Stephen Fry Stuns When Asked What He’d Say If ‘Confronted By God’
The English actor, comedian and atheist answered, “I’d say, bone cancer in children? What’s that all about?[su_left_ad]
Please “like” us on Facebook
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2015 Liberaland
180 responses to Stephen Fry Stuns When Asked What He’d Say If ‘Confronted By God’
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
FatRat January 31st, 2015 at 19:07
https://damageonsight.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/go-to-heaven-for-climate-hell-for-company-mark-twain-quote-poster.jpg
Spirit of America January 31st, 2015 at 22:52
“Satan (impatiently) to New Comer. The trouble with you Chicago people
is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are
merely the most numerous.”
It is my favorite quote of his because I always change ‘chicago’ to ‘washington d.c.’
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 13:17
Or maybe Satan is the god and Yahweh is the evil one.
[URL=http://s1236.photobucket.com/user/dwendt44/media/philsophy/kill-count_zpsnrpzjcha.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff453/dwendt44/philsophy/kill-count_zpsnrpzjcha.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 18:16
cute
FatRat January 31st, 2015 at 20:07
https://damageonsight.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/go-to-heaven-for-climate-hell-for-company-mark-twain-quote-poster.jpg
Spirit of America January 31st, 2015 at 23:52
“Satan (impatiently) to New Comer. The trouble with you Chicago people
is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are
merely the most numerous.”
It is my favorite quote of his because I always change ‘chicago’ to ‘washington d.c.’
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 14:17
Or maybe Satan is the god and Yahweh is the evil one.
[URL=http://s1236.photobucket.com/user/dwendt44/media/philsophy/kill-count_zpsnrpzjcha.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff453/dwendt44/philsophy/kill-count_zpsnrpzjcha.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 19:16
cute
Roctuna January 31st, 2015 at 20:31
Wish I’d said that.
Roctuna January 31st, 2015 at 21:31
Wish I’d said that.
John Tarter January 31st, 2015 at 20:46
Mr. Fry will be confronted with God at some point, and I wonder how quick he will be with a snide remark then?
But wait, I shall give Mr. Fry an answer. Cancer in any human is a natural part of life, unlike sex between two of the same sex which goes against the natural law.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker January 31st, 2015 at 21:41
Like the man said, a benevolent and nurturing supreme being would not say “shut up” or have petty ego issues.
Here’s a good clip for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
Dwendt44 January 31st, 2015 at 23:54
Ten thumbs up.
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 09:17
And he always wants money.
William February 1st, 2015 at 01:35
Science is trying to cure cancer.
Religion causes people to fly airliners into buildings
William February 1st, 2015 at 01:42
“cancer in any human is a natural part of life, it offers spiritual growth for the afflicted soul.”
Having someone I love deeply take 18 months to die painfully of cancer I can tell you it doesn’t offer spiritual “growth”. It actually kills you.
Besides, the Bible forbids wheelchair bound people from going to church.
Leviticus 21:17-23.
jasperjava February 1st, 2015 at 03:07
It’s no surprise that John Tarter/ Wayout’s idea of God is someone just as mean-spirited and vindictive as he is.
Man continues to make God in his own image.
bpollen February 1st, 2015 at 06:30
Homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom. Ergo, Tater, it’s natural.
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 10:00
Violent behavior exists in the animal kingdom. Ergo, it’s natural.
Natural is not necessarily good (for humans).
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 12:13
sadly, if something happens, it is natural, whatever it is. Once done it’s a piece of “linear history” and a solid piece of the so called natural sphere of events.
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 13:04
However, to engage in war is a particular human trait.
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 15:00
“Battles among ants can be startlingly similar to human military operations”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ants-and-the-art-of-war/
“What Is War Good for? Ask a Chimpanzee.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/chimpanzee_wars_can_primate_aggression_teach_us_about_human_aggression.html
bpollen February 1st, 2015 at 16:03
Eating exists in the animal kingdom. It’s not only good for humans, it’s required. Same thing with breathing, drinking, elimination functions, and so on. Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes and the like also exist in nature.
