TV host asks atheist Stephen Fry question about God, you have to watch what happens next

[Olde Europe]

I have never expected creation to be "God-like" and therefore I do not expect this world to be free of evil and suffering. I am not sure where people get the idea that God owes us beauty, brains, power, wealth, and a soft, comfortable life.

Nor do I blame humanity's poor choices on God. There is a popular classroom sign that sports, "No Whining." The perfect sign for just about anywhere.

I would suggest you read Fry's statement following the principle of charity, "considering its best, strongest possible interpretation." Doing that, it turns out it isn't about what you (or anyone else) expect the creation to be, or to what it is you feel entitled (or not), but what follows logically from the notion of an omni-benevolent, omnipotent supreme being (SB). This SB's actions logically cannot be evil, or entail evil. Once that is properly understood, you'll easily see that Fry's alleged expectations or sense of entitlement do not matter to the problem posed by the very existence of suffering or evil in the universe we inhabit.

 

[Meriweather]

I have never expected creation to be "God-like" and therefore I do not expect this world to be free of evil and suffering. I am not sure where people get the idea that God owes us beauty, brains, power, wealth, and a soft, comfortable life.

Nor do I blame humanity's poor choices on God. There is a popular classroom sign that sports, "No Whining." The perfect sign for just about anywhere.

I would suggest you read Fry's statement following the principle of charity, "considering its best, strongest possible interpretation." Doing that, it turns out it isn't about what you (or anyone else) expect the creation to be, or to what it is you feel entitled (or not), but what follows logically from the notion of an omni-benevolent, omnipotent supreme being (SB). This SB's actions logically cannot be evil, or entail evil. Once that is properly understood, you'll easily see that Fry's alleged expectations or sense of entitlement do not matter to the problem posed by the very existence of suffering or evil in the universe we inhabit.

I mentioned before, I don't put much stock into "omni's" especially as interpreted by many. Omni's curve back on themselves and are therefore little more than traps--especially when they are used to mean "all." All that is shown is that the human term "omni" cannot describe God. If God is all powerful, can He create a rock He cannot move? If God is all knowing, does He know what He doesn't know? If God is "omni-benevolent" then how can He be truly just?

God is powerful, knowing, benevolent, just, loving, merciful--all these things--but not to the extent that these qualities encroach upon each other or extend to the ridiculous. What we may see in God is a perfect balance--or, at least a balance few humans are likely to attain.

What we see with Fry (and with the atheists in my family) is that they build up a false image of God and then refuse to worship or have anything to do with the image they built. Their weakness or failing is that they have no wish (often feel no need) to search out the one true God.

As I said before creation is not God. I garden, and from one perspective, I can be seen as a most inhuman gardener. I sometimes raze some plants to the ground. From the view of the plant, how horrible! But from an overall view, the pruning, removal of weeds and plants who reach too far, the overall result makes sense--even when a few leaves wither or burn because of an application of fertilizer that is needed for the overall health of the garden.

When Fry stops building gods who are not--and then rejecting them--I might find him more interesting. He builds on a wrong premise and a wrong premise can only lead to a wrong conclusion that often sounds like babbling.

 

[Newby]

I think he meant why should we bow down and worship a God for his many blessings, when there aren't any blessings.

Fry seems to think that the only purpose God should serve is to prevent human suffering. From here it is easy to follow Fry's line of thinking. There is human suffering, therefore there is no God. As I said earlier, this is neither clear nor great thinking.

I'd like to know why what he says should have any significance to anyone? Who is he? A comedian? Why is his opinion any more relevant than anyone else's that it should merit discussion?

He is an actor but you shouldn't concentrate on who said it but what was said. His opinion is relevant because he is famous and what he said makes perfect sense.

I should listen 'because he's famous'? Sorry, but I apparently require a bit more in credentials than you do when it comes to deciding who I would 'listen' to.

 

[Newby]

I think he meant why should we bow down and worship a God for his many blessings, when there aren't any blessings.

