Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

UCDVet

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

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.

Yes - so anyone presenting an argument disproving God is presenting a meaningless argument. Which is why I felt the need to disagree.

Grayson

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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

better than saying you're a Christian and expecting eternal paradise.

btw as unlikely as I am to ever get a medal for anything, my expectation is probably more realistic.

Maximus Alexander

UCDVet wrote: »

Yes - so anyone presenting an argument disproving God is presenting a meaningless argument. Which is why I felt the need to disagree.

Fair enough, I must have misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Grayson

UCDVet wrote: »

Yes - so anyone presenting an argument disproving God is presenting a meaningless argument. Which is why I felt the need to disagree.

I actually liked my philosophy of religion courses (Until Hegel. Hegel was such a fecking wanker)

Some of them are very simple and beautiful arguments. they're wrong but the simple logic in them was actually quite nice.

K4t

UCDVet wrote: »

Russell's teapot simply says, 'If you want me to believe in God, the burden of proof is on you'. That's totally fine.

Would you like to live in a world where a most of the world believe that a teapot orbits the sun in space? Would you like if laws were made based on that teapot's imagined beliefs? Would you like that governments are lobbied and influenced by that teapot's imagined beliefs? Because that is what you are saying is "totally fine".

haveringchick

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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

The threads and some of yhe posters are as repetitive and predictable as the sunrise. Eventually the thread burns itself out and another starts. It seems that hope springs eternal within the atheists hearts that they will somehow succeed in disproving the existence of God. It must be exhausting and how they maintain such enthusiasm for thinking about and describing something they claim doesn't exist is aastonishing. But you will find the same posters on any thread which has even the remotest potential for them to have a go at faith or belief in a higher power. And repeating themselves over and over to no avail. Must get very frustrating.

B.A._Baracus

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

Oh really? I guess...
- "religious nuts" created the nuclear bomb in the 1940's
- Hiter wasn't really an athiest. God told him to kill millions of Jews?
- North Korea isnt currently an athiest nation where religion is 'discouraged' - Nah, they are blinded by religion to hold people down?

Look man, the world wouldnt be a better place without Religion. There would still be evil men. Sure even those who kill in the 'name' of their god (ahem, extreme muslims) would just be killing in the name of their country... or what ever they choose to hide behind.

ygolometsipe

I decided to believe in God every second day of the week.
That way i'm a constant disappointment, much like life!

AryaStark

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...

It is people who believe in god that make any real advances in medical science impossible i.e banning stem cell research and crying about people playing at being god.

UCDVet

Grayson wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure that's true. If a being is both infinitely loving and infinitely hating, who knows how that would manifest itself?

Besides, one of the most important parts of the Bible God is that we have eternity in the afterlife, right? So however many years we spend on Earth before we die is *infinitely* small compared to eternity. Maybe none of this life really matters. If I'm playing a video game and my character is suffering, am I suffering?

Who knows how an all knowing, all powerful, eternal God would feel about our suffering for an infinitely small slice of time before our eternal afterlife?

I certainly don't think we can reason about it with any certainty to the point where we could say with confidence that God cannot exist due to some deviation from what we expect.

K4t

haveringchick wrote: »

It seems that hope springs eternal within the atheists hearts that they will somehow succeed in disproving the existence of God. .

Ah see, I do not hope to succeed in disproving the existence of God as I know that is impossible. I do however hope to convince others that there is a way to live and be just as happy and good without believing in the existence of a God or a Teapot or a Devil or a Talking Poo that lives in the clouds and all that entails.


But most of all I simply want to succeed in achieving a situation whereby God has no influence over our laws or over my own life. It's hardly too much to ask.

Grayson

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm not sure that's true. If a being is both infinitely loving and infinitely hating, who knows how that would manifest itself?

Besides, one of the most important parts of the Bible God is that we have eternity in the afterlife, right? So however many years we spend on Earth before we die is *infinitely* small compared to eternity. Maybe none of this life really matters. If I'm playing a video game and my character is suffering, am I suffering?

Who knows how an all knowing, all powerful, eternal God would feel about our suffering for an infinitely small slice of time before our eternal afterlife?

