Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

SaveOurLyric

catallus wrote: »

His show on Lyric is the best thing in the world.

Mmmmmm. Sarcasm ?

If Fry were familiar with it he probably would have cited it as another reason why god is a despicable character. 'Why god, why ? Why would you, all powerful and loving, destroy something that was once good and on the side of the angels? You are simply too cruel'.

Baggy Trousers

Well done RTE, great interview with a fascinating and highly intelligent man.

sonofenoch

cloud493 wrote: »

http://i.imgur.com/0FEOiUz.gif

Made me laugh anyway.

He looks like some random persons nan when eastenders has been switched off early

Mountainsandh

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I so agree and it's nice to see your post get so much thanks.

There's just something so self-regarding and smug about him. (slyly self-regarding, he does the whole self-deprecation thing on the surface) He's also quite the attention seeker.

It's nauseating how deified he is both here and in the UK. I don't completely dislike him, but don't get what the big deal is either.

I think if you don't like the accent and turn of phrase, it's easy to misjudge people like him. Just like it's easy to misjudge someone with a rough accent and a certain type of vocabulary.

And of course we have to bear in mind that the very purpose of most of his TV appearances nowadays is to talk about himself. Like a lot of great thinkers, he is expressing his opinion, commenting on the world according to him (which is exactly why he is asked to appear on shows), not just describing the world.

I don't think there is a cult about him, simply people who enjoy listening to him, and recognize a great thinker when they hear one.

Mountainsandh

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Well done RTE, great interview with a fascinating and highly intelligent man.

I have to say, I'm rethinking my comment that he "owned Gay". I don't like Gay , I've had my fill of his patronizing conservative attitude back from the time of the Late Late, I tried listening to Lyric once or twice and he drove me mad ; but I have to say, he conducted the interview well, and despite his pantomime expressions, let his guest lead the way.

floggg

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.

I would be very much opposed to a tea-pot based government, for the same reasons I would be opposed to a christian or islamic government.

I believe in freedom of religion, partly because I believe each person should be free to choose their own believes, but most importantly because i both believe in and need the protection of freedom FROM religion.

Tarzana2

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I think if you don't like the accent and turn of phrase, it's easy to misjudge people like him.

Nah, that's not why I dislike him, give me some credit please. And, with respect, I think it's the "accent and turn of phrase" that has so many people fawning over him. You even said yourself that he could talk rubbish and you'd still enjoy it.

I don't think I put him in the pantheon of great thinkers either, TBH. He is clearly curious and has encyclopaedic knowledge of many things, but reading and retaining information isn't creating knowledge or bringing anything new.

There absolutely is a cult surrounding him.

Dan_Solo

feargale wrote: »

Just say it with respect and sensitivity. Snide comments about people sneaking home from mass reflects more on the immaturity of the remarks than on the massgoers. I'll reel it in when the pollock gets the message.

Since, as I was saying, nobody has suggested doing this, why are you insisting on continuing to use it as an example of those awful down your neck type atheists? You know, the ones the bible bashers can't seem to actually identify unless they lie through the teeth about them?

StudentDad

Schrodingers teapot? :P

Frito

StudentDad wrote: »

Schrodingers teapot? :P

You'd never get a cat inside a teapot.

Mountainsandh

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Nah, that's not why I dislike him, give me some credit please. And, with respect, I think it's the "accent and turn of phrase" that has so many people fawning over him. You even said yourself that he could talk rubbish and you'd still enjoy it.

I don't think I put him in the pantheon of great thinkers either, TBH. He is clearly curious and has encyclopaedic knowledge of many things, but reading and retaining information isn't creating knowledge or bringing anything new.

There absolutely is a cult surrounding him.

We'll agree to disagree then, because I disagree on just about everything in your post, but don't see the point in ... pressing my point, for you to in return press your point ad infinitam...

edit : just not one of those "boards" night for me.

suicide_circus

http://southorangecounty.petsitpros.com/files/2014/08/tea-pot-cat.jpg

Frito wrote: »

You'd never get a cat inside a teapot.

shruikan2553

feargale wrote: »

I read and quoted your post in full.



