Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Shurimgreat · 04-02-2015 08:31PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Are you proposing diseases did not exist before mankind?

Of course they existed FFS. There are millions of species on earth, each one affected by diseases of one kind or another and many of them shared between humans and animals such as cancer.

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 08:40PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Of course they existed FFS. There are millions of species on earth, each one affected by diseases of one kind or another and many of them shared between humans and animals such as cancer.

But you blamed humans for not curing or preventing diseases. Stupid humans, should have cured all diseases a million years ago when they came down out of the trees. It's so easy.
Like I said, you're blaming the doctor not the gunman when you're shot dead.

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 08:41PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You just have to wait and see and hope he does or doesn't as the case may be.

Or not give a **** either way as it makes no tangible difference to anybody's life whatsoever.

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 08:51PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Fry doesn't think God exists because no god would be so evil as to invent eye worms and bone cancer in children

He didn't say that. Did you make an exception just this once and listen to what Fry actually said?

Loafing Oaf · 04-02-2015 09:38PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

My beef with Stephen Fry is the type of logic he used.

He basically said the presence of so much evil in the world and the likes of childhood cancer mean its impossible for there to be a god. But its flawed.

If I punch someone on the street, am I then supposed to say, "why didn't god stop me?" or "how could he let me do such an evil thing?"

Too many poeple outsource evil and blame it on a "god" and never take responsibility.

Fry may be right and there is no God, but he didn't really give a good explanation for it. He completely ignored Free Will which is a central tenent of christianity. He also ignored that most cancers come from behavorial, genetic or environmental factors.

Lung cancer for example, a lot of it comes from smoking. Is god to blame for that too? At what point do people need to take responsibility for their own free will or their own evil instead of blaming a "god"?

I don't think you've got your head around Fry's argument: it applies as long as there's pain, suffering, death or any sort of imperfection in the universe. Instead of the words he used think of him asking God "With your unlimited powers, why didn't you create a flawless universe instead of the messed up one we have?" and see if you can give a sensible answer from the deity's POV...

Shurimgreat · 04-02-2015 09:46PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't think you've got your head around Fry's argument: it applies as long as there's pain, suffering, death or any sort of imperfection in the universe. Instead of the words he used think of him asking God "With your unlimited powers, why didn't you create a flawless universe instead of the messed up one we have?" and see if you can give a sensible answer from the deity's POV...

Again based on this Fry doesn't seem to understand Christianity.

The flawless world is the next world, supposedly. Its the number one point about christianity.

Access to the "perfect flawless world" is conditional on good deeds in this world.

The whole point about christianity is to encourage people to do good and get a reward. Its not to hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it.

Fry again fails to make a distinction between the material world and the spiritual world.

As for Evil, it comes from the so called original sin of adam and eve, in other words there will always be evil in the world.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with christian thinking, I'm just highlighting crucial facts about it.

In any case I'm being harsh on Fry. Most of Gay Byrnes questions are light hearted and in jest. He knows full well Fry is an athiest and he knows full well he will get an entertaining answer.

K4t · 04-02-2015 09:52PM

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

I dont find the comments like a "disease" etc insulting though as they are not said as a joke or satire they are really meant.

How would you find it so? Would you not agree that religion and religious beliefs have caused suffering to many people and inflicted much pain on the world? You only have to look as far as Mother Theresa and many of her actions in India as undeniable evidence of the pain and suffering of millions due to religious beliefs.

Replace the word "force" with taught and that looks a lot better doesn't it. I believe that in a catholic school it should be taught yes, hardly an outlandish opinion and Id wager the majority opinion in this country.

You say you're not a fundamentalist (I believe you when you say that) and you say you aren't crazy religious either, but then why are you not content to exert your right to hold your own religious beliefs, practice them and share them, without the need for your beliefs to be taught exclusively as right and correct to children in state funded catholic schools, and all that accompanies it with school prayer, visits by priests, confession, crucifixes on the walls, communion and confirmation and so on, instead of offering them the opportunity to study and view both Catholicism and atheism, Islam and Judaism, agnosticism and so on equally, without placing greater significance on one, without saying one is undeniably correct. Why do you need your own personal catholic religious beliefs which help you live a better life to be instilled into the minds of children in state funded catholic schools? As a person of science (physicist?) surely you should support secular schools where young people's minds are open to the world, the universe, and all kinds of explanations and beliefs, and that they are allowed to find or choose their own path? Secular schools, where teachers will educate their students on all aspects and types of religious and non religious belief, where they do not simply teach that god either does or does not exist, is surely the most equal and most fair for all?

