Stephen Fry on God

Stephen Fry was asked, “Suppose it’s all true and you walk up to the pearly gates and are confronted by god, what would Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?” Here is his response:

I think I’ll say, “Bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you! How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is 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?” That’s what I’d say.

“And you think you’re going to get in?” – Stephen Fry was asked. Here is his response:

No, I wouldn’t want to. I wouldn’t want to get in on his terms. They’re wrong. Now, if I died and it was Pluto, Hades, and if it was the 12 Greek gods, then I would have more truck with it. Because the Greeks were, they didn’t pretend not to be human in their appetites, and their capriciousness, and in their unreasonableness. They didn’t present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all kind, all beneficent.

Because the god who created this universe, if it was created by a god, is quite clearly a maniac. Utter maniac. Totally selfish. We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him! What kind of god would do that? Yes, the world is very splendid, but it also has in it is insects whose whole life cycle is to burrow in to the eyes of children and make them blind. They eat outwards from the eyes. Why, why did you do that to us? You could have EASILY have made a creation in which that didn’t exist. It is simply not acceptable.

Atheism is not just about not believing there is a god, but on the assumption that there is one, what kind of god is it? It is perfectly apparent that he is monstrous. Utterly monstrous. And deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, your life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.

This entry was posted in Atheism, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Stephen Fry on God

  1. Silence – that is the issue. Life forms in nature, in general, can deal with the weather without assistance. Human animals can’t. They need shelter, clothing, artificial heating sources, etc. It is said that 99% of the universe is out to kill humanity just here on earth, let alone out in space. This has NOTHING to do with being in a community. Many animals are in community arrangements, and they do not need space heaters, fiberglas insulation in their nests, etc. The human animal DOES!

    • Ata,

      If man is a truly a product of evolution, why then is he the only animal who can’t fulfill his nature in the wild like every other creature?

      • It is possible that the homo sapien sapien is on its way out, given that it is getting weaker by the day. Allergy rates increasing dramatically due to modern air conditioning and other sterile environmental issues is making the human animal quite weak. Do you think that the God of Abraham would make such a weak animal to have “dominion” over the earth?

      • Ata,

        I ask that you explain about mankind on his way in (evolution) and you start hallucinating about mankind on his way out.

        I hear the “Twilight Zone” music cranking up so I will bid you adieu.

      • Silence – if you are going to “bid me adieu”, why should I explain anything? (By the way, I DID explain why it is possible what I suggested.)

        Good luck, kid.

  2. Tim – the difficulty with claiming that Adam and Eve were made at the beginning of creation is that it conflicts, NT against OT.

    The OT states in Genesis 1:25-27 – Humans were created AFTER the other animals.

    In Genesis 2:18-19, it states that Humans were created BEFORE the other animals.

    See the problem that some people will have with Christianity when Christians attempt to make claims about the Bible? They are two distinctly different concepts.

    • ata,

      That the Old Testament language has God creating man after all but woman were created and the New Testament Mark has God creating man before creation is not a contradiction.

      It simply means that “when” is missing the point and meaning of the passages.

      And that is precisely the trouble with postmodern worldviews like atheism and Young Earth Creationism.

      Anything can mean whatever you want it to mean regardless of whether it makes sense.

  3. Tim says:

    Young-earth creationism is the only theological answer that takes the blame of pain & suffering off of God and properly attributes it to mankind. Without a young-earth timeline, God IS the inventor or pain & suffering for billions of years before humans even come on the scene. In that scenario, Fry is RIGHT! But that is NOT the God of the Bible.

    The God of the Bible created the world only 6000 years ago, and then gave man a choice to obey his one rule or choose to see what would happen if they didnt. Their wrong choice brought things like bone cancer in children into this world. God is not to blame, mankind is.

    • Tim,

      Young Earth creationism is not the only theoretical answer to the conundrum of suffering.

      Young Earth creationism is ridiculous and like atheism, is a complete denial of modern science which is the result of Christian civilization.

      • Tim says:

        Science was never meant to be done outside of the Bible. God’s word is the final authority in ALL matters. There is no piece of observable evidence in science that denies a YEC worldview, in fact MANY that confirm it.