No problem about Mr. Fry answering a question or volunteering an opinion. Why don't you read your post again, in particular the part I highlighted. You seem to have a problem about people minding their own business going to mass, a problem incidentally that you share with the likes of the late Mr. Paisley and a number of American fundamentalists. Tolerance, dialogue and debate are on the wane in the western world, and not least in A&A.

Im going to help you out here, what I said is called sarcasm. I never said I had a problem with people minding their own business, you are just making stuff up. Im not sure what the aviation forum has to do with this, I have read some very informative and interesting threads there, they are quite helpful and even have a thread where you can ask pilots questions.

were probably having to sneak home from mass to prevent them being attacked by the roving gangs of atheists.

I can assure you that there are no roving gangs of atheists. People do not need to sneak home from mass in case they are found by these non existent groups. If you see a group attacking someone I recommend contacting your local garda station or 999.

hotmail.com

I'm not sure Gaybo was surprised at what Fry said...I think he was in awe at the excellence of his answer.

AryaStark

conorh91 wrote: »

He's an agnostic isn't he? Certainly on the skeptical spectrum of agnosticism, but I doubt he'd describe himself as an atheist.

I'm probably wrong though.

I don't really follow his gameshow.

No he is definitely an atheist and defends his position a lot. He is a great speaker for atheists. I love this debate ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpK8ji1tADg

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

A similar defence was tried by the Irish State in the Norris case, and was rejected by the ECHR. It was found that even if nobody had been prosecuted under it for a number of years, the mere fact that the law was in place left a threat hanging over them which was a violation of (privacy) rights in of itself.

Similarly, the mere fact that the blasphemy law exists means people have to keep it in the back of their minds, which may restrain them in what they may say or do (if even subconsciously).

AngryHippie

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

I 100% disagree with this.

It must not be wiped out, it must be preserved as a warning to those who come after. A warning as to the dangers of blind faith, submission and servility.

Aside from the fact that it is designed fundamentally to be impossible to wipe out. The harder you try, the more radical the remaining "Believers" are.

Better to gradually isolate them from positions of power and influence, relentlessly challenge their beliefs and actions. eventually you will find that the rational have all abandoned ship, and the ones left are just the raving nutters.

Woodville56

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm not sure Gaybo was surprised at what Fry said...I think he was in awe at the excellence of his answer.

Gay Byrne is no theologian so the excellence of Fry's answer must be seen against him pushing an open door unchallenged. He's been hawking this anti religion thing about for quite some time now and being an actor, he puts in a well polished performance - helps keep his media profile up too I suppose. If he's so angry and aghast at a deity who permits suffering and disasters to befall people, I'd love to know what his rationale is for when bad things happen good people ? If he doesn't believe in the existence of a vengeful God, how does he explain suffering in his atheistIc mindset? Seems to me his logic would be something along the lines of "ah well, sometimes sh*t happens "

Melisandre121

This interview was the first time I had ever heard the word "capricious" and I'm now trying to fit it into as many sentences as I can. In fact many of you Boardsies are quite capricious.

Tarzana2

Melisandre121 wrote: »

This interview was the first time I had ever heard the word "capricious" and I'm now trying to fit it into as many sentences as I can.

I love that word, it's very useful. I knew it before Stephen Fry said it though.

feargale

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Since, as I was saying, nobody has suggested doing this, why are you insisting on continuing to use it as an example of those awful down your neck type atheists? You know, the ones the bible bashers can't seem to actually identify unless they lie through the teeth about them?

shruikan2553 wrote: »

eh, not as many as usual. I think they were able to direct their annoyance at a person this time. Took awhile for them to turn up, were probably having to sneak home from mass to prevent them being attacked by the roving gangs of atheists.

Who told you I believe in the Bible?

