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

TwoShedsJackson

God gets all the praise and thanks and none of the brickbats for causing the trouble in the first place. Jammy git.

Akrasia

COYVB wrote: »

You can't prove something doesn't exist, you can only show how unlikely it is

Yeah, and part of showing that it is unlikely, is showing that it is unnecessary, and this is what science does to god every day.

If I come back to my office desk to find my coffee cup knocked over and brown liquid all over the desk, it's 'possible' that the brown liquid is the remains of a gremlin that melted when exposed to sunlight..... But it's not necessary because the coffee cup explains the mess perfectly fine.

The more we learn about nature and what is possible without any divine intervention, the more un-necessary god is.
We're at a point now where we have perfectly plausible explanations for how the visible universe began and how galaxies stars and planets formed without any need for divine intervention, and we have multiple plausible theories for how the big bang might have started without the need for a god either. And we have multiple plausible explanations for how the mind works and where people get our morals and values from, none of which require a god.

Science is not finished, we don't know everything, we have plenty still to discover and loads of kinks to work out, but the reality is, that there is nowhere in our knowledge gaps big enough for god to hide in anymore.

God is not necessary do perform any science, and because god is not necessary, there is absolutely no reason to believe that god exists. (other than ignorance or wishfull thinking)

Grayson

ScumLord wrote: »

As far as I can tell god was invented by a particular group of people, well, many gods were created by many different peoples the jewish/christian/muslim one is the one that survived and flourished. We can trace the history of these peoples right back to the time they came up with their holy books. So you don't so much have to disprove god you just have to decide whether these people could really be trusted to know what they were talking about, and I don't think they are a dependable source so the god they described isn't valid IMO.

It's not even that it survived. they were all a bit different in character but they all adapted ideas from other religions. Augustine was a manichean*. He took the idea of a god of light and one of dark (God/Devil). The idea of a resurrected son of God was Egyptian. The idea of a soul was Pythagoras (Yes, the same guy who liked triangles). In the west holidays were taken from pagan rituals etc...

So although the religion survived the original concept didn't. This is most obvious in the transition from old testament god to new testament god. They are completely different.

*(BTW, I mentioned earlier in the thread that he was a Zoroastrian. I was on the train a couple of days ago and thought hang on, no he wasn't. Consider this an apology and a correction)

BlaasForRafa

Akrasia wrote: »

Science is not finished, we don't know everything, we have plenty still to discover and loads of kinks to work out, but the reality is, that there is nowhere in our knowledge gaps big enough for god to hide in anymore.

God is not necessary do perform any science, and because god is not necessary, there is absolutely no reason to believe that god exists. (other than ignorance or wishfull thinking)

Oh come on, God fills in all the little gaps we don't understand right? Sure he created dark matter and dark energy just to f**k with Neil DeGrasse Tyson's head! :pac:

ScumLord

Akrasia wrote: »

The more we learn about nature and what is possible without any divine intervention, the more un-necessary god is.
We're at a point now where we have perfectly plausible explanations for how the visible universe began and how galaxies stars and planets formed without any need for divine intervention, and we have multiple plausible theories for how the big bang might have started without the need for a god either. And we have multiple plausible explanations for how the mind works and where people get our morals and values from, none of which require a god.

I actually think our expanding historical knowledge, which has been helped along greatly by other sciences like DNA, has done more to discredit religion than anything else. We can see our development from a pretty special animal to a civilised being, we can see religion develop from remembering ancestors, to gods, to god. when you can see our history laid out it's clear the current gods were invented and adapted to our needs throughout the centuries.

Quantum physics and other advanced sciences almost opens the door to gods again because things can get so strange and some parts of them seem so ideal for humans that it would make you wonder. I think it's a bit like the early days of science in that you could read a lot into results because we're only beginning to scratch the surface.

StormWarrior

Don't know if it's been posted already as I can't be arsed to read the whole thread but interesting response here:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/02/02/stephen-fry-is-wrong-without-god-there-would-actually-be-more-evil-in-the-world/

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/stephen.fry.says.god.is.capricious.mean.minded.stupid.but.lets.not.get.angry/47174.htm

Dan_Solo

ScumLord wrote: »

Quantum physics and other advanced sciences almost opens the door to gods again because things can get so strange and some parts of them seem so ideal for humans that it would make you wonder. I think it's a bit like the early days of science in that you could read a lot into results because we're only beginning to scratch the surface.