Shurimgreat · 04-02-2015 09:57PM

K4t wrote: »

How would you find it so? Would you not agree that religion and religious beliefs have caused suffering to many people and inflicted much pain on the world? You only have to look as far as Mother Theresa and many of her actions in India as undeniable evidence of the pain and suffering of millions due to religious beliefs.

Scuse me for interupting but I don't buy this. There was poverty in India long before Mother Theresa. There was a caste system and there were untouchables. There was all kinds of misery there before she came along. There was no family planning much either, poor people cannot afford condoms, doctors, abortions or the Pill.

Blaming Mother Theresa for the problems of India is bizarre. The problems were endemic to Indian society and still are, relating to caste and poverty.

Loafing Oaf · 04-02-2015 09:59PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Again based on this Fry doesn't seem to understand Christianity.

The flawless world is the next world, supposedly. Its the number one point about christianity.

Access to the "perfect flawless world" is conditional on good deeds in this world.

The whole point about christianity is to encourage people to do good and get a reward. Its not to hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it.
.

You're still not getting Fry's point. You're trying to rationalise things from the point of view of the Christian religion rather than from God himself, who surely came before that religion. He can create whatever kind of universe he wants: why did he create this obstacle course of a universe that people had to negotiate before accessing the next world? Did he get bored lying around in eternal bliss and decide to devise the ultimate spectator sport? Why shouldn't God "hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it" if he has/had the capacity to do that, rather than make the 'vale of tears' we have been landed with?

RobertKK · 04-02-2015 10:04PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You're still not getting Fry's point. You're trying to rationalise things from the point of view of the Christian religion rather than from God himself, who surely came before that religion. He can create whatever kind of universe he wants: why did he create this obstacle course of a universe that people had to negotiate before accessing the next world? Did he get bored lying around in eternal bliss and decide to devise the ultimate spectator sport? Why shouldn't God "hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it" if he has/had the capacity to do that, rather than make the 'vale of tears' we have been landed with?

The problem is Fry wasn't very intellectual. I mean it says in Genesis that it was Adam and Eve who brought death and evil into the world, not God.

You would think an intellectual would know this.

Shurimgreat · 04-02-2015 10:05PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You're still not getting Fry's point. You're trying to rationalise things from the point of view of the Christian religion rather than from God himself, who surely came before that religion. He can create whatever kind of universe he wants: why did he create this obstacle course of a universe that people had to negotiate before accessing the next world? Did he get bored lying around in eternal bliss and decide to devise the ultimate spectator sport? Why shouldn't God "hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it" if he has/had the capacity to do that, rather than make the 'vale of tears' we have been landed with?

I've discussed this before in detail. The idea there is a god up there who can manipulate everything down to the finest point to make the universe perfect is ridiculous. The first thing he'd do is stop people dying and make sure they'd live forever or something like that. He'd also have to make everyone's wishes come true. No-one would have any free will, we'd all be mere puppets of an all controllable god. Your car wouldn't start in the morning, well that's ok, God will be around in 10 minutes to fix it with a few jump leads. Bone cancer, no problem, god will cure that for you. Having problems with your manager at work, its cool, god will solve it by giving your manager a good talking to. Like I side infantile and ridiculous.

Vale of tears? Jesus, I'm sure your life isn't a vale of tears compared to elsewhere.

It never ceases to amaze me how a Russel Brand or Stephen Fry can say something on a Sunday and by a Monday some people think they have said something brilliant, when they haven't. I remember when Russel Brand was saying "don't vote", thousands of people, mainly in the UK were imitating his antics and parrotting what he had to say, without even bothering to think about it.

bodice ripper · 04-02-2015 10:07PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is Fry wasn't very intellectual. I mean it says in Genesis that it was Adam and Eve who brought death and evil into the world, not God.

You would think an intellectual would know this.

whaaaaha, you are actually serious.

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 10:09PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Again based on this Fry doesn't seem to understand Christianity.

The flawless world is the next world, supposedly. Its the number one point about christianity.

Access to the "perfect flawless world" is conditional on good deeds in this world.

The whole point about christianity is to encourage people to do good and get a reward. Its not to hand them a paradise on earth and expect them to lie back and enjoy it.

Fry again fails to make a distinction between the material world and the spiritual world.

As for Evil, it comes from the so called original sin of adam and eve, in other words there will always be evil in the world.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with christian thinking, I'm just highlighting crucial facts about it.

