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

[Tuatara]

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?

You state no one will ever know and yet you know people who devote their whole life to a particular faith and you only seem to question those who do not devote any of their time to any faith. Nobody may have been there to see what you put in your soup but if you told me you put arsenic in it, I will not believe you.

 

[Tuatara]

Dear guno and Luddly Neddite

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

People can die in every situation. In homes, on a playground, in the forest, in a lake. If someone or something had the power to prevent these deaths but did nothing then some would consider that entity to be evil.

* 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?

These are people doing this. People and their actions control what happens on the internet.

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

I know many christians who say these natural events happen because god is angry. Or how about people who say "god spared him" about a lone survivor who is pulled from the rubble of one these disasters. Do you use the same questioning on them or are you also a hypocrite?

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

Who said anything about people controlling it. It is the claim of neary every christian that god takes an active role in almost every aspect of the world around us. You guys set the parameters but when it doesn't work out for you god is all of a sudden absent. Or he's working in mysterious ways. Can you imagine applying that logic to others?

 

[emilynghiem]

There's a flaw in your attempt at analogy. There's nothing supernatural about the "creation" of a knife.

No one said, and it was not intended, that there was anything supernatural about this. I merely pointed out the creation is not the creator--and that holds true for a human being or Supreme Being.

The purpose of creation isn't necessarily the same purpose of creator. They are most probably operating on different levels. Physical creation holds beauty and inspiration. It also contains destruction and what is ugly. It would be somewhat shallow and ignorant to claim beautiful artwork can only be created by someone young and beautiful, whereas ugly artwork has to be the work of the plain and stout.

Would Steven Fry look at a painting, note something he does not like about the painting and then tell the artist he would never enter into the artist's home because something he didn't like in a painted creation caused Fry to assume the artist was truly abominable?

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

This reminds me of the "law of attraction" and "abundance mentality"

If you choose to focus on gratefulness for good things in life, you attract more positive people
and energy, events and outcomes.

Think about it.

Which kid are you inspired to give more presents to next time:
* The kid who is genuinely thankful and appreciates even the small, broken or used toys.
* Or the kid who complains that the toys aren't good enough and not what was wanted?

Positive thoughts attract positive responses and outcomes.
This is just part of natural laws of cause and effects and how human psychology works.

 

[orogenicman]

The fact is that "god did it" doesn't explain anything. The fact is that the universe works exactly as if there is no god at all. Given the utter lack of evidence for such a deity or deities, why would anyone assume as fact something so utterly lacking in said evidence? One wouldn't do that with any other aspect of life, so why in this instance?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear guno and Luddly Neddite

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

People can die in every situation. In homes, on a playground, in the forest, in a lake. If someone or something had the power to prevent these deaths but did nothing then some would consider that entity to be evil.

* 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?

These are people doing this. People and their actions control what happens on the internet.

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

I know many christians who say these natural events happen because god is angry. Or how about people who say "god spared him" about a lone survivor who is pulled from the rubble of one these disasters. Do you use the same questioning on them or are you also a hypocrite?

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

Who said anything about people controlling it. It is the claim of neary every christian that god takes an active role in almost every aspect of the world around us. You guys set the parameters but when it doesn't work out for you god is all of a sudden absent. Or he's working in mysterious ways. Can you imagine applying that logic to others?

Hi @Tuatura
and if you look deep enough you can see the correlations with humans effecting more than we realize.
Even the Buddhists teach that the more positive thoughts and prayers we focus on,
then the less "negative energy" is circulated which contributes to disasters, both manmade and/or "natural."

The studies and practice on spiritual healing (both Buddhist karma and Christian generational healing)
have linked current states of illness to spiritual conflicts "passed down' from previous generations
that were born as conditions on future generations. And this is discovered because in order to heal
people of physical and mental disorders (including schizophrenia or even phobias from unconscious causes)
people had to identify the right source, in order to pray to heal it, in order for the symptoms to stop.

How much of our sickness today can be prevented?