Fry seems to think that the only purpose God should serve is to prevent human suffering. From here it is easy to follow Fry's line of thinking. There is human suffering, therefore there is no God. As I said earlier, this is neither clear nor great thinking.

When someone is dying or suffering every christian I know seems to "pray" for them as if "god" can change the outcome. Also apparently god created everything, thus he created cancer and parasites that burrow through eye sockets. Frye is simply adopting the christian's way of thinking. The christians way of describing god.


You can't have it both ways. On one hand christins believe god's hand is at work in the daily lives of humans but when us atheists pointout the inconsistencies and attrocities created by your god, you back off and claim god is no longer involved.

Do you not see any purpose to the concept of free will? Why would God give us that?

 

[Newby]

I have never expected creation to be "God-like" and therefore I do not expect this world to be free of evil and suffering. I am not sure where people get the idea that God owes us beauty, brains, power, wealth, and a soft, comfortable life.

Nor do I blame humanity's poor choices on God. There is a popular classroom sign that sports, "No Whining." The perfect sign for just about anywhere.

I would suggest you read Fry's statement following the principle of charity, "considering its best, strongest possible interpretation." Doing that, it turns out it isn't about what you (or anyone else) expect the creation to be, or to what it is you feel entitled (or not), but what follows logically from the notion of an omni-benevolent, omnipotent supreme being (SB). This SB's actions logically cannot be evil, or entail evil. Once that is properly understood, you'll easily see that Fry's alleged expectations or sense of entitlement do not matter to the problem posed by the very existence of suffering or evil in the universe we inhabit.

I mentioned before, I don't put much stock into "omni's" especially as interpreted by many. Omni's curve back on themselves and are therefore little more than traps--especially when they are used to mean "all." All that is shown is that the human term "omni" cannot describe God. If God is all powerful, can He create a rock He cannot move? If God is all knowing, does He know what He doesn't know? If God is "omni-benevolent" then how can He be truly just?

God is powerful, knowing, benevolent, just, loving, merciful--all these things--but not to the extent that these qualities encroach upon each other or extend to the ridiculous. What we may see in God is a perfect balance--or, at least a balance few humans are likely to attain.

What we see with Fry (and with the atheists in my family) is that they build up a false image of God and then refuse to worship or have anything to do with the image they built. Their weakness or failing is that they have no wish (often feel no need) to search out the one true God.

As I said before creation is not God. I garden, and from one perspective, I can be seen as a most inhuman gardener. I sometimes raze some plants to the ground. From the view of the plant, how horrible! But from an overall view, the pruning, removal of weeds and plants who reach too far, the overall result makes sense--even when a few leaves wither or burn because of an application of fertilizer that is needed for the overall health of the garden.

When Fry stops building gods who are not--and then rejecting them--I might find him more interesting. He builds on a wrong premise and a wrong premise can only lead to a wrong conclusion that often sounds like babbling.

Very well said!

 

[Mindful]

All this fuss about Stephen Fry. By those who abhor him.

 

[Olde Europe]

Okay, Meriweather. That was just a finer way of tap-dancing around the question, which isn't really Fry's, as much as you seem inclined to make it so, but a question posed by quite a few most eminent thinkers for centuries.

Here, however, you provide the clearest indication ...

God is powerful, knowing, benevolent, just, loving, merciful--all these things--but not to the extent that these qualities encroach upon each other or extend to the ridiculous. What we may see in God is a perfect balance--or, at least a balance few humans are likely to attain.

... that you'd rather drop the omni-benevolent attribute commonly ascribed to the SB. Again, fine with me, if you'd like to get out of the logical quandary by degrading the SB from "omni-benevolent" to merely "benevolent". That would be logically required even to imagine that this SB would "weed" out those who don't live up to expectations, those not worthy of the SB's love and care, such as, say, hypocrites, liars, the sanctimonious and brutes, in a word, those who would inflict harm upon this SB's children.

