Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

B_Wayne

StormWarrior wrote: »

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, but I think Fry was silly to blame God for cancer. Surely it's been well demonstrated by now that human actions cause cancer. Nuclear reactors exploding and leaking radiation, exposure to smoke and pollution, junk food and a million other kinds of man made pollution are giving people cancer. We are doing it to ourselves. Sure the child didn't do anything to themselves to get cancer but the actions of other humans over the years have caused it.

The earliest case of cancer that has been found, was from Bronze Age(4500bc). That predates the Industrial Revolution by about 6000 years so your reasons are negated. The likes of skin cancer can occur as a direct result of a rather classically good quality of life. Plenty of cancers have natural causes and relates not in the slightest to man made pollution. The reason we have increased cases of cancers is more due to the fact we live healthier lives(alongside medicine etc) than anything else.

StormWarrior

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Cancer has existed much longer than
man caused variations.
A benevolent god could answer the prayers of distraught parents and save their leukemia riddled children.
And what about the eye eating worms. Any thoughts on those?

Then you'd be expecting god to interfere every time something doesn't go your way which results in humans having no free will, autonomy or choice. Also it's illogical because what if two people pray for opposing results? Say the UK and US were at war. The British soldiers pray "Please let us win!" The Americans pray "Please let us win!" Of course god can't do both.
I'd never heard of eye worms before but it's not outside the realms of possibility that they were caused by humans. Humans cause drastic changes to climate and landscape which could change the fauna. Humans tamper with things in other ways such as genetic modification, humans do all sorts of things that can cause mutations. It's not outside the realms of possibility that human actions caused eye worms.

B_Wayne wrote: »

The earliest case of cancer that has been found, was from Bronze Age(4500bc). That predates the Industrial Revolution by about 6000 years so your reasons are negated. The likes of skin cancer can occur as a direct result of a rather classically good quality of life. Plenty of cancers have natural causes and relates not in the slightest to man made pollution. The reason we have increased cases of cancers is more due to the fact we live healthier lives(alongside medicine etc) than anything else.

My reasons are not negated. Yes a minority of people got cancer in the past, which may also have been caused by unhealthy lifestyle. Eating charred food, breathing smoke from fires, whatever. Cancer rates rise the more pollution we cause. It is caused by us.

Means Of Escape

If you believe in a god can you dismiss someone who believes in Santa Claus or fairies?

Ghost Buster

StormWarrior wrote: »

Then you'd be expecting god to interfere every time something doesn't go your way which results in humans having no free will, autonomy or choice. Also it's illogical because what if two people pray for opposing results? Say the UK and US were at war. The British soldiers pray "Please let us win!" The Americans pray "Please let us win!" Of course god can't do both.
I'd never heard of eye worms before but it's not outside the realms of possibility that they were caused by humans. Humans cause drastic changes to climate and landscape which could change the fauna. Humans tamper with things in other ways such as genetic modification, humans do all sorts of things that can cause mutations. It's not outside the realms of possibility that human actions caused eye worms.




My reasons are not negated. Yes a minority of people got cancer in the past, which may also have been caused by unhealthy lifestyle. Eating charred food, breathing smoke from fires, whatever. Cancer rates rise the more pollution we cause. It is caused by us.

Maybe, perhaps, I don't know but here's a guess, and making stuff up with no basis. ......

That's it?

Donkey Oaty

StormWarrior wrote: »

It's not outside the realms of possibility that human actions caused eye worms.

It's a racing certainty in my opinion.

'Tis the offspring of the scorned serpents of Genesis taking their revenge, and making these children into potential Mississippi Delta-bluesmen who poison the earth with their Devil-inspired tunes.

HardenendMan

I will give my opinion on the whole God thing...

I believe Humans are subconsciously miffed as to why we exist as intelligent beings. We have emotions and feelings. It scares the crap out of us to think that there is nothing after we die, as we exist only in our mind when living. So...we need something more to maintain our sanity. That's when we decided there should be a higher being, a meaning to life that makes our lives more than that of simple mammals.

