Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Shrap

K4t wrote: »

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.

Preaching to the converted here K4t! BTW, paragraphs will help your pretty intelligent posts be read in full.

Shurimgreat

K4t wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately you have misunderstood my entire position in relation to beliefs I may or may not hold. I tried to argue objectively, but that's probably impossible on threads like this as most people struggle with objectivity and always hold their line regardless.

I'm an agnostic by the way, so when you are ready to apologise, feel free to.

K4t

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Unfortunately you have misunderstood my entire position in relation to beliefs I may or may not hold. I tried to argue objectively, but that's probably impossible on threads like this as most people struggle with objectivity and always hold their line regardless.

I'm an agnostic by the way, so when you are ready to apologise, feel free to.

Ah fair enough, I apologise. No harm. My questions can hopefully be answered by those posters with whom I confused your beliefs with.

danrua01

I hate to bring up old posts, but Harry Potter was a lad.

Dan_Solo

K4t wrote: »

Ah fair enough, I apologise. No harm. My questions can hopefully be answered by those posters with whom I confused your beliefs with.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

He's of the spiritual realm not the physical one. If there is a god, he probably didn't "create" the universe since that is the physical/material realm. Its probably impossible to verify the existance or non existance of god, and possibly rightly so. In short however, people are entitled to believe what they like, one way or another.

The person who says I can "prove" god doesn't exist should be viewed with the same suspicion as someone who says I can "prove" he does exist.

There's no experiment you can carry out to prove it one way or another. At best you can come to sound logical conclusions about it.

Believes in spirits n ghost and thinks there's logic can back that up.
Agnostic my eye.

EoghanIRL

I honestly don't see how anyone could believe in god , in this day and age.

B.A._Baracus

Me thinks this thread started out talking about what a how a famous actor/tv presenter (etc) said on Irish television during an interview. Simply him giving his own personal opinion and then users talking about that.
But has now decended into just another "god is real/god is not real" thread. In fact I would go as far as to say it's actually become a religious bashing thread. Just look at the posts it keeps going around in a circle.

Shrap

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Me thinks this thread started out talking about what a how a famous actor/tv presenter (etc) said on Irish television during an interview. Simply him giving his own personal opinion and then users talking about that.
But has now decended into just another "god is real/god is not real" thread. In fact I would go as far as to say it's actually become a relgious bashing thread. Just look at the posts it keeps going around in a circle.

Where the hell fook was it going to go when the name of the program was The Meaning of Life? On Irish television??!

B.A._Baracus

Shrap wrote: »

Where the hell fook was it going to go when the name of the program was The Meaning of Life? On Irish television??!

You high, drunk or coked out of your brain?
did you actually read all my post?

K4t

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

But has now decended into just another "god is real/god is not real" thread. In fact I would go as far as to say it's actually become a religious bashing thread. Just look at the posts it keeps going around in a circle.

There's nothing inherently wrong with "religious bashing". In fact I encourage it. Even still, those arguing in opposition to those of faith in this thread are doing so through the use of reason and logic, even when many of the arguments they oppose lack both. Yet both 'sides' of the debate remain entirely respectful of the other sides right to hold their beliefs, and for the most part considerate of those respective beliefs. That to me is what this thread is about.

B.A._Baracus

K4t wrote: »

There's nothing inherently wrong with "religious bashing". In fact I encourage it. Even still, those arguing in opposition to those of faith in this thread are doing so through the use of reason and logic, even when many of the arguments they oppose lack both. Yet both 'sides' of the debate remain entirely respectful of the other sides right to hold their beliefs, and for the most part considerate of those respective beliefs. That to me is what this thread is about.

Fair post thanks for getting back
But I have to add then there is nothing wrong with athiest-bashing too.

Tarzana2

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

One thing I will say it that jokes or cartoons or tv programs making a joke wouldn't bother me in the least and I wouldn't see it as attacking my beliefs more just a bit of fun, as I said I'm far from a really crazy religious person.