      • tildeb says:

        Tim, why doesn’t the science of genetics show us the link back to a ~6K year old couple?

      • Tim,

        The DNA of mammoths clearly proves that live on Earth is much older than 6000 years.

        Paintings created by Homo sapiens and Neanderthal 30,0000 to 40,000 years old.

        The remains of wine has been found in vases in the Middle East that are much older than 6000 years.

      • Tim says:

        Um… you didn’t respond to my evidence from genetics and simply changed the topic to carbon/radiometric dating evidences.

      • Tim,

        Genetics does not support the Young Earth.

        Like atheists, Young Earth Creations just make stuff up to make their misguided faith work out for them.

        Here is the give away in Dr. Jeanson’s own words:

        “Using a mathematical model to congregate the data…”

        The weasel term is “mathematical model.”

        You see, any model can be made up to prove anything. That’s what the global warming hoaxers did too.

        They created a model that made the data show global warming.

        The problem with the both the Jeanson and global warming math models is that they are not corroborated by reality (other branches of science).

      • Tim says:

        Uh – the math is pretty simple. They know the amount of changes between early humans and modern humans. They take that amount against millions of years and thousands of years and the data matches the rates of change we would expect if only thousands of years had past. Your explanation is a hand-waving to dismiss confronting the evidence.

        YOu are missing the overall point. You cannot answer Fry’s complaints about pain & suffering other than “God’s ways are above our ways” or “God works in mysterious ways”. I work as a mental health counselor and I promise you – those answers don’t work. As a creationist though, I can counter Fry’s claims.

      • Tim,

        It simply is not the case that genetics supports Young Earth Creationism.

        Human kind is 10’s of thousands of years old.

        Did you know that each of us Homo Sapiens carries DNA from Neanderthal?

        Yes, up to 4% for certain Europeans.

        DNA has also been used to trace Homo Sapiens migration out of Africa and that dates back much further than 6000 years.

        The Young Earth Creationists misinterpret science just as they misinterpret the Bible.

      • Tim says:

        I realize you are still avoiding the actual topic of pain & suffering. Because you can’t answer it in a worldview that combines God and evolution. That is a BIG problem.

        How many days was Jesus in the grave? How many days did Joshua march around Jericho? How many days was Jonah in the fish? Why is the word “day” only disputed in Genesis 1 when it is the most clearly defined (number, morning, evening).

        We have a 7-day week because of Exodus 20:11 – “For in six days the Lord made and rested on the seventh”. We don’t work for six million years then rest… do we?

        Jesus said that Adam and Eve were created at the “beginning of creation”. If the evolutionary timeline of history is one hour on a clock, humans only came on the scene a few seconds ago. Is Jesus statement compatable with the evolutionary timeline? Was he lying?

        Your interpretation raises way more questions than it answers. We could go into all the various aspects all day long, but lets stick to pain & suffering… what’s your answer?

      • Tim,
        I do not dispute “day” in Genesis. You have to understand that since God cannot be captured by language we have to be very careful how we use and interpret language.

        This is particularly true with the Bible because it is a very cryptic work, written by a culture long, long ago and far, far away.

        The phrase, 40 days and 40 nights, for example, does not literally mean 40, 24-hour periods. Likewise, to “behold someone’s nakedness” is a euphemism for sex, either hetero or homo.

        I cited Saint Thomas Aquinas to demonstrate that unlike atheists and Young Earth Creationists, I do not cite myself as the authority for my own arguments.

        Regarding the conundrum of suffering Job lets the cat out of the bag:

        Job 2:10; “What, should we accept the good fortune God sends us, and not the ill?”

        And Jesus completes the explanation by taking all of mankind’s suffering upon himself during his life but most especially during his Passion.

        By taking on all of mankind’s suffering Jesus turned suffering into blessing. Saint Paul explains that Jesus learned obedience from suffering and perfected himself through suffering.

        Further, from the discoveries of modern science we know that no life would exist at all without suffering.

        So Fry’s tirade against God is based on an atheist hallucination of an alternate reality.

        Life in our universe can no more exist without suffering than a chocolate cake can exist without chocolate.

      • Tim,

        Where in the Bible did Jesus say that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of Creation?

      • Tim,
        Mark 10:6 – “God, from the first days of creation, made them man and woman.”

