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

[Politico]

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?

That is exactly how Christians rationalize the insanity. All good things are blessings. All bad things are Gods will. He works in mysterious ways and all that.

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

As I said before, the theodicy problem has puzzled some of the best minds throughout the last centuries. It is therefore very little by way of surprise that "christians (sic)", facing a logical and existential quandary, fail to solve it in a way that would be satisfactory to you. Hence your dump on "every christian (sic)", your decrying them as "huge hypocrites", amounts to little more than pumping up your ego at the expense of others who would be seriously struggling with a problem they cannot solve. That again makes your contribution worth less in terms of grappling with the problem than the worst "excuses" with which Christians come up. These excuses at least try to address the problem; you don't.

 

[Tuatara]

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.

As I said before, the theodicy problem has puzzled some of the best minds throughout the last centuries. It is therefore very little by way of surprise that "christians (sic)", facing a logical and existential quandary, fail to solve it in a way that would be satisfactory to you. Hence your dump on "every christian (sic)", your decrying them as "huge hypocrites", amounts to little more than pumping up your ego at the expense of others who would be seriously struggling with a problem they cannot solve. That again makes your contribution worth less in terms of grappling with the problem than the worst "excuses" with which Christians come up. These excuses at least try to address the problem; you don't.

The problem or solution is there is no god. Christians do not address the problem, they make excuses for a supreme being that thankfully doesn't exist because this being would make Hitler and Pol Pot seem like disney characters.

 

[Olde Europe]

The problem or solution is there is no god. Christians do not address the problem, they make excuses for a supreme being that thankfully doesn't exist because this being would make Hitler and Pol Pot seem like disney characters.

I kind of guessed you might like that "solution". It isn't, not least because your theodicean atheism stands on less than firm ground. That starts out with the fact that your moral reasoning (the world isn't perfectly good) doesn't support an ontological conclusion (the SB doesn't exist). And it doesn't end with the fact that the evidence you have (there is evil in the world) at best provides ground for the assertion that some of the attributes commonly assigned to the SB (i.e., omnibenevolence) cannot be upheld, at least not in the common understanding of the term. Generally speaking, the absence of evidence isn't evidence for the absence.

But then, what I wanted to ask is, how, according to what criteria, do you tell "serious grappling with the problem of theodicy" from mere "excuses"? Thanks in advance.

 

[Tuatara]

The problem or solution is there is no god. Christians do not address the problem, they make excuses for a supreme being that thankfully doesn't exist because this being would make Hitler and Pol Pot seem like disney characters.

I kind of guessed you might like that "solution".

Being an atheist has nothing to do with what I like. Would I like some sort of afterlife where I can see loved ones. Of course., but wanting it doesn't make it true.

It isn't, not least because your theodicean atheism stands on less than firm ground.

Yet you cannot explain why it does and I wouldn't label it theodicean. It's just atheism.

That starts out with the fact that your moral reasoning (the world isn't perfectly good) doesn't support an ontological conclusion (the SB doesn't exist).

Are you paying attention? Fry a noted atheist was asked a question pertaining to a "what if" god were real. I merely pointed out it's a good thing the SB does not exist as I too would agree with Mr. Fry's assertions.

And it doesn't end with the fact that the evidence you have (there is evil in the world) at best provides ground for the assertion that some of the attributes commonly assigned to the SB (i.e., omnibenevolence) cannot be upheld, at least not in the common understanding of the term.

I don't consider cancer or parsitic bugs that burrow through eye sockets to be evil unless someone actually created them or has the power to remove them. If they are a part of nature they are a part of nature. If you found out cancer was developed in a lab and secretly dispersed through the population then yes, those who took part in this I would consider evil. If a being whether it was supreme or not, has control to create or takeaway suffering, pain and death and choses to do nothing about it then yes I would considret that being to be horrible.

Generally speaking, the absence of evidence isn't evidence for the absence.

But then, what I wanted to ask is, how, according to what criteria, do you tell "serious grappling with the problem of theodicy" from mere "excuses"? Thanks in advance.

Being too wordy. Try and be clear and concise with your questions. You lost me again.

 

[Olde Europe]

It appeared to me that here...