Are some things not of net benefit to humans? Certainly. Are there things that ‘people’ say are unnatural and harmful, but are neither? Certainly.
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 16:11
Agree with everything you wrote. My main point is that just because something is natural, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good. It’s natural for mammals to procreate as soon as they are biologically capable. For humans, that typically happens around age 13. What is natural is not always best for humans living in the modern world. And based upon your last post, I’m guessing you agree.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 16:27
and in many religions marrying off girls around the age of 13 was encouraged because girls only existed to make as many new members of (insert name of religion) as they possibly could.
As society has evolved to something more humane we see that girls are actually persons and should be free to do whatever they wish in their lives rather than be slaves to procreation.
According to a recent statistic women with graduate degrees don’t have children until they are around age 30.
And as someone with a Very educated / intelligent mother I can tell you it really makes a big difference to one’s childhood.
I’m very lucky
Back to the point: Humans are complicated social animals who have evolved to be better than they started out. That’s why educated families encourage their daughters to focus on getting their education rather than fool around with dopey boys (Unlike mrs palin who clearly didn’t teach her daughter a damn thing).
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 16:55
“That’s why educated families encourage their daughters to focus on getting their education rather than fool around with dopey boys.”
And that’s also why my wife and I encouraged our son to focus on getting an education rather than fool around with dopey girls.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 22:51
that’s good.
And I didn’t waste time with boys in my teens years. This is one of the reasons I was a success in my career.
I learned about ME. My brain, MY capabilities, MY talents, MY self-esteem.
You can’t get anything done as an adult unless you know the important things to focus on. AND learn some self-discipline.
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 23:11
Holy cow! I was being facetious! I was actually concerned at one point that my son wasn’t spending *enough* time with girls. He’s the technical/engineering/quiet type.
Yes, I strongly agree that kids need to learn self-discipline. But if they do, then there are plenty of good reasons for them to develop relationships with peers of both sexes. Do you really think that your successful career would have been compromised if you had spent some time with boys in your teen years? Didn’t your school have any intellectual, career-oriented boys with self-discipline?
I had a lot of great experiences with girls while I was a teenager. Canoeing trips, hikes, movies, long drives, and great conversations. When I was with these girls, I was interested in THEM. THEIR brains, THEIR capabilities, THEIR talents. I can’t imagine how those experiences might have damaged anyone’s career prospects. Quite the contrary, I would think.
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 13:05
True that. Over 200 species of animals have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior.
And sex itself is a natural bodily function, no matter what the clergy says.
William February 1st, 2015 at 07:54
“and I pointed this out in my book called the Holy Bible”,….
Oh yes, lets talk about sex and the Bible shall we?
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 15:34
And you are just being overly gentle about that too!
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 15:53
To be even more specific:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 09:16
Children’s souls are afflicted? With what exactly? And as for the sex thing, on what day did you choose to be heterosexual? Do you think anyone chooses that kind of thing? And your “holy bible” (the lower case is deliberate) was written by a collection of men. And it’s been distorted so much over the thousands of years since, who really knows what the original intention was? And your god sounds rude. There’s a word for someone who has power and is also rude. It’s bully.
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 12:11
good response but a bit polite considering how really rude the figment is.
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 12:24
I don’t want to be banned from the site.
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 13:03
And most of that bible was copied from other older religions that supposedly are wrong. A good deal of Buddhism shows up in the New Testament as well.
Much of the claims found in that book are shown to be false, not that any believer will ever admit it.
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 12:10
seems good – a god who goes yuck at people in love but feels cancer in children and puppies and kittens is natural and will elevate souls. Hmmmm, sounds like either a trashed up evil invented god or you are a tad looney.
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 12:27
What drives me crazy is when someone says “Everything happens for a reason.” That’s usually after a loved one, like a child, has died. So what’s reason behind a five year old dying of cancer? Is it to teach us that life sucks? In that case, it works.
ikallicrates February 1st, 2015 at 13:07
Everything does happen for a reason. A reason only explains why it happened, but does not necessarily justify it.