I certainly don't think we can reason about it with any certainty to the point where we could say with confidence that God cannot exist due to some deviation from what we expect.

I'm not using any of that to say if God does/doesn't exist. My whole post was about the attributes of God. Is God evil/good. I don't personally believe in God but i was working off the assumption that God did exist. And my point was that If God did exist, then he's a bit of a dick.

that's what Fry was saying. He was asked "What if God does exist"? His answer was that if God does exist, then he's not worthy of my worship.

danrua01

You know we're all just sitting on turtles...

aidan24326

UCDVet wrote: »

Yes - so anyone presenting an argument disproving God is presenting a meaningless argument. Which is why I felt the need to disagree.

Who presented such an argument? Not Stephen Fry anyway. Did you even watch the clip this thread was based on?

The point is that if there is a God, it clearly isn't a loving and benevolent God of the type that we're asked to believe in by the major organised religions. The presence of evil and suffering and misery doesn't disprove God no, it does however say a thing or two about whether we should be worshipping such a God. Man created God in our image. That's the bit that religion got backwards.

seamus

UCDVet wrote: »

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

Actually, it does:


1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

It's a classical philosophical issue that's older than most religions but most religions choose to pretend it doesn't exist. Actually Judaism is probably the most honest of the Abrahamic religions, because they at least acknowledge that God is vicious, amoral and possessive.

"Free will" and "Genesis" are not answers here because "God" is not bound by any rules.

Ghost Buster

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.

I get that.
But few folk with a brain think its possible to 'disprove' any Gods existance. Its just that theres bugger all reason to believe in any.:)

UCDVet

K4t wrote: »

Would you like to live in a world where a most of the world believe that a teapot orbits the sun in space? Would you like if laws were made based on that teapot's imagined beliefs? Would you like that governments are lobbied and influenced by that teapot's imagined beliefs? Because that is what you are saying is "totally fine".

You're free to offer up your own belief or to explain why a teapot orbiting the sun is nonsense. And the people who believe are free to either listen, or remain wilfully ignorant.

I'm a big believer in freedom. You're free to make your point against the teapot - to protest laws based on the teapot. You're free to lobby governments too. And, survival of the fittest and all, the best beliefs will win out, given enough time.

I really wouldn't have any problem with a teapot-based government, if it is the will of the Irish people that this teapot thing is so important. If I disagree with it, I'd protest the pro-teapot movement, until it was no longer appropriate. Then I'd either accept the new status-quo, fight against it, or move on to a more sane country.

UCDVet

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I get that.
But few folk with a brain think its possible to 'disprove' any Gods existance. Its just that theres bugger all reason to believe in any.:)

Oh yeah - agreed 1000%

Grayson

haveringchick wrote: »

The threads and some of yhe posters are as repetitive and predictable as the sunrise. Eventually the thread burns itself out and another starts. It seems that hope springs eternal within the atheists hearts that they will somehow succeed in disproving the existence of God. It must be exhausting and how they maintain such enthusiasm for thinking about and describing something they claim doesn't exist is aastonishing. But you will find the same posters on any thread which has even the remotest potential for them to have a go at faith or belief in a higher power. And repeating themselves over and over to no avail. Must get very frustrating.

See, you think it's amazing that an athiest can talk about something that they don't believe exists. I find it amazing that people can go through their lives believing that a fairytale does exist. Imagine if you met someone who thought that every fairytale they'd heard as a child was actually real?
Isn't it bizarre that so much importance is placed in what some desert tribesmen said 3000 years ago?

And btw, this is a discussion board. If you want to contribute to an argument then work away, but it's not nice to just appear and take swipes at a load of people. Come on. Join in. You'll notice that most people are actually quite civilised. there's no swearing. It's actually far more polite than something like a water charges thread.

Ghost Buster

danrua01 wrote: »

You know we're all just sitting on turtles...

all the way down

UCDVet

aidan24326 wrote: »

Who presented such an argument? Not Stephen Fry anyway. Did you even watch the clip this thread was based on?