Belief in God is simply escapism. We try to escape the reality of meaningless. We kid ourselves. We make up a story. This story has then caused a method to govern life, morals etc in the form of religion. It's grown and grown into a strange thing. But it succeeds in keeping our minds of the reality that we only exist while living. There is no meaning to life.

Depressing isn't it?! I just try put it out of my head by indulging myself in substance abuse and having the craic.

I am not trying to offend God believers. Just giving my opinion. If you can't take it without feeling attacked then just don't forget that I may be wrong. I have self doubt and awareness. Knowing that you could be wrong despite the facts & sound reasoning is the most grounding trait to have.

Ps yes...I am high as a kite at the moment :-)

Dan_Solo

StormWarrior wrote: »

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, but I think Fry was silly to blame God for cancer.

Well you couldn't even be bothered to listen to the interview, so I suppose we can excuse not reading the thread.
Not, even if we leave out cancers, are you telling us diseases and starvation didn't exist before man discovered nuclear power?
Really?

CruelCoin

Roquentin wrote: »

but travels slower through different media. its slower through water than air for example.

the point is that relative to the observer, it will always be the same. so if the observer is travelling through water at half the speed of light he will measure it the slowed down speed

You obviously didn't read the article.

Light propagates slower through those heavier media yes, but it then accelerates back to the speed of light again.

The point made in this experiment, was that the light was slowed, and it stayed slowed.

Go back and read it again.

Dan_Solo

StormWarrior wrote: »

My reasons are not negated. Yes a minority of people got cancer in the past, which may also have been caused by unhealthy lifestyle. Eating charred food, breathing smoke from fires, whatever. Cancer rates rise the more pollution we cause. It is caused by us.

Utter scutter.

CruelCoin

Akrasia wrote: »

Not rewritten, updated, and theories like this are constantly being updated and revised as we improve our understanding of the universe.

If light can travel slower than the speed limit in a vacuum under very specific conditions, there might be some implications for astronomical calculations, but I don't see how it has any major impacts on the standard model.

I'm not a scientist, i really have no idea on any of this.

Just spotted the story on my phone on bbc news....:o

Dan_Solo

HardenendMan wrote: »

Ps yes...I am high as a kite at the moment :-)

Careful you don't crack yer noggin on the vault of heaven that's over this immobile circular earth!

Donkey Oaty

CruelCoin wrote: »

I'm not a scientist, i really have no idea on any of this.

Just spotted the story on my phone on bbc news....:o

Get thee behind me, imposter, cluttering up this space with your "I'm not a scientist" stuff.

This thread is for professionals who have ground-breaking scientific and theological contributions that will rock the very foundations of the universe itself.

You know.

Morons.

Loafing Oaf

Dan_Solo wrote: »

even if we leave out cancers, are you telling us diseases and starvation didn't exist before man discovered nuclear power?
Really?

Or more broadly still death and pain and any sort of imperfection in the universe. The amount of quibbling the 'godly' are doing in order to evade Fry's core point is just breathtaking...

Roquentin

is man one of gods blunders or is god one of mans

---Fredrich Nietzsche

Means Of Escape

Anubis can show us the light.

pueblo

Akrasia wrote: »

You believe wrong. While there was the Opera experiment in 2011 that appeared to measure neutrinos breaking the speed limit, it turned out that it was just a measurement error.


The speed of light is the absolute speed limit according to Einstein, but nobody says that the speed of light never changes, every time it changes medium, it changes, and that is why we have lenses that can focus light.


Even if Einstein was shown to have made an error in some aspects of his theory, the general and special theories of relativity are still accepted by the vast vast majority of the worlds physics professionals and the predictions of relativity have been successfully put through many many experimental tests/

All scientific theories are open to revision and improvement as new data comes in. That's the beauty of science, we build upon the knowledge of generations.

Ok seeing as we are so far OT and so far down the rabbit hole with this debate here is my response for what it's worth, just for the hell (actual or mythical) of it... I stated in my post I am no physicist and I am sure you are right in what you say above, it's an interesting field and always good to learn.

We all know God's existence cannot be 'proved', the only proof that works for most people who believe in 'something else' seems to be experience.