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 13:13
A cause isn’t the same thing as a reason. If someone dies of cancer, you say cancer caused the death. But why did he get cancer in the first place?
William February 1st, 2015 at 13:21
Tater could have posted a response in so many different ways that would have made him appear less brain dead. Like, “God didn’t put the carcinogenic in the air and water, man did” Almost anything would have been a better response. To suggest that cancer is good for “spiritual growth puts Tater somewhere on evolutionary chart between a pop up toaster and a clod of dirt.
John Tarter January 31st, 2015 at 21:46
Mr. Fry will be confronted with God at some point, and I wonder how quick he will be with a snide remark then?
But wait, I shall give Mr. Fry what could be God’s answer. “Stephen, cancer in any human is a natural part of life, it offers spiritual growth for the afflicted soul. Sex between two men or two women however is totally against the natural law and I pointed this out in my book called the Holy Bible, did you not hear about it? Now shut up, I am doing the judging here!”
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker January 31st, 2015 at 22:41
Like the man said, a benevolent and nurturing “Supreme Being” would not say the words ‘shut up’ or have petty ego issues as you portray.
Here’s a good clip for you to learn from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 00:54
Ten thumbs up. Carlin is spot on.
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 10:17
And he always wants money.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 00:08
if you think cancer is for “spiritual growth” you are as big of a pr1ck as your stupid god
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 13:15
Cecilia, you are perfect here!!!!!!!!
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 17:04
why, thank you….I think I was inspired by the “spirit” of Hitchens for about 5 seconds…no guarantee it will ever happen again
:)
ChrisVosburg February 1st, 2015 at 14:28
Oh great, Cecilia, you know how thin-skinned Him What Done It All is, now he’s gonna get all smitey again.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 17:04
eh, he’s a big cry baby
William February 1st, 2015 at 02:35
Science is trying to cure cancer.
Religion causes people to fly airliners into buildings
William February 1st, 2015 at 02:42
“cancer in any human is a natural part of life, it offers spiritual growth for the afflicted soul.”
Having someone I love deeply take 18 months to die painfully of cancer I can tell you it doesn’t offer spiritual “growth”. It actually kills you.
Besides, the Bible forbids wheelchair bound people from going to church.
Leviticus 21:17-23.
jasperjava February 1st, 2015 at 04:07
It’s no surprise that John Tarter/ Wayout’s idea of God is someone just as mean-spirited and vindictive as he is.
Man continues to make God in his own image.
bpollen February 1st, 2015 at 07:30
Homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom. Ergo, Tater, it’s natural.
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 11:00
Violent behavior exists in the animal kingdom. Ergo, it’s natural.
Natural is not necessarily good (for humans).
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 13:13
sadly, if something happens, it is natural, whatever it is. Once done it’s a piece of “linear history” and a solid piece of the so called natural sphere of events.
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 14:04
However, to engage in war is a particular human trait.
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 16:00
“Battles among ants can be startlingly similar to human military operations”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ants-and-the-art-of-war/
“What Is War Good for? Ask a Chimpanzee.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10/chimpanzee_wars_can_primate_aggression_teach_us_about_human_aggression.html
bpollen February 1st, 2015 at 17:03
Eating exists in the animal kingdom. It’s not only good for humans, it’s required. Same thing with breathing, drinking, elimination functions, and so on. Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes and the like also exist in nature.
Are some things not of net benefit to humans? Certainly. Are there things that ‘people’ say are unnatural and harmful, but are neither? Certainly.
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 17:11
Agree with everything you wrote. My main point is that just because something is natural, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good. It’s natural for mammals to procreate as soon as they are biologically capable. For humans, that typically happens around age 13. What is natural is not always best for humans living in the modern world. And based upon your last post, I’m guessing you agree.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 17:27
and in many religions marrying off girls around the age of 13 was encouraged because girls only existed to make as many new members of (insert name of religion) as they possibly could.
As society has evolved to something more humane we see that girls are actually persons and should be free to do whatever they wish in their lives rather than be slaves to procreation.
According to a recent statistic women with graduate degrees don’t have children until they are around age 30.
