Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

PopePalpatine · 02-02-2015 3:08pm

I was wondering when this thread would go full creatard.

King Mob · 02-02-2015 3:16pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The whole point of federal head is collective guilt. Economic sanctions against all Russians because of the decisions of the collective head. The fact that many Russians are 'innocent' isn't the issue.

Yes it is the issue. If there was a solution that resulted in no innocents suffering, then morality says that this one should be used.

We're human, so it's not always possible to see or make those solutions reality.
This isn't the case for God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure you're in a position to know "the whole score" in order to know whether this system is lacking in perfection. If nothing short of suffering will get mans attention then suffering has it's place.

Again, putting parasites in children's eyes is an evil thing to do if it's only to get attention.

And I can think of a million ways that would be better and less evil to do that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A federal head, by definition renders all culpable for the decision of the head.

No it doesn't.
Especially when that head
1. was not selected or empowered by the people to make decisions on their behalf.
2. was not able to make an informed decision
3. made that decision thousands of years ago and
4. was most likely manipulated into that decision by outside parties.

Even still. I suppose that God isn't one for forgiveness?

antiskeptic wrote: »

All the consequences seriousness should do is point you to the nature of the crimes seriousness. Trouble is, should the Bible be true, we're not capable of understanding how unright we are because we're so mired up in sin we don't even smell much of it anymore. We kind of think we're not so bad.

And so don't think it's a big deal with bring filth into the presence of the most right of righteousness

Abject waffle.
You don't know what the crime is, but you assume it deserves children going through unimaginable suffering because God can't be evil.

Again, sane people do not believe that any crime justifies this and you agree, hence the waffle.
And hence why us and Stephen Fry believe God is evil.

antiskeptic wrote: »

An example of my last point: the reason there is an 'exception' for God is that he stands infinitely far above the next person down for whom I would make no exception.

So then you agree that should these actions be taken by people, they would be evil?

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a far bigger deal going on than the suffering of children in this life. There is the eternal destination of all of mankind at play - something far, far more serious than even that. It's not pleasant, but this is the stage where it's all played out.

And again, I don't buy that any suffering can be justified.
(Ignoring for a moment that it's God's arbitrary rules that determine our eternal destination.)
If saving either my own or all humanities souls requires children suffer like they do, then that salvation would be forever tainted by such a monsterous thing.

Sure we'd all live in eternal bliss... but only because billions suffered needlessly....

To me, that's horrifyingly selfish and evil.

PMU · 02-02-2015 3:23pm

Joe duffy is on about s fry and the woman with the apparitions(maria devine mercy) now,its hilarious

Bristolscale7 · 02-02-2015 3:41pm

PMU wrote: »

Joe duffy is on about s fry and the woman with the apparitions(maria devine mercy) now,its hilarious

Hurts to hear.

challengemaster · 02-02-2015 3:43pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Go back to where you first mentioned the word death.

I didn't.

"On the day you eat of the fruit .... you shall surely die"

It's commonly held up by atheists-R-Us as a case of God lying. And commonly referred to in theological circles as the point at which death came in.

As a consequence of the transgression.

All you're describing is the workings of death.

You're either trying to avoid the topic, or pull a 180. I can't figure out which.

All I'm describing is basic cell biology. But sure, let's call it the workings of death. What you've just posted is that essentially God created death.

If cancer is the workings of death and God created death....
If God created humans but made them fundamentally flawed to inevitably get cancer...

ipso facto - God created cancer. It doesn't matter how you try spin it.

MrPudding · 02-02-2015 4:52pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Judgement is good. In both my and God's opinion.

And there is plenty that from elsewhere. Such as the environment we live in, an environment which fell when we fell (our originally being given dominion over our environment rendered it subject to the same federally produced loss which allows 'innocent' children to suffer on account of Adams sin)

Although God is the one who enables the consequences of our/Satan's choice he is removed one step from responsibility for it. The consequence of the Fall belong to us. We brought/bring them about.

It will take you somewhat longer to understand how they fit into the overarching scheme.

I can understand atheism's dismissal of the existence of God as reason why the arguments oft made being of the very lowest order when it comes to rigor. But if you stood and supposed it all true just for a moment, then you would have to suppose imagine the landscape of God to be both complex, subtle and profound.

Which means that when you step back into unbelief, you need retain the notion that your arguments must operate on that level.

To summarise, blah, blah, blah context.

MrP

robindch · 02-02-2015 5:07pm

challengemaster wrote: »

ipso facto - God created cancer. It doesn't matter how you try spin it.

Good point. However, you're applying logic to language games specifically evolved to sidestep logic.

