Off Topic Stephen Fry on the concept of God!

[yorkshirehornet]

I enjoyed listening to him. Of course he is talking about the monotheistic god..... I had enough of catholocism as a child to not sit comfortably with some ideas of god.......

However I am part of something greater than me....... even if i have little rationaal idea of what is beyond this mortal coil....

I am def keeping my options open......

Respect his views though.... which of course are very challenging

 

[Hornet-Fez]

Every atheist does not believe in god, by definition. Very very few will contend that there is absolutely no god whatsoever. As you say only the most militant would and they would be as wrong as a militant theist. Personally I consider that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But that's all.

 

[colognehornet]

Cologne I rarely disagree very strongly with what you say but on this topic I think you are way out. Militant atheists as you call them are no different to militant anything else. In fact the word militant is derived from the same root as militia and as such is contrary to my own beliefs. There is world of difference however between militant and "strongly held". To claim Stephen Fry is not an atheist is laughable when he clearly is - "a" means"not" and theist means "believer in god" Stephen Fry is clearly not a believer in god so he is by definition an atheist. When people start to talk about "true" atheists or "true" football fans they are on shaky ground and are in fact only imposing their own view on others. Who are we to tell others whether they are true Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists or whatever. Next you will say someone cannot be gay if they are a militant homosexual. Militancy has nothing to do with belief orientation etc. You are only describing what you want an atheist to behave like. As it happens I agree with you on that and try never to force my views on others - but am prepared to argue a case as strongly as I can. It is a poor religion which cannot stand up to questions about it. As Vic implies smugness is no preserve of atheists.

Christians and Muslims - in fact many religions have imposed their views on others - not only non believers - for centuries. Of course two wrongs don't make a right.

If you invite Stephen Fry on to your programme and then ask him to answer a smug hypothetical question knowing his views then when you receive a very coherent and well argued reply - then don't be upset. I assure you that I did not view his reply as ridicule so much as repressed anger. Anyone who believes in a god they say is loving and caring needs to answer some of his points.

I have no problem in people of faith believing anything they like - including fairies at the bottom of their gardens if they so choose - I counted myself amongst them for decades. I do have a problem with people of faith not accepting that some of us have a sincere hatred of their god. As you know I do not believe in violence as a way to resolve problems but if I ever met god it would strongly test my resolve. I rather hope there is a god and that I can meet him and tell him just what I think of him before he tortures me for eternity.

Leo, when I use the word militant I am referring to people who can see only their own vision as relevant and who ridicule all others - and some atheists are like that. Not all but some....and I am referring only to them. However, bigotry is not confined to any one belief system - a person who is a bigot in one system, if converted, will become a bigot in another. What many on here do not seem to acknowledge is that there are many shades and levels of religious belief (regardless of sect) - some will be Christians on a Sunday only - others will be convenience believers (ie. they live in an area where all others are believers), others become bigots (they were bigots already, even without faith) and others manage to turn their love of God to the central point in their lives - and then to radiate this love to others (regardless of the recipient's faith). You cannot lump all believers together in this way - for some the scriptures are important, for others the search is more within eg. with Quakers and Sufis. Elsewhere it has also been said here that the main reason for religious belief is the fear of death - this may be so for many people but not for all. Much scientific research conducted on the observations of people who had been declared clinically dead suggests that the belief in the existence of some sort of afterlife is not confined only to believers. Also Buddhists believe in reincarnation but not in God. There are millions of different reasons which people have for their beliefs - some valid, some instinctive and some simply idiotic. Where I have a problem with belief is when it becomes an excuse for not doing anything in this life because 'the meek shall inherit their reward in heaven` - for that reason I do not think that God (If he/she exists) wants us to be certain about anything - because if we all thought that there is a heaven somewhere else then it would stop us from striving to establish it here on Earth.

 

[Leo]

Every atheist does not believe in god, by definition. Very very few will contend that there is absolutely no god whatsoever..

