nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

cloud493

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

I don't agree with him. But it was a good answer. Fair play to him for his beliefs and what not.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

pueblo

bigslick wrote: »

I imagine you may have difficulty explaining to a young child with a terminal illness who doesnt understand why he/she is dying/in pain that is "just part of being human"

Death is part of life right? We all have to die and to some extent suffer. For believers, this suffering is offset by the belief in a God and an afterlife, rightly or wrongly.

I certainly dont understand quantum mechanics to understand if black holes exist or not, but the great thing is that there are scientists who spend their life trying to prove if they do are not (Stephen Hawking for example), and they are experts in their fields, using scientific method and evidence. While many religious individuals (you may not be included in this group) say "well you cant prove god doesnt exist!!" which is such a flawed argument, and yet is constantly used over and over.

A flawed argument it may be, but even Einstein considered himself an agnostic.

Stephen Hawking has said "Believe in science, believe in God" meaning that statistically it gives you the best chance of a happy afterlife (if one exists)

Montallie

BenEadir wrote: »

^^^ What a complete load of nonsense.

What could a baby born with serious physical and mental deformities or one born into an African famine have done to "reject God" and deserve to endure nothing but pain and suffering for what will probably be a short existence?

That reminds me of the New Testament story where the disciples ask Jesus, 'Was it this man or his parents who sinned that he was born blind?' One tiny little mention of reincarnation that somehow got left in when the rest was removed.

Dan_Solo

pueblo wrote: »

So anyway, if God exists and if he is the creator then presumably he knows a thing or two we don't know, things we are probably incapable of knowing.

Based on this assertion it is entirely possible for us to have free will and at the same time for God to be able to know the choices we will make with that free will.

He made us and he knows what we will do... and we still have free will? Nonsensical. Cleansing the earth of sinners would be like writing a computer program and then deleting it when it does exactly what you programmed it to do.

folan

RobertKK wrote: »

Is there any evidence to support the standards of education in any of them gives a different outcome?

We know areas that have more deprived people have worse outcomes, which is the deciding factor, not the type of school.

I have literally no idea what this has to do with the debate.

danrua01

Was the Old Testament not superseded once JC came about? So teachings in that shouldn't be relevant to Christians after Jesus? Or am I missing things?

mikom

danrua01 wrote: »

Was the Old Testament not superseded once JC came about? So teachings in that shouldn't be relevant to Christians after Jesus? Or am I missing things?

Old Testament (game of the year edition) is my favorite, as it contains all the homophobia DLC.

RobertKK

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's not even correct, but that'll hardly stop him either.

from the US holocaust memorial museum:

A recurrent theme in Nazi antisemitic propaganda was that Jews spread diseases. To prevent non-Jews from attempting to enter the ghettos and from seeing the condition of daily life there for themselves, German authorities posted quarantine signs at the entrances, warning of the danger of contagious disease. Since inadequate sanitation and water supplies coupled with starvation rations quickly undermined the health of the Jews in the ghettos, these warnings became a self-fulfilling prophecy, as typhus and other infectious diseases ravaged ghetto populations. Subsequent Nazi propaganda utilized these man-made epidemics to justify isolating the “filthy” Jews from the larger population.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007822

So linking a religion with the word 'disease' has been used in the past.

This is what k4t posted:

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.

That is pure hatred, it fully implies Catholics are diseased.

jobbridge4life

danrua01 wrote: »

Was the Old Testament not superseded once JC came about? So teachings in that shouldn't be relevant to Christians after Jesus? Or am I missing things?

I'd imagine it depends on the Church but for most Christian's no the Old Testament remains important.

danrua01

mikom wrote: »

Old Testament (game of the year edition) is my favorite, as it contains all the homophobia DLC.

Mine was full of bugs... never got the New Testament update...

RobertKK

folan wrote: »

I have literally no idea what this has to do with the debate.

Well that is the problem, some people focus on the religious faith of the school, rather than the educational outcome.

kunst nugget

RobertKK wrote: »

from the US holocaust memorial museum:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007822

So linking a religion with the word 'disease' has been used in the past.

This is what k4t posted:

That is pure hatred, it fully implies Catholics are diseased.