Here are a few more quotes on how the question could be approached (just to keep Dan interested)

"Why dost thou prate of God? Whatever thou sayest of Him is untrue."
Eckhart

"The truth indeed has never been preached by the Buddha, seeing that one has to realise it within oneself"
Sutralamkara

"Men's minds perceive second causes, but only prophets perceive the action of the First Cause."
Jalal-Uddin Rumi

"The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge."
Eckhart

"As long as I am this or that, or have this or that, I am not all things and I have not all things. Become pure till you neither are nor have either this or that, then you are omnipresent and, being neither this or that, are all things."
Eckhart

“An existential system cannot be formulated. Does this mean that no such system exists? By no means; nor is this implied in our assertion. Reality is a system—for God; but it cant be a system for any existing spirit. System and finality correspond to one another, but existence is precisely the opposite of finality. It may be seen, from a purely abstract point of view, that system and existence are incapable of being thought together; because in order to think existence at all, systematic thought must think it as abrogated, and hence not existing.”
Søren Kierkegaard

shruikan2553

StormWarrior wrote: »

My reasons are not negated. Yes a minority of people got cancer in the past, which may also have been caused by unhealthy lifestyle. Eating charred food, breathing smoke from fires, whatever. Cancer rates rise the more pollution we cause. It is caused by us.

And who made it so you get cancer from those things? (Supposedly)

Also it could be related to us living longer.

Means Of Escape

We will travel along a golden escalator way way up into the clouds and meet a jolly bearded man who will ask us if we have anything to ask.
Cue Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne on all humankinds behalf

StormWarrior

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well you couldn't even be bothered to listen to the interview, so I suppose we can excuse not reading the thread.
Not, even if we leave out cancers, are you telling us diseases and starvation didn't exist before man discovered nuclear power?
Really?

You are purposely missing the point. Fry specifically mentioned cancer, hence I explained how cancer has been caused by humans' own actions. I didn't use only nuclear reactors as the sole cause of cancer and I didn't blame nuclear reactors for diseases or starvation. Diseases and starvation could also be wiped out by man's own efforts. It's universally accepted that there is enough food for everybody in the world, it just isn't distributed in such as a way as to make sure everybody is fed. Also diseases would be a thing of the past if people would change their ways, clean up our lifestyles and the world. No doubt you could provide a long list of all the other things you don't like about the world, and I could sit here refuting them but I won't bother now as it's a waste of time because you don't want your mind changed.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

And who made it so you get cancer from those things? (Supposedly)

Also it could be related to us living longer.

Well as far as living longer, he specifically mentioned cancer in children. And just because we can get cancer doesn't mean god wants us to. The bible is full of lifestyle advice designed to help us avoid illness and things going wrong in our lives. But that's the point of free will, we're free to ignore the advice.

Loafing Oaf

StormWarrior wrote: »

You are purposely missing the point. Fry specifically mentioned cancer, hence I explained how cancer has been caused by humans' own actions. I didn't use only nuclear reactors as the sole cause of cancer and I didn't blame nuclear reactors for diseases or starvation. Diseases and starvation could also be wiped out by man's own efforts. It's universally accepted that there is enough food for everybody in the world, it just isn't distributed in such as a way as to make sure everybody is fed. Also diseases would be a thing of the past if people would change their ways, clean up our lifestyles and the world. No doubt you could provide a long list of all the other things you don't like about the world, and I could sit here refuting them but I won't bother now as it's a waste of time because you don't want your mind changed.





Well as far as living longer, he specifically mentioned cancer in children. And just because we can get cancer doesn't mean god wants us to. The bible is full of lifestyle advice designed to help us avoid illness and things going wrong in our lives. But that's the point of free will, we're free to ignore the advice.

Could the efforts of mankind ever eradicate all suffering, including animal suffering? If not then Fry's point holds...

Mountainsandh

B_Wayne wrote: »

The earliest case of cancer that has been found, was from Bronze Age(4500bc). That predates the Industrial Revolution by about 6000 years so your reasons are negated. The likes of skin cancer can occur as a direct result of a rather classically good quality of life. Plenty of cancers have natural causes and relates not in the slightest to man made pollution. The reason we have increased cases of cancers is more due to the fact we live healthier lives(alongside medicine etc) than anything else.

