What's the deal here? They sit around drinking red wine and discuss religion? Just like in the old days with J.C.? Awesome!

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

wonderful.. I'd upvote 10x if I could.

It occurs to me that the question "Do you believe in any deities" as a kind of catchall question to determine the religious beliefs of a person is ridiculous - usually it seems to be used to put a person on one side or the other of an issue: is there, or is there not, a supernatural explanation for the universe? In making such a division, it is implied that not believing in any deities is somehow fundamentally different to believing in any deity, whatever it may be. However, if you look at the issue in the light of the question "how do you explain the universe?", the division is absurd.

Belief in one religion's teachings excludes belief in other teachings (unless you're Baha'i or similar) just as much as a lack of belief in any of those teachings excludes belief in all of them. The beliefs about the universe of a Christian and a Hindu are no more intercompatible than are those of a Christian and an atheist. You can't lump different beliefs together as somehow related ways of explaining the universe while still firmly subscribing to one religion.

And speaking of "firmly subscribing", don't get me started on the way everyone seems to have a slightly different interpretation of the particular religion they subscribe to, and what that does to these categories of belief...

"I would much rather be a rising monkey than a fallen angel"

Indeed Terry, Indeed.

I just don't get people who find it an affront to be descendant from apes

ooo ooo! aaa aaa!

Upvote before watching - terry pratchett is a FUCKING LEGEND. The man has been the source of so so so much enjoyment in my life, his imagination is unparalelled for his genre. His sense of humour is blistering, his writing is excellent. Even with alzheimers he still knocks out books and stories, and i hope he finds SOME WAY of continuing his legacy for as long as possible. I love you terry.

From all his books and all the interviews i've seen, my favourite quote from the mind of terry:
Questioner: "If these tablets help stave off alzheimers even with some negative side effects, you'd still take them?"
Terry: "I've been on record for several years now as saying that i'd gnaw the arse out of a dead mole if it could cure this."

Rather be a rising monkey than a fallen angel.... God i love you terry, thanks for everything.

Terry is a legend, but it's amazing to me (again) that such respected people are so clueless about what the bible says. What isn't amazing to me is that every video with an anti-god sentiment made by a popular person (no matter the drivel it contains) speeds into the top 15.

>> ^r10k:
Terry is a legend, but it's amazing to me (again) that such respected people are so clueless about what the bible says. What isn't amazing to me is that every video with an anti-god sentiment made by a popular person (no matter the drivel it contains) speeds into the top 15.


Could you expand upon what you think he says here that is clueless about the bible?

>> ^spoco2:
Could you expand upon what you think he says here that is clueless about the bible?

Obviously Terry, or anyone else who doesn't believe in god, is clueless because he doesn't know how to properly pick and choose and selectively re-interpret the Bible to delude himself to believe in it. Because the Bible can't possibly be wrong, only our understanding of it.

Universe created in 7 days? Oh it's only a metaphor.
Fit all the species on a wooden boat? The boat was probably magical.
Explain how you should buy slaves? Oh God's probably just joking around.
Forbidden to eat shellfish? Yeah I'm not going to follow that one.

My favorite is the parts about selling your daughter off into slavery. Going to keep that one handy in case my daughter disobeys me.

On a serious note, I've never read his books. What's a good place to start?

>> ^mentality:
>> ^spoco2:
Could you expand upon what you think he says here that is clueless about the bible?
Obviously Terry, or anyone else who doesn't believe in god, is clueless because he doesn't know how to properly pick and choose and selectively re-interpret the Bible to delude himself to believe in it. Because the Bible can't possibly be wrong, only our understanding of it.
Universe created in 7 days? Oh it's only a metaphor.
Fit all the species on a wooden boat? The boat was probably magical.
Explain how you should buy slaves? Oh God's probably just joking around.
Forbidden to eat shellfish? Yeah I'm not going to follow that one.
My favorite is the parts about selling your daughter off into slavery. Going to keep that one handy in case my daughter disobeys me.
On a serious note, I've never read his books. What's a good place to start?


The simple answer, spoco2, (so I don't waste my entire day trying to argue this stuff on here, the home of devout anti-christian fanatics) is that anyone who reads God as a maniac from the old testament just hasn't paid attention, stumbling at one of the most basic theological understandings. In other words, it's just plain missing the boat. It's like watching the first 30 seconds of a movie and trying to explain everything about it. People who do that are called idiots, and people who do the same with the bible get a similar title. It's just dumb, no matter which way you slice it, because you're obviously going to get stuff wrong. I don't expect everyone to decide on Christianity when reading the bible, but I expected more from Terry.

