looks of consternation on the interviewer's face.

[DetlefK]

21. If we keep believing in him, have we passed or have we failed his test?

[kdmorris]

22. I'm not sure I understand your question

Believe in who? Whose test?

Could you clarify?

[DetlefK]

24. Let's say, you believe that I'm a good person...

And then I treat you badly to prove to you that I'm not a good person. But you won't stop insisting that I'm a good person and that I'm just testing you whether you lose your faith in me.

The problem is: I would not be testing your loyalty to me, I would be testing your ability to make judgements.



God is testing our faith with fossils? What if he doesn't want to judge the degree of loyalty we have to him, but the degree how we balance faith and facts?

[kdmorris]

25. Good point!

So religious people claim to know what their gods are testing, but they could just be completely off the mark and have no clue what this god of theirs is testing.

And therefore, they would fail the test

[trotsky]

23. A good argument can be made either way! n/t

[mr blur]

26. Nah, you're all forgetting that we just don't understand!

Your average religionista round these parts would just point out that we can't know God's intentions or purpose. We're just judging him by human standards. How can we know? He knows best. And he loves everybody. Just have faith.



(Oh, and he needs money)

[Curmudgeoness]

27. You are right, I just don't understand.

And I hope I never do.

[trotsky]

29. +1 n/t

[kdmorris]

28. Very true...

because I've always likened this Christian god to an abusive husband. Do what I say or I will beat you (into a fiery pit of hell)...

Weirdest way to show "love" ever. But how could I, a mere mortal (and female to boot), understand the great and awesome power of GOD.