Littlekittylou

It's interesting to see Stephen Fry talking about his atheism as opposed to Dalkins. I prefer his approach. It's more seductive.

I do my own thing spiritually.

I wish he'd taken a different approach than using the same old argument that ten year olds use to get out of going to mass. He's not wrong, it's just a bit ranty compared to what he's capable of.

Bobking

Deleted User wrote: »

I wish he'd taken a different approach than using the same old argument that ten year olds use to get out of going to mass. He's not wrong, it's just a bit ranty compared to what he's capable of.

I agree, he didn't explain well enough to Gay that science is not a doctrine but a natural approach and one of constant self doubt. I think the problem was Gay approached almost every question from a religious or even a stauchly catholic perspective and could simply not even conceive some of the ideas Steven was presenting. This also led to a interview on the meaning of religion in life instead of just the mean of life which they touched on. Steven seemed to be loosing his patience with this direction at times.

Maybe it's just that it's around 10 years old that you figure out its all a way of looking at things and not how things are and that others may look at things differently, and that the easiest way to explain that notion is to say it's just a story.

And if you don't you just wear them glasses for life or till they break one day and your life falls apart as your reality distorts beyond belief.

Personally I enjoy not believing in an afterlife as others cannot imagine. I got a bit lost when he said that if you know what you want to be in life that becomes your punishment, and if you dont know what you want to be that is your reward.
I find it hard to see the reward myself but I'm interested if anyone else had any thoughts on this part ?

floggg

conorh91 wrote: »

Well that's reasonable in its own way. If God represents perfect virtue, it would appear sensible to conclude that He is responsible for inculcating the human condition with virtious traits which in turn give rise to virtuous acts, and not evil traits and evil acts.

Free will is free will. The good outcomes of free will derive from God; the adverse outcomes ultimately derive from man supplanting original justice.

Well, so the teaching goes.

BS. Who is that is supposed to have made us as we are?

If an all powerful all knowing being makes us (in his image apparently) as flawed creatures capable of great evil, then he cannot fault or punish us when we commit evil. We are only acting in the way he intended (and which he presumably foresaw if he is all seeing).

And that also fails to explain the evil and suffering caused by non-human factors, such as the insects referred to by Fry, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, tsunamis etc.

Nor does it get him off the hook for his own genocides. Are you saying all Egyptian first borns were bad people? Or everybody killed by the flood.

If god exists, he's a prick. I'm thankful he doesn't though.

Dan_Solo

Melisandre121 wrote: »

This interview was the first time I had ever heard the word "capricious" and I'm now trying to fit it into as many sentences as I can. In fact many of you Boardsies are quite capricious.

In the old days we had Caprice so it was obvious.

floggg

billyhead wrote: »

Well if they are Catgolics and act upon what they preach i.e 10 commandments surely it keeps them on the straight and narrow.

I really hate the argument that being christian or religious makes people better or somehow more virtuous.

For me, its often the opposite way in practice.

Firstly, because there are many "devout" christians tend to be the most judgmental, bitter people who tend to define their own righteousness by how vehemently they condemn people who don't conform to their religions rules - and usually only the negative rules, such as no abortion, homosexuality, children out of wedlock, etc. People like Youth Defence and Coir in Ireland, and the religious right in the US.

They tend not to place much value on the rules which call for them to be kind, virtuous, forgiving and to refrain from judging others however.

(I said many, not all christians. They less devout often ignore the rules on sex etc but focus more on the be nice bits)


Secondly however, I think people who take their morals solely from religion don't always believe in doing good for good's own sake, but simply out of fear of gods punishment or desire to be rewarded in the after life.

Atheists who try to live their live morally however do so simply because the see it as the right way to live and because of their respect from their fellow man. We don't expect to see any reward for our behaviour in the after life, and we know that our kindness and good will will often not be rewarded in the here and now either. But we do it simply because thats how we wish to live our lives.

