Stephen Fry blasphemy probe dropped after garda fail to find 'substantial number of outraged people

[yortsed snacilbuper]

Under the controversial legislation, introduced by then Justice Minister Dermot Ahern in 2009, it is illegal to publish or utter a matter that is "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion".

Michael Nugent, Chairperson of Atheist Ireland said the reason for dropping this investigation is "even more dangerous than a prosecution would have been."

"This creates an incentive for people to demonstrate outrage when they see or hear something that they believe is blasphemous.

On Saturday, we revealed that gardaí had launched an investigation into comments made by the actor and writer on RTÉ show ‘The Meaning of Life’ in February 2015.

During the programme, presented by broadcaster Gay Byrne, Mr Fry described God as "capricious", "mean-minded" and "stupid" for allowing so much suffering in the world.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/stephen-fry-blasphemy-probe-dropped-after-garda-fail-to-find-substantial-number-of-outraged-people-35692915.html

[OnDoutside]

1. Good, as I expected. The Gardai have enough on their

to do list, without having to deal with this nonsense.

[guillaumeb]

2. So Mr. Fry has a special insight into the mind of the Creator,

and is competent to pass judgement?

Fry is not blasphemous, merely foolish.

[Voltaire2]

6. I'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation

for slaughter of innocents that is just too complicated for mere mortals to understand, right?

[guillaumeb]

7. There is an explanation.

It is called free will.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

35. So where does free will come in

when children get cancer? Or are born severely damaged? Or a tornado destroys your house? Or several thousand people are killed in an earthquake or a forest fire?

How exactly does free will work in those circumstances?

[trotsky]

40. It just does, see?

Now stop asking questions and go back to church!

[backscatter712]

109. Well obviously, when that four-year-old got bone cancer...

...he must have done something to deserve it.

I heard it in church, so it must be true!

[LanternWaste]

42. How precisely does cancer happen regardless of free will...?

How precisely does cancer happen regardless of the existence free will...?

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. What?

How precisely does cancer happen without regard or consideration to the existence free will?

Well, I'd start with wikipedia's entry on cell division and, once you understand how genetic information is transcribed and replicated, move your way up to transcription and replication errors. You'll find free will is wholly and entirely irrelevant. Whether or not you control your destiny... cancer gives zero fucks.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

45. Look again at the posts just above me.

It was guillameb who said free will was the explanation for the slaughter of innocents. I'm just trying to figure out how free will accounts for so many terrible things.

Frye has it right, in my opinion. Only a sadistic bastard of a totally cruel god visits such horrors on "his" people and then expects that we worship and adore him.

[guillaumeb]

46. You are confusing free will with quite a number of other things.

Perhaps you should research the concept of free will.

[beam me up scottie]

47. You're the one who said free will was the explanation.

So explain.

Where does free will come in when children get cancer? Or when parasites make them blind? Or when they're born with AIDS or any number of other horrific diseases?

What does free will have to with any of that?

[guillaumeb]

50. You also need to read about the concept of free will.

My suggestion is to google the term and do some research.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[guillaumeb]

56. Wikipedia is one source, but the definition is incomplete. eom

[beam me up scottie]

57. Then let's use the biblical definition as explained by Theopedia:

Free will

Probably the most common definition of free will is the "ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition," and specifically that these "free will" choices are not ultimately predestined by God.

According to the Bible, however, the choices of man are not only ultimately determined by God, but morally determined by one's nature. Man is indeed a free moral agent and freely makes choices, but in his natural state he necessarily acts in accordance with his fallen nature. Man willingly makes choices that flow from the heart, and sin is also always attributed to the desires of the heart (James 1:13-15). When a person turns to Christ, he does so not because of his own "free will", but because God has supernaturally enabled and moved him to do so through regeneration. God never coerces man's will, rather God gives the ability to believe through the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is a doctrinal distinction between the theologies of Calvinism and Arminianism: In Arminianism, God saves those who believe of their own free will. In Calvinism, God saves those who willingly believe as a result of sovereign enablement by the regenerating work of the Spirit.

