Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

antiskeptic

stevejazzx wrote: »

^
Jeez..
That hurt my brain
Alright antiskeptic - I'm going to make really easy for you and save you a lot of time.
There is no God

Source: Logic

There is remarkable similarity between the worst of the Tellievangelists and the A&A forum. Y'all 'Amen' at the drop of a hat

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is remarkable similarity between the worst of the Tellievangelists and the A&A forum. Y'all 'Amen' at the drop of a hat

It's Ramen, actually. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only pastafarian here, am I right guys? :cool:

stevejazzx

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is remarkable similarity between the worst of the Tellievangelists and the A&A forum. Y'all 'Amen' at the drop of a hat

I find it fascinating that such a group as the best of the Tellievangelists exist.

shruikan2553

TheLurker wrote: »

That is just another way of saying what Fry has already said, that God created cancer and parasites and inflicted them upon us. And as Fry explained that was evil.

All you seem to be able to say is that he did this for a reason (we broke a covenant, we are in a bad relationship with him, we have turned away from him etc).

You seem to think that pointing this out will make everyone, Fry included, stand back and go "Oh, he did it for a REASON. Why didn't you just say that in the first place. If he had a REASON to do this then clearly it cannot be evil." You have dedicated at lot of time explaining this reason in detail as if it should be self evident that it justifies the result and thus the result cannot be evil.

Stephen Fry is well versed in Christian theology. He knows very well Christianity teaches that God did this for a reason. He knows what those reasons are supposed to be. So do I. So do most people.

The point is the reason doesn't make the action less evil.

To use an example already brought up, when Darth Vader blows up Aldaran in the Star Wars movie that is an evil act. Saying "No guys you don't understand, Vader had a REASON to do this, the Princess was hiding secrets and he needed to demonstrate his power" the audience doesn't go "Oh, he had a REASON, well why didn't you say so"

Stop explaining that God had a reason to do what he did and explain how the reason and actions taken based on that reason weren't evil.

In fairness, a human did eat that apple. I know one time some kids took apples from my great grandparents apple tree and now my family still do stuff like attempt to kill their decedents children. You just dont **** with a persons apples.

RikuoAmero

shruikan2553 wrote: »

In fairness, a human did eat that apple. I know one time some kids took apples from my great grandparents apple tree and now my family still do stuff like attempt to kill their decedents children. You just dont **** with a persons apples.

The context of the story doesn't make sense at all. So the punishment for disobeying God and eating the apple is all the bad stuff that happens in the world? What about the fact that, in the story, Adam and Eve don't understand right and wrong/good and evil? That's what the apple is, the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Prior to eating it, within the story's logic, they obviously would have lacked this knowledge. Therefore, they wouldn't have been able to understand why it's (supposedly) wrong to disobey God.
Of course another reason the story makes no sense is that there is never a reason given for why God put the apple tree there in the first place, and made it so easily accessible. It's like it was a setup (perfectly encapsulated in this video)

challengemaster

shruikan2553 wrote: »

In fairness, a human did eat that apple. I know one time some kids took apples from my great grandparents apple tree and now my family still do stuff like attempt to kill their decedents children. You just dont **** with a persons apples.

Bet a talking snake told them to do it... :pac:

RikuoAmero

To use an example already brought up, when Darth Vader blows up Aldaran in the Star Wars movie that is an evil act. Saying "No guys you don't understand, Vader had a REASON to do this, the Princess was hiding secrets and he needed to demonstrate his power" the audience doesn't go "Oh, he had a REASON, well why didn't you say so"

Or to give a real world example (and invoke Godwin deliberately), Hitler had a purpose with his extermination with of the Jews and other ethnic groups. He wanted living room for the Germans. He did a horrible thing, with a very specific reason in mind, but just because he had a reason doesn't mean we give him a free pass on his morality check.

Gits_bone

RikuoAmero

Basically, my view on the God matter is that the more powerful Entity A is compared to Entity B, then the more immoral it becomes whenever A uses his/her power against B. If you reach the point where A is all-powerful, and B isn't, then any use of A's power against B becomes an abuse by default, because B is powerless to resist.