A game attempt, but it's not gonna work.

TheLurker · 02-02-2015 7:24pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The result of the Fall was for man to embark on an existence of struggle and pain. And struggle we shall.

Can you clear up something. The way you talk about this is as if there was only one consequence and that consequence was not chosen by God but was simply the one and only natural outcome in response to actions of mankind.

You talk about cancer and parasites as if you cannot even imagine another outcome to mankind's actions, that this was the one and only possible outcome, like saying that if you jump off a bridge the only outcome is you fall to the Earth below.

Is that correct?

stevejazzx · 02-02-2015 11:15pm

challengemaster wrote: »

See, now you've posted pure nonsense about scientific facts. Since you obviously have no clue, however, lets try to educate you on the matter.

Humans are comprised of cells. Cells contains DNA. DNA is the biological instructions for that organism. DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce.

Cells aren't immortal. To develop and survive we are required to be constantly replenishing cells that die, whist producing more new cells to grow. Cell replication events occur by unwinding the DNA double helix whilst enzymes (DNA polymerases) makes new strands of DNA by reading the existing DNA strand and assembling nucleotides (base pairs) in order to replicate it.

Now, here's where the problem is with your side of things. DNA Polymerase enzymes aren't perfect. It makes ~ one mistake per billion replications. That doesn't sound bad until you realise that around 300 quintillion base pair replications happen every day. That's 300 billion billion. That's a lot of mistakes on a daily basis.

These mistakes in DNA replication are what cause cancer. Not our responsibility. Not chaos. Not our choices. It's what occurs when the genetic instructions for our cells get changed by mistake, making them immortal so they just keep growing into a tumor.

If you believe that your God created humans, then he also created them with this fundamental flaw that inevitably causes cancer. I then fail to see how you can dispute that God created cancer.

Couldn't have put it better myself. No really... I couldn't!

antiskeptic · 02-02-2015 11:44pm

challengemaster wrote: »

But sure, let's call it the workings of death. What you've just posted is that essentially God created death.

Disconnection from the source of life brings death. You don't create darkness, you simply remove light.

If God created humans but made them fundamentally flawed to inevitably get cancer...

Humans made themselves mortal. By act of will

ipso facto - God created cancer. It doesn't matter how you try spin it.

By all means, have another crack at it.

antiskeptic · 02-02-2015 11:45pm

robindch wrote: »

Good point. However, you're applying logic to language games specifically evolved to sidestep logic.

A game attempt, but it's not gonna work.

That's good coming from Mr. Driveby himself:pac:

antiskeptic · 02-02-2015 11:50pm

TheLurker wrote: »

Can you clear up something. The way you talk about this is as if there was only one consequence and that consequence was not chosen by God but was simply the one and only natural outcome in response to actions of mankind.

You talk about cancer and parasites as if you cannot even imagine another outcome to mankind's actions, that this was the one and only possible outcome, like saying that if you jump off a bridge the only outcome is you fall to the Earth below.

Is that correct?

I'm not so sure how it came to be: whether the nature of the Fall was fixed in all it's ways once the button was pushed. Or whether there was some kind of evolution of death/decay - which altered its direction but always in a downward direction.

I think, for instance, that mankind can bring about more misery for himself by his actions. The world is in inevitable decay, for instance, but we can intensify it, accelerate it (global warming, over consumption, etc)

RikuoAmero · 02-02-2015 11:52pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not so sure how it came to be: whether the nature of the Fall was fixed in all it's ways once the button was pushed. Or whether there was some kind of evolution of death/decay - which altered its direction but always in a downward direction.

I think, for instance, that mankind can bring about more misery for himself by his actions. The world is in inevitable decay, for instance, but we can intensify it, accelerate it (global warming, over consumption, etc)

What you described there is entropy.

challengemaster · 03-02-2015 12:31am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Disconnection from the source of life brings death.

That's a neat way of packaging it. However - there's two ways to look at this and reach the same conclusion:

God created life, therefore god created death
Genesis 2:17

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

First time death was mentioned? By god. Either way it's pretty obvious that God created death.

TheLurker · 03-02-2015 12:32am

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not so sure how it came to be

That isn't what I'm asking.

I'm asking did God have any choice in what reality the consequence of the Fall would produce? Could he have decided to swap out cancer and replace it with something else? Could have have decided that actually parasites in the eyeballs of children was not what he wanted in a post-Fall landscape and not gone with a creation that includes that in the rules of what a post-Fall landscape would look like

How much, if any, of the detail of what a post Fall reality would look like was in the control of God and how much was he forced to include.