That is quite the leap to make and they bear no similarity to each other at all. K4t used the disease analogy to describe how the influence of the Catholic Church could spread. He never implied that Catholics themselves were unsanitary and were the source of actual diseases like the Nazis did in relation to the Jews. You are really searching for a way to be personally offended there.

RobertKK

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's odd, a second ago you were claiming religious orders were providing all the teaching... now you say the state is paying for it?
Plan on making up your mind any time soon?

Let me take this a bit slower.
At the time of the penal laws Catholics were denied an education, Catholics had their hidden hedge schools.
When it became more tolerable, people like Edmund Rice and Nano Nagle set up Catholic schools, and others set up Catholic schools.
Ireland achieved independence and is poor.
The state can't afford its own schools and instead pays the teachers and capital expenditure to schools once the national curriculum is taught.

You basically put all the timeline as being current rather than including historical which was fairly clear in my opinion.

folan

RobertKK wrote: »

Well that is the problem, some people focus on the religious faith of the school, rather than the educational outcome.

actually, I was just pointing out the issues with your implications about education in Ireland, mainly that religious education is rigidly defined as part of the national curriculum.

while you never explicitly said it, your comments could be construed that way. I wanted to make sure you were understood.

bigslick

pueblo wrote: »

A flawed argument it may be, but even Einstein considered himself an agnostic.

Well Einstein wasnt always right (see discussion around his speed of light calculation)

That having been said, and I have nothing against people believing in god, they can believe in flying hippos for all i care, once this doesnt not impact others who may not share this view. Unfortunately in Ireland and many other countries (im looking at you USA) the belief of god guides legislation and restricts freedom.

pueblo wrote: »

Stephen Hawking has said "Believe in science, believe in God" meaning that statistically it gives you the best chance of a happy afterlife (if one exists)

I think thats an issue I have with the overall idea of Christianity, do this or else you wont get into heaven. Its like blackmail...If the main reason behind someones belief in God is that they will get into heaven, its not exactly the best foundation of belief IMO

[Deleted User]

Kirby wrote: »

If you kicked me in the face, it would be assault and you would be arrested. Nobody in here is assaulting anybody and nothing in here is "along the lines of that".

And some of the stuff posted here would certainly be an offence under the blashmaphy laws in this country and could get you arrested too.

shruikan2553

danrua01 wrote: »

Was the Old Testament not superseded once JC came about? So teachings in that shouldn't be relevant to Christians after Jesus? Or am I missing things?

Jesus said something about how he came to build on the old testament, not replace it. These days Christians take it to mean pick the parts that suit you. Gays? Bad. Mixed fibre clothing? OK.

mikom

danrua01 wrote: »

Was the Old Testament not superseded once JC came about? So teachings in that shouldn't be relevant to Christians after Jesus? Or am I missing things?

Old Testament (game of the year edition) is my favorite, as it contains all the homophobia DLC.

danrua01 wrote: »

Mine was full of bugs... never got the New Testament update...

I think there is a Pope Francis patch that you can use to sort this out.
It makes the whole experience appear a lot better too, but it's pretty much the same under the bonnet.

shruikan2553

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

And some of the stuff posted here would certainly be an offence under the blashmaphy laws in this country and could get you arrested too.

Please report it to the gardai. I would love to see the word news if that was going through the courts.

bigslick

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

And some of the stuff posted here would certainly be an offence under the blashmaphy laws in this country and could get you arrested too.

You know that nobody has actually been prosecuted under the Defamation Act, and that the last known conviction for blasphemy in Ireland was in 1855 right? It is crazy to be in law, and i should hope that the future planned referendum to remove it will show this.

PopePalpatine

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

And some of the stuff posted here would certainly be an offence under the blashmaphy laws in this country and could get you arrested too.

If you need blasphemy laws to defend your faith, you must be very scared of alternatives to it.

danrua01

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Jesus said something about how he came to build on the old testament, not replace it. These days Christians take it to mean pick the parts that suit you. Gays? Bad. Mixed fibre clothing? OK.