The problem or solution is there is no god. Christians do not address the problem, they make excuses for a supreme being that thankfully doesn't exist because this being would make Hitler and Pol Pot seem like disney characters.

... and here ...

I don't consider cancer or parsitic bugs that burrow through eye sockets to be evil unless someone actually created them or has the power to remove them. If they are a part of nature they are a part of nature. If you found out cancer was developed in a lab and secretly dispersed through the population then yes, those who took part in this I would consider evil. If a being whether it was supreme or not, has control to create or takeaway suffering, pain and death and choses to do nothing about it then yes I would considret that being to be horrible.

... you've been taking the theodicean atheist's position, at least expressing the underlying sentiment. If you'd rather go with "I am an atheist, because!", whilst expressing your fealty for the theodicean atheist's sentiments, I am fine with that as well.

Rest assured, I am aiming at being as concise as I possibly can. The question was, How do you tell the Christians' mere excuses from serious grappling with the theodicy problem. I also invited you to provide the criteria you apply discerning the differences.

 

[fmdog44]

Not one human has not ever known and will not ever know the truth hence faith. Faith is not based on science or facts. There will always be discussions because again, we simply do not know. Isn't man trying to solve the question of the existence of God the same as your pet writing your biography? You cannot tell me what I put in to the soup if you were not there to witness, can you?

 

[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.

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.

'If they have something intelligent to say'? Totally subjective, I don't see anything intelligent coming out of his mouth either, but again, that ties back to his total lack of credentials to be considered an expert in theology. He's someone 'famous' that opens his stupid and uninformed mouth, and I'm supposed to care? lol

 

[Newby]

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.

As I said before, the theodicy problem has puzzled some of the best minds throughout the last centuries. It is therefore very little by way of surprise that "christians (sic)", facing a logical and existential quandary, fail to solve it in a way that would be satisfactory to you. Hence your dump on "every christian (sic)", your decrying them as "huge hypocrites", amounts to little more than pumping up your ego at the expense of others who would be seriously struggling with a problem they cannot solve. That again makes your contribution worth less in terms of grappling with the problem than the worst "excuses" with which Christians come up. These excuses at least try to address the problem; you don't.

The problem or solution is there is no god. Christians do not address the problem, they make excuses for a supreme being that thankfully doesn't exist because this being would make Hitler and Pol Pot seem like disney characters.

Hitler and Pol Pot is what you get when you turn away from God, which they had the free will to do, i.e. their choice. It's not really all that difficult to understand.

 

[Mindful]

Not one human has not ever known and will not ever know the truth hence faith. Faith is not based on science or facts. There will always be discussions because again, we simply do not know. Isn't man trying to solve the question of the existence of God the same as your pet writing your biography? You cannot tell me what I put in to the soup if you were not there to witness, can you?

In other words, we know nothing.

 

[Mindful]

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.

'If they have something intelligent to say'? Totally subjective, I don't see anything intelligent coming out of his mouth either, but again, that ties back to his total lack of credentials to be considered an expert in theology. He's someone 'famous' that opens his stupid and uninformed mouth, and I'm supposed to care? lol

How are you under the assumption that you're 'supposed' to care?

You've done a pretty good job, so far, of showing how much you don't care.

 

[Newby]

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.

'If they have something intelligent to say'? Totally subjective, I don't see anything intelligent coming out of his mouth either, but again, that ties back to his total lack of credentials to be considered an expert in theology. He's someone 'famous' that opens his stupid and uninformed mouth, and I'm supposed to care? lol

How are you under the assumption that you're 'supposed' to care?

You've done a pretty good job, so far, of showing how much you don't care.

Apparently the OP thinks we should care or he/she/it wouldn't have created the thread? No assumptions there.

 

[Mindful]

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.

'If they have something intelligent to say'? Totally subjective, I don't see anything intelligent coming out of his mouth either, but again, that ties back to his total lack of credentials to be considered an expert in theology. He's someone 'famous' that opens his stupid and uninformed mouth, and I'm supposed to care? lol

How are you under the assumption that you're 'supposed' to care?

You've done a pretty good job, so far, of showing how much you don't care.

Apparently the OP thinks we should care or he/she/it wouldn't have created the thread? No assumptions there.