The point is that if there is a God, it clearly isn't a loving and benevolent God of the type that we're asked to believe in by the major organised religions. The presence of evil and suffering and misery doesn't disprove God no, it does however say a thing or two about whether we should be worshipping such a God. Man created God in our image. That's the bit that religion got backwards.

The person I originally quoted and responded too in this thread. I dunno, it was a few pages back. No, Stephen Fry didn't.

Grayson

seamus wrote: »

Actually, it does:


1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

It's a classical philosophical issue that's older than most religions but most religions choose to pretend it doesn't exist. Actually Judaism is probably the most honest of the Abrahamic religions, because they at least acknowledge that God is vicious, amoral and possessive.

"Free will" and "Genesis" are not answers here because "God" is not bound by any rules.

Zoroastrians believed in God and the devil. but they believed that they were equally powerful. They're two aspects of the universe and were constantly battling. That kind of religion accounts for evil being in the world.

Editing to add the following.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Principal_beliefs

Creation of the universe
According to the Zoroastrian story of creation, Ahura Mazda existed in light in goodness above, while Angra Mainyu existed in darkness and ignorance below. They have existed independently of each other for all time, and manifest contrary substances. Ahura Mazda first created seven abstract heavenly beings called Amesha Spentas, who support him and represent beneficent aspects, along with numerous yazads, lesser beings worthy of worship. He then created the universe itself in order to ensnare evil. Ahura Mazda created the floating, egg-shaped universe in two parts: first the spiritual (menog) and 3,000 years later, the physical (getig). Ahura Mazda then created Gayomard, the archetypical perfect man, and the first bull.[53]

While Ahura Mazda created the universe and humankind, Angra Mainyu, whose instinct is to destroy, miscreated demons, evil yazads, and noxious creatures (khrafstar) such as snakes, ants, and flies. Angra Mainyu created an opposite, evil being for each good being, except for humans, which he found he could not match. Angra Mainyu invaded the universe through the base of the sky, inflicting Gayomard and the bull with suffering and death. However, the evil forces were trapped in the universe and could not retreat. The dying primordial man and bull emitted seeds. From the bull's seed grew all beneficial plants and animals of the world, and from the man's seed grew a plant whose leaves became the first human couple. Humans thus struggle in a two-fold universe trapped with evil. The evils of this physical world are not products of an inherent weakness, but are the fault of Angra Mainyu's assault on creation. This assault turned the perfectly flat, peaceful, and ever day-lit world into a mountainous, violent place that is half night.[53]

UCDVet

seamus wrote: »

Actually, it does:


1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

It's a classical philosophical issue that's older than most religions but most religions choose to pretend it doesn't exist. Actually Judaism is probably the most honest of the Abrahamic religions, because they at least acknowledge that God is vicious, amoral and possessive.

"Free will" and "Genesis" are not answers here because "God" is not bound by any rules.

That's applying our limited human understanding of morality to a supreme being. I'm not convinced that makes any sense. Beyond which, even accepting your premise....this would only disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect God. It doesn't preclude any of the endless alternatives. God could be powerful enough to create our universe and us....but not omniscient in the sense that we think it. Maybe God has other things going on too, and God's busy? Maybe God just doesn't care. Maybe our understanding of morality is wrong? Maybe God doesn't consider suffering in this life to mean anything - after all, how long is a lifetime on Earth compared to an eternity in Heaven? It's infinitely small, meaningless on the time-scale of eternity.

Beyond that, I don't accept that 'Free will'' and 'Genesis' are not answers, just because you say God is not bound by any rules. Maybe God is playful chap....have you ever seen a child - not bound by any rules - invent rules? Just for fun? 'THE FLOOR IS LAVA! YOU CANNOT WALK ON IT'. Who knows.

All your argument is proving is that there isn't a God that does things exactly how you think God would. And that's a totally fine. I agree with you 100% - but that doesn't mean a God that does things differently than you think God would doesn't exist.

K4t

UCDVet wrote: »

You're free to offer up your own belief or to explain why a teapot orbiting the sun is nonsense. And the people who believe are free to either listen, or remain wilfully ignorant.

I'm a big believer in freedom. You're free to make your point against the teapot - to protest laws based on the teapot. You're free to lobby governments too. And, survival of the fittest and all, the best beliefs will win out, given enough time.