Mentality, your statement about selling daughters off into slavery is a great example of this. I'm mean really, if I have to explain that one to someone, they may as well permanently stamp an idiot tattoo to their forehead, it's so incredibly easy to understand, especially when it's spelt out in the equivalent of bright neon lights throughout the new testament.

No offence r1ok, but terry pratchett is an intellectual of the highest order. Easy for me to say 'genius', but i won't because it's bandied around too much. His books are filled with such amazing philosophies and opinions, explained and parodied in such subtle ways often and never preachy, he always shapes it into the fiction of his novels. In the genre in which he writes, he is unparalelled. He's one of the greatest wits in the world. He's friendly, he's caring.

To attempt to ridicule THIS MAN because he has read the same material as you but forms a different opinion borders on the farcical. You engender the 'bible-thumping' stereotypes by doing this at all. Terry is more intelligent than you or i, more witty, far more experienced, he's read more than most of us ever will - yet when he expresses his opinion on a writing, you try to call him small minded.

SMALL MINDED? Terry fucking Pratchett? Who the fuck are you anyway?

And as for you mentality - that's a hard one. Discworld of course are his best books (he has done some others), and within that series of books there are different spin-offs. Some are written from the perspective of the witches of discworld, some on the wizards (unrelated to the witches), some on the police, some are randomly based on a few individuals.

My dad started with the book about the police (or The Watch, as they're known in discworld). I let him start from the 1st book and he really didn't enjoy it, too fantasy for him, but fortunately he quickly realises comedy rather than fantasy is his niche. So while the very early books are a good read if/when you love discworld or fantasy, they're not always the best starting point.

I'd recommend therefore the City Watch books, as i did with my dad. They're an easy starting point. In order:
* Guards! Guards! 1989
* Men at Arms 1993
* Feet of Clay 1996
* Jingo 1997
* The Fifth Elephant 1999
* The Truth 2000
* Night Watch 2002
* Monstrous Regiment 2003
* Thud! 2005

I would recommend starting at the start if you mean to go on. The characters become more familiar and often you find the stories more sentimental and humorous if you know the characters. This list includes my top 3 favourite books of his, so definitely a good starting point. The books about Death (the character Death) are very good too.

>> ^r10k:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^spoco2:
Could you expand upon what you think he says here that is clueless about the bible?
Obviously Terry, or anyone else who doesn't believe in god, is clueless because he doesn't know how to properly pick and choose and selectively re-interpret the Bible to delude himself to believe in it. Because the Bible can't possibly be wrong, only our understanding of it.
Universe created in 7 days? Oh it's only a metaphor.
Fit all the species on a wooden boat? The boat was probably magical.
Explain how you should buy slaves? Oh God's probably just joking around.
Forbidden to eat shellfish? Yeah I'm not going to follow that one.
My favorite is the parts about selling your daughter off into slavery. Going to keep that one handy in case my daughter disobeys me.
On a serious note, I've never read his books. What's a good place to start?

The simple answer, spoco2, (so I don't waste my entire day trying to argue this stuff on here, the home of devout anti-christian fanatics) is that anyone who reads God as a maniac from the old testament just hasn't paid attention, stumbling at one of the most basic theological understandings. In other words, it's just plain missing the boat. It's like watching the first 30 seconds of a movie and trying to explain everything about it. People who do that are called idiots, and people who do the same with the bible get a similar title. It's just dumb, no matter which way you slice it, because you're obviously going to get stuff wrong. I don't expect everyone to decide on Christianity when reading the bible, but I expected more from Terry.
Mentality, your statement about selling daughters off into slavery is a great example of this. I'm mean really, if I have to explain that one to someone, they may as well permanently stamp an idiot tattoo to their forehead, it's so incredibly easy to understand, especially when it's spelt out in the equivalent of bright neon lights throughout the new testament.


R10k.

Do you reolise your rebuttal to sum one asking "please justify your opinion" was , "BECAUSE THE OTHER PERSON IS STUPID " you didn't provide anny data as to why your opinoin could be valid in anny way . ill show you why your response was useless.