Just faulty logic.

 

[Newby]

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.

'If they have something intelligent to say'? Totally subjective, I don't see anything intelligent coming out of his mouth either, but again, that ties back to his total lack of credentials to be considered an expert in theology. He's someone 'famous' that opens his stupid and uninformed mouth, and I'm supposed to care? lol

How are you under the assumption that you're 'supposed' to care?

You've done a pretty good job, so far, of showing how much you don't care.

Apparently the OP thinks we should care or he/she/it wouldn't have created the thread? No assumptions there.

Just faulty logic.

Oh boy, one of those, eh?

 

[Mindful]

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.

'If they have something intelligent to say'? Totally subjective, I don't see anything intelligent coming out of his mouth either, but again, that ties back to his total lack of credentials to be considered an expert in theology. He's someone 'famous' that opens his stupid and uninformed mouth, and I'm supposed to care? lol

How are you under the assumption that you're 'supposed' to care?

You've done a pretty good job, so far, of showing how much you don't care.

Apparently the OP thinks we should care or he/she/it wouldn't have created the thread? No assumptions there.

Just faulty logic.

Oh boy, one of those, eh?

How much longer are you going to keep running around the hamster wheel?

 

[Newby]

'If they have something intelligent to say'? Totally subjective, I don't see anything intelligent coming out of his mouth either, but again, that ties back to his total lack of credentials to be considered an expert in theology. He's someone 'famous' that opens his stupid and uninformed mouth, and I'm supposed to care? lol

How are you under the assumption that you're 'supposed' to care?

You've done a pretty good job, so far, of showing how much you don't care.

Apparently the OP thinks we should care or he/she/it wouldn't have created the thread? No assumptions there.

Just faulty logic.

Oh boy, one of those, eh?

How much longer are you going to keep running around the hamster wheel?

As long as I'm amused by it.... why don't you explain how my logic is 'faulty'?

 

[Mindful]

How are you under the assumption that you're 'supposed' to care?

You've done a pretty good job, so far, of showing how much you don't care.

Apparently the OP thinks we should care or he/she/it wouldn't have created the thread? No assumptions there.

Just faulty logic.

Oh boy, one of those, eh?

How much longer are you going to keep running around the hamster wheel?

As long as I'm amused by it.... why don't you explain how my logic is 'faulty'?

Because I don't want to.

 

[Tuatara]

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.

'If they have something intelligent to say'? Totally subjective, I don't see anything intelligent coming out of his mouth either, but again, that ties back to his total lack of credentials to be considered an expert in theology. He's someone 'famous' that opens his stupid and uninformed mouth, and I'm supposed to care? lol

You cared enough to comment on it. A man was interviewed and he answered the question brought forth to him. Discussing "who" the person is brings zero credibility to the discussion. It's like saying your just some guy on the internet so I shouldn't even discuss the topic with you.

 

[Tuatara]

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.

As I said before, the theodicy problem has puzzled some of the best minds throughout the last centuries. It is therefore very little by way of surprise that "christians (sic)", facing a logical and existential quandary, fail to solve it in a way that would be satisfactory to you. Hence your dump on "every christian (sic)", your decrying them as "huge hypocrites", amounts to little more than pumping up your ego at the expense of others who would be seriously struggling with a problem they cannot solve. That again makes your contribution worth less in terms of grappling with the problem than the worst "excuses" with which Christians come up. These excuses at least try to address the problem; you don't.

The problem or solution is there is no god. Christians do not address the problem, they make excuses for a supreme being that thankfully doesn't exist because this being would make Hitler and Pol Pot seem like disney characters.

Hitler and Pol Pot is what you get when you turn away from God, which they had the free will to do, i.e. their choice. It's not really all that difficult to understand.

Both were religious so again you have no point.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear guno and Luddly Neddite

* so the invention of cars is evil, too, because people can die of accidents in them?

* and the internet is evil because it is too easily abused it to defraud people
of all their money or bully vulnerable teenagers to death?

* and water is evil because tsunamis and hurricanes can smash people to death without
enough warning to get out of danger

What a shame. The whole earth is evil and we are helpless victims
to things we cannot control?

Is this how you really see life?