Anthropologists Discover Bone Tumor in 120,000-year-old Caveman Remains

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/aging-bone-tumor-found-on-ancient-neandertal-rib-060513

http://www.slideshare.net/biocenose_consultoria/fibrous-dysplasia-in-a-120000-year-old-neandertal-from-krapina

bnt

Did another poster seriously suggest that all cancers can be blamed on human activity? No doubt human activity is a major factor (*cough* smoking *cough*), but no way is that the whole story. We are not in any kind of position to make absolute statements about everyone who ever died in the whole of human history.

Besides: for most of human history, people weren't living long enough, on average, to get most cancers in the first place. If I get prostate cancer in my 60s, I will have no complaints - not having succumbed to the Black Death in my 30s, or contracting Black Lung after decades down the coal mines last century.

edit: in case anyone thinks I'm making this up, have a read of this. Quote:

So why are we enduring a cancer “boom”, as the report from the National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP) put it during the week?

“Rising cancer rates aren’t caused by Sellafield or overhead power lines or any of the other reasons people blame. It’s a disease of the middle-aged and old, and as the population ages there will be more cancer,” says Prof John Crown, the country’s best-known oncologist.

And with 20,000 people turning 65 every year, Ireland’s population is undoubtedly greying.

At the same time, Crown points out, many of the formerly competing causes of death, such as infectious diseases, have fallen away in importance, leaving cancer out there along with heart disease as the biggest killer. It’s also a disease of affluence, one that thrives on the smoking, drinking, high blood sugars and physical inactivity so common in our 21st-century society, he says.

Another reason that it has become more common, as highlighted in a recent report from the National Cancer Registry, in Cork, is that cases are being detected earlier and better. This means that although we have more cases of the disease, more people are surviving it, and for longer. Today 60 per cent of cancers are cured.

Back on topic: while Fry talked about "God" allowing cancer, he stopped short of pointing that out the omniscient & omnipotent Abrahamic "God" would, by definition, be the cause of it in the first place.

floggg

pueblo wrote: »

What is really funny about this is that you in no way see the irony of your dogmatic beliefs. You thoroughly lambast 'religious' people for this exact same type of unerring belief in a system or set of ideals, yet this is exactly what you do!

No questions may be asked! I have the truth!!

Sound familiar??

It's not really that you are asking questions - its that you are responding to any questions raised by saying god/spirits don't need to follow logic/reason/physics so it can be whatever way we want.

Sure. that's possible, but only in the same way that its possible I could have an invisible friend who isn't bound by the laws of physics and only makes him self known to me.

Ultimately your not adding anything to the conversation, and you have nothing to go on but absolute blind faith and imagination.

Dan_Solo

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Could the efforts of mankind ever eradicate all suffering, including animal suffering? If not then Fry's point holds...

And even if man was responsible for all man's suffering, god created all of this in this first place so the suffering is STILL his fault.

Dan_Solo

StormWarrior wrote: »

and I could sit here refuting them but I won't bother now as it's a waste of time because you don't want your mind changed.

You will indeed be continuing to waste your time if you are proposing that all suffering mankind has endured since he first came down out of the trees was his own fault. If only man had bothered to cure all diseases and eradicate starvation the day he became sentient! Too busy clubbing women on the head to have time to cure cancer no doubt.

Akrasia

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You will indeed be continuing to waste your time if you are proposing that all suffering mankind has endured since he first came down out of the trees was his own fault. If only man had bothered to cure all diseases and eradicate starvation the day he became sentient! Too busy clubbing women on the head to have time to cure cancer no doubt.

Even if everything bad is 'mankind's' fault, collective punishment is still immoral, and punishing innocent children for the actions of others is immoral.

Means Of Escape

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And even if man was responsible for all man's suffering, god created all of this in this first place so the suffering is STILL his fault.

Who created all of this again?

Dan_Solo

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Who created all of this again?

Stephen Fry.
Did you watch the interview?

Means Of Escape

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Stephen Fry.
Did you watch the interview?