1) "anyone who reads God as a maniac from the old testament just hasn't paid attention, stumbling at one of the most basic theological understandings."

please tell us why this is the case? why are they wrong ?just saying sum one that dose something is not getting it is hardly helping anyone understand annything.
if you believe the bible is the word of god then its pretty shitly written if the people it was written for cannot understand it , also who are you to say one person reads it right or wrong it seems that noone knows what the fuck the bible is meant to say because there are god knows how many churches and devisdoins of christainty all that read it differently.





2) at a guess based of what you typed i believe that you are adiment that the bible was written in a linear fashion with the start as a lesson and the end correcting that. as if it was written like a novel. ( as if some how reading the whole thing would give it sense )

the fundamental problem is that we know from historical data that the bible was written in a fragmented fashion by different people over different periods of time , and it was also rearranged repeatedly , we also know that the bible has Manny points where it makes no seance and that churches have edited what got included in the "bible" that we now know. (Evan if there was an original bible written in a correct intended order and structure we certainly don't have that now)


If you don't take the bible literally then how do you know what to take literally surly it makes more sence to believe that stoning homosexuals is something you should do and take litraly as we know homosexuals at least exsist. why not ignore the parts about god and prayer when we know in reality that there is no evidence that god exists , and it has been proven scientifically that prayer dose not work.

How do you know what is not literal and what is who are you to chose ?

If you take the bible literally why are you not out stoning gays and doing everything exactly as it is in the bible?

To attempt to ridicule THIS MAN because he has read the same material as you but forms a different opinion borders on the farcical. You engender the 'bible-thumping' stereotypes by doing this at all. Terry is more intelligent than you or i, more witty, far more experienced, he's read more than most of us ever will - yet when he expresses his opinion on a writing, you try to call him small minded.


Is 'small minded' your term of the day or something? I don't remember calling him that.

Terry is more intelligent than you or i, more witty, far more experienced, he's read more than most of us ever will - yet when he expresses his opinion on a writing, you try to call him small minded.


I get that you like him. We all get that you like him. Contrary to popular belief though, just because someone is nice and a good writer, doesn't mean the answers to the universe and knowledge of all written works is theirs. Even the smartest of people get things wrong. When the bible says, "The answer to A+B is C." and Terry talks about A+B as if there's no answer to it, it's fair to say Terry has (and as I said) missed the boat. Sorry to shatter the illusion that he is perfect.

the fundamental problem is that we know from historical data that the bible was written in a fragmented fashion by different people over different periods of time


I think you have no idea what you're talking about. I think if you tried to prove your point the first place you'd scramble for is google to look up some info on the topic. I know about that side of things, and it's not fertile ground for picking on the bible, unless you really have no idea what you're on about.

If you take the bible literally why are you not out stoning gays and doing everything exactly as it is in the bible?


That's a great question, isn't it? Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because every Christian is an idiot? Or, do you think someone out there might have a reasonable answer to it?

The answer's in the bible. Go look for it. Aside from the odd nugget I don't offer up the answers on here because people genuinely have no intention of listening to what's being said. Why waste my time? Everyone's made up their mind to worship their man-heroes (whoever they are) and defend their opinion on everything. I'm not hiding where the answers are. If you have a brain and can lay your hands on a bible, you can find the mysterious answer to this baffling question in no time at all.

If you're a person who can't be bothered looking or being open to changing their opinion, then no matter what someone says on here you will forever remain confounded by something so simple. End of story.

>> ^r10k:
Terry is a legend, but it's amazing to me (again) that such respected people are so clueless about what the bible says. What isn't amazing to me is that every video with an anti-god sentiment made by a popular person (no matter the drivel it contains) speeds into the top 15.


You'd think there was some sort of trend to find out, huh?

r10k, your calling us closed-minded? Are you serious? You obviously didn't come here wanting to have an enlightening discussion, you keep blatantly avoiding questions we keep asking you. Why shouldn't God in the New Testament be recognized as a maniac? It's a legit question, considering the material. As I understand it, there are plenty of gospels that didn't "make it" into the bible, how do you account for them? For the revisions of the bible?

We don't understand? Fine, help us understand. You keep talking with this inflated air of importance and arrogance. We "just haven't paid attention" I guess or maybe we're one of your "people that are called idiots". Are you going to explain any of this to us or are you gonna just "stamp an idiot tattoo" to our foreheads?