If you think the blasphemy law is a good thing, you are straying into the realm of crazy religious person.

RobertKK

danrua01 wrote: »

I hate to bring up old posts, but Harry Potter was a lad.

No, an intellectual could use Harry Potter and totally change the story, because the intellectual is correct and not the person who wrote the book.
Well that is how people treat Stephen Fry when he does religion. Talk about the Judeo Christian God, but then totally ignore the source of information on that God to make up one's own version so to change the character of God or why the book says something exists in the world.

You get the gullible going 'he is so right, what a horrible God', and 'Love Stephen Fry. he is such an intellectual'.
Some say the bible is akin to fairy tales, yet accept the fairy tales of Stephen Fry.

Ghost Buster

RobertKK wrote: »

No, an intellectual could use Harry Potter and totally change the story, because the intellectual is correct and not the person who wrote the book.
Well that is how people treat Stephen Fry when he does religion. Talk about the Judeo Christian God, but then totally ignore the source of information on that God to make up one's own version so to change the character of God or why the book says something exists in the world.

You get the gullible going 'he is so right, what a horrible God', and 'Love Stephen Fry. he is such an intellectual'.
Some say the bible is akin to fairy tales, yet accept the fairy tales of Stephen Fry.

His rejection of the fairy tale bible story is not in itself a fairy tale. What a daft concept!

sky88

i dont disagree with him but theres always been something about stephen fry i dont like, he comes across as so smug with everything he says

Dan_Solo

sky88 wrote: »

i dont disagree with him but theres always been something about stephen fry i dont like, he comes across as so smug with everything he says

I'm with you there. However the gist of what the theists are coming out with here is "he's smug so he is wrong" or even better "I don't like him so I don't know anything he says but he is wrong." It's ad-hominem and would be laughed at if it were used to describe a poster here even.

RobertKK

Ghost Buster wrote: »

His rejection of the fairy tale bible story is not in itself a fairy tale. What a daft concept!

Never said that, but if you believed something was a fairytale, would you tell the story of Goldilocks and have it the bears didn't eat porridge but ate Goldilocks instead as being the fairytale everyone knows?
Totally different story. That is what Fry did, he talked about a God from the bible - heaven and hell, but then made stuff up to suit his views.
It says in the first book of the bible that Adam and Eve brought evil into the world, Fry said God did, so he invalidated his whole argument.

K4t

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.

Am I imagining or are you speaking out against mother Teresa? A person who will be a saint in time to come for devoting her life to helping the poor? I have seen it all

K4t wrote: »

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,

Because I think being taught the catholic faith is an important part of a child's upbringing and in a catholic school it should be taught, if people don't want it find alternative schools but catholic schools should never be expected to stop teaching the catholic faith as most parents sending their children to a catholic school want their children brought up to be Catholics. If I have children they certainly will be.

I don't see why other religions should be taught when many or all of their teachings are incorrect.

Our system also gives a chance to children to lean about Catholicism even if they have been failed by their parents who refuse to instill the importance or it in them.

K4t wrote: »

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?

A child's faith is vitally important why on earth would I not want it being taught in school? A half an hour here and their devoted to such a massively important thing does not effect a child's ability to learn other subjects and again why would I want equal time devoted to the incorrect teaching of other religions.

Even if there were secular schools I would be specifically be sending my child to a catholic school (as my relations do in the UK, as for one they are far superior schools but also they want their children brought up in the catholic faith).

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

Never said that, but if you believed something was a fairytale, would you tell the story of Goldilocks and have it the bears didn't eat porridge but ate Goldilocks instead as being the fairytale everyone knows?
Totally different story. That is what Fry did, he talked about a God from the bible - heaven and hell, but then made stuff up to suit his views.
It says in the first book of the bible that Adam and Eve brought evil into the world, Fry said God did, so he invalidated his whole argument.