Not sure I agree Fez. I think it is agnostics who "sit on the fence" (and perhaps quite rightly). An atheist asserts that there is no god in the sense of a god who created anything and is even just an interested spectator. If you want to define god as meaning the lovely green fields or a cozy warm feeling you get when looking at something beautiful, the spirit of the mountains etc then I don't suppose many atheists give a damn. Atheism is defined by the OED as: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" It is stronger than "not believe" - it is disbelief. Atheist assert there IS no god or gods.

Of course he is talking about the monotheistic god.....

Well he wasn't actually as he gave pantheistic examples of Greek gods in his answer.I think you could safely bet a lot of money that he is just as strongly anti Hindu gods etc

 

[Leo]

Leo, when I use the word militant I am referring to people who can see only their own vision as relevant and who ridicule all others - and some atheists are like that. Not all but some....and I am referring only to them. However, bigotry is not confined to any one belief system - a person who is a bigot in one system, if converted, will become a bigot in another. What many on here do not seem to acknowledge is that there are many shades and levels of religious belief (regardless of sect) - some will be Christians on a Sunday only - others will be convenience believers (ie. they live in an area where all others are believers), others become bigots (they were bigots already, even without faith) and others manage to turn their love of God to the central point in their lives - and then to radiate this love to others (regardless of the recipient's faith). You cannot lump all believers together in this way - for some the scriptures are important, for others the search is more within eg. with Quakers and Sufis. Elsewhere it has also been said here that the main reason for religious belief is the fear of death - this may be so for many people but not for all. Much scientific research conducted on the observations of people who had been declared clinically dead suggests that the belief in the existence of some sort of afterlife is not confined only to believers. Also Buddhists believe in reincarnation but not in God. There are millions of different reasons which people have for their beliefs - some valid, some instinctive and some simply idiotic. Where I have a problem with belief is when it becomes an excuse for not doing anything in this life because 'the meek shall inherit their reward in heaven` - for that reason I do not think that God (If he/she exists) wants us to be certain about anything - because if we all thought that there is a heaven somewhere else then it would stop us from striving to establish it here on Earth.

As always you make many points and it is difficult to try to discuss them in short form but I will try.
I think you confuse god with religion. An atheist believes there is no god - not that there is no religion As you say there are many varieties of religion and most atheists could not care really what people want to believe in and what rituals they do or don't adopt in the pursuit of what is often a "society" and "communal" thing.
You directly stated that Stephen Fry was not a true atheist and implied he was one of those whose only aim in life appears to be to try to destroy other people's belief systems. I think you are not correct on both counts and also misuse militant when perhaps you mean over zealous.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

Well he wasn't actually as he gave pantheistic examples of Greek gods in his answer.I think you could safely bet a lot of money that he is just as strongly anti Hindu gods etc

sure...... i was alluding to a more energetic force than a personal god which tends to be a cultural projection based on need.......

 

[wear_yellow]

I am with Cologne on this subject. There are a number of highly influential and highly local Militant aetheists headlining in the media that force their believes down the throats of others. Dawkins is my particular pet hate, but when Fry sticks his condescending oar in. They do not clash my personal beliefs, but I object to their high profile pontificating that tries to belittle the deeply held beliefs of others.
Anything coming from Dawkins, who believes that a little mild sexual abuse as a child has not harmed him is as bad as a religious zealot forcing their beliefs on us.

 

[colognehornet]

As always you make many points and it is difficult to try to discuss them in short form but I will try.
I think you confuse god with religion. An atheist believes there is no god - not that there is no religion As you say there are many varieties of religion and most atheists could not care really what people want to believe in and what rituals they do or don't adopt in the pursuit of what is often a "society" and "communal" thing.
You directly stated that Stephen Fry was not a true atheist and implied he was one of those whose only aim in life appears to be to try to destroy other people's belief systems. I think you are not correct on both counts and also misuse militant when perhaps you mean over zealous.

The use of the word militant here refers to somebody who wears their belief/politics etc. on their arms at all times. A normal atheist believes that there is no God - a militant atheist declares that there is no God in such a way that it rules out all debate on the matter - furthermore all those who cast a doubt over his assertion are automatically classified along with believers in the tooth fairy. When I said that he was not a true atheist I was actually offering a kind of compliment to that breed in as much as the vaste majority of them want a World in which every individual is entitled to their own belief without suffering belittlement - I do not believe him to belong to this class of people. Actually I'm quite glad that he doesn't believe in God because if he did he would be even more objectionable - as it is I see him and his ilk as little more than exhibitionists.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

There is guaranteed to be no agreement on this ........
Dawkins is a complete twt in my view..... Fry I can listen to...