I really wouldn't have any problem with a teapot-based government, if it is the will of the Irish people that this teapot thing is so important. If I disagree with it, I'd protest the pro-teapot movement, until it was no longer appropriate. Then I'd either accept the new status-quo, fight against it, or move on to a more sane country.

As I'm also a believer in freedom I of course cannot disagree with that. However I do think it is unfair that a law such as blasphemy exists in our constitution which by its very definition denies the freedom you and I so cherish. And I also think the belief in the tea pot or the god encourages dangerous and backward thinking as well as doublethink but that of course can be challenged with reasoning and rational thinking so long as we are free to do so.

seamus

That's a sidestep as much as anything. In Zoroastrianism the devil still exists despite Godly omnipotence.

The existence of evil disproves the existence of a "good" God, it doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of all Gods, since the permutations are infinite.

In any case, the thrust of Fry's argument is the same - why would I worship or even tolerate a being of infinite power which allowed evil to exist? So whether one actually exists or not will not impact how I live my life.

aidan24326

UCDVet wrote: »

The person I originally quoted and responded too in this thread. I dunno, it was a few pages back. No, Stephen Fry didn't.

Oh ok, apologies, I thought you meant Stephen Fry had.

Whether there's some super-entity beyond our level of understanding that created the universe is a question we may never have the answer to.

We can however say a thing or two about the likeliness of the Biblical God existing.

UCDVet

aidan24326 wrote: »

Oh ok, apologies, I thought you meant Stephen Fry had.

Whether there's some super-entity beyond our level of understanding that created the universe is a question we may never have the answer to.

We can however say a thing or two about the likeliness of the Biblical God existing.

Not a problem. I could probably do a better job of making myself clear

K4t

seamus wrote: »

In any case, the thrust of Fry's argument is the same - why would I worship or even tolerate a being of infinite power which allowed evil to exist? So whether one actually exists or not will not impact how I live my life.

The problem is with extremism. Religious extremists would happily enforce through laws their beliefs in their god upon the rest of us. And a lot of leftist moderates would happily let them by imposing restrictions and limits on speech and other freedoms to seem tolerant of religion. So it is in fact the moderates who are the real problem.

RobertKK

AryaStark wrote: »

It is people who believe in god that make any real advances in medical science impossible i.e banning stem cell research and crying about people playing at being god.

Sorry but people who believe in God are not against stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research yes, but not stem cell research. We can now take stem cells from adults and use them and in the US a majority of the funding is in adult stem cells which doesn't carry the controversy but more benefits. It was discussed on the TED radio hour that we can currently take stem cells from our bones and grow bone in a lab, and in the next few decades we will be able to grow organs in a lab to replace existing organs using our own stem cells.

Religious people have advanced science including medical science throughout history. To say they made it impossible would not be the truth.

AryaStark

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry but people who believe in God are not against stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research yes, but not stem cell research. We can now take stem cells from adults and use them and in the US a majority of the funding is in adult stem cells which doesn't carry the controversy but more benefits. It was discussed on the TED radio hour that we can currently take stem cells from our bones and grow bone in a lab, and in the next few decades we will be able to grow organs in a lab to replace existing organs using our own stem cells.

Religious people have advanced science including medical science throughout history. To say they made it impossible would not be the truth.

Sorry I ment to say Embryonic stem cell research and I stand by what I said. If it had not been banned things would be a lot more advanced by now.

Panrich

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Oh really? I guess...
- "religious nuts" created the nuclear bomb in the 1940's
- Hiter wasn't really an athiest.* God told him to kill millions of Jews?
- North Korea isnt currently an athiest nation where religion is 'discouraged' - Nah, they are blinded by religion to hold people down?

Look man, the world wouldnt be a better place without Religion. There would still be evil men. Sure even those who kill in the 'name' of their god (ahem, extreme muslims) would just be killing in the name of their country... or what ever they choose to hide behind.

* Citation needed.

Grayson

AryaStark wrote: »

Sorry I ment to say Embryonic stem cell research and I stand by what I said. If it had not been banned things would be a lot more advanced by now.