Again? God made satan who tempted the woman god made who tempted the man god made? No responsibility on god at all there?
Simple question: can god predict what people will do or not?

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

Am I imagining or are you speaking out against mother Teresa? A person who will be a saint in time to come for devoting her life to helping the poor? I have seen it all

That's a bit like Kissinger's Nobel prize.

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

as most parents sending their children to a catholic school want their children brought up to be Catholics. If I have children they certainly will be.

Funny, because **** all of them want to bring them to mass, which I gather is somewhat more important in the god stuff.

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

A half an hour here and their devoted to such a massively important thing does not effect a child's ability to learn other subjects

So catholics get 24.5 hour days now? Do we need another new calendar?

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

Even if there were secular schools

Even you couldn't avoid saying it, automatically destroying your own entire argument about parent wanting to send their kids to faith schools.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Even you couldn't avoid saying it, automatically destroying your own entire argument about parent wanting to send their kids to faith schools.

Well there is obviously some parents who don't want faith schools, I never denied that so why on earth does it destroy my argument that the majority of parents want faith schools?

You only need to look at how hard it is to get into catholic schools in the UK to see the demand even over there for them and its not like there is a shortage if them there are loads.

RobertKK

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again? God made satan who tempted the woman god made who tempted the man god made? No responsibility on god at all there?
Simple question: can god predict what people will do or not?

If your child does something wrong, does it mean the parent did it?

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

If your child does something wrong, does it mean the parent did it?

If you are asked a question and you answer a different question, does that mean you couldn't answer the first one?
Can god predict what people will do or not?

RobertKK

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you are asked a question and you answer a different question, does that mean you couldn't answer the first one?
Can god predict what people will do or not?

It is called an analogy.

floggg

Shurimgreat wrote: »

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?

What's QI got to do with anything? He's a comedian hosting a comedy quiz show.

Alan Davies is the other regular cast member. Is he presented as an intellectual?

floggg

Shurimgreat wrote: »

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)

You think god created our bodies to be suspectible bone cancer, and bone cancer while still children at that, in order to allow us show our charitable side (and did so without actually giving us any info on how to treat or cure it)?

The only question that remains therefore is, if you think god kills little children so others can show how good they are, how can you not conclude that he is a evil dick?

Dan_Solo

RobertKK wrote: »

It is called an analogy.

It's called you failing repeatedly to answer the question.
Can god predict what people will do or not?

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

Well there is obviously some parents who don't want faith schools, I never denied that so why on earth does it destroy my argument that the majority of parents want faith schools?

You only need to look at how hard it is to get into catholic schools in the UK to see the demand even over there for them and its not like there is a shortage if them there are loads.

But that's not what you said. You said

Even if there were secular schools

Now, how do parents choose a secular school when you admit there are none?

floggg

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"?

What I have learned on this thread is that theists have very poor comprehension skills.

Fry never said the presence of evil was evidence for god's non-existence. He was asked the question "if you met god, what would you say to him." Therefore, in answering the question he was required to assume that God did exist, and answered on that basis.

His contention was that if we assume god to exist, then we god must be a complete dick for being all seeing and powerful but causing/letting all this horrible things to happen.


And since god created cancers, eye eating insects, earthquakes etc, god is fully responsible for all of those things. he can't use the free will cop out, because nobody chooses for an earthquake to occur.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But that's not what you said. You said

Now, how do parents choose a secular school when you admit there are none?

I don't see you point here at all to be honest, I never said anything about parents choosing a secular schools and there are secular schools called educate together.

floggg

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Very little if any of it. Most of it was myth, metaphor or parable. I'm more into imperical evidence myself or in the absence of that sound logical reasoning.

In any case the Christian god is of the spiritual rather than the material realm, another cornerstone. He doesn't do interventions is my view of it. The idea that he would zap eye worms and stuff like that is pretty foolish.

So god didn't talk to Moses then, or part the red sea?