I think this is related to the old proposition that the universe is "just right" for humans to have evolved, but this theory fails in that if it is wasn't "just right" we wouldn't be here to observe it in the first place.

Dan_Solo

StormWarrior wrote: »

Don't know if it's been posted already as I can't be arsed to read the whole thread but interesting response here:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/02/02/stephen-fry-is-wrong-without-god-there-would-actually-be-more-evil-in-the-world/

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/stephen.fry.says.god.is.capricious.mean.minded.stupid.but.lets.not.get.angry/47174.htm

In part it is because simply removing God from the equation does nothing whatsoever to eradicate the problem of suffering in this world.

Horrifically **** argument. Fry, like many of us here, do not believe there is a god at all. Whatever happens when you "remove god" is irrelevant because he doesn't exist. What we are left with is the hypothetical all powerful god who allows and indeed designs suffering for us.
If god existed he must be a cnut, but he doesn't exist, basically.

[Deleted User]

Dan_Solo wrote: »

is irrelevant because he doesn't exist.

No, you think he doesn't exist.

timetogo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I think this is related to the old proposition that the universe is "just right" for humans to have evolved, but this theory fails in that if it is wasn't "just right" we wouldn't be here to observe it in the first place.

Also with the infinite amount of universes theory there could be an infinite amount of universes out there or before this one that did have the variables different so life couldn't evolve. We're not lucky to have this universe with the laws of physics we know, the laws of physics in this universe were just right for life to emerge.

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

No, you think he doesn't exist.

s-l-o-w h-a-n-d-c-l-a-p
This is also fantastically ignoring the argument entirely that, yet again, a theist is assuming Fry is "blaming god" for evil.
Is it an inability to listen or to comprehend that has so many on the theist side making this laughable error time and time again?

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

No, you think he doesn't exist.

Anyway, now you're back, you've obviously carefully skipped the last ten times I've asked:
Can god predict what people will do?

EDIT: It occurs to me that I am more powerful than god as I can predict no theist will touch this question with a holy bargepole.

Zubeneschamali

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I almost asked if she'd actually looked around the ward at all the walking shells of people and why has her god given us all cancer in the first f*cking place.

Free will?

Something something apple tree?

Dan_Solo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Free will?

Something something apple tree?

Or we've been presented with the alternative that god hasn't done anything at all in the entirety of history.
Which begs the question how the hell can anybody know anything about him, but there you go.

[Deleted User]

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Anyway, now you're back, you've obviously carefully skipped the last ten times I've asked:
Can god predict what people will do?

He knows everything he doesn't need to predict.

ScumLord

StormWarrior wrote: »

Don't know if it's been posted already as I can't be arsed to read the whole thread but interesting response here:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/02/02/stephen-fry-is-wrong-without-god-there-would-actually-be-more-evil-in-the-world/

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/stephen.fry.says.god.is.capricious.mean.minded.stupid.but.lets.not.get.angry/47174.htm

The problem with these aritcles is they're still lookig at the problem from the inside out and have fixated on the idea that steven said that natural evil disproves a loving god.

I think what he means is that if god exists, he created a world full of evil. Saying he's a loving god makes no sense given the world he made, supposedly especially for us.

But Steven doesn't believe god exists, if you watch QI he obviously has a fascination with the natural world as many non theists tend to do. When you look at nature from a scientific perspective that takes into account evolution then bad things that happen make sense. The fly that borrows into a childs eye isn't evil, it's bad from a human perspective but from a natural perspective that fly is just eking out a living. It has no bad intentions, there is no evil.

Zubeneschamali

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

He knows everything he doesn't need to predict.

OK, but at any given moment, God (being omniscient and out of time and so on) could materialise a book detailing exactly what I am going to do for the rest of my life. If he wanted to. That may not be what you'd call a prediction, but it is what I'd call a prediction.

That sort of God is completely incompatible with free will: he knows exactly what I am going to choose and why before I am born - I am just a puppet.

shruikan2553

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Horrifically **** argument. Fry, like many of us here, do not believe there is a god at all. Whatever happens when you "remove god" is irrelevant because he doesn't exist. What we are left with is the hypothetical all powerful god who allows and indeed designs suffering for us.
If god existed he must be a cnut, but he doesn't exist, basically.

