Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

The Jews according to the bible had a special covenant with God, when they broke it and turned away from God, the prophecy of Jeremiah 16 said they would be banished to lands they do not know, they would end up being hunted down, their bodies not buried, famine and suffering...but this was to happen before Israel would be restored.

Robert I know you like to quote passages from the bible as if that somehow adds more weight to your argument but it doesn't. The bible is just a book, it offers no explanation for how God our supposedly benevolent father allows his children to suffer. What kind of God allows that to happen and why? One that doesn't exist.

UCDVet

beer_hunter wrote: »

free will only explains people doing harm , it explains nothing for those who have harm done to them

Why? Because you say so?

I'm not trying to attack you, I'm genuinely asking. If we assume for a second that their is a God who values this concept of free will in individuals - why would we assume your interpretation of how free will should work is the same as Gods?

K4t

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The sooner more people start doing this the better, The world would be a much better if religion was wiped out.

If there is a gates of heaven I'd sooner walk as far as possible in the opposite direction in search of a hell.

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I liked Stephen Fry until his sneery, dismissive comment about when people are offended.
The man has publicly taken offence at times himself so he should have added "... apart from when it offends ME" to that comment (often trotted out now by the "free speech at all costs" crowd).

Just to clarify something here, it is perfectly fine for Fry to be hypocritical if that is true (I don't really care). However, the 'Free Speech at all costs' crowd simply argue that neither offense or hypocrisy be legislated against through law. e.g. blasphemy law.

Venus In Furs

UCDVet wrote: »

Why? Because you say so?

No? Because it's the logical conclusion?

If a child gets leukaemia, how the utter fuq does free will come into it?

syklops

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..

Stephen Fry, ignorant?

I've heard it all now.

Maximus Alexander

RobertKK wrote: »

If God exists, he would be your God too since he would have being behind the creation, and it would be a case of you having rejected your God whom you see as a prick...

And if his auntie had balls she'd be his uncle.

B_Wayne

padd b1975 wrote: »

It's not ideal, but if there's no other means available to have a family, then so be it.

Seems like your vision is much seedier. Wrong for gay man to marry gay man who is three years off being thirty. But if it's a man in need of a womb, that's fine.... What a warped world view you hold..

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

Read my post, read the earlier quoted bit from the prophet Jeremiah. Look at why baptism exists.

It has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe, it is there plain and clear in the bible, and plain and clear in baptism where one is baptised because they are seen to carry the original sin of Adam and Eve.

Where did I post bone cancer in children is acceptable to me?
Stephen Fry knows full well that Earth is not utopia but then acted like a fool and said he would reject heaven, ie a Utopian place where all is good.
Rezident made a good point, Fry acts as if Earth is suppose to be a heaven. Earth is a place where good and bad exists. We can either accept and try and make it a better place, or be bitter as Fry was in that interview.
We were given talent and soon we will cure all cancers as things like gene therapy advance.
Some would argue God given talent...

You reject satan because satan is evil right?
Why not use the same criteria for God? If God commits evil then God is evil and is therefore no worse than satan.
The only thing satan did wrong that God hasn't was when he rejected God. (Although you could say he did when Jesus was on the cross and he said "Oh father, why have you forsaken me. Since Jesus was God, God was forsaking God).

Maximus Alexander

Folks you should know by now that there's no point arguing with bigots. Just leave them to scream into the void while the world leaves them behind.

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

What that God is vengeful, loving, forgiving?

A human can be all those.

So you're saying that there's no difference between God and a human when it comes to personality/ethics etc. In fact God would be more like an unrestrained human. Whereas we can rein in our worst impulses, God doesn't.

Baggy Trousers

Well said Mr Fry. Very intelligent man.

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

Robert I know you like to quote passages from the bible as if that somehow adds more weight to your argument but it doesn't. The bible is just a book, it offers no explanation for how God our supposedly benevolent father allows his children to suffer. What kind of God allows that to happen and why? One that doesn't exist.

It is the book that the religion comes from, you can't just disregard it as if it is like any old book.
It says in Genesis that the suffering was allowed when Adam and Eve brought death into the world through their disobedience towards God.
The bible offers no explanation if you don't see it as relevant to the religion. `

Ghost Buster

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..