Presumably god didn't therefore give Moses the 10 Commandments, or otherwise author them. I mean, if he doesn't intervene, how could he give us messages?

Can we therefore ignore them? Can we also ignore all the bits where he appeared as a burning bush, or spoke directly to the prophets?

What about Jesus? Can we conclude that he wasn't the son of god - since sending your son/yourself in the form of your son to earth would be a freaking huge intervention?*

And how was the bible written/composed? I had understand it was the word of god or inspired by him or some such, particualrly the OT. But since god doesn't intervene, then he couldn't have given us any information directly.

Does that mean all the leviticus laws are just made up hogwash? what about the rest of the OT? did man just guess it? So can we ignore that to?

What are we left with though if we assume he didn't actually do or say any of the stuff it says he did in the bible? Guess work? the results of a heavy acid trip?


* imagine being your own father? That **** must be trippy!

conorhal

sky88 wrote: »

i dont disagree with him but theres always been something about stephen fry i dont like, he comes across as so smug with everything he says

Agreed. I used to like Fry but I suspect you can track his transition from 'erudite and charming' to 'insufferably self-important bore' to a point not long after his ascention to to the status as 'Stephen Fry National Treasure'. All the attendent ass kissing that goes with the status of national treasure seems to have inflated his ego to such irritating levels that, right or not, I almost reflexively disagree with him these days.

Dan_Solo

floggg wrote: »

Fry never said the presence of evil was evidence for god's non-existence. He was asked the question "if you met god, what would you say to him." Therefore, in answering the question he was required to assume that God did exist, and answered on that basis.

This is what struck me throughout this thread and other discussions. Theists just skip the fact that Fry is giving a response to a hypothetical question, almost as if they can't comprehend that he is an atheist at all.
Or just plain can't listen properly.

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

I don't see you point here at all to be honest, I never said anything about parents choosing a secular schools and there are secular schools called educate together.

You said there were no secular schools. I've quoted you multiple times. Yet you say parents choose faith schools.
You're deliberately pretending not to understand at this stage. And it's an embarrassing spectacle TBH.

floggg

Shurimgreat wrote: »

See my post above. I will summarise my argument to make it easier for you.

God is of the spiritual and not the material realm, if he exists at all. He's not going to be appearing here zapping eye worms.

All manmade evil is caused by man not a god. All manmade evil can only be solved by man.

Most diseases in the world which badly affect children such as those which affect them in the third world are related to poverty and manmade evil such as civil wars. Again only physical men can cure them and prevent them not a spiritual superman.

Some people have a very infantile view of a god coming down, like santa claus, to individually help them with their problems. It's not goint to happen. Hating someone who may or may not exist is childish to be honest.

Hogwash.

That answer doesn't explain genetic diseases and conditions which affect rich and poor alike. Moreover, it's only in the last 200-300 years that we have had the ability to control diseases to any great extent at all.


It doesn't explain natural disasters and the pain and suffering they cause.

The only way your position would stand up to any scrutiny is if you asume god did not have any hand or part in creating the world we live in.

But if you don't believe in an interventionist creator god, it begs the question why do you go to mass to worship one.

Dan_Solo

floggg wrote: »

But if you don't believe in an interventionist creator god, it begs the question why do you go to mass to worship one.

My question before I was so rudely put on ignore for having a question he repeatedly wouldn't even attempt to answer was: how does he know anything at all about this god who has never interacted in any way with our universe?

floggg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you have no evidence whatsoever as he doesn't interact with our universe in any way.
Anything else that you have no evidence of at all that you propose we never possibly can have evidence of you would like us to consider for our amusement?

Adam Sandler's comedic genius.

Dan_Solo

floggg wrote: »

Adam Sandler's comedic genius.

Oops, I'm getting into the comedy of repetition now... but as long as it's not being answered I still find it funny!

floggg

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.

Adam and Eve didn't have the power to create either.

God did though, and apparently put them inside an apple.

Also, Adam and Eve wouldn't have the capacity to do wrong unless god created them to be so capable.