Your calling us Closed-minded? God, least I'm not a jackass.

There are many starting points to the Discworld series, since there are many sub-series within them. Take a look at the wikipedia entry for a summary of which books fit which sub-series. The following four start off the main ones:

The Colour Of Magic
Equal Rites
Mort
Guards Guards

Additionally the following are good as standalone books in their own right:

Small Gods
Moving Pictures
Pyramids

Small Gods is a work of genius. It's a delightful story as well as being full of philosophy and Pratchett's trademark hidden gems. It's also why he could be considered a good source of argument when it comes to the subject of religion.

Sorry to step in at the end of the discussion, but regarding the gospels that didnt make it and different bible versions, I used to wonder about that and did some research years ago.

Given that the early gospels were all being hand copied by people who usually werent all that literate and were doing so in secret under pain of death (often), given the different areas/congregations around the Mediterranean separated by what were great distances, differences were widespread, some were minor, spelling and punctuation changing meanings, others were major changes that suited one particular christian sects interpretation. When time came to put em all together, they had to choose what was agreed upon by most people.

Naturally this pissed some people off, made others happy, and ensured endless conspiracy theories, and careers for people like Dan Brown

Incidentally this also happened in Judaism (at least according to the History channel, I havent talked to any ancient scholars about that)and others religions. Guess you cant suit all of the people all of the time.

I would compare it to DVD boxsets, you've got your theatrical cut, your directors cut, extended version, unrated version etc. Pick the one you like best or don't.

Edit:
BTW I dont claim to be an expert on anything so I only paraphrase what I've read/heard from people who do know what they are on about

Oh, -Pratchett-! Yeah, he's a decent writer. Sadly for him, I always tend to get him confused with Terry Goodkind, who I found to be...I'll just say, less so.

>> ^spoco2:
"I would much rather be a rising monkey than a fallen angel"
Indeed Terry, Indeed.
I just don't get people who find it an affront to be descendant from apes


People would argue that humans are not descended from apes because apes exist, failing to realize many animals on earth have not adapted because there was no need for them to adapt. There is life in simplest form and life in complicated form.

Well, I'm amused to see that throughout all your answers r10k, you have failed to give any reason AT ALL to refute Terry.

Bravo, you are the prime example of those who attack anyone who draws Terry's conclusions about the bible 'Well you read it wrong', and then no further discussion.

You are not worth talking to unless you can actually contribute to the discussion.

yeah lol WTF R10k has not provide any reasoning to anything he has put.

it makes no sense for him to comment as what he says is of no value as in there is no data or substance to annything he has put. maby this is what allows him to blindely belive in the bible ?

(aside from )
His point about Pratchett intellect not Beeing important is true in some senses , just because mr pratchet is arguably intelligent or a good writer dose not necessarily make what he says to be true.

In reply to this comment by r10k:
Mentality, your statement about selling daughters off into slavery is a great example of this. I'm mean really, if I have to explain that one to someone, they may as well permanently stamp an idiot tattoo to their forehead, it's so incredibly easy to understand, especially when it's spelt out in the equivalent of bright neon lights throughout the new testament.



You're right, it is incredibly easy to understand: the bible is a fake book written by men to reflect the traditions and social mores of that time period. And I totally agree, we should stamp idiot tattoos on the forehead of anyone who doesn't get it.

Well, I'm amused to see that throughout all your answers r10k, you have failed to give any reason AT ALL to refute Terry.


After saying numerous times that I'm not going to attempt a spoon feeding session for people who prefer defending their set opinions ad infinitum, instead of simply reading a book, I'm not sure why that amuses you.

Bravo, you are the prime example of those who attack anyone who draws Terry's conclusions about the bible 'Well you read it wrong', and then no further discussion.


Discussion is pointless on this site. People posted how they liked Terry and everything he says or does. I said my piece. Someone asked a question and I said a little more, but I'm no lesser a person for not indulging your desire to be spoon fed easily accessible information in for the form of what you would call a discussion. If that makes me one of 'those people' in your eyes, then that's just tough.

it makes no sense for him to comment as what he says is of no value as in there is no data or substance to annything he has put. maby this is what allows him to blindely belive in the bible ?


See comments above. Substance is available to anyone that can open the bible and read.