I would think Fry knows genesis rather well but realises its bollox.
Which nullifies the rest of your ridiculous post.

Baggy Trousers

I do remember thinking as a kid that I was glad the Greek gods weren't real.
After watching films like Jason and the Argonauts, they just seemed like utter pricks!

Now I know none of the so called "gods" are real and I have to say life is simpler and more enjoyable as a result.

Ghost Buster

bb87 wrote: »

Satan tells his followers to kill their children, and people like you happily follow it. You know, abortion and all.

The record (bible) shows that God has killed substantially more folk than the other guy.

Ghost Buster

RobertKK wrote: »

Stephen Fry acts the idiot.
He was talking about a Christian God, but then the supposed intellectual, disregarded a part of the bible where it says how evil entered the world.
Evil according to the book of Genesis entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and the price for the disobedience was death was brought into the world, and Adam and Eve allowed evil into the world.

Stephen Fry ignored the bible so he could just have his rant.

He didn't address in his rant about meeting God, how we can choose good or evil, or that by knowing evil, it allows us to know and appreciate what is good.

Also Stephen Fry said if heaven did exist he didn't want to go to heaven, indicating he wants to reside in hell, which is just being stupid for the sake of it.

Anyway I will be watching the Superbowl rather than wasting time on Stephen Fry who thinksthat is heaven did somehow exist he would even get the chance to say directly to God 'How dare you'...

The one flaw in your post is that Fry has the cop on to realise that its all nonsense. So why would he address any of what you suggest??!

UCDVet

Venus In Furs wrote: »

No? Because it's the logical conclusion?

If a child gets leukaemia, how the utter fuq does free will come into it?

It's amazing how many people think their conclusions are logical, when they aren't. It's also entirely possible to have a logically sound argument that is completely wrong, given a faulty premise. If you'd like to submit your logical argument, I'm sure other people would be interested in having a look - but it's not really fair to expect everyone to just, inherently know or accept your conclusion.

I feel like you're presuming to know a lot about how God would function and how he would operate his rule/control over us. I'm not saying there is a God, but I don't see much credibility to the argument that there isn't a God because, 'Obviously, if there were a God X, Y and Z would be different'.

Maybe God doesn't operate on the level of an individual? Maybe freewill applies to humanity as a whole? Maybe suffering is part of God's plan? Have you ever played a video game where your character can't get hurt or die? It's fun for a few minutes, but then it's tiresome. Maybe God exists but is a jerk? Maybe that child *would* have been the next Hitler, and God is pre-emptively saving BILLIONS OF LIVES by giving that kid Leukaemia? Maybe, in a past life, that kid was evil. Or maybe God is strictly hands-off in the mortal realm. If I had an ant collection, sure, I'd 'Create the world' as they know it. And I would have powers they couldn't conceive of. I could certainly kill them at will, destroy their world, or perform amazing god-like acts on their behalf. But I'm not going to stop them from fighting while I'm at work. Maybe God's been doing something else for the last million years or something?

Baggy Trousers

Does anyone get the sense that if people read these threads in say 100 years, they will be flabbergasted by some of the rhetoric on both sides?
I think they will think we had way too much time on our hands!

RobertKK

Grayson wrote: »

So you're saying that there's no difference between God and a human when it comes to personality/ethics etc. In fact God would be more like an unrestrained human. Whereas we can rein in our worst impulses, God doesn't.

Surely one would argue God is far more restrained than humans, don't we hear all the comlaints about 'rules' in religion.
Isn't it the unrestrained humans in the bible that reject God that causes the bad stuff to happen?