I'm not trying to argue atheists are better people, but I think our motives for doing good can be described as less selfish.

justback83

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I love that word, it's very useful. I knew it before Stephen Fry said it though.

Ha!! My PhD supervisor used this word for a particular chemical reaction I was carrying out - "you could stand on one leg on a Monday and get a 90% yield then a different leg on a Tuesday and get a 2% yield"

Baggy Trousers

AngryHippie wrote: »

I 100% disagree with this.

It must not be wiped out, it must be preserved as a warning to those who come after. A warning as to the dangers of blind faith, submission and servility.

Aside from the fact that it is designed fundamentally to be impossible to wipe out. The harder you try, the more radical the remaining "Believers" are.

Better to gradually isolate them from positions of power and influence, relentlessly challenge their beliefs and actions. eventually you will find that the rational have all abandoned ship, and the ones left are just the raving nutters.

Very interesting perspective. I agree, this is the way forward.

RobertKK

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I have to say, I'm rethinking my comment that he "owned Gay". I don't like Gay , I've had my fill of his patronizing conservative attitude back from the time of the Late Late, I tried listening to Lyric once or twice and he drove me mad ; but I have to say, he conducted the interview well, and despite his pantomime expressions, let his guest lead the way.

Conservative?

The repeat of the LLS was on during the day, not sure if recorded or just a replay by RTE but it was on during the daytime whatever the case...
Gay Byrne presenting and next things they were showing scenes from the good sex guide and lets just say it was not conservative when it came to showing frontal nudity.
The sort of thing every young person wants to watch with their parents.... :pac:

floggg

Mars Bar wrote: »

I've seen people say this a lot and they are all fúcking wrong.

Fry made his career in writing comedy and acting (and then presenting). Himself, Hugh and Emma Thompson made their fame through the cambridge footlights at the Edinburgh festival and they grew from there.
He just happens to have a lot to say. He knows he sounds posh and he acknowledges the fact that for some bizarre reason people take his opinion more seriously coz he is well spoken. He isn't famous solely BECAUSE he has a lot to say.

For those that do like him for his social commentary (and there are manner) it's not only how he says it, but more importantly what he actually has to say.

floggg

random1337 wrote: »

Never before has a tribe or race used 'multiculturalism' as a means of progressing forward.

Off the top of my head, I would say thr Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the USA all did pretty well for themselves through multiculturalism.

Sure, the first two mentioned collapsed, but all empires do eventually and their size and legacy compare pretty favourably with most other empires.

floggg

Grayson wrote: »

But a lot of it sounds like it was made up to justify other stuff. And it all makes sense if you live in a world where magic exists. And those jewish tribes did. Things like illnesses were caused by demons. Bad luck was divine intervention against you.

take the devil. The devil and hell are central parts of christian mythology. There's no mention of the devil until relatively late in jewish thought. It was about 600bc when he finally popped his head up.

the soul didn't even exist. The first person to say we had an immortal soul was pythagoras. It was co-opted in later because it fit with everything else.

The christian image of God and salvation came from St. Augustine of Hippo. He was previously a Zoroastrian. He also felt profound guilt over a love affair that went bad. A lot of the christian outlook on sex and guilt came from him.

The Christian church, along with it's dogma and doctrine, came from a lot of different sources. Some of it came from other religions and some came from the early founders of they church. And those guys had baggage of heir own that centuries of Christians got lumbered with.

I always thought it was history books, not science, which were the greatest argument against the abrahamic (or any) religion.

We know that the Jewish god started out as one of many gods, and I believe in the original Jewish version of the tale of Moses, god sent the plagues to Egypt to prove that he was more powerful than the Egyptian gods.

I believe he was also borrowed from or heavily influenced by a pre-existing Cannite god as well.

We also can trace various concepts within Christianity which were co-opted from other religions and beliefs.

So if you look back through religion in various different communities, you. Can deconstruct the narrative to see which parts were added by who and when, which undermines the whole idea this was a single coherent narrative.