Rather than man's will being free, Jesus tells us that, "everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin," (John 8:34). The heart, until born again, is "deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17: 9). God saw in man that "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44).

Man is most free in heaven, where he is morally unable to sin. True freedom isn't freedom to sin, but freedom from sin.

https://www.theopedia.com/free-will

Now free will has been explained by a credible religious source. Good for Google.

And yet you still haven't answered my questions:

Where does free will come in when children get cancer? Or when parasites make them blind? Or when they're born with AIDS or any number of other horrific diseases?

What does free will have to with any of that?

Why does this god that we're not 'competent' to judge allow innocent children to suffer when he could prevent it?

You keep claiming this is explainable so explain. Why do those children deserve punishment because of original sin?

[guillaumeb]

58. Random natural acts are not punishment. They are by definition random acts.

If I get sunburned that is not a punishment, it is a consequence of solar radiation.

If I skid on an icy road it is not a punishment, it is a possible consequence of driving on ice.

If you see God as an invisible protective bubble that is your vision.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Not according the bible which says all things were created by this God we're not supposed to judge.

Colossians 1:16 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

That's the being Stephen Fry was criticizing. Not your idea of what it is.

Explain why we aren't qualified to criticize a being who created cancer and parasites that bore into children's eyes?

If a scientist created those things and inflicted them upon children we would call him evil. And no one would try to prosecute us for doing so or claim we're not 'competent' to judge him.

Let's get back to your original premise:

So Mr. Fry has a special insight into the mind of the Creator, and is competent to pass judgement?

Fry is not blasphemous, merely foolish.

You called this being the Creator and according to the holy book he created everything so why should this particular creator who created evil be treated differently from an evil scientist? Why are humans not competent to judge him?

[guillaumeb]

62. Is an ant competent to judge a human?

Is a human competent to judge a sentient being from another planet?

Should a Creator who endowed humans with free will take that freedom away if it is misused? If so, humans do not have free will.

[beam me up scottie]

63. If the ant read a book showing how humans cause innocent ants to suffer - yes it would be competent.

Absolutely.

Is a human competent to judge a sentient being from another planet?

If the human was told that this sentient being created disease, parasites that cause children to go blind and other horrific things that cause untold suffering among the innocent the answer is yes. Again: absolutely. They are indeed competent.

What part of this isn't making sense?

Stephen was told that this being created bone cancer and parasites that cause children to go blind and he judged it accordingly. He used the reference material provided and came to a logical conclusion. How is he not competent?

[guillaumeb]

65. If humans are endowed with free will, that means that humans

can act freely. Sometimes those actions have negative results.

If a Creator creates a sentient being with the will to act freely, the consequences of such actions sometimes are negative. So is the Creator to blame, or the human actor?

Sorry, this line of argument is unconvincing, except to those already convinced that there is no Creator.

And when you discover this book reading ant please post the video on YouTube.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Wait, what did those children do to deserve the 'results' they got?

That is some twisted thinking right there - children deserve to suffer and die because "actions have negative results"?

Why do innocent children deserve "consequences" anyway? Why do babies who are born with horrific diseases deserve them? What actions have they committed that makes one think they deserve to suffer and die?

If a Creator creates a sentient being with the will to act freely, the consequences of such actions sometimes are negative. So is the Creator to blame, or the human actor?

The creator is omnipotent and knew its creation would disobey. Basically it tortures its children for acting as they were designed. So the creator is evil.

That's like getting a puppy or kitten knowing it's going to make a mess but torturing it anyway because it made you angry.

That is evil.

[guillaumeb]

68. And where in my posts did you read that I said anyone deserves anything?

If you wish to argue, at least argue with what I actually said.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Right here:

We were discussing CHILDREN, remember? Here is what I asked:

Stephen was told that this being created bone cancer and parasites that cause children to go blind and he judged it accordingly. He used the reference material provided and came to a logical conclusion. How is he not competent?