Fry states "[he] didn't have to do that".

You seem to be suggesting he did, that there was no choice in how a post-Fall reality would be, that if God wanted consequences to us disobeying him he HAD to include this specific version of a post-Fall world, with all the details such as cancer and parasites, that there is only ONE type of post-Fall world that can exists so if you want the possibility of a Fall (and God wanted us to be able to choose to reject him) you HAVE to go with this one.

Would that be what you believe?

King Mob · 03-02-2015 12:43am

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not so sure how it came to be: whether the nature of the Fall was fixed in all it's ways once the button was pushed. Or whether there was some kind of evolution of death/decay - which altered its direction but always in a downward direction.

I think, for instance, that mankind can bring about more misery for himself by his actions. The world is in inevitable decay, for instance, but we can intensify it, accelerate it (global warming, over consumption, etc)

Cancer (and other such nasty things) existed long before humans did.
http://www.academia.edu/227680/Epidemiologic_study_of_tumors_in_dinosaurs

Which means either:
1. God was artificially preventing cancer and stuff in Adam and Eve, then took that away.
or 2. God made us immune to cancer when he created us, then later made us susceptible.

Either way, his actions make him directly responsible.
You cannot show how any crime could possibly earn us such punishment.
You agree that there is no such crime, so you have to waffle and dream up one that would cause your loving merciful, forgiving God to be none of those things.

degsie · 03-02-2015 1:23am

Gay's face was a picture

K4t · 03-02-2015 1:37am

It truly is great, not to mention thoroughly reassuring, to see this kind of opinion being expressed on RTE. Credit to Fry, and to Byrne. Religious belief, and more importantly, devout Catholicism, is thankfully on the decrease in Ireland. But what people forget is that many of the youngest in our society are often also the most religiously conservative, groomed and indoctrinated from a young age, and unfortunately they are also often the most determined to get into positions of power where they can influence policy in this country, often according to their religious beliefs. When Breda O'Brien and David Quinn are on the way out make no mistake that they will have an army ready to replace them, of which their own children could be a part of.

That is why it is so necessary to never stop moving forward as a society and away from this Catholic nonsense, to never stop criticising and questioning religion, because like any disease, if you ignore it and allow it to fester, it will spread. We cannot forget the past transgressions of the Catholic Church and we must constantly be fearful of it ever exerting that kind of power again. As the saying goes, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

The blasphemy law will be repealed which is a start and then hopefully real work can begin on the separation of Church and State, most importantly in a much needed move towards secular schools. The time to make these progressive decisions is now, while the older religious conservatives are on the way out and the younger ones haven't got to a level where they can yet cause problems with their poisonous ideologies. Separation of the Church and State in the Irish constitution is the only way forward for a truly secular and equal society for all.

feargale · 03-02-2015 4:39am

Turtwig wrote: »

Now I'm not the best at reading facial expressions and picking up on social cues and even I can tell that this is not intense interest and openness.

Did you hear Ray Darcy's interview of Gaybo yesterday? You can get it on RTE player. Come back and tell us if your opinion is unchanged. I'd like your 27 assentors to do likewise.

hinault · 03-02-2015 5:11am

guitarzero wrote: »

Was Frys response really all that impressive? Has it not gotten to the point where conveying there is no god is like explaining how the planets and stars dont circle the earth? People are constantly patting this guy on the back for spouting what the vast majority already know. He just does it with a bit of eloquence and pompousness and suddenly everyone gets excited.

There is evidence to suggest that in fact Earth is the centre of the Universe and that the solar system circle Earth.

Pherekydes · 03-02-2015 8:53am

hinault wrote: »

There is evidence to suggest that in fact Earth is the centre of the Universe and that the solar system circle Earth.

Does this "evidence" involve the answers in Genesis website?

Peregrinus · 03-02-2015 9:23am

Pherekydes wrote: »

Does this "evidence" involve the answers in Genesis website?

For the love of God, please don't take this bait!

Back to Stephen Fry! In one sense guitarzero is perfectly correct; Fry is not saying anything novel; he is saying quite commonplace things with his characteristic wit and eloquence. He acknowledges as much himself at the start of the clip when he describes his objections to God as "theodicy". Theodicy is the branch of theology which contemplates the problem of evil, which is the precise problem that Fry expounds so forcefully. From the very fact that the word exists we can conclude that the problem and its implications are widely recognised and much discussed, and in fact they have have been for centuries.