Since so many cases of rape and murder are from people who already had problems
that were well known, these can be prevented by early enough intervention.
Most ills have a cause that can be addressed and either reduced or corrected if not prevented.

We are not as helpless and things are not as random or out of control.
We can do a lot more to prevent the physical and social ills we see,
instead of letting them run rampant to the point we can't resolve them all.

 

[emilynghiem]

The fact is that "god did it" doesn't explain anything. The fact is that the universe works exactly as if there is no god at all. Given the utter lack of evidence for such a deity or deities, why would anyone assume as fact something so utterly lacking in said evidence? One wouldn't do that with any other aspect of life, so why in this instance?

I agree that there are laws of cause and effect that can explain most things.
You don't have to attribute this to a personal God, but the more we understand
how these laws work, at least we can agree on these universal laws we are all talking about.

 

[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?

You state no one will ever know and yet you know people who devote their whole life to a particular faith and you only seem to question those who do not devote any of their time to any faith. Nobody may have been there to see what you put in your soup but if you told me you put arsenic in it, I will not believe you.

Define "faith" then define "knowledge". Atheists do not know there is no God and religious people do not either so they have faith in the place of knowledge. Simple.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

You state no one will ever know and yet you know people who devote their whole life to a particular faith and you only seem to question those who do not devote any of their time to any faith. Nobody may have been there to see what you put in your soup but if you told me you put arsenic in it, I will not believe you.

Define "faith" then define "knowledge". Atheists do not know there is no God and religious people do not either so they have faith in the place of knowledge. Simple.

Faith is the belief in something not in evidence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of god, the disbelief of atheists cannot be defined as faith.

 

[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?

You state no one will ever know and yet you know people who devote their whole life to a particular faith and you only seem to question those who do not devote any of their time to any faith. Nobody may have been there to see what you put in your soup but if you told me you put arsenic in it, I will not believe you.

Define "faith" then define "knowledge". Atheists do not know there is no God and religious people do not either so they have faith in the place of knowledge. Simple.

Faith is the belief in something not in evidence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of god, the disbelief of atheists cannot be defined as faith.

Or could one say, if there was evidence of no God, there would be no atheists, because the need to not believe in a Deity would not be necessary?

Or to put it another way, does one need faith in order to disbelieve?

 

[orogenicman]

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?

You state no one will ever know and yet you know people who devote their whole life to a particular faith and you only seem to question those who do not devote any of their time to any faith. Nobody may have been there to see what you put in your soup but if you told me you put arsenic in it, I will not believe you.

Define "faith" then define "knowledge". Atheists do not know there is no God and religious people do not either so they have faith in the place of knowledge. Simple.

Faith is the belief in something not in evidence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of god, the disbelief of atheists cannot be defined as faith.

Or could one say, if there was evidence of no God, there would be no atheists, because the need to not believe in a Deity would not be necessary?

Or to put it another way, does one need faith in order to disbelieve?

There is no "need" not to believe. It is the default setting of all sentient beings.

 

[Tuatara]

Hi @Tuatura
and if you look deep enough you can see the correlations with humans effecting more than we realize.
Even the Buddhists teach that the more positive thoughts and prayers we focus on,
then the less "negative energy" is circulated which contributes to disasters, both manmade and/or "natural."

First point, what you have stated here has nothing to do with the topic of dicussion and second, it's total BS. There is zero correlation.

The studies and practice on spiritual healing (both Buddhist karma and Christian generational healing) have linked current states of illness to spiritual conflicts "passed down' from previous generations
that were born as conditions on future generations.

More BS. Please site the medical journals or papers that claim this bogus hogwash.

And this is discovered because in order to heal people of physical and mental disorders (including schizophrenia or even phobias from unconscious causes) people had to identify the right source, in order to pray to heal it, in order for the symptoms to stop.

There have been studies done on prayer and it was found out that praying had the same results as not praying. These studies have concluded that there is "no discernible effect".

How much of our sickness today can be prevented?