Oh sorry "god" created all this .

feargale

shruikan2553 wrote: »

What did you say about my mother?
See, I can make up stuff too. I'm just going to ignore you until you learn to read. You appear to suffer from Christian persecution complex and think everyone is out to get you.

Yes, we know you can make up stuff, e.g.:

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Is this to become one of those threads where people complain about any criticism Christianity gets while claiming every other religion is protected and then complain about atheists?

They call it tilting at the windmill that isn't there. Most people grow out of it, some faster than others. I won't suggest that you grow up. Better advice to you would probably be to remain an undergraduate while you still know everything. Anyway it would be a shame to outgrow ragweek.

Susandublin

I think all the above is great - questions being asked and people replying with reference to the bible. I went to mass on Christmas Day. I had hoped the priest would use the opportunity to communicate God, the bible or something which may make return. Many people of my age go once a year for Christmas so my expectations were high.
1 hour of my life I'll never see. Spent the time asking the children what Santy brought them.
I think religion (any religion) can and should play an important role in people's lives. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the bible or God to make a decision. Think the church could do a much better job at teaching people which would possibly result in less people leaving the religion.
If I wanted to destroy a religion, I'd make it loose it's congregation. I'd question the motives of some priests and ask if there is an agenda behind the scenes?

ScumLord

StormWarrior wrote: »

Diseases and starvation could also be wiped out by man's own efforts.

With doctors, and public infrastructure? People have been making sewage systems since the time of the bible, there were doctors. How come these people living back then under the most strict version of the religion needed these public works if they were all so healthy from raw religious belief and lack of modern technology to give them cancers?

It's universally accepted that there is enough food for everybody in the world, it just isn't distributed in such as a way as to make sure everybody is fed.

True, there's probably enough food in your fridge to feed 5 people, why don't you redistribute your food out to your neighbours?

Also diseases would be a thing of the past if people would change their ways, clean up our lifestyles and the world.

You could greatly reduce diseases by keeping everything clean, that's true.

The bible is full of lifestyle advice designed to help us avoid illness and things going wrong in our lives.

I'll stick to doctors advice, I don't think the recorded lifespans of bible people matches up with what you're imagining.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Could the efforts of mankind ever eradicate all suffering, including animal suffering? If not then Fry's point holds...

the human race will get much closer to making this happen than god ever did. We're even making fake meat so animals won't have to suffer.

floggg

Akrasia wrote: »

Even if everything bad is 'mankind's' fault, collective punishment is still immoral, and punishing innocent children for the actions of others is immoral.

Unless your God. Then it's just "mysterious"...

Tarzana2

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That depends on how you define "Catholic". The last census stated that 84% of the population is Catholic, but then again, I'd say about 10% of that is accounted for by Mammy filling out the census form.

However, according to an Irish Times/IPSOS-MRBI poll in 2012, only 26% of Irish Catholics believe in transubstantiation, i.e. a cracker and some wine become the literal body and blood of Jesus. Let's not forget that the latest poll on marriage equality has 71% in favour. If there really is this "moral majority" of staunch Catholics, they're not doing a good job at actually proving their existence.

Exactly!

feargale

Zaph wrote: »

Gay Byrne looks like someone p*ssed in his cornflakes when Fry gave his answer. If you're not prepared to hear answers you don't like, then don't ask the question.

Drawing conclusions from facial expressions is a foolhardy exercise. Since the interview Gay Byrne has twice stated that he was not perturbed by Fry's answer. It seems to me that in Boards wishful thinking is playing a big part in divinig what GB was thinking. I've watched Gaybo for a long time and if you can tell his religious beliefs or affiliations you're a smarter guy than I am. He has in fact said that he has no intention of divulging his views at least until this series is over. I raised this on the other thread, posting some information, and asking if it caused many people to rethink. There was no response. I guess the atheist Curia has more in common with its RC equivalent than it cares to admit, including an inability to admit error.

padd b1975

Classy impersonation of Stephen Hawking at the BAFTAs.

