Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

Nox, do you still believe that all religions other than Catholicism are "wrong" and that kids should have it forced on them in school?

Pretty much yes.

Donkey Oaty

In an attempt to move things on here - because everyone has had their say about the existence of God - surely we are approaching it from the wrong way.

We should be discussing: what do you mean by "God"?

Dan_Solo

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

In an attempt to move things on here - because everyone has had their say about the existence of God - surely we are approaching it from the wrong way.

We should be discussing: what do you mean by "God"?

Every definition you could possibly come up with will be denied by theists, as once you define you can be challenged. "We can't know" is the default for the past few hundred years where theists can't threaten to kill you if you don't agree with them. (well, not here so much anyway)

Shurimgreat

I think Stephen Fry is missing the point about people being imbued with Free Will.

They are free to do as they please but must be accountable for it on judgement day. This is a cornerstore of christianity from my understanding of it.

As an intellectual, I really don't find Fry that impressive, especially when he misses some fundamental points about things he's criticising. If he had an inside out knowledge of something and then critiqued it fair enough.

He seems to believe a god if there is one should go around intervening here, there and everywhere, like superman or something. That's not the way it works.

Donkey Oaty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Every definition you could possibly come up with will be denied by theists, as once you define you can be challenged. "We can't know" is the default for the past few hundred years where theists can't threaten to kill you if you don't agree with them. (well, not here so much anyway)

So it is for the theists to explain what they mean, otherwise they are effectively saying "We don't know what we are talking about".

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think Stephen Fry is missing the point about people being imbued with Free Will.

They are free to do as they please but must be accountable for it on judgement day. This is a cornerstore of christianity from my understanding of it.

As an intellectual, I really don't find Fry that impressive, especially when he misses some fundamental points about things he's criticising. If he had an inside out knowledge of something and then critiqued it fair enough.

He seems to believe a god if there is one should go around intervening here, there and everywhere, like superman or something. That's not the way it works.

Why doesn't it work like that? Since god is apparently omnipotent, he can do all these things if he so wishes.
We're also back to free will then I see. Do you agree then you can't pray to god to make any person do anything?

Donkey Oaty

Shurimgreat wrote: »

As an intellectual, I really don't find Fry that impressive

Oooh ye cheeky monkey.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

As an intellectual, I really don't find Fry that impressive, especially when he misses some fundamental points about things he's criticising. If he had an inside out knowledge of something and then critiqued it fair enough.

Such as?
(I think Fry is sensible but ultimately over-rated too BTW)

Eutow

hynesie08 wrote: »

Nox, do you still believe that all religions other than Catholicism are "wrong" and that kids should have it forced on them in school?

If so you prove everything Stephen Fry said to be right.

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

Pretty much yes.

A religious fundamentalist, just what the world needs. Anyone not Catholic should go to the church of Nox to gain re-neducation.

Maximus Alexander

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think Stephen Fry is missing the point about people being imbued with Free Will.

They are free to do as they please but must be accountable for it on judgement day. This is a cornerstore of christianity from my understanding of it.

As an intellectual, I really don't find Fry that impressive, especially when he misses some fundamental points about things he's criticising. If he had an inside out knowledge of something and then critiqued it fair enough.

He seems to believe a god if there is one should go around intervening here, there and everywhere, like superman or something. That's not the way it works.

What's free will got to do with bone cancer in children, or insects that eat your eyes? I don't think he actually ever mentioned people being mean to each other.

Donkey Oaty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Do you agree then you can't pray to god to make any person do anything?

Don't know what he thinks, but I'd imagine one answer would be: "You can pray for a person to remove themselves from the blindfold of ignorance after which they can utilise their free will to act according to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Whether it will work or not, or if it is even an internally coherent argument within the confines of Christian theology is another matter, but it's an answer of sorts.

Dan_Solo

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Don't know what he thinks, but I'd imagine one answer would be: "You can pray for a person to remove themselves from the blindfold of ignorance after which they can utilise their free will to act according to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Whether it will work or not, or if it is even an internally coherent argument within the confines of Christian theology is another matter, but it's an answer of sorts.

No, it isn't internally consistent to say we have free will but god modifies that free will on a whim.
Then again logic and reasoning apparently aren't applicable to spiritual debate, so monkey fish percolator jig jig jig.

Shurimgreat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Oooh ye cheeky monkey.

That came across wrong. Fry is presented by many people as an intellectual, presenting QI etc (no mention of a team of researchers behind the scenes).

I wasn't saying I was an intellectual, only that Fry allegedly is.