 

[Meriweather]

... that you'd rather drop the omni-benevolent attribute commonly ascribed to the SB. Again, fine with me, if you'd like to get out of the logical quandary by degrading the SB from "omni-benevolent" to merely "benevolent". That would be logically required even to imagine that this SB would "weed" out those who don't live up to expectations, those not worthy of the SB's love and care, such as, say, hypocrites, liars, the sanctimonious and brutes, in a word, those who would inflict harm upon this SB's children.

Not tap dancing at all. I flat out said I don't agree with "Omni's" and I stated why. From what I have read, originally the Omni's were supposed to signify a being who was more (most) than we are. From there it just went into craziness (in my opinion). The word isn't an accurate depiction, especially as used today.

We simply have differing opinions. You think dropping "omni" is degrading God. I think the inaccurate, ridiculous depiction of God that the omni's stretch into is what is degrading.

 

[Olde Europe]

... that you'd rather drop the omni-benevolent attribute commonly ascribed to the SB. Again, fine with me, if you'd like to get out of the logical quandary by degrading the SB from "omni-benevolent" to merely "benevolent". That would be logically required even to imagine that this SB would "weed" out those who don't live up to expectations, those not worthy of the SB's love and care, such as, say, hypocrites, liars, the sanctimonious and brutes, in a word, those who would inflict harm upon this SB's children.

Not tap dancing at all. I flat out said I don't agree with "Omni's" and I stated why. From what I have read, originally the Omni's were supposed to signify a being who was more (most) than we are. From there it just went into craziness (in my opinion). The word isn't an accurate depiction, especially as used today.

We simply have differing opinions. You think dropping "omni" is degrading God. I think the inaccurate, ridiculous depiction of God that the omni's stretch into is what is degrading.

It seems, we've come full circle here.

When I earlier suspected that you'd drop the "omni-benevolent" attribute, you countered, pretty forcefully, I thought:

If you think (I am not clear on that) that this SB is not, and should not be, concerned with human suffering, this would create a way out of the logical quandary. That requires, however, to drop "omni-benevolent" from that SB's attributes.

Matthew 10 includes the remark not even a sparrow falls without it being outside God's care.

That looked quite "omni", if not even a sparrow could be outside the SB's benevolence. Actually, the "all-good", "omni-benevolent" attribute is fairly commonly accepted. I don't mind at all you dropping it. All this is about is internal consistency, and clarity of thought. If "omni-benevolent" is dropped, you have escaped Fry's logical quandary, the problem of theodicy; instead you have malevolence, that is, evil, the creator of both good and evil, and an untold number of sparrows and humans outside of the SB's care, in your notion of your god.

 

[Meriweather]

[
That looked quite "omni", if not even a sparrow could be outside the SB's benevolence. Actually, the "all-good", "omni-benevolent" attribute is fairly commonly accepted. I don't mind at all you dropping it. All this is about is internal consistency, and clarity of thought. If "omni-benevolent" is dropped, you have escaped Fry's logical quandary, the problem of theodicy; instead you have malevolence, that is, evil, the creator of both good and evil, and an untold number of sparrows and humans outside of the SB's care, in your notion of your god.

God can care about little things without stretching it into an omni. For example, I care a lot about parakeets but that does not make me omni anything. One of the things I must do for one bird is consistently trim her beak--which she loathes. The evil side of having a beak that will feed her properly is that she must be trapped for a time--which she considers evil indeed (judging by her reaction).

If I recall correctly, it is the book of Isaiah that God mentions He is also the author of evil. For example, as was mentioned previously, we see cancer as evil, yet without these cells, humans would not be here to complain about them. I am sure many consider things like big noses, baldness, acne and psoriasis to be evil. The reality of physical creation is that in order to be a physical creation, the upper side must have an underside. We must study the whole in order to properly judge good and evil.

I think we can look at something most people would agree is good--but a closer look would find undesirable attributes as well. Because a flower draws bees, and bees can sting people, is the creation of a flower an evil thing? Because a flower has undesirable aspects, does that make the being responsible for its creation, malevolent?