I would have thought such a "renowned wit" as he thinks he is wouldn't need to resort to this and f-bombing to get a few laughs....

humanji

He didn't resort to them. They were part of his overall presentation on the night.

padd b1975

humanji wrote: »

He didn't resort to them. They were part of his overall presentation on the night.

Ah right...


"Only carrying out orders M'lord"

Grayson

feargale wrote: »

Drawing conclusions from facial expressions is a foolhardy exercise. Since the interview Gay Byrne has twice stated that he was not perturbed by Fry's answer. It seems to me that in Boards wishful thinking is playing a big part in divinig what GB was thinking. I've watched Gaybo for a long time and if you can tell his religious beliefs or affiliations you're a smarter guy than I am. He has in fact said that he has no intention of divulging his views at least until this series is over. I raised this on the other thread, posting some information, and asking if it caused many people to rethink. There was no response. I guess the atheist Curia has more in common with its RC equivalent than it cares to admit, including an inability to admit error.

So we should never, ever draw conclusions from someone facial expressions?

:rolleyes:

(btw, that smiley means that I'm rolling my eyes. Just in case you have any difficulty in determining what it means.)

Eugene Norman

feargale wrote: »

Drawing conclusions from facial expressions is a foolhardy exercise. Since the interview Gay Byrne has twice stated that he was not perturbed by Fry's answer. It seems to me that in Boards wishful thinking is playing a big part in divinig what GB was thinking. I've watched Gaybo for a long time and if you can tell his religious beliefs or affiliations you're a smarter guy than I am. He has in fact said that he has no intention of divulging his views at least until this series is over. I raised this on the other thread, posting some information, and asking if it caused many people to rethink. There was no response. I guess the atheist Curia has more in common with its RC equivalent than it cares to admit, including an inability to admit error.

There's a general tendency on the anglo Saxon Internet to see gay as a God botherer. Interesting how that assumption ran.

The people who wanted us to see Gay as annoyed? The producers.

Eugene Norman

StormWarrior wrote: »

Then you'd be expecting god to interfere every time something doesn't go your way which results in humans having no free will, autonomy or choice. Also it's illogical because what if two people pray for opposing results? Say the UK and US were at war. The British soldiers pray "Please let us win!" The Americans pray "Please let us win!" Of course god can't do both.
I'd never heard of eye worms before but it's not outside the realms of possibility that they were caused by humans. Humans cause drastic changes to climate and landscape which could change the fauna. Humans tamper with things in other ways such as genetic modification, humans do all sorts of things that can cause mutations. It's not outside the realms of possibility that human actions caused eye worms.




My reasons are not negated. Yes a minority of people got cancer in the past, which may also have been caused by unhealthy lifestyle. Eating charred food, breathing smoke from fires, whatever. Cancer rates rise the more pollution we cause. It is caused by us.

Human actions didn't cause either eye worms or cancer. And blaming people for cancer is obscene. An omnipotent and omniscient God could have designed humans or animals for this not to happen. All design faults are his.

humanji

padd b1975 wrote: »

Ah right...


"Only carrying out orders M'lord"

???

feargale

Grayson wrote: »

So we should never, ever draw conclusions from someone facial expressions?

Did I say that? I'm saying that it's a haphazard and foolhardy exercise. It's one thing to read, however fallibly, a smile or a dagger's death frown. But Gaybo's expression? I could draw and express conclusions from Ireland's game with Italy last weekend, as many will, but we could all have to eat humble pie. Gaybo has expressly contradicted the A&A soothsayers. That should wrap up the issue unless you want to say that Gaybo wasn't telling the truth. But then some Boards A&As ( not all, only some crusaders) don't do humble pie.

Grayson wrote: »

:rolleyes: (btw, that smiley means that I'm rolling my eyes. Just in case you have any difficulty in determining what it means.)

How profound.

catallus

Gay commented on this on his show on Lyric there just last Sunday; said he has had many guests on his TV show who said more or less the same thing as Mr. Fry did, but because Fry made a few twitter comments about it it made the thing much bigger?

Gay seems nonplussed by the whole thing.

InTheTrees

Eugene Norman wrote: »

All design faults are his.

Basically life on earth is based on the slaughter and consumption of the weak by the strong.

Fun times.