In any case I'm being harsh on Fry. Most of Gay Byrnes questions are light hearted and in jest. He knows full well Fry is an athiest and he knows full well he will get an entertaining answer.

How do you know any of this? You have insisted that god does not interact with this universe in any way. Maybe the voices are just, ya know, in your head?

indioblack · 04-02-2015 10:11PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is Fry wasn't very intellectual. I mean it says in Genesis that it was Adam and Eve who brought death and evil into the world, not God.

You would think an intellectual would know this.

And who brought Adam and Eve into the world?

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 10:11PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Scuse me for interupting but I don't buy this. There was poverty in India long before Mother Theresa. There was a caste system and there were untouchables. There was all kinds of misery there before she came along. There was no family planning much either, poor people cannot afford condoms, doctors, abortions or the Pill.

Blaming Mother Theresa for the problems of India is bizarre. The problems were endemic to Indian society and still are, relating to caste and poverty.

Could you have another shot at telling us where diseases come from, when apparently they are here to test us or something yet god didn't put them here?

Loafing Oaf · 04-02-2015 10:11PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I've discussed this before in detail. The idea there is a god up there who can manipulate everything down to the finest point to make the universe perfect is ridiculous.

I don't see how it's any more ridiculous than the idea of a creator God at all. If he's capable of creating a universe out of nothing why isn't he capable of creating a flawless one?

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 10:14PM

indioblack wrote: »

And who brought Adam and Eve into the world?

Didn't you get the memo? God gave us free will, so even though he is omniscient he doesn't know what we're going to do, except when he does which is why there's prophecies of what will happen when we are bad, and we don't really know any of this because he has never interacted in any way with our universe.
Got it now?

RobertKK · 04-02-2015 10:15PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

whaaaaha, you are actually serious.

Yes, if Fry was talking about the God in Genesis, which it seemed he was talking about.
I don't think you can talk about God and the God of Genesis but then totally ignore what it says.

It would be like talking about Harry Potter and saying she was a lovely girl in those books who liked to play with her barbie doll, and Voldemort was her fairy Godmother.

Totally ignoring what it says in the books and making it up to appear intelligent, when it is preaching to the ignorant who believe that.
You can't talk about some character in a book and then ignore what it says and simply make it up.

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 10:17PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, if Fry was talking about the God in Genesis, which it seemed he was talking about.
I don't think you can talk about God and the God of Genesis but then totally ignore what it says.

It would be like talking about Harry Potter

You can stop right there mate.

K4t · 04-02-2015 10:18PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Scuse me for interupting but I don't buy this. There was poverty in India long before Mother Theresa. There was a caste system and there were untouchables. There was all kinds of misery there before she came along. There was no family planning much either, poor people cannot afford condoms, doctors, abortions or the Pill.

Blaming Mother Theresa for the problems of India is bizarre. The problems were endemic to Indian society and still are, relating to caste and poverty.

I'll say this for Mother Theresa, I will give her the benefit of the doubt when I say that her heart was probably in the right place, even if her head was poisoned by religious doctrine.

Christopher Hitchens has already debunked the myth of Mother Theresa in his book devoted to her but if you want clarification you can at least do yourself the honour of reading this. (it will take no more than 5 mins)https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/a-new-expose-on-mother-teresa-shows-that-she-and-the-vatican-were-even-worse-than-we-thought/ It's an official press release by the Université de Montréal. concerning a soon to be released peer reviewed paper on Mother Theresa and her exploits in India.

I'll just leave this snippet from Hitchens too which fits in with the broader argument here: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” was Mother Theresa's reply to criticism, cites the journalist Christopher Hitchens. Nevertheless, when Mother Teresa required palliative care, she received it in a modern American hospital.”

RobertKK · 04-02-2015 10:19PM

indioblack wrote: »

And who brought Adam and Eve into the world?

God, who created them in his own image according to Genesis. It was Adam and Eve who brought sin into the world and with it death according to the old testament.

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 10:20PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem is Fry wasn't very intellectual. I mean it says in Genesis that it was Adam and Eve who brought death and evil into the world, not God.

You would think an intellectual would know this.

Yeah, the Satan that he made tempted the woman that he made from the man he made.
Nothing to do with god at all. Hell, he didn't even know they were going to do it apparently because of the free will thing.

indioblack · 04-02-2015 10:20PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I've discussed this before in detail. The idea there is a god up there who can manipulate everything down to the finest point to make the universe perfect is ridiculous. The first thing he'd do is stop people dying and make sure they'd live forever or something like that. He'd also have to make everyone's wishes come true. No-one would have any free will, we'd all be mere puppets of an all controllable god. Your car wouldn't start in the morning, well that's ok, God will be around in 10 minutes to fix it with a few jump leads. Bone cancer, no problem, god will cure that for you. Having problems with your manager at work, its cool, god will solve it by giving your manager a good talking to. Like I side infantile and ridiculous.