Christians don't. A lot of muslims think it's ok. It's a strange bit where very religious muslims are actually ok with it. There's strangely enough a hadith which is relevant.

haveringchick

K4t wrote: »

Ah see, I do not hope to succeed in disproving the existence of God as I know that is impossible. I do however hope to convince others that there is a way to live and be just as happy and good without believing in the existence of a God or a Teapot or a Devil or a Talking Poo that lives in the clouds and all that entails.


But most of all I simply want to succeed in achieving a situation whereby God has no influence over our laws or over my own life. It's hardly too much to ask.

But if your neighbor who believes in the flying teapot, loves the flying teapot, trusts the flying teapot and is grateful to the flying teapot, if he appears to be happy, well adjusted , peaceful and contented, then. Why oh why cannot you who have no truck with yhe flying teapot just leave him yo it? Whst harm is he doing you?

Grayson

Panrich wrote: »

* Citation needed.

he was a bit all over the place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

K4t

RobertKK wrote: »

Religious people have advanced science including medical science throughout history. To say they made it impossible would not be the truth.

Of course they have but every time they do advance science they are also holding back humanity at the same time, by engaging in the perpetuation of faith through intellectual contradiction (i.e. to think scientifically about the rest of your life, but to leave your enquiring, rationalist self at the door of the church) Now you might say what is wrong with that? It's their choice! Yes, but it gives the "real believers" and the "extremists" intellectual cover. And what's wrong with that? It's their choice! Nothing immediate, but when the "real believers" go to lobby governments and attempt to influence laws, the governments often listen, they give in. Just like the religious scientists. Really, as I said already, it's the moderates who are the greatest threat. (i.e. liberal apologists). You only have to look at Cameron's support of faith schools in Britain to see this and blasphemy law in Ireland.

K4t

haveringchick wrote: »

But if your neighbor who believes in the flying teapot, loves the flying teapot, trusts the flying teapot and is grateful to the flying teapot, if he appears to be happy, well adjusted , peaceful and contented, then. Why oh why cannot you who have no truck with yhe flying teapot just leave him yo it? Whst harm is he doing you?

Stop for a moment, forget that this thread is about religion or god, read what you have typed and try to tell me it is rational, logical thinking.

If we just ignored everything we disagreed with and gave up on reason and critical thinking we would be in a much worse place than we are right now. Of course I will not force my neighbour to give up his beliefs but don't ever tell me I am doing some kind of wrong or there is no point trying to engage in rational discussion with that person. Discourse is never wrong.

shruikan2553

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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

You took your time. Busy today?

Sadly we dont get virgins or eternal paradise so we'll have to settle for medals.

seamus

haveringchick wrote: »

But if your neighbor who believes in the flying teapot, loves the flying teapot, trusts the flying teapot and is grateful to the flying teapot, if he appears to be happy, well adjusted , peaceful and contented, then. Why oh why cannot you who have no truck with yhe flying teapot just leave him yo it? Whst harm is he doing you?

But that's not the argument.

The problem is that his neighbour is a member of the local flying teapot club who regularly speak with politicians and school officials in an attempt to have schools and the country follow the way of the teapot, as well as appearing on national talk shows to give their opinion on important matters from the point of view of a teapot.

If the teapot lovers didn't spend so much time going on about their teapot and trying to inject the teapot into other peoples' business, nobody would have any reason to point out to them why their beliefs are so utterly bat**** insane and their teapot is a figment of their imagination.

It's boils down to this:

"OK, so we need to legislate for this"
"Well, my teapot tells me that we should take this approach"
"Will you STFU about your stupid teapot, man?"
"Hey hey, I'm entitled to my beliefs!"

RobertKK

AryaStark wrote: »

Sorry I ment to say Embryonic stem cell research and I stand by what I said. If it had not been banned things would be a lot more advanced by now.

But it would not have offered the chance to use our own stem cells to repair ourselves, when we get to the stage we can grow our own organs in a lab for transplant, it will show how embryonic stem cell research was not the correct path, given one's own body will not reject it's own organ.
I do invest in biotech including companies that use stem cells. Embryonic stem cells is not the future.

http://www.globalchange.com/stemcells2.htm

Stem cell investment, research effort, and treatment focus is moving rapidly away from embryonic stem cells (ethical and technical challenges) to adult stem cells which are turning out to be far easier to convert into different tissues than we thought.

