Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Mountainsandh

B_Wayne wrote: »

The earliest case of cancer that has been found, was from Bronze Age(4500bc). That predates the Industrial Revolution by about 6000 years so your reasons are negated. The likes of skin cancer can occur as a direct result of a rather classically good quality of life. Plenty of cancers have natural causes and relates not in the slightest to man made pollution. The reason we have increased cases of cancers is more due to the fact we live healthier lives(alongside medicine etc) than anything else.

Anthropologists Discover Bone Tumor in 120,000-year-old Caveman Remains

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/aging-bone-tumor-found-on-ancient-neandertal-rib-060513

http://www.slideshare.net/biocenose_consultoria/fibrous-dysplasia-in-a-120000-year-old-neandertal-from-krapina

bnt

Did another poster seriously suggest that all cancers can be blamed on human activity? No doubt human activity is a major factor (*cough* smoking *cough*), but no way is that the whole story. We are not in any kind of position to make absolute statements about everyone who ever died in the whole of human history.

Besides: for most of human history, people weren't living long enough, on average, to get most cancers in the first place. If I get prostate cancer in my 60s, I will have no complaints - not having succumbed to the Black Death in my 30s, or contracting Black Lung after decades down the coal mines last century.

edit: in case anyone thinks I'm making this up, have a read of this. Quote:

So why are we enduring a cancer “boom”, as the report from the National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP) put it during the week?

“Rising cancer rates aren’t caused by Sellafield or overhead power lines or any of the other reasons people blame. It’s a disease of the middle-aged and old, and as the population ages there will be more cancer,” says Prof John Crown, the country’s best-known oncologist.

And with 20,000 people turning 65 every year, Ireland’s population is undoubtedly greying.

At the same time, Crown points out, many of the formerly competing causes of death, such as infectious diseases, have fallen away in importance, leaving cancer out there along with heart disease as the biggest killer. It’s also a disease of affluence, one that thrives on the smoking, drinking, high blood sugars and physical inactivity so common in our 21st-century society, he says.

Another reason that it has become more common, as highlighted in a recent report from the National Cancer Registry, in Cork, is that cases are being detected earlier and better. This means that although we have more cases of the disease, more people are surviving it, and for longer. Today 60 per cent of cancers are cured.

Back on topic: while Fry talked about "God" allowing cancer, he stopped short of pointing that out the omniscient & omnipotent Abrahamic "God" would, by definition, be the cause of it in the first place.

floggg

pueblo wrote: »

What is really funny about this is that you in no way see the irony of your dogmatic beliefs. You thoroughly lambast 'religious' people for this exact same type of unerring belief in a system or set of ideals, yet this is exactly what you do!

No questions may be asked! I have the truth!!

Sound familiar??

It's not really that you are asking questions - its that you are responding to any questions raised by saying god/spirits don't need to follow logic/reason/physics so it can be whatever way we want.

Sure. that's possible, but only in the same way that its possible I could have an invisible friend who isn't bound by the laws of physics and only makes him self known to me.

Ultimately your not adding anything to the conversation, and you have nothing to go on but absolute blind faith and imagination.

Dan_Solo

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Could the efforts of mankind ever eradicate all suffering, including animal suffering? If not then Fry's point holds...

And even if man was responsible for all man's suffering, god created all of this in this first place so the suffering is STILL his fault.

Dan_Solo

StormWarrior wrote: »

and I could sit here refuting them but I won't bother now as it's a waste of time because you don't want your mind changed.

You will indeed be continuing to waste your time if you are proposing that all suffering mankind has endured since he first came down out of the trees was his own fault. If only man had bothered to cure all diseases and eradicate starvation the day he became sentient! Too busy clubbing women on the head to have time to cure cancer no doubt.

Akrasia

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You will indeed be continuing to waste your time if you are proposing that all suffering mankind has endured since he first came down out of the trees was his own fault. If only man had bothered to cure all diseases and eradicate starvation the day he became sentient! Too busy clubbing women on the head to have time to cure cancer no doubt.

Even if everything bad is 'mankind's' fault, collective punishment is still immoral, and punishing innocent children for the actions of others is immoral.

Means Of Escape

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And even if man was responsible for all man's suffering, god created all of this in this first place so the suffering is STILL his fault.