You're right, it is incredibly easy to understand: the bible is a fake book written by men to reflect the traditions and social mores of that time period. And I totally agree, we should stamp idiot tattoos on the forehead of anyone who doesn't get it.


Wow, someone's been saving that last sentence for a special day. Terry would be proud.

After saying numerous times that I'm not going to attempt a spoon feeding session for people who prefer defending their set opinions ad infinitum, instead of simply reading a book, I'm not sure why that amuses you.


It's amusing because you say that the reason why Terry is wrong is very simple, but you won't give us the reason. Instead of defending your views of the bible, you spend all your effort and energy defending how it's our fault that you're not willing to reason. You tell us the answers are in the New Testament, which we can read for ourselves. Do you mean the parts in the New Testament that teaches masters how they should beat their slaves? Or the parts that tell slaves that they should obey their masters like they obey Christ? Do you selectively ignore these passages when you read the New Testament? Is that how you delude yourself into believing?


Wow, someone's been saving that last sentence for a special day. Terry would be proud.



I know, your own words sound pretty terrible when I throw them back at you eh:

>>"Mentality, your statement about selling daughters off into slavery is a great example of this. I'm mean really, if I have to explain that one to someone, they may as well permanently stamp an idiot tattoo to their forehead, it's so incredibly easy to understand, especially when it's spelt out in the equivalent of bright neon lights throughout the new testament."

Instead of defending your views of the bible, you spend all your effort and energy defending how it's our fault that you're not willing to reason.


Yeah, funny that. Maybe I just like stirring.

Do you mean the parts in the New Testament that teaches masters how they should beat their slaves? Or the parts that tell slaves that they should obey their masters like they obey Christ?


Since you have such an intimate knowledge of how the bible "was written by men to reflect the traditions and social mores of that time period", I'll let you figure that one out.

Do you selectively ignore these passages when you read the New Testament? Is that how you delude yourself into believing?


Oh yes. I found early on that when I really wanted to delude myself, better than selectively ignoring passages, I'd ignore all of them and just work on second-hand knowledge.

I know, your own words sound pretty terrible when I throw them back at you eh:


No really, I meant it. Well done. It didn't mean anything, and was possibly the worst ownage attempt I've ever read, but it sure sounded spiffy.

"Maybe I just liked stirring"

I'm through talking to you. I've got better things to do on Christmas eve.

>> ^Aniatario:
"Maybe I just liked stirring"
I'm through talking to you. I've got better things to do on Christmas eve.


there has been no conversation

r10k has said nothing at all other than "its in the bible" and then every time sumone says what specifcly he just says its in the bible , the problem is there is no one way to interpret the bible so by saying "its in the bible " its utterly useless, its like me jumping in and saying ITS IN Harry potter and then sumone saying what is ? and my response is well your an idoit u have to read all 6 harry potter books to then potentially discover or not discover what im saying. so it basicly forces everyone to read harry potter rather than the person specifcly saying x,y,z is in there and then there bing a conversatoin on that.

An additional problem is that we know that the bible is not consistent contradictory and most probably not the word of god its allso not a scentific document and annyone could know to a reasonable probability having not evan read the book that its not the word of god. in the same way i know harry poter books are fictoin despite not having read them.

we also know that the majorty if not all philosophies and themes of the bible are taken from Manny pre existing philosophies and religions that are documented in older books than the bible .

hey look, r10k came back, wrote more nothing and left again... bravo.

I thought you might actually be specific, with ANY example at all from the bible as to what you mean, but you haven't.

So, we're done here, and you'll delude yourself into thinking that you've 'won' this argument because we couldn't rebut you... except that you haven't said anything to rebut. So as long as you never say anything, no-one can refute you and you can think that you're winning this huge war against us pagans.

Well, if it makes you happy.

I, personally, would actually put my view about the bible out there... put out the actual thing that I thought that Pratchett was wrong about out there and see if it holds up to us picking at it. If it did then I could be happy that my reasoning has held up... if not, then I would go and see where I went wrong.

But you continue with your 'go and read the bible' line, which is meaningless, if it makes you feel good about seemingly having no actual basis for argument.

Well on the bright side, I got myself a chapters gift card and I think I just might give Discworld a read.

>> ^Aniatario:

Well on the bright side, I got myself a chapters gift card and I think I just might give Discworld a read.


Hey, how did the discworld reading go?

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Fusionaut.