Gits_bone

Stephen Hawking put it brilliantly.

"The afterlife is a fantasy for those who are afraid of the dark".

Baggy Trousers

Brilliant interview with a fascinating man. Don't miss it.

antiskeptic

TheLurker wrote: »

That is just another way of saying what Fry has already said, that God created cancer and parasites and inflicted them upon us. And as Fry explained that was evil.

You can't have choice without differentiation. And when differentiating between white and black, you must, of necessity, have stark contrast.

Certainly nothing can be without God permitting it, but to say he creates would be going too far. Better to say that by stepping outside his sphere you step outside that which sustains order. Cancer is chaos.

All you seem to be able to say is that he did this for a reason (we broke a covenant, we are in a bad relationship with him, we have turned away from him etc).

You seem to think that pointing this out will make everyone, Fry included, stand back and go "Oh, he did it for a REASON. Why didn't you just say that in the first place. If he had a REASON to do this then clearly it cannot be evil." You have dedicated at lot of time explaining this reason in detail as if it should be self evident that it justifies the result and thus the result cannot be evil.

Your position relies on the "all we did" being a trifle. Mine on it being a monumental transgression against rightfulness. Your analogy..

To use an example already brought up, when Darth Vader blows up Aldaran in the Star Wars movie that is an evil act. Saying "No guys you don't understand, Vader had a REASON to do this, the Princess was hiding secrets and he needed to demonstrate his power" the audience doesn't go "Oh, he had a REASON, well why didn't you say so"

Suppose the audience, you, Fry, et al correctly calibrated so as to properly ascertain the magnititude of what occurred in the garden. All he did was eat an apple .. is one end of the spectrum. Convenient to those who would seek cause to reject God and justify that cause.

If Stephen Fry is so well versed in Christian theology, I wonder what he does to resolve the dilemma which says that he is blind and can't actually see clearly so as to comment.

Stop explaining that God had a reason to do what he did and explain how the reason and actions taken based on that reason weren't evil.

What standard of good and evil do you propose to measure God against?

(I've mentioned this dilemma already. Stephen considers God a tyrant but doesn't say how he would come to be in possession of a standard against which to measure a Creator of all God. I mean, the Creator creating a standard of good and evil against which he, the Creator is found wanting??

I'll grab the popcorn)

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can't have choice without differentiation. And when differentiating between white and black, you must, of necessity, have stark contrast.

Certainly nothing can be without God permitting it, but to say he creates would be going too far. Better to say that by stepping outside his sphere you step outside that which sustains order. Cancer is chaos.

So tell me antiskeptic, if you were given divine powers and allowed to create your own universe, would you consider the current version the ideal model, and simply replicate it exactly?

Would you consider a few minor tweaks - maybe eliminating some of the more excruciating illnesses perhaps - too much of a risk?

Would you insist on being an old fashioned Old Testament type of god, and would you consider a Great Flood if your created people didn't appear to measure up to your own high standards?

I'm genuinely interested to know what you'd do ...

RikuoAmero

What standard of good and evil do you propose to measure God against?

Simple, human well-being. None of the actions that God is said to have done in the bible promote human well-being.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Certainly nothing can be without God permitting it, but to say he creates would be going too far. Better to say that by stepping outside his sphere you step outside that which sustains order. Cancer is chaos.

But couldn't he not just erase cancer from existence at will with no cost to himself?

If a person had the means to help another but refused, would there be any justifiable reason for him to do so?
Would this person be good or evil?

antiskeptic wrote: »

What standard of good and evil do you propose to measure God against?

(I've mentioned this dilemma already. Stephen considers God a tyrant but doesn't say how he would come to be in possession of a standard against which to measure a Creator of all God. I mean, the Creator creating a standard of good and evil against which he, the Creator is found wanting??

I'll grab the popcorn)

Easy. Would a person who does what you think God is doing be good or evil?

Would you ever knowingly give someone cancer or let them get cancer when you could easily and completely stop it?
Would there be any justifiable reason for you to do so?