And your response:

Sometimes those actions have negative results.

If a Creator creates a sentient being with the will to act freely, the consequences of such actions sometimes are negative.

You're saying those children's actions have negative results and consequences. This entire sub-thread consists of me asking you why children deserve to suffer and you finally answered me. That was very enlightening, thank you.

[guillaumeb]

71. Your enlightenment is misnamed.

Fry is judging the Creator from a human perspective, and as an avowed atheist who has already reached his conclusion.

And my comments about actions and consequences referred to deliberate choices, not random happenings. So your conclusion is faulty and flawed.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Fry is judging the Creator from the ONLY perspective we have.

The bible was written from a human perspective and now you're trying to tell us humans aren't qualified to judge God by what's in its pages?

What other perspective is there? What other source is available?

That doesn't make any sense. That's like saying after reading about Superman or Batman we're not capable of judging Lex Luther or the Joker.

Or if you prefer non-fiction that's like saying we're not qualified to judge Hitler after reading Mein Kampf.

There is no other perspective, we judge beings by what we know about them. Based on what's written in the bible - from a human perspective any being who creates bone cancer and parasites that cause innocent children to go blind is by definition evil.

And my comments about actions and consequences referred to deliberate choices, not random happenings. So your conclusion is faulty and flawed.

On the contrary, I repeatedly asked you what free will had to do with children suffering and you finally explained it. You said it's the result of 'consequences' for actions. Those are your words. My conclusion is based on your answer.

[guillaumeb]

75. Both of your conclusions are faulty.

The last because my responses indicated nothing of what you are claiming.

The first because you are assuming that the Creator intends for evil to take place.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Of course an omnipotent creator intended for evil to take place. He created evil.

Didn't you read the book?

Colossians 1:16 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

And this creator also ordered evil acts like rape, murder, slavery, genocide, not to mention drowning every living thing on the planet because he had a a tantrum. So yes, obviously according to the story the Creator intends for evil to take place.

The last because my responses indicated nothing of what you are claiming.

Then explain why you keep bringing up free will when asked why children deserve to suffer. Your explanation above is the only one you've given me. Unless you give me another explanation its the one upon which I'll base my conclusion.

[guillaumeb]

78. Who ever said that children, or adults, deserve to suffer?

And if you are arguing as a Biblical literalist, I suggest that you argue with a Biblical literalist.

By the way, when you constantly criticize religion, are you trying to guilt shame Democratic Christians? Given that a majority of Democrats are Christian, why the divisive attacks? Are you attempting to attack their faith as a means of driving them from DU by suggesting motives for them?

[beam me up scottie]

81. According to the story all humans deserve to suffer. That includes children.

Didn't you read the book?

What is original sin?

Original sin is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God. It is an important doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church. The concept of Original Sin was explained in depth by St Augustine and formalised as part of Roman Catholic doctrine by the Councils of Trent in the 16th Century.

Original sin is not just this inherited spiritual disease or defect in human nature; it's also the 'condemnation' that goes with that fault.

An explanation for the evils of the world

Some Christians believe that original sin explains why there is so much wrong in a world created by a perfect God, and why people need to have their souls 'saved' by God.

A condition you're in, not something you do

Original sin is a condition, not something that people do: It's the normal spiritual and psychological condition of human beings, not their bad thoughts and actions. Even a newborn baby who hasn't done anything at all is damaged by original sin

The sin of Adam

In traditional Christian teaching, original sin is the result of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_1.shtml

Let's read that relevant part again:

Even a newborn baby who hasn't done anything at all is damaged by original sin.

I didn't write this stuff, I'm just going by what was already written in the holy book - which is supposed to be the word of God. What else am I supposed to base my criticisms on?

And if you are arguing as a Biblical literalist, I suggest that you argue with a Biblical literalist.

Wait, what? You're the one who brought up free will and the Creator, isn't that biblical literalism?