        It’s just a restatement of Genesis 1:27 – So God made man in his own image, made him in the image of God. Man and woman both, he created them.”

        There’s that word, “days” again that you insist on equating with one revolution of planet Earth around its axis.

      • Tim says:

        The question isn’t why I insist on it meaning a regular day, the question is more why you don’t. There is nothing IN the BIble to suggest otherwise. The text itself is obviously trying to suggest a quick and recent creation. I wonder why God thought it important to deceive us like that?

      • Tim,

        I have already explained why the “day” as 24 hours doesn’t make any sense.

        Clearly you aren’t even bothering to read my comments.

        Fair well. Don’t let the bed bugs bite.

      • Silence – Intelligence does not demand God. Again, that is assumptive. Science has NOT proven God, and even if it had, WHICH deity?

        You keep mentioning “atheist hallucinations” yet you do not back up your claim that it even exists. You just use it as an attempt at insult. Therefore, if you are not going to give any explanation, yet demand evidence for other issues, then we have nothing to discuss.

      • Ata,

        Intelligence and the ability to reason are indeed what sets man apart from all other creatures.

        Philosophically speaking God would then be that being who possesses infinite intelligence and flawless ability to reason.

        So to create everything God would have to be all-powerful and all-knowing.

        Ata, everyone should really study the philosophy of the ancient Greeks. They really had it going on.

        Nevertheless, the intelligence that is inherent in life and the structure and form of the universe is deniable only to atheists whose wish for that to be so is greater then their wish to comprehend reality.

      • Sorry, silence, but your claim that the human animal is the only being which has critical thinking skills and reasoning is absurd. Even some animals as simple as red squirrels and finches have been shown to have critical thinking and reasoning skills to figure out complex problems. Even other forms of apes, NOT including the human ape, can work out complex situations much faster.

        Sorry, but your claim of human superiority has already been proven to not be true.

      • Ata,

        Maybe you hang around with chimpanzees who write poetry, jack rabbits who create sculpture, squirrels who design skyscrapers and dogs who design computers.

        Yes, maybe your sister the pig designs software and jet engines.

        There is no comparison between the human intellect and that of any other creature on Earth.

      • Silence – I know of a gorilla who has a vocabulary of understanding at 2500 words in English and 1500 in actual communication. So, how many vocabulary words do you have in the language of Gorilla? Maybe you are one who speaks cat or dog?

        Why do you think that the human animal is on the “top of the heap”? So what if we have had to create things so we could survive and got carried away with it? You do realize that the only reason for invention by humans is because we are too weak to survive without assistance, right?

      • Ata,

        It is only human intervention that has allowed your pet gorilla to learn language.

      • Silence – so again, what animal language have you learned lately? What makes you so better off and smarter than the other beings in the animal kingdom? How would you be able to survive in nature without any assistance? Can you even feed yourself only having you as the one to depend on?

        The issue, silence, is that you keep pushing how the human is better than anyone else – you have yet to show any reasonable claim to prove your assertion.

      • Ata,

        You need to get out more since it is obvious that human civil society is infinitely better than living in the wild.

        My goodness, man, until the development of the Christian West and modernity, our average lifespan was 45 years filled with disease, starvation, injury and bone grinding poverty.

        And try being a deer for a year or two and see how rosy life is.

      • DeltaV says:

        Silence is promoting man-made civilization over his “god-made” nature. Curious.

      • DeltaV,

        Try stripping yourself naked and then go off out into wild winter and see how long you last.

        Civilization is essential to the flourishing of human nature.

      • Tim says:

        How do you answer the problem of pain/suffering outside of a YEC view? The fossil record records eons of bloodshed, pain, cancer, etc. way before man ever sinned – thus you cannot claim the fall brought those things. They were already present when God called his creation “very good” in any other worldview.

      • Tim,

        Not being able to claim that the Fall didn’t cause suffering because reality doesn’t support the Fall means that there is something missing in our understanding of the Fall.

        We have to follow reason where ever it leads.

        And reason leads to the conclusion that Young Earth Creationism is complete nonsense.

        Using nonsense to disprove reality is what atheists do.

        Therefore, Young Earth Creationism is more akin to atheism than it is to orthodox Christianity.