Matteroffact

God doesn't step in and alleviate the discomforts of this life. Cancer and any other misfortunes are all part and parcel of this valley of tears. The cancers of this world have come about because of the way we live and how we treat this planet. The chips fall where they may and the fact that some people suffer more than others is not down to God. We are all here with free Will and how we use it is up to us. If God were to step in then we wouldn't have our free Will anymore. Also, the people who suffer in this life are probably closer to God than the people who don't. As far as God's concerned we are here to get into Heaven when we die so anything that brings us closer to this aim is really a good thing. We are not here to have a ball. This would be how I see it.

efb

Matteroffact wrote: »

God doesn't step in and alleviate the discomforts of this life. Cancer and any other misfortunes are all part and parcel of this valley of tears. The cancers of this world have come about because of the way we live and how we treat this planet. The chips fall where they may and the fact that some people suffer more than others is not down to God. We are all here with free Will and how we use it is up to us. If God were to step in then we wouldn't have our free Will anymore. Also, the people who suffer in this life are probably closer to God than the people who don't. As far as God's concerned we are here to get into Heaven when we die so anything that brings us closer to this aim is really a good thing. We are not here to have a ball. This would be how I see it.

Suffer in this life for a vague promise of redemption in the afterlife which cannot be verified.

Sounds like a good way to keep the peasants from revolting

RikuoAmero

As far as God's concerned we are here to get into Heaven when we die so anything that brings us closer to this aim is really a good thing

To show you how utterly evil and sadistic you sound, I will not rant and rave. I will instead let Thunderf00t do that for me.

Your line of thinking is despicable because to follow that logic would mean allowing and condoning outright genoicde...after all, after these people die, they get into heaven, am I right?

seamus

Matteroffact wrote: »

God doesn't step in and alleviate the discomforts of this life. Cancer and any other misfortunes are all part and parcel of this valley of tears. The cancers of this world have come about because of the way we live and how we treat this planet. The chips fall where they may and the fact that some people suffer more than others is not down to God. We are all here with free Will and how we use it is up to us. If God were to step in then we wouldn't have our free Will anymore. Also, the people who suffer in this life are probably closer to God than the people who don't. As far as God's concerned we are here to get into Heaven when we die so anything that brings us closer to this aim is really a good thing. We are not here to have a ball. This would be how I see it.

So what you're saying is that instead of punishing the murders and the rapists, we should be thanking them. Their actions create pain, misery and suffering in the world, and thereby bring us closer to God.

And they sacrifice their own chance of divine salvation to bring the rest of us closer to God. Thank you rapists! You're good people!

This is why religion is cuckoo bananas.

Bristolscale7

seamus wrote: »

So what you're saying is that instead of punishing the murders and the rapists, we should be thanking them. Their actions create pain, misery and suffering in the world, and thereby bring us closer to God.

And they sacrifice their own chance of divine salvation to bring the rest of us closer to God. Thank you rapists! You're good people!

This is why religion is cuckoo bananas.

Yeah, a pedo priest is doing god's work evidently.

timetogo

Matteroffact wrote: »

Also, the people who suffer in this life are probably closer to God than the people who don't. As far as God's concerned we are here to get into Heaven when we die so anything that brings us closer to this aim is really a good thing.

You can really see how religion was used to subdue the poor and downtrodden throughout history.
e.g.
I've a **** life but amn't I going to heaven. I feel sorry for those rich people.

I don't understand how people can say that everything you do on Earth is to bring you to heaven. If anybody really, really believed that then the logical conclusion is that every act you do should be to benefit somebody else as God is watching and judging you.

King Mob

seamus wrote: »

So what you're saying is that instead of punishing the murders and the rapists, we should be thanking them. Their actions create pain, misery and suffering in the world, and thereby bring us closer to God.

And they sacrifice their own chance of divine salvation to bring the rest of us closer to God. Thank you rapists! You're good people!

This is why religion is cuckoo bananas.

Or better yet, a good Christian should become a baby torturer.