By the way, when you constantly criticize religion, are you trying to guilt shame Democratic Christians? Given that a majority of Democrats are Christian, why the divisive attacks? Are you attempting to attack their faith as a means of driving them from DU by suggesting motives for them?

What a ridiculous tangent. No one is attacking 'faith' or religious people. This thread is about a man being prosecuted for blasphemy. You said he was 'foolish' and not competent to judge a mythological creature and I disagreed. I always side with the blasphemer in these situations but not everyone has to agree with me.

I criticize all harmful ideologies and that includes religious conservatism and fundamentalism. Religion isn't anything special, it's no different than any other ideology.

Religious people are currently trying to restrict the rights of women and lgbt people in this country, are we supposed to keep quiet about that kind of religious oppression too because we might offend people?

[guillaumeb]

82. My "ridiculous tangent" was a reframing of an argument recently made here

that my saying that I am a pro-choice/pro-life Democrat is my attempt to shame women. Good that you reject that type of argument.

[beam me up scottie]

84. I have no idea what you're talking about. What does abortion have to with this thread?

Last edited Sat May 13, 2017, 10:12 PM - Edit history (2)

But as long as you asked, I think pro-life men who shame women by defining abortion as the "taking of another life" (murder) are self-righteous, judgmental, fundamentalist asses.

I also think pro-life men who opine at length about how they are "personally opposed" to abortion and expect us to be grateful because they say they'll 'allow' us to make our own decisions are condescending blowhards. They believe they're entitled to judge us even though they've never known what it's like to worry that a pregnancy might ruin their health or kill them. They're completely clueless and incapable of understanding how terrifying the thought of having a child can be when you're alone and poor.

Pro-life men never attack other men who destroy fertilized embryos because as we all know it's not about the sanctity of life, it's about controlling women's bodies.

I don't think pro-life men have the right to lecture us about our opinions or our decisions. I really don't care about their moral objection to certain medical procedures and I wish they would shut the hell up about it.

Lastly I think it's none of these pro-life men's damned business what we do with our bodies and they should focus on their own reproductive organs. If pro-life men have an overwhelming urge to lecture others about morality they can go after legislators who oppose sex education, easy access to birth control and funding for family planning. Because women who need abortions aren't the ones who are behaving immorally.

I say this as a woman who's had an abortion and refused to allow anyone to shame me for making that decision.

I hope this clears up any confusion about what I think of pro-life men who shame women for having abortions.

You're welcome.

[guillaumeb]

92. Speaking of judgmental,

it is interesting how you place all pro-life men in the same category. And interesting how you can be so certain of the motives and desires and actions of pro-life men.

[Act_of_Reparation]

108. How about you mansplain to the little lady what you think of her healthcare decisions?

I think that would be a truly enlightening discussion.

[Lordquinton]

100. Well said

Some experiences are unique to a gender, and that's the core problem of patriarchal institutions making rules about what women can and can't do with their bodies.

[trotsky]

107. Awesome response.

But depressing that it's needed here on DU.

[Lordquinton]

91. Why can't fry judge "the creator"?

You've made claims and backed up none of them except to dismiss any questions or comments about it.

As a believer you have formed your own conclusions, and, as mentioned, steadfastly refused to back them up. So we have to go around you to texts about the abrahamic god, like the old testament where he acts like a petulant child, or an abusive parent. He's since been reconned into a perfect being who shall not be questioned, less the doubter be subject to ridicule and mockery.

(The last comment can be backed up by comments in this thread)

[guillaumeb]

93. Fry is not proving anything.

He is merely stating an often repeated opinion based on his personal insight.

As to ridicule and mockery, the only ridicule and mockery in these threads is that which is used as arguments by numerous non-theists. I see no one here attacking atheists for their beliefs.

[Lordquinton]

101. *lack of belief

So what do you have to retort his words? Like solid backing, something with substance.

[guillaumeb]

116. His opinion versus mine is what is being discussed.

And he has a right to his.

Nothing about my other comment?

[Lordquinton]

117. You haven't said anything to support it

so if you want to back up your claims do so.