And as someone with a Very educated / intelligent mother I can tell you it really makes a big difference to one’s childhood.
I’m very lucky
Back to the point: Humans are complicated social animals who have evolved to be better than they started out. That’s why educated families encourage their daughters to focus on getting their education rather than fool around with dopey boys (Unlike mrs palin who clearly didn’t teach her daughter a damn thing).
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 17:55
“That’s why educated families encourage their daughters to focus on getting their education rather than fool around with dopey boys.”
And that’s also why my wife and I encouraged our son to focus on getting an education rather than fool around with dopey girls.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 23:51
that’s good.
And I didn’t waste time with boys in my teens years. This is one of the reasons I was a success in my career.
I learned about ME. My brain, MY capabilities, MY talents, MY self-esteem.
You can’t get anything done as an adult unless you know the important things to focus on. AND learn some self-discipline.
Robert M. Snyder February 2nd, 2015 at 00:11
Holy cow! I was being facetious! I was actually concerned at one point that my son wasn’t spending *enough* time with girls. He’s the technical/engineering/quiet type.
Yes, I strongly agree that kids need to learn self-discipline. But if they do, then there are plenty of good reasons for them to develop relationships with peers of both sexes. Do you really think that your successful career would have been compromised if you had spent some time with boys in your teen years? Didn’t your school have any intellectual, career-oriented boys with self-discipline?
I had a lot of great experiences with girls while I was a teenager. Canoeing trips, hikes, movies, long drives, and great conversations. When I was with these girls, I was interested in THEM. THEIR brains, THEIR capabilities, THEIR talents. I can’t imagine how those experiences might have damaged anyone’s career prospects. Quite the contrary, I would think.
cecilia February 2nd, 2015 at 00:28
I have a brother and certainly saw his friends around the house because mom encouraged him to let him and his friends practice their music at home.
But what I’m talking about is having personal and intimate relations. And, in my opinion, children are way too young and immature to handle that kind of complex relationship.
That’s why I specifically referred to the moronic palin and her sad daughter who has effectively been robbed of a better life because she never got the message that her education should be NUMBER ONE.
I mean palin’s daughter will never be anything more than a pathetic attention whore like her mother.
Not only have I NOT embarrassed my family, I’ve worked on projects that have won awards. I can walk down the street with my head held high
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 14:05
True that. Over 200 species of animals have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior.
And sex itself is a natural bodily function, no matter what the clergy says.
William February 1st, 2015 at 08:54
“and I pointed this out in my book called the Holy Bible”,….
Oh yes, lets talk about sex and the Bible shall we?
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 16:34
And you are just being overly gentle about that too!
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 16:53
To be even more specific:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 10:16
Children’s souls are afflicted? With what exactly? And as for the sex thing, on what day did you choose to be heterosexual? Do you think anyone chooses that kind of thing? And your “holy bible” (the lower case is deliberate) was written by a collection of men. And it’s been distorted so much over the thousands of years since, who really knows what the original intention was? And your god sounds rude. There’s a word for someone who has power and is also rude. It’s bully.
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 13:11
good response but a bit polite considering how really rude the figment is.
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 13:24
I don’t want to be banned from the site.
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 14:03
And most of that bible was copied from other older religions that are now supposedly wrong. A good deal of Buddhism shows up in the New Testament as well.
Much of the claims found in that book are shown to be false, not that any believer will ever admit it.
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 13:10
seems good – a god who goes yuck at people in love but feels cancer in children and puppies and kittens is natural and will elevate souls. Hmmmm, sounds like either a trashed up evil invented god or you are a tad looney.
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 13:27
What drives me crazy is when someone says “Everything happens for a reason.” That’s usually after a loved one, like a child, has died. So what’s the reason behind a five year old dying of cancer? Is it to teach us that life sucks? In that case, it works.
ikallicrates February 1st, 2015 at 14:07
Everything does happen for a reason. A reason only explains why it happened, but does not necessarily justify it.
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 14:13
A cause isn’t the same thing as a reason. If someone dies of cancer, you say cancer caused the death. But why did he get cancer in the first place?