Some people are incapable of not missing the point. He wasnt saying it means god does or doesnt exist. He was talking about a hypothetical situation where he met god.

By saying if there was no god things wouldnt change just suggests that god is irrelevant in the whole good vs evil thing.

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

He knows everything he doesn't need to predict.

If he knows the future then he is predicting. Your lame attempt at fudging will not go unnoticed.
Now, if god knows what we will do, what is the purpose of giving us free will to test us? He already knows if we will pass or fail. The suffering is futile.
If god created us exactly the way we are and knows everything we will do, where does free will come into it again?

timetogo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

He knows everything he doesn't need to predict.

I'm not being smart. I just really can't get my head around this kind of argument.

He knew that Adam would eat an apple and that Jesus would have to be born and crucified to himself to "save" us.
He knew that earth 1.0 would have to be wiped with the flood because people were bad. He knew that Abraham would sacrifice his son if asked which would totally negate the need for the test, in which case we're back to him being a see you next tuesday.

etc. etc.

We're back to the god works in mysterious ways argument so. Very ****ing mysterious.

If I knew a pile of stuff was going to go wrong before I did it, I'd make sure it didn't go wrong to start with. Obviously I'm not omnipotent or anything but that seems kind of obvious.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Or we've been presented with the alternative that god hasn't done anything at all in the entirety of history.
Which begs the question how the hell can anybody know anything about him, but there you go.

A tree falls in a wood somewhere and no-one hears it.

Does it exist?

K4t

ScumLord wrote: »

I actually think our expanding historical knowledge, which has been helped along greatly by other sciences like DNA, has done more to discredit religion than anything else. We can see our development from a pretty special animal to a civilised being, we can see religion develop from remembering ancestors, to gods, to god. when you can see our history laid out it's clear the current gods were invented and adapted to our needs throughout the centuries.

Quantum physics and other advanced sciences almost opens the door to gods again because things can get so strange and some parts of them seem so ideal for humans that it would make you wonder. I think it's a bit like the early days of science in that you could read a lot into results because we're only beginning to scratch the surface.

You don't need to have any of that knowledge to discredit religion. Sure it might help you to win a debate, but even if you win the debate, you will never discredit religion in the mind of the believer. The world can never be rid of religion because it can never be rid of the human impulses behind it. You can use all the scientific arguments and advancements you want in an attempt to discredit religion, but ultimately what really makes a religion, the necessary condition, is faith. And an exclusive faith that trumps other sources of truth. Religion is not the belief there is a God. Religion is the belief God tells you what to do.

[Deleted User]

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A tree falls in a wood somewhere and no-one hears it.

Does it exist?

Of course it does. A silly question since the tree is a physical entity on Earth. On the other hand there has been no physical, tangible evidence of a higher being.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A tree falls in a wood somewhere and no-one hears it.

Does it exist?

Hypothetical things don't exist.
Your life must be very confusing if you believe otherwise.

Dan_Solo

circadian wrote: »

Of course it does. A silly question since the tree is a physical entity on Earth. On the other hand there has been no physical, tangible evidence of a higher being.

Nah, it's a nonexistent imaginary tree.
Now if he wants to specify WHICH tree then we can discuss whether that exists or not.
It's not a real question so doesn't get a real answer. It's like asking how long unicorns live for.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Hypothetical things don't exist.
Your life must be very confusing if you believe otherwise.

Though this complete inability to comprehend what a hypothetical question is explains a lot about theists being confused by Fry "blaming god".

The_Valeyard

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Though this complete inability to comprehend what a hypothetical question is explains a lot about theists being confused by Fry "blaming god".

Are you debating yourself?

Dan_Solo

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Are you debating yourself?

Be a good lad and read the thread next time.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A tree falls in a wood somewhere and no-one hears it.

Does it exist?

Shurimgreat puts another poster on ignore. Do his posts still exist?
Apparently yes!

route9

You'd have to wonder when Fry was on about how he thought a lot of the things Jesus said didn't make sense. He talked about how 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' not making sense, and how nobody would ever be punished for wrongdoing if that principle applied. Seems he is missing or not grasping the context around that one.