Vale of tears? Jesus, I'm sure your life isn't a vale of tears compared to elsewhere.

It never ceases to amaze me how a Russel Brand or Stephen Fry can say something on a Sunday and by a Monday some people think they have said something brilliant, when they haven't. I remember when Russel Brand was saying "don't vote", thousands of people, mainly in the UK were imitating his antics and parrotting what he had to say, without even bothering to think about it.

Surely the standard Christian view of God is that he has the capability to do all these things.
I agree with you stating that if he ironed out all the errors and wrinkles of existence we would have, for example, no free will.
Indeed, I think that if God micro-managed the world to erase all errors we would probably not exist.
But the belief that he can implies, [for me], at least an indirect responsibility for these errors.

RobertKK · 04-02-2015 10:22PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You can stop right there mate.

Yes, making stuff up to appear intellectual said in the right voice can fool a lot of people.

...and the gullible go...
'Oh listen to that voice, it is Stephen Fry, oh he is so intelligent, he must be right.

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 10:22PM

RobertKK wrote: »

God, who created them in his own image according to Genesis. It was Adam and Eve who brought sin into the world and with it death according to the old testament.

So if you make something you have no responsibility for its actions? Why didn't he just eff off then and leave us alone afterwards? He came back a few more times to (collectively) punish mankind for exercising the free will he gave them.
Sounds like a bit of a cnut TBH.

Dan_Solo · 04-02-2015 10:24PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, making stuff up to appear intellectual said in the right voice can fool a lot of people.

...and the gullible go...
'Oh listen to that voice, it is Stephen Fry, oh he is so intelligent, he must be right.

Priests are pretty good public speakers. I see what you mean.

Loafing Oaf · 04-02-2015 10:24PM

indioblack wrote: »

Indeed, I think that if God micro-managed the world to erase all errors we would probably not exist.

This is really the heart of the matter for me. All 'evil' as we understand it ultimately comes down to various forms of pain suffered by humans and other living creatures. So if you're God why create life at all, why not just have a universe made up stars, comets, black holes etc...

indioblack · 04-02-2015 10:26PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Didn't you get the memo? God gave us free will, so even though he is omniscient he doesn't know what we're going to do, except when he does which is why there's prophecies of what will happen when we are bad, and we don't really know any of this because he has never interacted in any way with our universe.
Got it now?

"He doesn't know what we're going to do, except when he does..."
I don't know if God has ever interacted in any way with our universe or not.
I may think or believe that he has or has not.

K4t · 04-02-2015 10:27PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

This is really the heart of the matter for me. All 'evil' as we understand it ultimately comes down to various forms of pain suffered by humans and other living creatures. So if you're God why create life at all, why not just have a universe made up stars, comets, black holes etc...

He was bored and couldn't afford Netflix.

Shurimgreat · 04-02-2015 10:29PM

K4t wrote: »

I'll say this for Mother Theresa, I will give her the benefit of the doubt when I say that her heart was probably in the right place, even if her head was poisoned by religious doctrine.

Christopher Hitchens has already debunked the myth of Mother Theresa in his book devoted to her but if you want clarification you can at least do yourself the honour of reading this. (it will take no more than 5 mins) It's an official press release by the Université de Montréal. concerning a soon to be released peer reviewed paper on Mother Theresa and her exploits in India.

I'll just leave this snippet from Hitchens too which fits in with the broader argument here: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” was Mother Theresa's reply to criticism, cites the journalist Christopher Hitchens. Nevertheless, when Mother Teresa required palliative care, she received it in a modern American hospital.”

No-one gave a cr*p about the people Mother Theresa dealt with. Not here, not there, not anywhere. The idea that Hitchens had more to give these people than Mother Theresa is laughable, he didn't. He didn't care about them, until he needed to sell a book and then he "cares".

Rich (western) people do need poor people to make them enjoy and value their lives more, no doubt about that. 99% of westerners care very little about the suffering in the third world, it hardly registers with them mostly and in some cases they are directly responsible for that misery - trade in coltan, diamonds, gold, arms, etc.

Hitchens, Fry, etc are/were rich westerners who view all the solution to the worlds problems throught rich westerner eyes.

Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Comments