William February 1st, 2015 at 14:21
Tater could have posted a response in so many different ways that would have made him appear less brain dead. Like, “God didn’t put the carcinogenic in the air and water, man did” Almost anything would have been a better response. To suggest that cancer is good for “spiritual growth puts Tater somewhere on evolutionary chart between a pop up toaster and a clod of dirt.
Robert M. Snyder January 31st, 2015 at 21:12
I read Rabbi Harold Kushner’s book “When Bad Things Happen to Good People” many years ago. Since then I have continued to believe in a higher power, but I no longer believe that power plays games with the laws of physics. It’s pretty clear that the laws of physics apply equally to everyone, regardless of their moral character or religious affiliation. If we could observe every cell at the molecular/DNA level, bone cancer in children could be completely explained by the laws of physics.
cecilia January 31st, 2015 at 23:05
well, of course, cancer has an explanation…the point is that “god” is NOT that explanation and never will be
Robert M. Snyder January 31st, 2015 at 23:33
My point is that a person can be open to the possibility of a higher power without necessarily believing in miracles. I don’t claim to know whether a higher power exists, but I prefer to keep an open mind, and I do not see the fact that children suffer as a reason to disbelieve. A lot of people seem to think that they need answers to these questions. I do not feel the need for answers. I’d rather live with a sense of wonder.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 00:43
I don’t lack an open mind – others just lack evidence
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 05:27
Since both sides of the argument lack hard data, neither side can be definitive on the ‘evidence’ aspect of choosing.
Carla Akins February 1st, 2015 at 06:40
Not exactly, if one party states something (or someone) exists – the onus is on them to provide evidence. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be taking a stance that pink unicorns exist.
Sometimes the lack of evidence/proof is hard data.
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 07:34
And yet there are data points that say there could be a god… but nothing in the way of data points that say there isn’t.
The gorilla was considered a myth, only eyewitness testimony from natives of the area. They are not a myth now.
There were only math formulas that suggested a hob-gib particle, and many other things that for a long time were ‘myths’, yet turned out to be true.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 10:42
there’s NO data for any god
you are drinking too early in the day
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 11:43
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that there may be a god, and such information is called ‘data points’ in many disciplines.
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 12:08
one, just give one data point that even comes close to suggesting that there may be a god – just one.
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 12:59
In most cases, a scientific assumption (as opposed to ‘theory’) clearly states that it is an assumption. Life on other planets is a educated assumption based on life here. The several methods of life here are present on other planets, especially those in the ‘zone’ (liquid water). Few, if any, that believe in a deity would ever suggest that it’s ONLY an assumption.
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 18:15
This may seem like a side issue, but bear with me and I’ll directly answer your question, ok?
Out of all the umbrella cultures that anthropologists know of, ancient and current, how many universals are there?
fahvel February 2nd, 2015 at 00:05
all life forms need a place to poop. space between solids is full. balding comes from the maternal side. and hell hath no furry greater than…………actually I have no idea what your questions means
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 09:55
So you’re ruling out the possibility of life on other planets, since there is currently no hard evidence to support the claim.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 10:42
I’ll just wait for the Vulcans to show up….
Carla Akins February 1st, 2015 at 10:50
There is tons of evidence of life on other planets. We may not have seen it yet, but the evidence is that it exists.
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 11:25
My everyday working assumptions are that (1) life exists on other planets, (2) there is a higher power, (3) there is no such thing as miracles – the laws of Physics are always in effect, (4) I could be wrong about 1, 2, and 3 because my brain is just too small to comprehend the universe. That’s why I like the term “working assumptions” as opposed to “beliefs”.
We could spend the next three centuries looking for evidence of life on other planets and come up empty-handed. I hope not, but if we don’t find it on Mars, it isn’t likely that we’ll find it in our solar system, and beyond that the distances are pretty incredible.
ChrisVosburg February 1st, 2015 at 12:36
I’m reminded that Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson went camping in the English countryside one fine day, and after pitching a tent and enjoying a fine meal and a good bottle they retired.