Since suffering is what gets you in with God, you should get them while their young and innocent, torture them nice and good, then kill them to get them to God before all the bad stuff we do to the Earth messes them up and takes away their chance at heaven.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

If Stephen Fry is so well versed in Christian theology, I wonder what he does to resolve the dilemma which says that he is blind and can't actually see clearly so as to comment.

It's not Fry's dilemma - he's not the one believing in an all-beneficent deity who's caused parasites to burrow into the eyes of poor children, almost all of them with black skin.

The dilemma is yours, since you're the one making the claim.

Would you like to try to explain it? Your last reply to this request avoided the question, as you usually do

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

It's not Fry's dilemma - he's not the one believing in an all-beneficent deity who's caused parasites to burrow into the eyes of poor children, almost all of them with black skin.

The dilemma is yours, since you're the one making the claim.

Would you like to try to explain it? Your last reply to this request avoided the question, as you usually do

I thought I did reply. I don't believe in an all (to the exclusion of all else) beneficent diety. I pointed out that all beneficent doesn't appear in the Bible.

(I'd make a side point about the ability of those with white skin to prevent those with black skin suffering as they do. But who prefer comfort (and I'll include myself in that group))

RikuoAmero

I pointed out that all beneficent doesn't appear in the Bible.

*Clears throat*

All that God is and does is good.
"You are good, and what you do is good; teach me your decrees" (Psalm 119:68).

God’s goodness and love last forever.
"Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever" (Psalm 107:1).

God is good to everyone.
"The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made" (Psalm 145:9).

Everything from God is good.
"For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Timothy 4:4).


Antiskeptic...why is it that when you make these claims about what is and is not in the bible, it seems to me that you're deliberately ignoring the fact I'm sitting at a computer with access to the internet? It took me all of two seconds to find those passages.

Buona Fortuna

antiskeptic wrote: »

I thought I did reply. I don't believe in an all (to the exclusion of all else) beneficent diety. I pointed out that all beneficent doesn't appear in the Bible.

(I'd make a side point about the ability of those with white skin to prevent those with black skin suffering as they do. But who prefer comfort (and I'll include myself in that group))

Are you a Groll?:)

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

*Clears throat*

All that God is and does is good.

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

Everything from God is good.

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.

Antiskeptic...why is it that when you make these claims about what is and is not in the bible, it seems to me that you're deliberately ignoring the fact I'm sitting at a computer with access to the internet? It took me all of two seconds to find those passages.

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.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

But couldn't he not just erase cancer from existence at will with no cost to himself?

Were it so simple.

Cancer is the result of our choice. To eradicate cancer would be to diminish our choice.

There is also the redemption of mankind at work: we fell, God is at work to redeem the situation. Our suffering is being utilised in that redemption: suffering being a driver to shift us from position.

Pray avoid cherry picking how the suffering of a baby furthers that end. God is making use of the mess we created without confounding the requirement that our choice (and the consequences of that choice) be respected and sustained.

If a person had the means to help another but refused, would there be any justifiable reason for him to do so?
Would this person be good or evil?

Our eternal destination is God's priority, not our earthly comfort.

wrote:

Would you ever knowingly give someone cancer or let them get cancer when you could easily and completely stop it?
Would there be any justifiable reason for you to do so?

God doesn't give people cancer. A distorted, malfunctioning creation does that. The distortion and malfunction is our responsibility.

Bristolscale7

antiskeptic wrote: »

Judgement is good. In both my and the flying spaghetti monster'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 the flying spaghetti monster 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 the flying spaghetti monster 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 the flying spaghetti monster 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.

Nice to see you mention Satan--I'm surprised it took you so long. It's a rather disappointing medieval cosmology you're espousing. BTW, if you substitute "the flying spaghetti monster" for God in all of antiskeptics post you'll LOL.

lazygal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Were it so simple.

Cancer is the result of our choice. To eradicate cancer would be to diminish our choice.

If God gave my 18 month old sister cancer because of the decision of a woman to eat an apple becuase of a talking snake, that's not someone I would want to spend eternity with.
Does this mean if and when cancer is eradicated, as other illnesses have been, that our 'choice' would also be diminished? Why does God want 18 month old children to suffer?