Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Please tell us anything at all about your god and how you know this so we can tell that you aren't just making up ****.

I am going to assume you want the comic book superhero who intervenes when his great plan goes awry or when a runaway train full of orphans threathens to crash, he will intervene to stop it happening. Or will zap eye worms, stop wars and punish pickpockets. If so, I'm done with you.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No wait, we have this new god that doesn't do anything and we have no idea about him at all. Something we don't and can't know that does nothing... gee, most people would just call that "nothing" but that's what god is these days it seems1

Seriously how old are you? And how many comic books do you own?

indioblack wrote: »

The comic-book superhero is the version most people think of.
As long as this "conventional" God is presented to people, there will be some who offer objection - usually on the grounds of illogicality.

Like Dan Solo for a start!

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Assume any **** you want, that's why you're a theist after all.
I asked you for any evidence whatsoever of this god which you insist doesn't interact with our universe. You can't.

Where did I say I was a theist? Where did I say he was my god. And did you miss the part where I said I was pointing out cornerstones of christianity, not condoning them. I'm laughing here at the irrationality of most of your posts.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Can't answer the question? Try some insults and that'll convince people you aren't just talking ****e!

And on that note, you're on ignore because I can't be dealing with your childishness.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

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.

I understand and would agree with a lot of what you say there (except for Hitchen's intentions which were I believe solely to investigate and uncover the truth and obtain and relate factual evidence - another reason I believe this is that his book would almost definitely have been threatened with libel action had it been untrue. And as well as that this new research paper seems to support Hitchen's viewpoint with further evidence.)

Concerning Mother Theresa, while her intentions may have been noble, the answer was not to inflict extra needless pain and suffering on people, no matter how badly off they already were. And Mother Theresa is guilty of that no matter what argument you use to the contrary. The new research paper which supports this argument is peer reviewed and written by academics who have investigated all aspects of her work in India, and by the press release it obviously favours and corroborates Hitchen's view.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Of all the explanations for the existance or not of God, or a benign God even, the argument as to why he hasn't created a perfect universe is without question the weakest. There are litterly thousands of books dealing with the question and you'd want to read at least some of them to be in a position to answer the question.

In short, if god created you, you should be thankful he created you in the first place. However, some people aren't happy enough they have been created, they want a perfect existance, they want a job and a car and a house and this and that, and an ideal world, and everyone to be perfectly happy, and no-one should be depressed, no suicide, poverty, and so on.

You can't please some people!

That's fair enough, you're entitled to your beliefs. But why are you so certain that your beliefs are in fact correct? I could reference books that say your religious beliefs are full of nonsense and cause more pain and suffering in the name of those beliefs than good. But I still don't maintain that my beliefs concerning religion are more important or hold greater significance than yours, and I wouldn't want my beliefs being exclusively taught in schools, and I wouldn't want them strongly influencing state legislation. Why do so many people with religious beliefs want those beliefs to be taught to children in state funded schools as correct and right beliefs? Why can't religious people be happy to hold their beliefs, practice them, and share them to their heart's content; why instead do religious believers oppose the equal teaching of other beliefs and oppose the separation of church and state in favour of a secular state, where all beliefs concerning religion will be equal under the law. Why is it so hard for religious people to not attempt to enforce their beliefs on others? And before the accusation is labelled against atheists forcing their beliefs on people, I'm arguing for a secular state, where all beliefs are treated equally in state schools and under law., where my belief is explicitly not forced upon others any more than religious beliefs.

Shrap wrote: »

Haven't read the thread, but I'm assuming someone has posted this pre-Christian philosopher? If not, FFS it's all that needs saying on the subject.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

Don't worry, you'll get a far from convincing rebuttal.

I think the debate here is not so much whether the posters of faith actually truly believe much of what they are writing about Christianity or God, but that they are so convinced by the idea of it, and so entrenched in the defence of that idea, that they simply cannot conceive of allowing themselves to be told any different. You can throw all the logic and reason in the world at them, and some of it might stick, but it will never sink in. We're not arguing with fundamentalists here, but make no mistake these people are seriously conditioned to believe what they do, for god knows how many years, and how many sermons, and from presumably a very young age. That is why these arguments, are as another poster said, always the same, the same arguments repeated time and again, and nothing ever changes. And that is exactly why we owe it to our children to spare them from the indoctrination of religion and the catholic church in this country through the gradual implementation of a truly secular state. Many kids in state funded catholic schools in this country are baptised, have confessed, done communion and confirmation before they've even heard of other religions or their existence, never mind atheism. This is a crime imo, a crime against those who the church all too often attempts to use as a defence in debates on issues such as abortion and most recently same sex marriage, it is a crime against our own children, a crime against their minds.