There are some great things that are banned by the OT...:

- not being circumcised;
- breaking the Sabbath;
- being a town that believes in another god;
- eating anything that mixes meat and dairy;
- eating fat
- working on the Sabbath;
- being a stubborn, rebellious, and drunkard son;
- planting more than one kind of seed in a field;
- cutting the hair on the sides of our head;
- living in a city that failed to surrender to the israelites

let's not forget the NT disallows women from speakin in church.

All a bit silly.

The Icelanders are good. They're back to building temples for their gods, and here's a quote:

“I don’t believe anyone believes in a one-eyed man who is riding about on a horse with eight feet,” said Hilmar Örn Hilmarsson, high priest of Ásatrúarfélagið, an association that promotes faith in the Norse gods.

“We see the stories as poetic metaphors and a manifestation of the forces of nature and human psychology.”

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

So linking a religion with the word 'disease' has been used in the past.

Except you are lying about the Nazis referring to a religion when they use the word "Jew". They always used it to refer to a race.
Amazing. Some people are so utterly clueless that even the Nazis need defending against them...

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

And some of the stuff posted here would certainly be an offence under the blashmaphy laws in this country and could get you arrested too.

And there's people here claiming religions don't interfere with the state?!?!

eviltwin

I can't get my head around the fuss about this interview at all. Fry is a well known atheist, he's not exactly quiet about it so its not great shock he said what he said. I watched the show and most of it was a normal enough interview, he talked about his childhood, his career, his various issues. The religion thing was left until the end and then he came out with this statement, this opinion that wasn't exactly earth shattering.

If it was someone known for being very religious then it would be understandable but Fry? I feel embarrassed tbh that its caused so much debate.

timetogo

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't get my head around the fuss about this interview at all. Fry is a well known atheist, he's not exactly quiet about it so its not great shock he said what he said. I watched the show and most of it was a normal enough interview, he talked about his childhood, his career, his various issues. The religion thing was left until the end and then he came out with this statement, this opinion that wasn't exactly earth shattering.

If it was someone known for being very religious then it would be understandable but Fry? I feel embarrassed tbh that its caused so much debate.

The more debate the better. If it makes one person think a bit more critically then its worth it. There'll be loads of people with the "mysterious ways" rubbish but I think that's wearing thin.

RobertKK

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Except you are lying about the Nazis referring to a religion when they use the word "Jew". They always used it to refer to a race.
Amazing. Some people are so utterly clueless that even the Nazis need defending against them...

No, they used it to mean Jew, a person of Jewish faith given the perceived power and influence the Nazis believed the Jews had in society.

Loafing Oaf

eviltwin wrote: »

The religion thing was left until the end and then he came out with this statement, this opinion that wasn't exactly earth shattering.

The particularly point he made is hardly novel: Fry's own icon expressed it thus: "I said to her that there was enough suffering in one narrow London lane to show that God did not love man." However, maybe it isn't often expressed as trenchantly or in so original a form? Religious commenters seem to struggle to confront it directly and try to shift the goalposts to talk about the evil caused by humanity, which is much easier to explain within a Christian framework...

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

No, they used it to mean Jew, a person of Jewish faith given the perceived power and influence the Nazis believed the Jews had in society.

Bollix. Find me a link where the Nazis specifically refer to wanting to eliminate Jews because of Judaism.

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't get my head around the fuss about this interview at all. Fry is a well known atheist, he's not exactly quiet about it so its not great shock he said what he said. I watched the show and most of it was a normal enough interview, he talked about his childhood, his career, his various issues. The religion thing was left until the end and then he came out with this statement, this opinion that wasn't exactly earth shattering.

If it was someone known for being very religious then it would be understandable but Fry? I feel embarrassed tbh that its caused so much debate.

Enda Kenny on that program on the other hand...

Claimed he was a devout Catholic, didn't believe in the Eucharist, didn't believe Jesus was the son of God and mass was a community get together.
Plus something about energy that I remember was strange at the time.

danrua01

RobertKK wrote: »

No, they used it to mean Jew, a person of Jewish faith given the perceived power and influence the Nazis believed the Jews had in society.

Fella, even people in this thread were calling Stephen Fry a Jew even though he's not religious. They weren't referring to his religion.