      • Tim says:

        Are you calling the Bible unreasonable and science infallible?

      • Tim,

        The Bible is okay and so is science for faith and reason have the same source, God.

      • Tim says:

        But you are making an unnecessary distinction. Sounds like you are saying Bible=faith, science=reason. That’s a false dichotomy.

      • Tim,

        What I am saying is that Young Earth Creationism is not biblical since science clearly proves it is nonsense.

        True doctrines of faith fall outside of science but do not contradict science.

      • Tim says:

        Young Earth Creationism says that the world was created in six days (Genesis 1, and Exodus 20) and that it is approx. 6000 years ago given the geneologies. It doesn’t get much more BIblical than that. In fact the Bible NEVER mentions evolution – so that is extrabiblical. Ever studied the difference between exegesis and eisegesis interpretation?

      • Tim,

        At the beginning of the universe, the Earth “day” did not exist.

        And even now, due to the Moon’s gravitational pull, the Earth “day” is getting longer even as we speak, all be it very slowly.

        So how long is the Earth “day” you are referring to, the 10 hour day of a billion years ago or 24 hour day of today?

        Also, earth quakes tamper with the length of the Earth “day” too.

        Saint Thomas Aquinas put your argument to bet back in the Middle Ages using the same reasoning only without the benefit of modern scientific discoveries.

        Young Earth Creationism is simply not supported by reason, by science or by the Bible.

  4. First, actors like Fry are not worthy or credible authorities on God, man and universe.

    Jesus answered the conundrum of suffering so well offered up in the Book Job.

    What is so bothersome about atheists is that they blame God or Christians or whomever for their inability to grasp the deep topics of philosophy.

    • tildeb says:

      No, Jesus didn’t answer the ‘conundrum’ by using the story of Job because the story of Job doesn’t answer the question. It AVOIDS it with the pathetic evasion, “Where were you… blah, blah, blah.” The fact remains that If this miscreant god did create such a world as the story of Job implies by the question, then he is, as Fry states, capricious and malevolent and not worth our grovelling.

      Now sure, you’ll trot out a bunch of mewling ‘authorities’ on god (as if they actually knew something about this supposed critter) who will switch to nebulous language and talk about sophisticated theology full of <nuance and end up with some little bubble model that can still be popped by the preponderance of real world suffering of real people and critters in real life.

      But if you stay true to form, SOM, you will dribble on with further comments to vilify atheists and claim we’re all insance and/or irrational, yada, yada, yada… without addressing Fry’s central criticism.

      • tildeb,

        I never claimed that Jesus used the story of Job to explain the conundrum of suffering.

        You’ve just proved my point about the atheist inability to understand the deeper points of philosophy.

        Atheists have to quit hallucinating alternate realities and then demanding that the world explain them.

    • How can an atheist blame something/someone in which they have no belief?

      Why do you believe that philosophy HAS to be tied to the God of Abraham?

      • Ata,

        Watch the video. You’ll see Fry the atheist excoriate God.

        I never claimed that philosophy “HAS to be tied to the God of Abraham.”

        You and tildeb continue to show the hallucinatory nature of the modern opiate called atheism.

        I simply will not argue against hallucinations that have been assigned to me by atheists.

        But I will gladly defend arguments that I, myself, have made.

      • tildeb says:

        I’m still waiting for that first argument to appear, SOM. As far as I can tell, you just make statements and will not try to justify them with anything other than more statements.

      • tildeb,

        Please restate “that first argument” so that I know I’m not addressing another atheist hallucination.

        Are you asking me to explain the solution to the conundrum of suffering?

      • tildeb says:

        I’m saying you don’t make arguments that can stand on their own merits; you make statements that are fueled only by your belief that they are correct.

      • tildeb,

        Do you want to have a discussion or not?

        If so, state clearly “that first argument.” I am always glad to explain my claims.

      • tildeb says:

        I can’t state it because you haven’t made it yet. That was whole point.

      • tildeb,

        In other words you want me to respond to a hallucination that you haven’t had yet.

        For an atheist you are being quite creative.