Dan_Solo

floggg wrote: »

Adam and Eve didn't have the power to create either.

God did though, and apparently put them inside an apple.

Also, Adam and Eve wouldn't have the capacity to do wrong unless god created them to be so capable.

He also made satan and gave him the power to polymorph into a serpent and let him schnaake his way into the Garden of Eden.
Sounds like entrapment to me.

conorhal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

He also made satan and gave him the power to polymorph into a serpent and let him schnaake his way into the Garden of Eden.
Sounds like entrapment to me.

The satan-snake is only a metaphor people!






(for big cocks I believe)

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

No, an intellectual could use Harry Potter and totally change the story, because the intellectual is correct and not the person who wrote the book.
Well that is how people treat Stephen Fry when he does religion. Talk about the Judeo Christian God, but then totally ignore the source of information on that God to make up one's own version so to change the character of God or why the book says something exists in the world.

You get the gullible going 'he is so right, what a horrible God', and 'Love Stephen Fry. he is such an intellectual'.
Some say the bible is akin to fairy tales, yet accept the fairy tales of Stephen Fry.

Rejecting a fairy tale is not a fairy tale. I'm not sure if you were ever actually told what a fairytale is.

Besides the god in the bible murders masses and inflicts horrific amounts of pain. He also induces his followers to commit genocide, torture, rape and a host of other crimes. That God can in no way be called nice or just or loving. That god is evil.

And even without the bible, if we look at the world around us, can we honestly draw a conclusion that there is a loving God?
The watchmaker analogy is an argument loved by Christians. It states that if we look at the world we can therefore assume there is a designer. If we use the same logic then we can assume that God is evil. We can draw assumptions from the nature of the world just like they use for intelligent design.
The world is harsh and cruel. It';s nasty. there's horrific infections and parasites. There's predators. the only kindness in the world comes from humans. And humans are just as nasty as they are kind.
If this world has a designer it's clear that He/She didn't love the inhabitants that were placed here.

seamus

floggg wrote: »

Also, Adam and Eve wouldn't have the capacity to do wrong unless god created them to be so capable.

Let's not forget that Adam and Eve were created without an understand of the difference between good and evil, yet God expected them to understand that eating from the tree of knowledge was evil. And then punished them for doing wrong when they lacked the ability to understand what that means.

The whole creation narrative is such a logical mess, you couldn't even make a bad B-movie out of it.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

My question before I was so rudely put on ignore for having a question he repeatedly wouldn't even attempt to answer was: how does he know anything at all about this god who has never interacted in any way with our universe?

Even in recent times: Knock, Fatima, Medjugorje to name a few???

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

Even in recent times: Knock, Fatima, Medjugorje to name a few???

Response was to a post quoting Shurimgreat's opinion that god never intervenes on earth.

EDIT: although since RobertKK appears to be having some difficulty answering, is it your opinion that your god can predict what people do?

The Backwards Man

Ballinspittle?

floggg

Shurimgreat wrote: »

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.

your description of god would be seen as blasphemous by most Christians. You deny that he is the creator, that he intervened in anyway way with the world, or that he has any control over this earth.

mikhail

seamus wrote: »

Let's not forget that Adam and Eve were created without an understand of the difference between good and evil, yet God expected them to understand that eating from the tree of knowledge was evil. And then punished them for doing wrong when they lacked the ability to understand what that means.

The whole creation narrative is such a logical mess, you couldn't even make a bad B-movie out of it.

Actually, he didn't expect them to understand the difference. He just expected them to obey him unquestioningly. That whole story is a power grab by early religious leaders - obey us or else.

Dan_Solo

mikhail wrote: »

Actually, he didn't expect them to understand the difference. He just expected them to obey him unquestioningly. That whole story is a power grab by early religious leaders - obey us or else.

You have free will as long as you do what you're told.
Gee, cheers for that one god. When's mass so I can thank you?