And please stop disrespecting atheists.

[guillaumeb]

118. The main source of disrespect that I see here, at DU, is the disrespect

that atheists direct at believers.

[Lordquinton]

120. That's because

You don't see what believers say as disrespectful.

[hurl]

85. Consequences are designed too

In a universe created by an omnipotent being, you can't write off 'consequences' as materially different from punishments. Consequences had to be intentionally designed in that scenario. An omnipotent being could just as easily have made the 'consequence' nothing like a punishment, but deliberately chose not to. In a universe designed by an omnipotent being, there are, by definition, NO random acts.

[guillaumeb]

94. Welcome to DU.

The sun warms the planet, makes life possible, and can cause sunburn and cancer. Is the sun evil?

[Act_of_Reparation]

104. Did you not read what they wrote?

If sunburn and cancer are consequent to sunlight, it is because the creator made it so. The sunlight isn't on trial here.

[trotsky]

106. Why did your creator make a sun that causes sunburn and cancer?

If humans could make their own vitamin D and not need sunlight to do it, they wouldn't have had to evolve lighter skin when they moved to higher latitudes and thus wouldn't be as susceptible to burning and cancer.

Why does so much of your creator's universe want to kill us? Is your creator evil?

[Baconator]

114. Those worms that eat children's eyes from inside out..

That is built in feature according according to the creation model and not a bug.

[backscatter712]

110. Ah yes, our Just God demands we suffer...

...because a distant ancestor was goaded by a talking snake to eat the special fruit from the magic tree that made him smart.

How dare we be smart!

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

53. So the concept of free will includes

children getting cancer? Earthquakes destroying whole villages?

I asked specifically about those things and you chose to throw out the "free will" explanation.

So again, explain how free will plays into those things.

You actually do know that free will has nothing to do with a lot of things, and free will does not explain away a lot of the misery in the world. Of course, if you want to believe that a sadistic god likes to totally fuck with things, then believe all you want. But I utterly reject that explanation.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Does one need special insight to wonder why a loving god creates bone cancer and parasites?

Why shouldn't we 'judge' a creator who allows his creations to suffer for absolutely no good reason the same way we would judge an abusive parent? And why isn't Stephen competent to judge such an evil and vengeful creature? The old testament god was a homicidal maniac after all so why should Fry keep his opinions to himself? Especially when it's a being he doesn't even believe in. It's no different than dissing Zeus or Thor on television except you can't be prosecuted for criticizing those gods.

Stephen Fry nailed that interview, it was a thing of beauty.

Here's the video for those who haven't had a chance to enjoy it yet:

Superb!

Stephen Fry brands God 'utterly utterly evil'

The newly married broadcaster was asked what he would do if he found himself at the “pearly gates” after his death.

"I'll say: bone cancer in children, what's that about?” he said.

"How dare you. How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that's not our fault? It’s not right. It's utterly, utterly evil.

"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"

Fry was being interviewed for an Irish television show called The Meaning of Life when he launched into an impassioned tirade about God’s existence.

Asked if he thought he would get to heaven, he replied: "No, but I wouldn't want to. I wouldn’t want to get in on his terms. They’re wrong.

He added: "The God who created this universe, if he created this universe, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish.

"We have to spend our lives on our knees thanking him. What kind of God would do that?

"Yes, the world is very splendid, but it also has in it insects whose whole life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. Why? Why did you do that to us? It is simply not acceptable.

“Atheism is not just about not believing there's a god. On the assumption there is one, what kind of God is he? It’s perfectly apparent that was monstrous, utterly monstrous, and deserves no respect.”

He added: "The moment you banish him, your life becomes simpler, purer cleaner, more worth living in my opinion."

***

Gay Byrne, the interviewer, slightly taken aback by Fry's strongly worded response, said it was the longest answer he’d got to that question.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381589/Watch-Stephen-Fry-brands-God-utterly-utterly-evil.html

[guillaumeb]

11. Simplistic, but for some of the "true believers" on the non-theistic side,

he is apparently convincing.