Who created all of this again?

Dan_Solo

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Who created all of this again?

Stephen Fry.
Did you watch the interview?

Means Of Escape

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Stephen Fry.
Did you watch the interview?

Oh sorry "god" created all this .

feargale

shruikan2553 wrote: »

What did you say about my mother?
See, I can make up stuff too. I'm just going to ignore you until you learn to read. You appear to suffer from Christian persecution complex and think everyone is out to get you.

Yes, we know you can make up stuff, e.g.:

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Is this to become one of those threads where people complain about any criticism Christianity gets while claiming every other religion is protected and then complain about atheists?

They call it tilting at the windmill that isn't there. Most people grow out of it, some faster than others. I won't suggest that you grow up. Better advice to you would probably be to remain an undergraduate while you still know everything. Anyway it would be a shame to outgrow ragweek.

Susandublin

I think all the above is great - questions being asked and people replying with reference to the bible. I went to mass on Christmas Day. I had hoped the priest would use the opportunity to communicate God, the bible or something which may make return. Many people of my age go once a year for Christmas so my expectations were high.
1 hour of my life I'll never see. Spent the time asking the children what Santy brought them.
I think religion (any religion) can and should play an important role in people's lives. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the bible or God to make a decision. Think the church could do a much better job at teaching people which would possibly result in less people leaving the religion.
If I wanted to destroy a religion, I'd make it loose it's congregation. I'd question the motives of some priests and ask if there is an agenda behind the scenes?

ScumLord

StormWarrior wrote: »

Diseases and starvation could also be wiped out by man's own efforts.

With doctors, and public infrastructure? People have been making sewage systems since the time of the bible, there were doctors. How come these people living back then under the most strict version of the religion needed these public works if they were all so healthy from raw religious belief and lack of modern technology to give them cancers?

It's universally accepted that there is enough food for everybody in the world, it just isn't distributed in such as a way as to make sure everybody is fed.

True, there's probably enough food in your fridge to feed 5 people, why don't you redistribute your food out to your neighbours?

Also diseases would be a thing of the past if people would change their ways, clean up our lifestyles and the world.

You could greatly reduce diseases by keeping everything clean, that's true.

The bible is full of lifestyle advice designed to help us avoid illness and things going wrong in our lives.

I'll stick to doctors advice, I don't think the recorded lifespans of bible people matches up with what you're imagining.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Could the efforts of mankind ever eradicate all suffering, including animal suffering? If not then Fry's point holds...

the human race will get much closer to making this happen than god ever did. We're even making fake meat so animals won't have to suffer.

floggg

Akrasia wrote: »

Even if everything bad is 'mankind's' fault, collective punishment is still immoral, and punishing innocent children for the actions of others is immoral.

Unless your God. Then it's just "mysterious"...

Tarzana2

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That depends on how you define "Catholic". The last census stated that 84% of the population is Catholic, but then again, I'd say about 10% of that is accounted for by Mammy filling out the census form.

However, according to an Irish Times/IPSOS-MRBI poll in 2012, only 26% of Irish Catholics believe in transubstantiation, i.e. a cracker and some wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus. Let's not forget that the latest poll on marriage equality has 71% in favour. If there really is this "moral majority" of staunch Catholics, they're not doing a good job at actually proving their existence.

Exactly!

feargale

Zaph wrote: »

Gay Byrne looks like someone p*ssed in his cornflakes when Fry gave his answer. If you're not prepared to hear answers you don't like, then don't ask the question.

Drawing conclusions from facial expressions is a foolhardy exercise. Since the interview Gay Byrne has twice stated that he was not perturbed by Fry's answer. It seems to me that in Boards wishful thinking is playing a big part in divinig what GB was thinking. I've watched Gaybo for a long time and if you can tell his religious beliefs or affiliations you're a smarter guy than I am. He has in fact said that he has no intention of divulging his views at least until this series is over. I raised this on the other thread, posting some information, and asking if it caused many people to rethink. There was no response. I guess the atheist Curia has more in common with its RC equivalent than it cares to admit, including an inability to admit error.

padd b1975

Classy impersonation of Stephen Hawking at the BAFTAs.