Adult stem cells better than embryonic stem cells in terms of controlling the stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are also hard to control, and hard to grow in a reliable way. They have "minds" of their own, and embryonic stem cells are often unstable, producing unexpected results as they divide, or even cancerous growths.

Until recently it was taught in all medical schools that cells in the embryo were multipotent - able to give rise to every tissue - but by birth, this capacity was permanently lost. That has been the reason why almost all research effort focused on embryonic stem cells until just a few years ago.
However a moment's thought tells us how illogical such a view was, and indeed we are now finding that many cells in children and adults have extraordinary capacity to generate or stimulate growth of a wide variety of tissues, if encouraged in the right way.
Take for example the work of Professor Jonathan Slack at Bath University who has shown how adult human liver cells can be transformed relatively easily into insulin producing cells such as those found in the pancreas, or the work of others using bone marrow cells to repair brain and spinal cord injuries in mice and rats, and now doing the same to repair heart muscle in humans.

So arguing for embryonic stem cell research was wrong even if one ignored the ethical arguments given there is a better way with adult stem cells.

RobertKK

K4t wrote: »

Of course they have but every time they do advance science they are also holding back humanity at the same time, by engaging in the perpetuation of faith through intellectual contradiction (i.e. to think scientifically about the rest of your life, but to leave your enquiring, rationalist self at the door of the church) Now you might say what is wrong with that? It's their choice! Yes, but it gives the "real believers" and the "extremists" intellectual cover. And what's wrong with that? It's their choice! Nothing immediate, but when the "real believers" go to lobby governments and attempt to influence laws, the governments often listen, they give in. Just like the religious scientists. Really, as I said already, it's the moderates who are the greatest threat. (i.e. liberal apologists). You only have to look at Cameron's support of faith schools in Britain to see this and blasphemy law in Ireland.

Yet Catholic schools are seen as being the best schools in some parts of the UK, should they not be allowed for something inferior but not faith related?
Tell me who was the last person charged and sentenced under any blasphemy law here? People make a fuss about it as if it was something used.

K4t

Tell me who was the last person charged and sentenced under any blasphemy law here? People make a fuss about it as if it was something used.

You've just proved my point with regards the blasphemy law. It has worked to perfection, people have had to be careful with what they say about religion and be "responsible" in their speech and expression when it comes to religion and god aka the flying tea pot. A recent example of this is Dr Selim's threats of using the law in the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo.

RobertKK

K4t wrote: »

You've just proved my point with regards the blasphemy law. It has worked to perfection, people have had to be careful with what they say about religion and be "responsible" in their speech and expression when it comes to religion and god aka the flying tea pot. A recent example of this is Dr Selim's threats of using the law in the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo.

Really?

Have you not read posts on this site that could be regarded as blasphemous?

I don't see anyone here afraid to post their opinion.

K4t

RobertKK wrote: »

Have you not read posts on this site that could be regarded as blasphemous?

Fortunately I have.

I don't see anyone here afraid to post their opinion.

Some are as there is a blasphemy law written into our constitution.


You can read all the posts you like that you consider blasphemous but you cannot read the mind of anyone. As long as there is a blasphemy law, there is potentially someone afraid of voicing their opinion or expressing their views on god or religion. That is a crime against humanity.

The_Valeyard

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You took your time. Busy today?

Sadly we dont get virgins or eternal paradise so we'll have to settle for medals.

Saturday matches. You know yourself. Who would want virgins anyhow, messy.

haveringchick

K4t wrote: »

Stop for a moment, forget that this thread is about religion or god, read what you have typed and try to tell me it is rational, logical thinking.

If we just ignored everything we disagreed with and gave up on reason and critical thinking we would be in a much worse place than we are right now. Of course I will not force my neighbour to give up his beliefs but don't ever tell me I am doing some kind of wrong or there is no point trying to engage in rational discussion with that person. Discourse is never wrong.

