God bless america (Richard Dawkins)

a reply to: mOjOm

Source for the quote is below:

In June, two days after he turns 10, Greg, whose IQ is so high it can't be quantified, is graduating from Orange Park High School, near Jacksonville. His mother says people still grill her, trying to discover the secret to Greg's phenomenal intellect, a gift that not even medical doctors can explain. Greg's father credits synergy -- that all the right elements came together at the right time, from genes to nurturing. His mother credits God.

www.sptimes.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Not really ... I've heard folks that have recovered from cancer speak about it as if they defeated an enemy in battle.

Speaking of intellectually inconsistent ... so if gods exist they would be responsible for "blind random evolutionary forces" no?

Since you offer nothing to prove that gods exist, while acknowledging that blind forces do ... /shrug

The interviewer asks what Steven would say to God IF God existed.

Steven was far too nice, from my perspective.

Apologies, I was speaking hypothetically to demonstrate the inconsistency of Fry's position.

I personally am unsure if blind random forces exist.

If there is a supreme all powerful deity, then everything is under their control and what we may assume is random may simply be beyond our mental ability to find order in.

The same could be said even if there is no deity. It is just something that we may never know.

a reply to: chr0naut

A totally fair response.

To me, the transition from agnostic (no knowledge) to atheist (no gods) was a slow one.

Then one day, I simply realized, there was no reason to add the qualification that "I don't know."

Of course, I don't know ... but that quibble didn't matter anymore.

No evidence, no belief.

I consider it the most freeing moment of my life.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Well I'm calling BS on that whole sitting at God's feet part.

That is a story from his mom not him. Even if he did tell her that he probably did it to make her happy knowing that she is religious and I'm sure "loves her some Jesus".

a reply to: nwtrucker I don't know why people are so against these two scientists, they are both engaging intelligent people. They are not trying to destroy anyone's faith. Just see the beauty of the universe in a different way. If scientists could prove a religious claim the religious would be shouting it from the rooftops, until they can have a bit of respect for two human beings. Enough scientists were persecuted in the Christian inquisitions in extremely cruel ways, can't you just be happy with that for now.

This is old news.. He said the same exact thing in "the unbelievers" documentary

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

A totally fair response.

To me, the transition from agnostic (no knowledge) to atheist (no gods) was a slow one.

Then one day, I simply realized, there was no reason to add the qualification that "I don't know."

Of course, I don't know ... but that quibble didn't matter anymore.

No evidence, no belief.

I consider it the most freeing moment of my life.

For me, the inadequacy of intellect to penetrate such questions does not lead me to the same conclusion as you.

I still have faith and also see value in Pascal's wager.

a reply to: chr0naut

Every story from every sort of myth about gods or God suggests otherwise, no?

God talks to humans, strikes them down, incarnates in flesh as a human, etc. etc. etc.

Everything religious history tells us about gods and God is that infinite energy is comprehensible and understandable in purely human terms.

If that's true, then no gods exist because there's no evidence.

If that's false, then nothing we know about gods or God is real, and again, there's no reason to belief.

Best,

a reply to: chr0naut

Pascal's wager is born out of fear though. Not a good reason to justify such decisions IMO.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: chr0naut

Pascal's wager is born out of fear though. Not a good reason to justify such decisions IMO.

Not fear, an evaluation of advantage. Nothing much to loose, everything to gain.

Awesome video / conversation.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Not fear, an evaluation of advantage. Nothing much to loose, everything to gain.

Fear of going to hell is the fear.

Nothing to lose??? Ya, only your one life you get if you consider that nothing I guess.

Besides God would know why you chose what you chose. Hedging you bet doesn't get you into heaven either. Which means you lose the afterlife and your mortal one too.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut

Not fear, an evaluation of advantage. Nothing much to loose, everything to gain.

Fear of going to hell is the fear.

Nothing to lose??? Ya, only your one life you get if you consider that nothing I guess.

Besides God would know why you chose what you chose. Hedging you bet doesn't get you into heaven either. Which means you lose the afterlife and your mortal one too.

Do you think a loving God creates hell?

We create hells by our absence of compassion, by our warfare, by our arrogance, by our ego, by our self centered ways.

a reply to: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut

Do you think a loving God creates hell?

We create hells by our absence of compassion, by our warfare, by our arrogance, by our ego, by our self centered ways.

Nope.

Looks like you found another flaw in Pascal's Wager.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Cute picture.

Doesn't mean much though unless you show how it matters. Think you can make that stick??? Or are you just going to toss cute pictures at me all night???

originally posted by: chr0naut
Fry getting all upset and blaming God for what was obviously the result of blind random evolutionary forces.
Doesn't an emotional appeal against a supposedly non-existent God sound a little intellectually inconsistent?
Duh!

True, when asked a hypothetical question prefaced by "Suppose it's all true...", he's going to respond with:
"Doesn't an emotional appeal against a supposedly non-existent God sound a little intellectually inconsistent?"

End of philosophical discussion. End of interview.

You, however seen to feel entitled to wax profound on the subject. Isn't that kind of inconsistent, or are you just rehearsing for Gay Byrne and Irish television to show up at your door?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: ManFromEurope

The answer is rather simple. euro-man.

What gov't, or people that are empowered by that gov't would duplicate a document that constrains their power?

Only a visionary. Those with visionary genes have long since emigrated out of Europe.....

The Constitution wasn't born out of vision, it was born out of distrust. Every facet of our government is built on the idea that you can't trust anyone in power. That's why all 3 branches oversee each other, why each branch has a separation of power, and eventually why the Bill of Rights were added because you can't trust what others will do with their power.

They were right too considering the very people who wrote the Constitution also passed the Alien and Sedition acts and legalized civil asset forfeiture.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: chr0naut
Fry getting all upset and blaming God for what was obviously the result of blind random evolutionary forces.
Doesn't an emotional appeal against a supposedly non-existent God sound a little intellectually inconsistent?
Duh!

True, when asked a hypothetical question prefaced by "Suppose it's all true...", he's going to respond with:
"Doesn't an emotional appeal against a supposedly non-existent God sound a little intellectually inconsistent?"

End of philosophical discussion. End of interview.

You, however seen to feel entitled to wax profound on the subject. Isn't that kind of inconsistent, or are you just rehearsing for Gay Byrne and Irish television to show up at your door?

Fry did get pretty worked up over it.

But he is an actor, it could have been entirely false and not actually his opinion, I suppose. Camera time is everything for those famous for being famous.

Please explain how my opinion about a publicly broadcast video clip is in any way rationally inconsistent?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

Not really ... I've heard folks that have recovered from cancer speak about it as if they defeated an enemy in battle.

Speaking of intellectually inconsistent ... so if gods exist they would be responsible for "blind random evolutionary forces" no?

Since you offer nothing to prove that gods exist, while acknowledging that blind forces do ... /shrug

The interviewer asks what Steven would say to God IF God existed.

Steven was far too nice, from my perspective.

Apologies, I was speaking hypothetically to demonstrate the inconsistency of Fry's position.

I personally am unsure if blind random forces exist.

If there is a supreme all powerful deity, then everything is under their control and what we may assume is random may simply be beyond our mental ability to find order in.

The same could be said even if there is no deity. It is just something that we may never know.

"If there is a supreme all powerful deity, then everything is under their control and what we may assume is random may simply be beyond our mental ability to find order in."

Really? How long would you play poker if you knew you would be dealt a royal flush every single time? No fun whatsoever!

However, if God created at say a 50-50 split between things he could control and things he could NOT control. Now we've got a game.....and some fun.....surprises....