Autonomous Cowherd

There often seems to be a very limited view of what ''God'' is. The Bible - which is the cosmogony of one tribe, and which happened for political reasons to become the most popular ''book on God'' in the west - portrays a particular kind of Abrahamical god. Same with the Koran and Talmud and so on. There are many other books on ''God'' or the idea of an inexplicable force behind the world of appearances, some of them quite ancient like the Tao Teh Ching, or Vigyana Bhairava Tantra, or the Gnostic Gospels, or the works of Hermes Trismegistus, and many evolving ideas presented in the literature of various disciplines throughout the world. Many ideas of ''God'' belong to oral shamanic traditions, which could arguably be the primal well-spring of our very idea of God. I find it quite limiting that people argue about God's existence based on limited literature, based on a limited tradition (Christianity for example) which like most religious traditions has been modified/warped due to political/cultural changes and aims. The idea of some unknown or even unknowable substratum that has shaped the complex existence we experience, even pure maths for example, cannot be proved or disproved using reference to one limited middle eastern text. Surely?

RobertKK

UCDVet wrote: »

It's amazing how many people think their conclusions are logical, when they aren't. It's also entirely possible to have a logically sound argument that is completely wrong, given a faulty premise. If you'd like to submit your logical argument, I'm sure other people would be interested in having a look - but it's not really fair to expect everyone to just, inherently know or accept your conclusion.

I feel like you're presuming to know a lot about how God would function and how he would operate his rule/control over us. I'm not saying there is a God, but I don't see much credibility to the argument that there isn't a God because, 'Obviously, if there were a God X, Y and Z would be different'.

Maybe God doesn't operate on the level of an individual? Maybe freewill applies to humanity as a whole? Maybe suffering is part of God's plan? Have you ever played a video game where your character can't get hurt or die? It's fun for a few minutes, but then it's tiresome. Maybe God exists but is a jerk? Maybe that child *would* have been the next Hitler, and God is pre-emptively saving BILLIONS OF LIVES by giving that kid Leukaemia? Maybe, in a past life, that kid was evil. Or maybe God is strictly hands-off in the mortal realm. If I had an ant collection, sure, I'd 'Create the world' as they know it. And I would have powers they couldn't conceive of. I could certainly kill them at will, destroy their world, or perform amazing god-like acts on their behalf. But I'm not going to stop them from fighting while I'm at work. Maybe God's been doing something else for the last million years or something?

Probably busy playing Sim City elsewhere in the Universe.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the book that the religion comes from, you can't just disregard it as if it is like any old book.
It says in Genesis that the suffering was allowed when Adam and Eve brought death into the world through their disobedience towards God.
The bible offers no explanation if you don't see it as relevant to the religion. `

None of which explains why God stands idly by and allows suffering to happen

Grayson

UCDVet wrote: »

Maybe God doesn't operate on the level of an individual? Maybe freewill applies to humanity as a whole? Maybe suffering is part of God's plan? Have you ever played a video game where your character can't get hurt or die? It's fun for a few minutes, but then it's tiresome. Maybe God exists but is a jerk? Maybe that child *would* have been the next Hitler, and God is pre-emptively saving BILLIONS OF LIVES by giving that kid Leukaemia? Maybe, in a past life, that kid was evil. Or maybe God is strictly hands-off in the mortal realm. If I had an ant collection, sure, I'd 'Create the world' as they know it. And I would have powers they couldn't conceive of. I could certainly kill them at will, destroy their world, or perform amazing god-like acts on their behalf. But I'm not going to stop them from fighting while I'm at work. Maybe God's been doing something else for the last million years or something?

Then he's still a dick. The evidence still points towards God being evil, not good. And if you say that maybe God is good but we just don't understand, then that makes him a dick too. Why torture humans by putting them through hell on earth and not allow them to understand it. That's dickish. It's like me placing electrodes on your testicles and telling you that the reason is written in a complex code.

Jim Jeffries has a line where he says it's stupid when people say God is mysterious. tsunami kills thousands and people say "God moves in mysterious ways". If you cam home and found me assaulting your wife you wouldn't let me off if I said "Hey, I told you I was mysterious"

K4t

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Does anyone get the sense that if people read these threads in say 100 years, they will be flabbergasted by some of the rhetoric on both sides?

You forget that people were saying what you are saying now 100 years ago..

UCDVet

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Does anyone get the sense that if people read these threads in say 100 years, they will be flabbergasted by some of the rhetoric on both sides?
I think they will think we had way too much time on our hands!

I think you are giving people too much credit. Arguing meaningless points is one of humanity's oldest traditions. I'm sure in 100 years, they'll still be doing it.