I'm a bit stupid myself!

Happy?

Donkey Oaty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, it isn't internally consistent to say we have free will but god modifies that free will on a whim.
Then again logic and reasoning apparently aren't applicable to spiritual debate, so monkey fish percolator jig jig jig.

Ah yes, but the point is that you can pray for people to have access to further information so they can make a more informed choice.

Having said that, the leaflets from some supposed Christians have been the work of the Devil.

Ghost Buster

Eutow wrote: »

A religious fundamentalist, just what the world needs. Anyone not Catholic should go to the church of Nox to gain re-neducation.

But he would do it well intentionally cos his beliefs are right and eeeeeeeeeeeevery body else is wrong.

TireeTerror

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Run1jpZvS4

Eutow

Eutow wrote: »

A religious fundamentalist, just what the world needs. Anyone not Catholic should go to the church of Nox to gain re-neducation.

Nice attempt at trying to tie Irish Catholics in with the animals in ISIS by using the term "fundamentalist". The word has no place in relation to me. I don't even mention religion except in reply to others on boards.

Dan_Solo

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Ah yes, but the point is that you can pray for people to have access to further information so they can make a more informed choice.

Seems a bit of a cop out that one. Would this include automatically include giving them more information about atheism and humanism, or is all the information coming from one side here?

Donkey Oaty

[QUOTE=Shurimgreat;94148189 Fry is presented by many people as an intellectual, presenting QI etc (no mention of a team of researchers behind the scenes).[/QUOTE]

Apart from full billing on the credits, references to them on the show (including occasional mentions via an earpiece on what is a recorded programme), books authored by them promoted by the BBC explaining exactly what it is they do, and their own team on a different prime-time BBC2 show, Only Connect?

Pish and tosh, good sir, bless, and all that.

Shurimgreat

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

What's free will got to do with bone cancer in children, or insects that eat your eyes? I don't think he actually ever mentioned people being mean to each other.

I will try to explain.

First of all, things like the Holocaust is purely down to free will. People, many of the people behind it were raised in christianity and yet completely chose to go against it and carry out the Holocaust. Was God supposed to suddenly put a stop to it, which in turn would completely ruin another cornerstone which is faith as opposed to imperical evidence?

I'm not condoning or condemning christianity here, just outlining how its supposed to work.

Bone cancer in children, and other similar illnesses, it presents people a chance to show their charitable side and attempt to cure it or help out. Its about presenting challenges to be solved.

Think of the story of the good Samaritan for example. No downtrodden begger, no good samaritan.

"God" can't create a perfect world, only people can.

The God of the Christian faith is not one that goes around saying "you can't do that", "you can't do this". In fact he has no real power in this life, he can only punish in the next one.

(don't shoot the messenger)

Donkey Oaty

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Seems a bit of a cop out that one. Would this include automatically include giving them more information about atheism and humanism, or is all the information coming from one side here?

No, atheists and humanists can pray for that one themselves.

Hang on...

Shurimgreat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Apart from full billing on the credits, references to them on the show (including occasional mentions via an earpiece on what is a recorded programme), books authored by them promoted by the BBC explaining exactly what it is they do, and their own team on a different prime-time BBC2 show, Only Connect?

Pish and tosh, good sir, bless, and all that.

Fair enough. But for as long as I remember him appearing on shows like the LLS, he was presented as this guy who was quite eloquent, he even claims it himself, ie people assumed he had authority when he shouted at them, has a mastery of vocabulary and is a bit of a snob intellectually wise. Only a lot of what he comes out with is nonsense, and a lot of the time he doesn't come across as bright. But we mustn't rock the boat.

Dan_Solo

Maximo Grumpy Leotard wrote: »

Nice attempt at trying to tie Irish Catholics in with the animals in ISIS by using the term "fundamentalist". The word has no place in relation to me. I don't even mention religion except in reply to others on boards.

WTF are you on about. The word "fundamentalist" has been used for years to describe any number of theist extremists.
When does the Maximo Grumpy Leotard Standard English Dictionary come out with this new definition?
Pathetic.

Donkey Oaty

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Bone cancer in children, and other similar illnesses, it presents people a chance to show their charitable side and attempt to cure it or help out. Its about presenting challenges to be solved.

Yes, it's a wonderful thing.

I'm developing new forms of cancer for children in my basement as we speak, to give us all something to do.

TireeTerror

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Bone cancer in children, and other similar illnesses, it presents people a chance to show their charitable side and attempt to cure it or help out. Its about presenting challenges to be solved.