In another sense, guitarzero is quite wrong. Although the problem of evil is admitted on all sides, not everyone who addresses it arrives at the atheistic conclusion that Fry does, and not everybody finds Fry's atheistic conclusion completely satisfactory. Expounding the problem of evil is pretty much as trite as expounding a heliocentric solar system. Concluding that therefore God does not exist, a bit less so.

Bristolscale7 · 03-02-2015 9:47am

Peregrinus wrote: »

For the love of God, please don't take this bait!

Back to Stephen Fry! [snip]
Concluding that therefore God does not exist, a bit less so.

Recall, Fry makes conclusions about the psychotic nature of god should god exist not any conclusions about the existence or not of god.

Peregrinus · 03-02-2015 9:56am

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Recall, Fry makes conclusions about the psychotic nature of god should god exist not any conclusions about the existence or not of god.

True, though I think Fry's argument is that such psychotic God is incoherent, and therefore impossible, and therefore doesn't exist.

03-02-2015 10:11am

K4t wrote: »

....
That is why it is so necessary to never stop moving forward as a society .. to never stop criticising and questioning religion authority ....

Great post, except I think this is an important edit.

Ireland has historically intermingled religion with authority, we've seen the de-coupling of the two begin in our lifetime, and hopefully it will continue in coming years, but if/when that happens we still must be critical and questioning of authority in order to continue to move forward.

magicbastarder · 03-02-2015 10:56am

giles fraser's response to fry, from the guardian:

I don’t believe in the God that Stephen Fry doesn’t believe in either
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/02/stephen-fry-god-christianity-evil-maniac

it basically boils down to 'i have invented a god who is innocent of fry's charges'.

Bristolscale7 · 03-02-2015 11:02am

magicbastarder wrote: »

giles fraser's response to fry, from the guardian:

I don’t believe in the God that Stephen Fry doesn’t believe in either
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/02/stephen-fry-god-christianity-evil-maniac

it basically boils down to 'i have invented a god who is innocent of fry's charges'.

Thanks for posting. What a bunch of mealy-mouthed psychobabble.

brooke 2 · 03-02-2015 11:34am

stevejazzx wrote: »

I also have met Gay (did a bit of AV work for him) - funnily enough he was revisiting some of his old interviews (Peter Ustinov was playing when I arrived).
Extremely intelligent man is all I say. I think the earlier quote about him being out of his depth here are a little exaggerated. He appears to me to be somewhat of dramatic individual and in a quite theatrical manner at that; so his expression here after Fry's answer can be read more accurately as theatrics - a communication to Fry of his frankness, played up for the cameras. Seen clearly I think Gay was reveling in the drama - his failure to engage on the issue of ancient Greek hedonism may be have been well placed. Fry's over zealousness and self-professed alignment for such has always struck as a little bit too much. But there you go - perhaps I'm just a little conservative!
Love Fry s outburst tough - we definitely need more of that.

Totally agree with you that Gay's expression can be read as theatrics.
He absolutely knew that this interview was going to be TV gold!!

Gits_bone · 03-02-2015 11:37am

challengemaster wrote: »

See, now you've posted pure nonsense about scientific facts. Since you obviously have no clue, however, lets try to educate you on the matter.

Humans are comprised of cells. Cells contains DNA. DNA is the biological instructions for that organism. DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce.

Cells aren't immortal. To develop and survive we are required to be constantly replenishing cells that die, whist producing more new cells to grow. Cell replication events occur by unwinding the DNA double helix whilst enzymes (DNA polymerases) makes new strands of DNA by reading the existing DNA strand and assembling nucleotides (base pairs) in order to replicate it.

Now, here's where the problem is with your side of things. DNA Polymerase enzymes aren't perfect. It makes ~ one mistake per billion replications. That doesn't sound bad until you realise that around 300 quintillion base pair replications happen every day. That's 300 billion billion. That's a lot of mistakes on a daily basis.

These mistakes in DNA replication are what cause cancer. Not our responsibility. Not chaos. Not our choices. It's what occurs when the genetic instructions for our cells get changed by mistake, making them immortal so they just keep growing into a tumor.

If you believe that your God created humans, then he also created them with this fundamental flaw that inevitably causes cancer. I then fail to see how you can dispute that God created cancer.

Do you think cancer rates are the same now as they were 100/200 years ago?

All this radiation...mobile phones..wifi...electromagnetic forces.

swampgas · 03-02-2015 11:38am

Gits_bone wrote: »

Do you think cancer rates are the same now as they were 100/200 years ago?

All this radiation...mobile phones..wifi...electromagnetic forces.

Yep, all that electro-magnetic radiation is bad voodoo - better block out the sun while you're at it.

Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

Comments