The argument has been made many times. It still fails.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Non theists? You mean people who don't believe in Zeus, Thor or any of the thousands of other gods?

How exactly does that make one a "true believer"? Does not believing in mythological creatures require a belief?

And how does his argument fail? Explain.

[guillaumeb]

13. The debate has been argued here many times since I have been here.

If you wish to blame science for the existence of evil because some scientists have invented atomic weapons and nerve gas I would argue against that also.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Wait, what does science have to do with this? Why on earth would anyone conflate science and gods?

You're comparing a deity to science when a more apt analogy would be comparing it to an evil scientist who has super powers and instead of using them for good creates diseases, natural disasters and weapons that cause untold suffering and death.

So no, I wouldn't blame science for those weapons, if I wanted to place blame it would be on the scientists who invented them just like I would blame a homicidal and vengeful god for creating evil if I believed in such a thing.

There's nothing illogical about blaming a creator for creating something evil.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Science is a methodology, it's not some hypothetical cosmic boojum with a grudge against shellfish.

[WoonTars]

14. His argument doesn't fail....that's the point..

...to say otherwise is delusional...

[beam me up scottie]

16. You're right, it's a logical conclusion.

A being who creates evil is evil.

If we were discussing supervillains this wouldn't even be up for debate. I still can't believe someone can actually be prosecuted for dissing God on television in Ireland.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. He's all-knowing, all powerful, infalliable.. and, he needs your money, and can't stand criticism.

[beam me up scottie]

31. George Carlin on religion:

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!

Let's not forget the late great comedians who went to jail for offensive speech. They were pioneers.

[Lordquinton]

17. It's never failed

The "true believers" on the theistic side just have no answer and hope it will all simply go away, then they claim victory after the fact.

[Lordquinton]

18. Are you saying he doesn't? Or isn't?

On what are you basing your judgements on?

[guillaumeb]

22. Fry is making an assumption that he cannot prove.

If his assumptions fit with anyone's personal views they will be seen as insightful.

[beam me up scottie]

29. What assumption? Isn't he simply repeating what's in the bible?

God created everything didn't he? And that includes disease and parasites that cause children to go blind.

As an omnipotent being God also has the ability to create a world without disease and parasites, a world without suffering and death - but he decided to punish his children instead. That's not Stephen's assumption, that's the theory of an omnipotent god straight out of the bible. We didn't write this stuff, we're simply questioning it.

[guillaumeb]

30. I understand your position.

And reject the premise.

We will simply have to accept that we do not agree.

[beam me up scottie]

32. It's not my position, it's part of the story. God is supposed to be omnipotent.

An omnipotent being has the ability to create a world without suffering. So why is it a faulty premise to wonder why this one didn't and judge him accordingly? I didn't write the book, I'm just going by what was already written about the guy.

When any other mythological being allegedly causes suffering we're allowed to judge it by its actions, why should this one be treated differently? What makes it so special that it deserves protection from its critics? Why aren't we considered competent to judge it?

[WoonTars]

37. Which premise?

Colossians 1:16 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Which part of "all things were created by him" is up for debate?

[trotsky]

41. You have stated repeatedly you believe the universe was created by your god.

The existence of evil is therefore quite a challenge for you to explain. "Because free will" doesn't settle the debate - you'll need to try harder than that, or simply admit your position is completely unsupported.

[hatrack]

59. Epicurus said it best . . . .

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[guillaumeb]

61. Is sickness evil?

Are accidents evil?

Is bad weather evil?

Is an animal attack evil?

Is solar radiation good when it heats the planet, but evil when it causes cancer?

Is food good when it nourishes, but evil when too much causes obesity?

[beam me up scottie]

64. If the sickness was created yes, it's evil.

Are accidents evil?

If they're intentional yes.

Is bad weather evil?

You mean like when it's created to kill every living thing on the planet like the biblical flood?

Yes, absolutely.

Is an animal attack evil?