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

None of which explains why God stands idly by and allows suffering to happen

It is not like he denied Jesus the right to suffer and he the son of God.

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

Probably busy playing Sim City elsewhere in the Universe.

I lolled

Ghost Buster

RobertKK wrote: »

Surely one would argue God is far more restrained than humans, don't we hear all the comlaints about 'rules' in religion.
Isn't it the unrestrained humans in the bible that reject God that causes the bad stuff to happen?

And how did this needy sulky git react to a few tribes rejection of him?
Remind me?
Was in in the way of a wise all powerful being or a sulky vain human way?

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not like he denied Jesus the right to suffer and he the son of God.

So you can't offer an explanation beyond cause it says so in the bible.

Ghost Buster

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not like he denied Jesus the right to suffer and he the son of God.

Thats wasnt nice either!

UCDVet

Grayson wrote: »

Then he's still a dick. The evidence still points towards God being evil, not good. And if you say that maybe God is good but we just don't understand, then that makes him a dick too. Why torture humans by putting them through hell on earth and not allow them to understand it. That's dickish. It's like me placing electrodes on your testicles and telling you that the reason is written in a complex code.

That's one possible explanation, sure.

But the argument shouldn't be 'Bad things happen, therefore there is no God'. It should be, 'Bad things happen, therefore there is no all powerful God that conforms to my own understanding of Good and Bad'.

danrua01

RobertKK wrote: »

Surely one would argue God is far more restrained than humans, don't we hear all the comlaints about 'rules' in religion.
Isn't it the unrestrained humans in the bible that reject God that causes the bad stuff to happen?

I don't accept, believe, or follow God, but you say he is more restrained than I am:

God's death toll = a sh*tload.
My death toll, or evil actions = 0.

RobertKK

Ghost Buster wrote: »

And how did this needy sulky git react to a few tribes rejection of him?
Remind me?
Was in in the way of a wise all powerful being or a sulky vain human way?

Well there was the covenant with God, he had brought them out of Egypt, even if they went around in circles for 40 years, they rejected him and they were thrown out of Israel for a long long time.
The Jews obviously appreciate him, they would love to rebuild the temple that was destroyed near 2,000 years ago, except a mosque is in the way...

Ghost Buster

UCDVet wrote: »

That's one possible explanation, sure.

But the argument shouldn't be 'Bad things happen, therefore there is no God'. It should be, 'Bad things happen, therefore there is no all powerful God that conforms to my own understanding of Good and Bad'.

Well then hes crap at communicating with the beings he loves and created in his own image and all that. very sloppy for an uberbring

Spanish Eyes

God did one good thing that impressed me, and showed his sociability.

He turned the water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana, and ensured that everyone had a great time at de weddin.

On that basis, he is welcome to my parties. The booze always runs out before it should.

Ghost Buster

RobertKK wrote: »

Well there was the covenant with God, he had brought them out of Egypt, even if they went around in circles for 40 years, they rejected him and they were thrown out of Israel for a long long time.
The Jews obviously appreciate him, they would love to rebuild the temple that was destroyed near 2,000 years ago, except a mosque is in the way...

And was this before or after he flooded the entire planet drowning all but a handful of people cos he was having a very very human tantrum?

FunLover18

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..

You mean the bitterness he feels because of the evil acts of discrimination and hatred piled on him and on other homosexuals by "pure of heart" christians?

UCDVet

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Well then hes crap at communicating with the beings he loves and created in his own image and all that. very sloppy for an uberbring

Absolutely. But there is a world of difference between, 'God hasn't communicated with me, therefore God doesn't exist' and 'God hasn't communicated with me, therefore a God that has communicated with me doesn't exist'.

Ghost Buster

UCDVet wrote: »

Absolutely. But there is a world of difference between, 'God hasn't communicated with me, therefore God doesn't exist' and 'God hasn't communicated with me, therefore a God that has communicated with me doesn't exist'.

Thats not the only reason why there is absolutely no reason to believe in any gods.

The_Valeyard

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?

No this is one of those threads where people start off by claiming they are atheists and expect medals.