I would have thought such a "renowned wit" as he thinks he is wouldn't need to resort to this and f-bombing to get a few laughs....

humanji

He didn't resort to them. They were part of his overall presentation on the night.

padd b1975

humanji wrote: »

He didn't resort to them. They were part of his overall presentation on the night.

Ah right...


"Only carrying out orders M'lord"

Grayson

feargale wrote: »

Drawing conclusions from facial expressions is a foolhardy exercise. Since the interview Gay Byrne has twice stated that he was not perturbed by Fry's answer. It seems to me that in Boards wishful thinking is playing a big part in divinig what GB was thinking. I've watched Gaybo for a long time and if you can tell his religious beliefs or affiliations you're a smarter guy than I am. He has in fact said that he has no intention of divulging his views at least until this series is over. I raised this on the other thread, posting some information, and asking if it caused many people to rethink. There was no response. I guess the atheist Curia has more in common with its RC equivalent than it cares to admit, including an inability to admit error.

So we should never, ever draw conclusions from someone facial expressions?

:rolleyes:

(btw, that smiley means that I'm rolling my eyes. Just in case you have any difficulty in determining what it means.)

Eugene Norman

feargale wrote: »

Drawing conclusions from facial expressions is a foolhardy exercise. Since the interview Gay Byrne has twice stated that he was not perturbed by Fry's answer. It seems to me that in Boards wishful thinking is playing a big part in divinig what GB was thinking. I've watched Gaybo for a long time and if you can tell his religious beliefs or affiliations you're a smarter guy than I am. He has in fact said that he has no intention of divulging his views at least until this series is over. I raised this on the other thread, posting some information, and asking if it caused many people to rethink. There was no response. I guess the atheist Curia has more in common with its RC equivalent than it cares to admit, including an inability to admit error.

There's a general tendency on the anglo Saxon Internet to see gay as a God botherer. Interesting how that assumption ran.

The people who wanted us to see Gay as annoyed? The producers.

Eugene Norman

StormWarrior wrote: »

Then you'd be expecting god to interfere every time something doesn't go your way which results in humans having no free will, autonomy or choice. Also it's illogical because what if two people pray for opposing results? Say the UK and US were at war. The British soldiers pray "Please let us win!" The Americans pray "Please let us win!" Of course god can't do both.
I'd never heard of eye worms before but it's not outside the realms of possibility that they were caused by humans. Humans cause drastic changes to climate and landscape which could change the fauna. Humans tamper with things in other ways such as genetic modification, humans do all sorts of things that can cause mutations. It's not outside the realms of possibility that human actions caused eye worms.




My reasons are not negated. Yes a minority of people got cancer in the past, which may also have been caused by unhealthy lifestyle. Eating charred food, breathing smoke from fires, whatever. Cancer rates rise the more pollution we cause. It is caused by us.

Human actions didn't cause either eye worms or cancer. And blaming people for cancer is obscene. An omnipotent and omniscient God could have designed humans or animals for this not to happen. All design faults are his.

humanji

padd b1975 wrote: »

Ah right...


"Only carrying out orders M'lord"

???

feargale

Grayson wrote: »

So we should never, ever draw conclusions from someone facial expressions?

Did I say that? I'm saying that it's a haphazard and foolhardy exercise. It's one thing to read, however fallibly, a smile or a dagger's death frown. But Gaybo's expression? I could draw and express conclusions from Ireland's game with Italy last weekend, as many will, but we could all have to eat humble pie. Gaybo has expressly contradicted the A&A soothsayers. That should wrap up the issue unless you want to say that Gaybo wasn't telling the truth. But then some Boards A&As ( not all, only some crusaders) don't do humble pie.

Grayson wrote: »

:rolleyes: (btw, that smiley means that I'm rolling my eyes. Just in case you have any difficulty in determining what it means.)

How profound.

catallus

Gay commented on this on his show on Lyric there just last Sunday; said he has had many guests on his TV show who said more or less the same thing as Mr. Fry did, but because Fry made a few twitter comments about it it made the thing much bigger?

Gay seems nonplussed by the whole thing.

InTheTrees

Eugene Norman wrote: »

All design faults are his.

Basically life on earth is based on the slaughter and consumption of the weak by the strong.

Fun times.