Why am I posting links to images instead of the image? I know how to do it but its not working.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Bone cancer in children, and other similar illnesses, it presents people a chance to show their charitable side and attempt to cure it or help out. Its about presenting challenges to be solved.

Pure rot.
I suppose raping children gives priests a chance to repent?

Shurimgreat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Yes, it's a wonderful thing.

I'm developing new forms of cancer for children in my basement as we speak, to give us all something to do.

OK, I can see you need a bit of work. Right here goes.

Most people accept bone cancer has got nothing to do with "god". Correct?

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Fair enough. But for as long as I remember him appearing on shows like the LLS, he was presented as this guy who was quite eloquent, he even claims it himself, ie people assumed he had authority when he shouted at them, has a mastery of vocabulary and is a bit of a snob intellectually wise. Only a lot of what he comes out with is nonsense, and a lot of the time he doesn't come across as bright. But we mustn't rock the boat.

Again, such as? Please, rock away.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

OK, I can see you need a bit of work. Right here goes.

Most people accept bone cancer has got nothing to do with "god". Correct?

Damn square.
Because god doesn't exist.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Pure rot.
I suppose raping children gives priests a chance to repent?

Again missing the whole point of free will. I have a feeling its one of those relatively complex concepts that will forever fly right over your head.

Donkey Oaty

Shurimgreat wrote: »

a lot of what he comes out with is nonsense

His gushing about his work colleagues is nonsense, but his thoughts on education, religion, society, zoos, dugs, mental health, are well-crafted contributions by any standards.

Examples, my good man. That's what we need from you.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

WTF are you on about. The word "fundamentalist" has been used for years to describe any number of theist extremists.
When does the Maximo Grumpy Leotard Standard English Dictionary come out with this new definition?
Pathetic.

The word is almost exclusively used nowadays when referring to the crimes of the likes of ISIS etc.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Damn square.
Because god doesn't exist.

Again, you are also missing the concept of free will.

Lets say a corporation dumps a carcinogenic in a local drinking water supply to save costs on dumping it elsewhere. And a child gets cancer from it.

Who is to blame here?

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

The word is almost exclusively used nowadays when referring to the crimes of the likes of ISIS etc.

And the squirming starts immediately. "likes of"? "etc." You said is WAS a reference to ISIS, correct?
Are you claiming you lied or were incorrect the first time?

Donkey Oaty

Shurimgreat wrote: »

OK, I can see you need a bit of work. Right here goes.

Most people accept bone cancer has got nothing to do with "god". Correct?

You need to address that to somebody who believes that God is responsible for everything in world.

But I agree, if we can put it in the same category as stained-glass windows.

Eutow

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

Nice attempt at trying to tie Irish Catholics in with the animals in ISIS by using the term "fundamentalist". The word has no place in relation to me. I don't even mention religion except in reply to others on boards.

I mentioned Catholic because you are one, no other reason.


What do you expect me to think when I read this:

hynesie08 wrote: »

Nox, do you still believe that all religions other than Catholicism are "wrong" and that kids should have it forced on them in school?

If so you prove everything Stephen Fry said to be right.

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

Pretty much yes.

Shurimgreat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

His gushing about his work colleagues is nonsense, but his thoughts on education, religion, society, zoos, dugs, mental health, are well-crafted contributions by any standards.

Examples, my good man. That's what we need from you.

To be honest, I find him to be a pound shop Oscar Wilde, and most of what he says and does is inspired by Wilde. I find him to be unoriginal. I also think at best he's eccentric. But an intellectual that I would have time for, no. I don't believe his formal education was that much and he learned most of what he knows from reading popular books.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Again, you are also missing the concept of free will.

Lets say a corporation dumps a carcinogenic in a local drinking water supply to save costs on dumping it elsewhere. And a child gets cancer from it.

Who is to blame here?

Since there still is no god I think I'll go with man on this one.
How am I doing?

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

To be honest, I find him to be a pound shop Oscar Wilde, and most of what he says and does is inspired by Wilde. I find him to be unoriginal. I also think at best he's eccentric. But an intellectual that I would have time for, no. I don't believe his formal education was that much and he learned most of what he knows from reading popular books.

But nothing you can specifically say he was incorrect about I notice.
Which was what you originally proposed.

byrneg28

bb87 wrote: »

Typical Fry, his unwillingness to explore what Genesis has to say as to why there is such suffering and evil, highlights his wilful ignorance and dishonesty.

He will deny Satan exists as an active evil force in the world, whilst perfectly describing his existence in the world. Why does Fry see more of Satan than God? Says a lot about him, really.

Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God. Maybe Fry better stop lusting after young men and let go of this bitterness clearly revealed in this clip. Then he will see more of the one true God.

This man needs prayers..

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

Maybe Stephen fry is Satan??

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Since there still is no god I think I'll go with man on this one.
How am I doing?

You are getting there.

So most cancers are environmental, genetic, behavioural. So we are agreed if a god did or didn't exist, he still isn't responsible for most if not all cancers. Correct?

Donkey Oaty

Shurimgreat wrote: »

To be honest, I find him to be a pound shop Oscar Wilde, and most of what he says and does is inspired by Wilde. I find him to be unoriginal. I also think at best he's eccentric. But an intellectual that I would have time for, no. I don't believe his formal education was that much and he learned most of what he knows from reading popular books.

He's not an academic, nor is he a scientist.

But the truth is, in terms of celebrity, I would say he's actually bigger than Oscar Wilde was.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But nothing you can specifically say he was incorrect about I notice.
Which was what you originally proposed.

If I wanted to hear an intellectual speak, the last person I would listen to is Fry. So yes, I have very little familiarity with anything he has spoken about, thankfully. Next you will be telling me to listen to Russel Brand's opinions on politics.

Donkey Oaty

Shurimgreat wrote: »

You are getting there.

So most cancers are environmental, genetic, behavioural. So we are agreed if a god did or didn't exist, he still isn't responsible for most if not all cancers. Correct?

At some point in this discussion he won't be responsible for asteroids wiping out life on earth either.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And the squirming starts immediately. "likes of"? "etc." You said is WAS a reference to ISIS, correct?
Are you claiming you lied or were incorrect the first time?

"Likes of" as in any group of Islamic fundamentalists who commit terror attacks.

The poster probably didn't mean it that in hind sight however the word fundamentalist immediately makes a connection to terror attacks etc in my head anyway so I don't like it being used towards me.

How could I call myself a catholic if I didn't believe other religions were wrong to some degree or other.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Since there still is no god I think I'll go with man on this one.

It hilarious how you and other atheists can make this statement as if you actually have a clue, you are doing nothing but expressing a misguided opinion.

Shurimgreat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

At some point in this discussion he won't be responsible for asteroids wiping out life on earth either.

hmm strange you should say that, given that humans have been very lucky with asteroids compared to previous species.

In any case, the Christian "god" has little or no power in this world. He certainly is not going to stick a hand out and stop the next asteroid due to hit us, that would be ridiculous.

Like Fry, you seem to have very little knowledge of the subject you are condemning. At least Dawkins is a relative expert on the religions he denounces.

Eutow

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

"Likes of" as in any group of Islamic fundamentalists who commit terror attacks.

The poster probably didn't mean it that in hind sight however the word fundamentalist immediately makes a connection to terror attacks etc in my head anyway so I don't like it being used towards me.

You are correct in that I didn't mean it in an ISIS context. However when a poster asked you if children should be forced to learn about the Catholic religion and whether every other religion is wrong, you replied "pretty much, yes".

It is that I have a problem with. Nobody should be forced to learn any religion, and nobody is better than anyone else for having a certain religion or no religion.

floggg

Zack Morris wrote: »

He's right. They all began as cults that became religions when they're endorsed by a king/emperor who then make it the state religion. St. Patrick brought Christianity here but if he didn't, we would be worshiping pagan Gods or the Protestant church would have spread across from England.

If Christian Europe lost the battle of Vienna, Europe would be predominantly Muslim. You're only a Catholic/Christian because your parents raised/indoctrinated you to be one - the vast majority of religious people were never given a choice to believe in anything else.

Jesus was no more than a cult leader and hs name wasn't even Jesus because the letter J wasn't invented until the 15th century or thereabouts. The Bible is full of bullshít.

Actually the Ottomans had a very tolerant multi-culturist approach and allowed full religious freedom to minority faiths. It even took in Jews when they were being purged from Europe.

I am sure that Christianity would have survived - though Western Europe would likely not be the same.

Donkey Oaty

Shurimgreat wrote: »

In any case, the Christian "god" has little or no power in this world. He certainly is not going to stick a hand out and stop the next asteroid due to hit us, that would be ridiculous.

It would, wouldn't it. Although to be fair, he (presumably) started it - or was it some evil corporation dumping stuff in a river?

Like Fry, you seem to have very little knowledge of the subject you are condemning.

Stop it...I always get compared to Stephen Fry and Socrates...I'm embarrassed now.

But I am also like God, according to you.

I have little or no power in this world.

Shurimgreat

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"?