UCDVet

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Thats not the only reason why there is absolutely no reason to believe in any gods.

My point is:
1.) That evil existing (child with leukaemia) does not disprove the existence of God.
2.) That a lack of communication with God, does not disprove the existence of God.

I'm not asserting that God exists.

haveringchick

danrua01 wrote: »

You don't need to worry about it, I'm sure both of them know enough to get on with their lives. He's bipolar, he's not a rapist or a murder... Are you saying that people with mental illnesses shouldn't be allowed to be in relationships?

I don't know why but though I wish them hearty congrats I am reminded firstly of Wilde and Bosie and, unfortunately, Mrs Merton asking Debbie Magee what first first attracted her to her fabulously wealthy much older husband.

_Jumper_

Wha? What do ya not agree with OP?

Maximus Alexander

UCDVet wrote: »

My point is:
1.) That evil existing (child with leukaemia) does not disprove the existence of God.
2.) That a lack of communication with God, does not disprove the existence of God.

I'm not asserting that God exists.

Russell's teapot will offer you a good explanation of why these two points are both meaningless and irrelevant.

The_Valeyard

Id say Mods must bang there heads against the keyboards when they see these threads coming.

Akrasia

chrysagon wrote: »

Fry has had a few digs at Christians, irionic that hes a jew.
And anyway, he has a point,Why would god if he /she existed create a world with such misery.

The Jewish god is the same god Christians believe in

UCDVet

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Russell's teapot will offer you a good explanation of why these two points are both meaningless and irrelevant.

I'm afraid I disagree completely. 'Russell's teapot' does not invalidate my point in any way. People were actively offering these as proof that God does not exist. That's simply wrong.

Russell's teapot simply says, 'If you want me to believe in God, the burden of proof is on you'. That's totally fine. I'm not disagreeing with that. But there is a huge difference between, 'You have provided no evidence' and 'I can prove that thing you mention is wrong'.

There are lots of nonsensical things I can say exist. I have a magical, talking, flying dog in my house!

It's fine to say that I'm full of crap, or that I'm ridiculous or that you won't believe me until I provide proof. But it's STILL wrong to say you can disprove it, unless you can actually disprove it. Pointing out that I have no evidence and that it is utter nonsense to even consider if fine though.

K4t

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Id say Mods must bang there heads against the keyboards when they see these threads coming.

If they do care, it is because of Religion, not Atheism.


It's not as if the Atheists can threaten blasphemy laws.

Grayson

UCDVet wrote: »

That's one possible explanation, sure.

But the argument shouldn't be 'Bad things happen, therefore there is no God'. It should be, 'Bad things happen, therefore there is no all powerful God that conforms to my own understanding of Good and Bad'.

see, if that's the case then it's not God but rather god. The capitals are used to describe the all knowing, all powerful God of the bible. Most western religious philosophy has been trying to determine the characteristics of God. Anslem described him as "that of which there can be nothing greater than". Descartes described him as "infinite perfection" (Since infinity and perfection are the only two things we have no experience of but yet we can still conceive of them).
Once morals are injected into it then God has to be infinitely good. And that's the line that's generally used. We always hear about His "infinite love" for humanity. Hatred etc are not attributes that can be attributed to god since they are imperfections.
Now you might say that that we're marking the assumption that hatred is an imperfection. If it's not an imperfection than God would have to to possess it and He would have to possess it at an infinite level. God would have to be the embodiment of hatred. That's not a nice God and therefore God would be a dick.
Or you're right and God is actually god. In which case god can be a dick because god isn't perfect.

Maximus Alexander

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm afraid I disagree completely. 'Russell's teapot' does not invalidate my point in any way. People were actively offering these as proof that God does not exist. That's simply wrong.

Russell's teapot simply says, 'If you want me to believe in God, the burden of proof is on you'. That's totally fine. I'm not disagreeing with that. But there is a huge difference between, 'You have provided no evidence' and 'I can prove that thing you mention is wrong'.

The idea of 'disproving' God is meaningless. He is unfalsifiable.

You could make the argument that anything which is unfalsifiable doesn't exist, because it has no effect on the physical world.