Even the compete change in gods demeanour between the old and new testaments, from being a complete dick to being all warm and cuddly should tell you it's not a cohesive story.

Since when did the being responsible for multiple genocides suddenly become all about forgiveness?

floggg

RomanKnows wrote: »

I'm sure he is. It doesn't bother me. I'm not even the smartest person in my house at the moment.
I just find Fry to be tedious and self-regarding. He's a fat white man born into privelige. His views on religion, God and faith aren't remotely new or controversial. Being angry about God is as old as a belief in God itself. I don't need a hired dicky bow to reinforce my own beliefs - or the lack of them.

Yea, a fat white gay man born at a time when homosexual acts were criminal offences, and when lgbt people faced massive discrimination.

I'm sure he knows all about privilege.

floggg

Woodville56 wrote: »

Indeed ! Can't understand why programmers would think that this " personality"s views on organized religion is of any great relevance to us in the scheme of things or why TV license fees are wasted on "import personalities" for this type of show ? I'm sure we could come up with plenty of home grown believers and non believers for this programme whose views are just as (or even more) worthy than Mr Fry's pompous blatherings. Which begs the question where is the great demand for import tv personalities coming from - dont we have enough interesting people here to populate shows such as the Late Late Show etc rather than regurgitating "B" or "C" rated "celebs" from abroad ? I'm not being insular here nor am I having a go at Mr. Fry because of his sexuality or his atheistic views - I'm just asking the question who cares what he thinks or believes ? Are his opinions or rants what we want to be watching on prime time tax payer funded TV? I don't have strong pro or anti religious views, for me each to his own spirituality. As for Mr Fry, good luck to him with his beliefs or unbeliefs, but why do the powers that be in RTE feel he's worth an "extended" Meaning of Life - don't we have any articulate theist or athiest contributors at home to save us from this over hyped over indulgent rubbish ?

I care. That was the very first one of those meaning of life programmes I've ever seen, or ever want to see.

seamus

AngryHippie wrote: »

I 100% disagree with this.

It must not be wiped out, it must be preserved as a warning to those who come after. A warning as to the dangers of blind faith, submission and servility.

Aside from the fact that it is designed fundamentally to be impossible to wipe out. The harder you try, the more radical the remaining "Believers" are.

Better to gradually isolate them from positions of power and influence, relentlessly challenge their beliefs and actions. eventually you will find that the rational have all abandoned ship, and the ones left are just the raving nutters.

This is a great perspective, I like it.

I would hope that one day a public servant making a decision on the basis of religious belief rather than social good is considered as heinous and corrupt as taking a brown envelope or giving jobs to family & friends.

floggg

Woodville56 wrote: »

Gay Byrne is no theologian so the excellence of Fry's answer must be seen against him pushing an open door unchallenged. He's been hawking this anti religion thing about for quite some time now and being an actor, he puts in a well polished performance - helps keep his media profile up too I suppose. If he's so angry and aghast at a deity who permits suffering and disasters to befall people, I'd love to know what his rationale is for when bad things happen good people ? If he doesn't believe in the existence of a vengeful God, how does he explain suffering in his atheistIc mindset? Seems to me his logic would be something along the lines of "ah well, sometimes sh*t happens "

It is much easier to understand why bad things happen for an atheist. We know that man is a flawed creature, prone to anger, greed, carelessness etc.

We know the natural world operates under its own processes, many of which we now clearly understand.

We know why most diseases occur, how they can be prevented (it at all) and how they are spread.

In each case, it's a matter of examining the situation and reaching our conclusions from there.

We don't need to be provided with any neat explanation for the unknown or unfortunate - we prefer to examine the facts and gain our own understanding of what actually happens.