The only thing we can be certain of is we dont know..... I am more and more convinced by quantum/ metaphysical physics...... the entire universe is interrelated and "alive" therefore physicaql death does not exist .....as "life" goes on.... which links v much to buddhist thinking...

 

[Leo]

Not got time to reply now - but I think you will find that the churches get more than their fair share of pushing their beliefs down others throats.

Cannot stand Dawkins either

 

[Deleted 1]

Wow, and nobody who is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu etc. etc. is smugly certain of their own beliefs?.......

Both sides are entrenched in their positions, I'm afraid and will have to agree to differ.

I don't know. My position on the fence is somewhat uncomfortable though.

I suspect you may be in a rather large group!

 

[Bolton's Boots]

Personally I consider that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But that's all.

A good line that, I will, with your permission, no doubt use in future - adding to it my own line to the effect that I couldn't care less one way or the other anyway.

I don't know what label gives me - but I couldn't care less about that either...

 

[NZHorn]

There is a God and he clearly supports Bournemouth. We just need to find a more powerful one pretty quickly.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

From my perspective there are many varying views about what God is, or is not. The truth is that not one of us knows, but we all have probably given it thought at times in our lives and have come to a conclusion that we can live with.
I do not listen to the person who tries to push me one way or the other. I have found my beliefs and can live with them. For that reason I cannot stand Dawkins, or the fundamentalist preacher who tells me that I will rot in hell.
So often today we have become to believe that someone has to be to blame for everything, hence the adverts telling us we can make claims against companies. My thinking is that we should look at what the human race is to blame for. Pesticides and pollution, guns and bombs. The list is pretty long. Just look at what they are doing to our world. Just how many illnesses are the direct result of man trying to earn more money so that as individuals they can fulfill their dreams. Much of the modern technology made by man is good, but the internet that I am using at this moment can be used to try and ruin peoples lives. Almost any religion will tell you that there is a good way to live and a bad one. If mankind only thought about what is the correct way to live and assist others to live a decent life, then maybe, just maybe there would far less troubles today.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

A good line that, I will, with your permission, no doubt use in future - adding to it my own line to the effect that I couldn't care less one way or the other anyway.

I don't know what label gives me - but I couldn't care less about that either...

If only I thought it up, I'm not that clever! Here's a link to a full explanation of how "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It therefore follows that what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=qiNiW4_6R3I

 

[Hornet-Fez]

Not sure I agree Fez. I think it is agnostics who "sit on the fence" (and perhaps quite rightly). An atheist asserts that there is no god in the sense of a god who created anything and is even just an interested spectator. If you want to define god as meaning the lovely green fields or a cozy warm feeling you get when looking at something beautiful, the spirit of the mountains etc then I don't suppose many atheists give a damn. Atheism is defined by the OED as: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" It is stronger than "not believe" - it is disbelief. Atheist assert there IS no god or gods.

Well he wasn't actually as he gave pantheistic examples of Greek gods in his answer.I think you could safely bet a lot of money that he is just as strongly anti Hindu gods etc

It is quite possible to be a Gnostic Atheist. Also I think it's dishonest to assert unequivocally that there is no god. The honest answer is "I don't know". It would be a fallacy of false equivalence to assert that there is a god as to assert that there isn't. The burden of proof must fall on the positive claimant: if I call someone a thief I have to provide evidence to back my positive claim.
The average atheist has a greater appreciation and almost certainly a better understanding of our place in the universe. We certainly don't think it's all here for our benefit. We're an integral part of this earth but a relatively insignificant spec in the universe. Certainly since I discarded faith I know I feel a greater responsibility than ever.