 

[hortysir]

Tsk....tsk....tsk


Such Greek thinking

Because we have a loving father, our life should be perfect?
Look at the suffering Christ endured for us.
Are we supposed to have it easier than Him?

 

[Tuatara]

I think he meant why should we bow down and worship a God for his many blessings, when there aren't any blessings.

Fry seems to think that the only purpose God should serve is to prevent human suffering. From here it is easy to follow Fry's line of thinking. There is human suffering, therefore there is no God. As I said earlier, this is neither clear nor great thinking.

When someone is dying or suffering every christian I know seems to "pray" for them as if "god" can change the outcome. Also apparently god created everything, thus he created cancer and parasites that burrow through eye sockets. Frye is simply adopting the christian's way of thinking. The christians way of describing god.


You can't have it both ways. On one hand christins believe god's hand is at work in the daily lives of humans but when us atheists pointout the inconsistencies and attrocities created by your god, you back off and claim god is no longer involved.

Do you not see any purpose to the concept of free will? Why would God give us that?

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[Mindful]

Stephen Fry and his atheist flock be damned I believe in God - Telegraph

 

[Mindful]

He's certainly created a furore:

Stephen Fry is spiritually blind head of Ireland s Presbyterian Church claims - People - News - The Independent

 

[Politico]

Heavy. I disagree with him.

I love it.

 

[Mindful]

Mary had a little lamb It’s fleece was white as snow All you religious dicks Just fuck off and go. No more discussion with dickheads. Sorry.

— Stephen Fry (@stephenfry) August 22, 2013


Really? Fry’s Twitter cronies lapped that up. They always do. He’s so clever and civilised, our Stephen, bless his colourful cotton socks. Unlike those credulous maniacs who believe in God. In 2013!

Stephen Fry the high-priest of juvenile atheism Spectator Blogs

 

[Tuatara]

I think he meant why should we bow down and worship a God for his many blessings, when there aren't any blessings.

Fry seems to think that the only purpose God should serve is to prevent human suffering. From here it is easy to follow Fry's line of thinking. There is human suffering, therefore there is no God. As I said earlier, this is neither clear nor great thinking.

I'd like to know why what he says should have any significance to anyone? Who is he? A comedian? Why is his opinion any more relevant than anyone else's that it should merit discussion?

He is an actor but you shouldn't concentrate on who said it but what was said. His opinion is relevant because he is famous and what he said makes perfect sense.

I should listen 'because he's famous'? Sorry, but I apparently require a bit more in credentials than you do when it comes to deciding who I would 'listen' to.

Did you actually read what I said. I stated "you shouldn't concentrate on who said it but what was said" The poster I was replying to was asking who Mr. Fry was. I merely pointed out he was famous and the content of what he said is why there is exposure surrounding it.


Also I don't care what credentials someone has, if they say something intelligent then we all have learned something.

 

[Tuatara]

Tsk....tsk....tsk


Such Greek thinking

Because we have a loving father, our life should be perfect?
Look at the suffering Christ endured for us.
Are we supposed to have it easier than Him?

Loving Father??? Were you not listening? No loving Father would do anything remotely horrible as what your "loving father" has done.

 

[hortysir]

You really think He has a hand in every bit of the bad things in life?
That's implying instant judgement.
Do you honestly want Him to take on that role?

 

[Tuatara]

You really think He has a hand in every bit of the bad things in life?
That's implying instant judgement.
Do you honestly want Him to take on that role?

You should ask christians that. They are the ones that pray for him daily whether it is a loved one being stricken with a disease or sports star thanking him for the championship. Apparently he has a hand in your sex life too. When and who you should or shouldn't be with. He also created every living thing on the planet included parasitic animals and bacteria that's main purpose is to destroy humans.


This is where christians become huge hypocrites. When something good happens, it's because of the your loving god. When something bad happens you question that he may not have had an active role in it. You apply instant judgement on the good but when atheists turn your own judgement back on you for the bad every christian scrambles and comes up with excuses.