Loafing Oaf

Woodville56 wrote: »

I'm not being insular here nor am I having a go at Mr. Fry because of his sexuality or his atheistic views - I'm just asking the question who cares what he thinks or believes ? Are his opinions or rants what we want to be watching on prime time tax payer funded TV? I don't have strong pro or anti religious views, for me each to his own spirituality. As for Mr Fry, good luck to him with his beliefs or unbeliefs, but why do the powers that be in RTE feel he's worth an "extended" Meaning of Life - don't we have any articulate theist or athiest contributors at home to save us from this over hyped over indulgent rubbish ?

So the views of any non-Irish person on matters of religion and spirituality are by definition 'rubbish'? And those of (to take a few names of previous guests on the programme) Andrea Corr, Terry Wogan, Brendan O'Carroll and Sean Gallagher merit serious consideration? And you don't see yourself as insular?

listermint

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.

Ah the Hindsight book, written by tools to explain things they could not explain themselves....(after they occurred) like em Weather Patterns, Space, Gravity. You know alot of the stuff we can explain now via science.

lee_baby_simms

Melisandre121 wrote: »

This interview was the first time I had ever heard the word "capricious" and I'm now trying to fit it into as many sentences as I can. In fact many of you Boardsies are quite capricious.

My dinner last night was absolutely capricious.

catallus

The only capricious thing going on here is the insistence of the theophobes being wilfully blind to their redemption while revelling in their wretchedness!

MOD: take a week off for continually ignoring mod instruction.

seamus

catallus wrote: »

The only capricious thing going on here is the insistence of the theophobes being wilfully blind to their redemption while revelling in their wretchedness!

"Theophobes", ah bless.

Being afraid of God is like being afraid of the monsters under your bed.

Baggy Trousers

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

My dinner last night was absolutely capricious.

You should have your wife stoned!

noodler

"and..do you think you'll get in?"

made me laugh I have to say.

shruikan2553

feargale wrote: »

Who told you I believe in the Bible?

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.

Bobking

floggg wrote: »

We don't need to be provided with any neat explanation for the unknown or unfortunate - we prefer to examine the facts and gain our own understanding of what actually happens.

Excellent answer, all I could add is that we probably still dont understand as much as we think we do.

Getting away from the religion v atheism chat, that might be something of my meaning in life. To be aware of and learn as much as I can or desire about all around me. From the way furniture is designed and made to why a person might feel how they do or react differently to me.

I can see how Fry says that not having a meaning in life allows you a freedom to reinvent yoursef every day but in what ways. We all develop our own personal morals and decide which rules are strict and which are blurred, no killing, no abusing alcohol, except when you declare war, or on your 18th birthday, and if we look often enough we live within them, but to what end?

Ash.J.Williams

Says a lot about the general public with all the publicity this is getting...it's basically the same answer we would have given in primary school, only that would usually be followed with a weird explanation from the priest/teacher to why we were wrong.

Bobking

seamus wrote: »

"Theophobes", ah bless.

Being afraid of God is like being afraid of the monsters under your bed.

lmfao
His comment reminded me of Gay at the end saying "suppose what Oscar believed in as he died, despite your protestations". What a pointless way to interview. Fry had great patience that seamed on verge of collapse at times. The long exhale after each leading question makes me think of the effort it took. Is Gay Byrne one of Sinead O Connors nuns?

shruikan2553

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Says a lot about the general public with all the publicity this is getting...it's basically the same answer we would have given in primary school, only that would usually be followed with a weird explanation from the priest/teacher to why we were wrong.

The best explanation I've seen is it is our own fault and if we were good and did what god said none of it would happen. Still doesn't explain why god would do that but at least we know its our own fault.

Roger_007

noodler wrote: »

"and..do you think you'll get in?"

made me laugh I have to say.

Yeah, I laughed at that as well. Garbo was floored by Fry's argument. He was like a rabbit caught in the headlights and couldn't think of anything to say. So he came out with an utterly inane, stupid comment. He seemed not to understand that he was asking Fry if would get in to a place which Fry obviously believed did not exist. He might as well have ask him if he had spoken to any leprechauns recently!
Byrne simply does not have the intellect to probe the mind of someone like Stephen Fry.