      • Silence – oh, so now I am an atheist? Really? Sorry, kid, but no, I am not. His comments had to do with “IF” he met God, not WHEN. It was a hypothetical situation. Maybe that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

        You said you will defend your arguments that you made: Why are atheists suffering from hallucinations as you claim? (In case you will claim you did not say any such a thing, here you go: “You and tildeb continue to show the hallucinatory nature of the modern opiate called atheism.”

        Why is a lack of a belief in your chosen deity any less credible than your belief FOR an imaginary creature? I use the term “imaginary” as there is absolutely no empirical evidence for the existence of ANY deity, let alone yours.

        I await your response (yet, I doubt it will ever come with any response offering any degree of competancy.)

      • Ata,

        Here is an example of an atheist hallucination in your own words:

        “Why do you believe that philosophy HAS to be tied to the God of Abraham?”

        I never stated any such belief.

        The lack of belief in God is not only “less credible” but completely absurd because it demands faith in the belief that everything just happened all by itself.

        Also, God is not a creature. Notice that the root meaning of the word “creature” is “created.”

        Since God is uncreated he cannot be a creature.

        In fact, stating that God is a creature is yet another example of an atheist hallucination.

        You asked for examples of atheist hallucinations.

        You provided two for us.

      • Silence: Oh, where to start with your fallacious reasonings:

        How is a lack of a belief anything which requires faith in a belief? Atheism does not say that “everything just happened all by itself.” It states ONLY that there is a lack of a belief in a deity. That’s it. “How it all came about” is not necessary to be known to make such a claim.

        To many, God IS a creature, even by your definition, because it is a faith-based belief that theists have created to answer some “unanswerable” situation. To make it a bit clearer for you, to settle all of this, do this:

        Prove God empirically.

        That is all I ask. As you are still demanding I am an atheist, even though I have already informed you that I am not, it appears you are not doing a very good job of staying objective, but being either extremely defensive, or begging for attention in a negative way.

        Now, please show your evidence. (At least I am mature enough to know that my perception of God is based on faith and has absolutely NO empirical evidence.)

      • Ata,

        You prove my claim that atheists are unable to understand the deeper ideas of philosophy.

        In philosophy, God is called the First Cause.

        Without a First Cause, the universe just happened all by itself, which is the fundamental dogma of atheism.

        Also, science has proven the existence of God.

        I will give you just three areas of science that prove the existence of God.

        1. Information Theory
        2. Cosmology
        3. Molecular Biology

        I will be glad to further explain if you wish.

        But be aware that if we continue, you will only provide proof that not only do atheists know nothing of philosophy, but they also deny the findings of science.

      • Silence – oh, my, you love assumption, don’t you.

        Your claim about philosophy relating to proving God is assumptive. The first cause may be nature. It could be Ahura Mazda. It could be a slew of other possibilities as well.

        All three of your examples of science proving God (Information Theory, Cosmology and Molecular Biology) are NOT as you call it. Again, this is nothing but assumptive at best.

        About Information Theory being empirical evidence of God:

        About Cosmology proving God:

        About Molecular Biology and God:

        Apparently, filling in what you do not understand by saying “God dun did it” is known as the “God of the Gaps” argument. It is ONLY assumption as it offers absolutelly no evidence.

      • Ata,
        I haven’t assumed anything.

        That’s just another one of your hallucinations.

        1. The First Cause cannot be nature because discoveries in modern cosmology prove that the universe had a beginning.

        That means that the universe, nature, was caused by something other than nature.

        The First Cause is God whose existence does not depend on time or space and thus cannot be defined by nature.

        2. That Information Theory proves the existence of God has nothing to do with Creationism.

        Your link is simply a link to an atheist hallucination. I will not argue against a hallucination.

        Information Theory proves the existence of God because information is proof of intelligence.

        Atheist Carl Sagan’s favorite project was SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

        Instrumentation (listening devices) was devised to differentiate natural noise from intelligent information.

        That fact that the universe is replete with information demonstrates that the universe is infused with intelligence.

        That intelligence is God, the Creator, the First Cause.

        3. A major part of molecular biology is the study of proteins.

        Protein is a family of 10’s of thousands of specialized, precision manufactured, precision tools.

        Tool-making is proof of intelligence.

        All of your points have been refuted, not by links to atheist hallucinations, but by science and reason.

What you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s