If the animal was created to attack then the Creator of it would be evil.

Is solar radiation good when it heats the planet, but evil when it causes cancer?

Why would a loving god create solar radiation that causes cancer? Have you ever had cancer? I have. Any being who would create cancer sounds pretty evil to me.

Is food good when it nourishes, but evil when too much causes obesity?

If the food was designed to cause obesity then it can be argued that the creator of such food is evil.

If someone creates a thing that causes suffering KNOWING that it's going to cause suffering then they can be judged as evil.

Any more questions?

[guillaumeb]

66. Accident and intentional are contradictory.

These arguments are simply failing.

[beam me up scottie]

69. A creator who's omnipotent is responsible for all things it creates - including accidents.

Remember?

Colossians 1:16 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[guillaumeb]

72. So if you have a child, you are responsible for every action that the child takes.

[beam me up scottie]

74. God is supposed to be omnipotent. He created humans who he knew would make mistakes.

Now he blames those humans for their mistakes and tortures them?

What kind of sick, sadistic father does that? If I abused children like that I would be in prison.

This is all in the book by the way, I'm just using the reference material provided. Have you read it? That old testament god is a homicidal maniac. Who slaughters every living thing on earth in a fit of rage because his creatures behaved badly? He killed babies and kittens.

Think of the kittens.

[guillaumeb]

76. Overblown rhetoric does not a winning argument make.

So are parents responsible for the actions of the children they created?

[beam me up scottie]

79. It's not rhetoric - all that stuff is in the bible. I'm just citing the source.

So are parents responsible for the actions of the children they created?

That's a straw man, no one said parents are responsible for the actions of their children.

Here's the actual question: is the Creator of everything responsible for everything?

And the answer is: yes, according to the story he is. Absolutely.

The other question is about free will. Do those children deserve to suffer and die because of their actions? You said yes. I disagree.

And finally why does an omnipotent creator punish his children by creating bone cancer and parasites that cause blindness when he knew in advance they were going to make mistakes? That sounds like he's blaming them for his mistakes.

[guillaumeb]

80. Still misrepresenting I see.

With this one:

The other question is about free will. Do those children deserve to suffer and die because of their actions? You said yes. I disagree

Oh well.

[beam me up scottie]

83. You're the one who explained the consequences of free will.

I'm just going by your words:

Sometimes those actions have negative results.

If a Creator creates a sentient being with the will to act freely, the consequences of such actions sometimes are negative.

You're free to clarify what you meant by suffering being the "results" and "negative consequences" of actions.

[WoonTars]

88. Parents are not omnipotent beings...

....even if they'd like to be...

You need to compare apples to apples....

[WoonTars]

87. I was unaware that parents were omnipotent...

...i mean i know my dad was pretty handy around the house, but omnipotent?

[Baconator]

115. ... But you can't explain why.

[Lordquinton]

38. What there can he not prove?

Do you not find anything meaningful in what he says?

[Warren DeMontague]

19. What sort of qualifications are required

to pass judgment on unsubstantiated nonsense?

[guillaumeb]

23. Fry's points are unsubstantiated nonsense.

But perhaps that was not your meaning?

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Based upon what evidence?

[guillaumeb]

25. If he has proof, he can present it.

And when he does, please post it.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. You are right. Just like saying "The Easter Bunny is a jerk and the Tooth Fairy has bad breath"

his assertions are not what you would call provable.

[guillaumeb]

27. The Tooth Fairy suffers from bad breath due to excessive sugar consumption.

Everyone knows that.

[beam me up scottie]

33. It would be reasonable if there was a book claiming the Easter Bunny has bad breath.

Stephen Fry is basing his criticism on the god in the bible. So it's a perfectly valid assumption to think he's a homicidal maniac based on the guy's actions. It's not like Stephen is the one making it all up.

[Lordquinton]

39. If you have proof please present it

I suppose your answer will include some form of the tired old "Beyond knowing" with nothing to back that assertion up.