 

[colognehornet]

It is quite possible to be a Gnostic Atheist. Also I think it's dishonest to assert unequivocally that there is no god. The honest answer is "I don't know". It would be a fallacy of false equivalence to assert that there is a god as to assert that there isn't. The burden of proof must fall on the positive claimant: if I call someone a thief I have to provide evidence to back my positive claim.
The average atheist has a greater appreciation and almost certainly a better understanding of our place in the universe. We certainly don't think it's all here for our benefit. We're an integral part of this earth but a relatively insignificant spec in the universe. Certainly since I discarded faith I know I feel a greater responsibility than ever.

Fez, I am not required to produce proof or evidence to justify my belief in God - that would only be necessary if I were trying to convert you. Also - what is seen by one person as evidence may not be seen by others in the same light.

Would you really claim that atheists take over more responsibility for the Earth than so called believers do ? Do you have any evidence to prove that ? Unfortunately if you take religion away from the scene then most people end up worshipping either naked consumerism or the sometimes aimless blade of science as a substitute. Is it the religions of the World which consume 4 times more natural resources than the World has ? Unfortunately where belief, of all shades and forms, disappears then greed often fills the vacuum. The last 30 years have seen more than a twentyfold increase in carbon emissions - will you lay this at the door of religion ? Together with the (for me misplaced) idea that nature is there to serve us, which is found within the monotheistic religions, belongs also a massive idea of responsibility. Maybe you should pause and think how many initiatives, whether environmental (eg. Greenpeace) or social have sprung from religious origins before making the claim that atheists hold the moral high ground in 'caring for our World`.

 

[hockdude]

Just because I don't believe in any particular religion doesn't leave me with some giant gap in my life that I don't know how to fill. It is the insinuation that not believing is just some sort of misguided cry for help that really grates, I am perfectly happy with who I am and how I live.

 

[Leo]

It is quite possible to be a Gnostic Atheist. Also I think it's dishonest to assert unequivocally that there is no god. The honest answer is "I don't know". It would be a fallacy of false equivalence to assert that there is a god as to assert that there isn't. The burden of proof must fall on the positive claimant: if I call someone a thief I have to provide evidence to back my positive claim.
The average atheist has a greater appreciation and almost certainly a better understanding of our place in the universe. We certainly don't think it's all here for our benefit. We're an integral part of this earth but a relatively insignificant spec in the universe. Certainly since I discarded faith I know I feel a greater responsibility than ever.

I do not see how you can be both a Gnostic - who believes in a deity and an Atheist - who does not - it's an oxymoron.
It is no more dishonest to assert that there is no god than it is to assert that there is. Both are just unprovable faiths. I do agree however that it would be better for someone to assert simply "I believe there is no god".
Everyone on Earth should truly assert "I don't know" as they don't but that is unhelpful and takes you nowhere so it is more helpful for people to state what they believe - and then there are three outcomes: I believe there is a god or gods (in whatever form), I believe there is no god or I cannot decide and do not know (or possibly care).
I also agree that if you are trying to persuade another of your position then the burden of proof is on you -butas Cologne says there is no burden of proof on an individual who is not wanting to convince others. You can believe someone is a thief without proof - but you wont convince others without proof.
Can't agree that the average atheist has a greater appreciation or understanding of the universe - that is simply a matter of perspective.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

I do not see how you can be both a Gnostic - who believes in a deity and an Atheist - who does not - it's an oxymoron.

Well, I disagree. Gnosticism and theism are not the same. One is a belief spirituality and the other is a belief in god or gods. Think about that the next time you go to a new age shop to by some crystals or nice smelling candles, or converse with a Druid or Wiccan.
It could be demonstrated in a Cartesian graph: theism to atheism left to right on the x axis; gnostic to agnostic bottom to top. You'll find me in the top right hand corner. You'll find Druids who worship nature in the lower right quadrant. You'll find the ID crowd in the top left quadrant (a creator but no spirituality or unseen connection or matrix); and the average Christian in the bottom left quadrant where gnosticism and theism underpin each other.
Again an atheist is not someone who insists absolutely that there is no god, that is a misrepresentation even if some hold that position. Atheism is purely a lack of belief in a god or God. Be careful not to misrepresent the position.