Sorry but im one of the mmost rational logical pragmatic and practical people you will ever meet but for the life of me I will never understand why you feel the need to impress your opinion of his belief system on him. Would uou feel similarly compelled to try and change his mind about his flower beds or his child rearing policy?

RobertKK

K4t wrote: »

Fortunately I have.

Some are as there is a blasphemy law written into our constitution.


You can read all the posts you like that you consider blasphemous but you cannot read the mind of anyone. As long as there is a blasphemy law, there is potentially someone afraid of voicing their opinion or expressing their views on god or religion. That is a crime against humanity.

Here is a definition of blasphemy: is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, to religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

Do you think it is 'fortunate' that people feel the need to insult others or what they believe?
One could argue it was this kind of contempt that was used in Germany before WW2 that allowed the horrors of the holocaust.
There was certainly no blasphemy law to protect Jews.
Western countries with blasphemy laws - Ireland, Australia, Germany, Austria, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Norway Switzerland. Then other countries have laws that are against hate towards religion that would cause social trouble.

I think the problem is and you see it here and elsewhere, there is a lack of tolerance towards religion or religious people, and the people with these lack of tolerance views towards religion expect tolerance and which they deserve towards their non beliefs.

shruikan2553

RobertKK wrote: »

Here is a definition of blasphemy: is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, to religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

Do you think it is 'fortunate' that people feel the need to insult others or what they believe?
One could argue it was this kind of contempt that was used in Germany before WW2 that allowed the horrors of the holocaust.
There was certainly no blasphemy law to protect Jews.
Western countries with blasphemy laws - Ireland, Australia, Germany, Austria, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Norway Switzerland. Then other countries have laws that are against hate towards religion that would cause social trouble.

I think the problem is and you see it here and elsewhere, there is a lack of tolerance towards religion or religious people, and the people with these lack of tolerance views towards religion expect tolerance and which they deserve towards their non beliefs.

Incitement to hatred laws would cover that. Religious beliefs dont need anymore protection than any other belief.

Any lack of tolerance towards religion tends to be from when a religion starts poking its nose into the lives of those outside of their club.

threeball

RobertKK wrote: »

Here is a definition of blasphemy: is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, to religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

Do you think it is 'fortunate' that people feel the need to insult others or what they believe?
One could argue it was this kind of contempt that was used in Germany before WW2 that allowed the horrors of the holocaust.
There was certainly no blasphemy law to protect Jews.
Western countries with blasphemy laws - Ireland, Australia, Germany, Austria, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Norway Switzerland. Then other countries have laws that are against hate towards religion that would cause social trouble.

I think the problem is and you see it here and elsewhere, there is a lack of tolerance towards religion or religious people, and the people with these lack of tolerance views towards religion expect tolerance and which they deserve towards their non beliefs.

I would see it the other way round. It is religion that has had and still has a lack of tolerance towards people who don't believe or have no interest. Everything from inquisitions to crusades, to persecution of scientists who dared question the religions view of the world, most of which resulted in people being murdered and tortured to enforce said religions belief. Its still happening today.

Adamantium

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

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?

I'm not religious but I've found religious people far open and frank to have a conversation about the unknowable, it's the height of ego and arrogance to think we have all the answers.

To tell you the truth it's so rare to have these deep conversations nowadays that are anything beyond work based canteen talk, that when they happen I think "Now why doesn't this happen more often", why does it always have to be what was on TV, football, lowest common denominator stuff. It's the mechanistic total lack of appreciation or even curiosity that younger people have for the big questions. (And people always say that young people are the most curious, I have found among my peers to the exact opposite)

We say we aren't religious but we make religions all the time out of everything. We can't help it for whatever reason Consumerism, technology, sports teams, franchise films, our habits, our opinions, drink, drugs. We just replaced one with another IMO, Are we that much happier really?

We'll always be searching, for that is the price you pay for being human, and all the possibility that goes along with it.

I heard my grandfather years ago say "Every generation finds God in its own way"

So we better we better be sure we're not inadvertingly worshipping the wrong ones

NotASheeple

Who knows what's after all of this, but lets say there definitely is something. Then Earth must surely be the realm of Satan.