[Warpy]

34. What he's got are some very good questions that priests inevitably dodge

by telling the faithful "it's a mystery." IOW, they don't have any answer, either, but how dare you ask the question!

It's silly to attribute anything else to Fry.

[Crunchy Frog]

43. Stephen Fry is an atheist.

He was asked a hypothetical question and gave a hypothetical answer.

Pretty sure that the fight this thread is devolving into belongs in the Religion forum.

[guillaumeb]

51. It probably does belong there.

But it is news also.

[TheBlackAdder]

48. No different than those who have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and think the Spirit is with them.

[GliderGuider]

95. What creator? nt

[guillaumeb]

96. The one who created all of existence.

[GliderGuider]

97. One? I thought there were a whole bunch of them

That's what Hinduism says, anyway. I don't think you have the right story.

[guillaumeb]

98. So are you a Hindu?

[GliderGuider]

99. No.

[Lordquinton]

102. Source?

[Orsino]

112. Mr. Fry's existence has been repeatedly proven...

...and he is a citizen with rights to self-expression.

No Creator is exists to claim injury.

[Baconator]

113. Hard to have insight into the mind of a fictional character...

On the other hand, I suppose one could muse on the true motivation of Lord Voldemort.

What a load...

[Leith]

3. The Clip in Question

It's less than 7 minutes long. He raises excellent points and asks some very good questions.

Stephen Fry is one of my favorite writers/actors/comedians. When I need a pick-me-up, I watch clips of QI (a British game show where he is the MC).

[surrealAmerican]

4. I am disappointed.

Stephen Fry would have eaten them alive in court, and in a very entertaining way too.

[Voltaire2]

5. They backed down so that the law could stay.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

8. Exactly.

[beam me up scottie]

10. Precisely. This wasn't a victory for reason.

If they had been able to find a large group of outraged people that could have prosecuted him.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Another reason why we are fortunate to have the 1st Amendment, here in the US.

Unfortunately there are some people - even ones who call themselves "progressives"- who attack the thing and defend shit like censorship, etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Remember when we had people on DU arguing that "blasphemous" cartoons should be illegal?

Good times, good times. Love those 1st Amendment threads.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

36. Richard Dawkins on Stephen Fry, blasphemy and the law

Sir, – As a gesture of solidarity with Stephen Fry, I quote a sentence from my book, The God Delusion: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Every one of these adjectives is amply documented, with full biblical citations, in Dan Barker’s book, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction.

I shall be giving a public lecture in the National Concert Hall, Dublin, on June 12th, and I shall therefore be available for arrest on a charge of blasphemy. – Yours, etc,

RICHARD DAWKINS,

New College,

Oxford.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/richard-dawkins-on-stephen-fry-blasphemy-and-the-law-1.3077119

[beam me up scottie]

49. Awesome response.

Thanks for posting it!

[trotsky]

54. Hey - I've been told he's just as bad as religious fundamentalists who kill people.

"Two sides of the same coin" is the phrase that some have used.

[beam me up scottie]

55. And he wears offensive t-shirts!!!

The "two sides" argument:

[trotsky]

105. Oh noes!!!

I forgot about the T-shirts!! What a monster!

[yortsed snacilbuper]

89. Saudi Arabia to execute atheist for blasphemy

Those sentenced to death are killed by beheading or shooting.

http://nation.com.pk/international/29-Apr-2017/saudi-arabia-will-execute-atheist-for-insulting-the-prophet

[beam me up scottie]

90. I wonder if someone will call him 'foolish' too?

We were told that humans aren't competent to pass judgement on God or Allah or whichever deity is the victim here. So it must the blasphemer's own fault, right?

[Warren DeMontague]

119. STOP INSULTING THE MAGIC SKY PEOPLE

[Warpy]

103. Even the snot who complained wasn't offended

The world would be a much nicer place if people didn't go out of their way to be offended on the behalf of other people, especially when those other people aren't offended at all.

Fucking busybodies.

[Orsino]

111. Or any substantial deities.

"No injured party" about sums it up.