Please refer to what sicknesses you are talking about.

Since so many cases of rape and murder are from people who already had problems
that were well known, these can be prevented by early enough intervention.
Most ills have a cause that can be addressed and either reduced or corrected if not prevented.

First of all many rapes and murders have been done by people who showed zero psychological effects and second some people may have committed these acts becuse the type of intervention warranted further damaging effects on the individual.

We are not as helpless and things are not as random or out of control.
We can do a lot more to prevent the physical and social ills we see,
instead of letting them run rampant to the point we can't resolve them all.

Nobody here claimed that and again you are missing the whole point of the discussion.

 

[fmdog44]

I believe there is a something behind all of creation but what I cannot say, however I will not say there is no evidence of God. Slow this down to having children for example. We call this bond "love" and it is the most powerful bonding in all of creation. Why does this "love" exist? Look at the pictures from the Hubble space craft one cannot help but wonder what is going on? Why doesn't evil rule the day? Why does good battle evil? Why have so many died in the name of good? What is family and the joy of sharing life with each other? I have not been to a church is over 50 years but there is wonder in this life, I don't know what or why but it is truly miraculous and I worship it.

 

[Tuatara]

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.
.

I'm not one who is imto micro-managing labels. I don't need to have a philosophical discussion as to what type an atheist I am. I've seen the terms practical atheism, pragmatic atheism, theoretical, or contemplative atheism, affective atheism, logical atheism, theodicean atheism, metaphysical atheism, and epistemological atheism come up and I'm not going to decipher to see if I fit into the criteria of any of these subsets. So before you attach any labels on me just argue any points I presented.

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.

What exactly is the
theodicy problem?

I also invited you to provide the criteria you apply discerning the differences

Not sure what you mean here but I will use an example. When a christian claims god is loving and wonderful because he spared the life of one person who survived an airplane crash then it is my assumption that the same god (who took an active role in the outcome of the passengers) is not a loving and wonderful god for allowing the rest of the passengers to die.
As soon as I mention this, god is devoid of the situation. I'm using the exact arguments christians use for the purposes as to why they feel their god is good.

 

[orogenicman]

I believe there is a something behind all of creation but what I cannot say, however I will not say there is no evidence of God. Slow this down to having children for example. We call this bond "love" and it is the most powerful bonding in all of creation. Why does this "love" exist? Look at the pictures from the Hubble space craft one cannot help but wonder what is going on? Why doesn't evil rule the day? Why does good battle evil? Why have so many died in the name of good? What is family and the joy of sharing life with each other? I have not been to a church is over 50 years but there is wonder in this life, I don't know what or why but it is truly miraculous and I worship it.

I can wonder at the beauty and magnificence of a rainbow or a star cluster and still understand that the physics of the thing doesn't require the existence of deity. "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything.

 

[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.

Both were religious so again you have no point.

No they weren't, one may have used the church, but neither were 'religious'.

 

[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

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.

I'm commenting on it because it's absurd to listen to some unknown idiot spout his opinions regarding religion when he has no credentials whatsoever to stand on to give his opinion any weight or merit. Just like you, he is just 'some guy on the internet', his opinion is meaningless in the public forum, as is yours.

 

[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.

No they weren't, one may have used the church, but neither were 'religious'.

Please do not comment on things you have no clue on. Hitler expressed and confessed his christian views many times.

“Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples.” [1] ~Adolf Hitler

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out” [2] ~Adolf Hitler

Pol Pot was raised Catholic but later on switched to Buddhism. Stop pretending you know anything.

 

[Tuatara]

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.

I'm commenting on it because it's absurd to listen to some unknown idiot spout his opinions regarding religion when he has no credentials whatsoever to stand on to give his opinion any weight or merit. Just like you, he is just 'some guy on the internet', his opinion is meaningless in the public forum, as is yours.

Yet you have has your a$$ handed to you at every corner. The only "credentials" or "opinions" you should worry about are your own. They are failing in a gargantuan way.