In the middle of the night, Holmes nudges the Doctor awake and asks, “Watson, look up at the stars and tell me what you deduce.”
Watson thoughtfully replies, “I see millions of stars and even if a few of those have planets, it’s quite likely there are some planets like Earth, and if there are a few planets like Earth out there, there might also be life.”
Holmes replies, “Quite so, old fellow, but more to the point, it would appear that someone has stolen our tent.”
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 12:47
Capital! Thanks, I stole that.
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 11:42
Can you point me to one piece of evidence of such?
Carla Akins February 1st, 2015 at 12:00
There have been a number of discoveries of microbial activity found in meteorites. One is called Allan Hill (something) and a NASA scientist named Hoover also made a similar discovery on a separate meteorite. There are the Mars canals and Europa a moon of Jupiter. Mostly it’s ridiculous to think that we are the only living being in such a vast system. If we exist, based on what we know scientifically to be true and valid – then life would exist elsewhere.
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 18:59
Only certain building blocks, not all and not in one sample, have been discovered, not to mention many scientists believe those could have been contamination issues as well.
Mars canals have not been proven to have been made via intelligence, more probable is running water.
“Mostly it’s ridiculous to think that we are the only living being in
such a vast system.”
Size has nothing to do with evidence, merely ‘increases the odds of possibility’.
If we exist, based on what we know scientifically to
be true and valid – then life would exist elsewhere.
Again, that is pure ‘belief’, you have yet to show any hard data of life anywhere else, only statistical models, with every variable a guess.
How many stars are there? unknown, guessed.
How many stars have planets? unknown, guessed.
How many planets in the ‘goldie locks zone’. unknown, guessed.
How many have running water/other ‘friendly to life’ ecozones? unknown, guessed.
Based off of that, and some others, how accurate can the statistical model be?
Obewon February 1st, 2015 at 19:31
“I discovered life on Mars!”-NASA Curiosity rover finds Active and Ancient organic chemistry on Mars. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4413
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 09:00
people CLAIMING the existence of a god are making a CLAIM.
They are required to come up with evidence – something they have failed to do for 1000’s of years.
I make no claim. I’m simply pointing out there’s a lack of evidence
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 10:33
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to put the topic into question. There was only a claim there was the atom… then folks started directly looking for it and voila, found it. I can actually think of no attempt at proving the existence, not one.
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 12:05
agreed to a point. It’s not lack, it’s none none none.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 16:08
psssst, I’m being diplomatic (I know, how unusual, har har)
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 18:52
You do realize science works in just the opposite way, right? A scientist makes a claim, then the peers do their best to disprove it.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 23:04
noooo.
Scientist don’t go around making wacka-doodle statements just to hear the sound of their voices.
Often a scientist will be “playing” around with things (chemicals, bacteria, whatever happens to be in their field) and maybe they notice something that they don’t understand. This will start them going in a direction that didn’t occur to them before.
They will do tests, try things out and keep doing that until they are satisfied they have reached a point where they might do a formal study/publish.
Now, you might not know this but writing a SCIENCE paper with the expectation of publishing isn’t like just sending in a letter to the editor.
There are strict rules as to how it is written. The vocabulary, the definitions, how that paper is organized, the data that is Required to be present, etc.
If you have done experiments you MUST provide all information and procedures so that others can replicate your experiment.
If you don’t write your paper correctly it will be rejected.
And that’s just the first step.
The general public has some notion that science is done in some sloppy manner. And good science never is….because it will get thrown in the trash otherwise.
And, yes, once a scientist(s) has presented his/her/their experiment then others test it out and see if it flys.
Scientists do NOT fling ideas out in public after some drunken stupor. That’s what religion does.
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 06:09
ok
:)
Dwendt44 February 2nd, 2015 at 00:32
Of course, and if they can’t ‘disprove it’, then it’s a scientific fact. But then science is based on evidence, facts, observation, experimentation, etc.
Believe has none of that.
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 06:14
We’re not discussing belief though, we’re discussing can there be a god… not even if there is one, but can there be one.
Dwendt44 February 2nd, 2015 at 11:13
Can there be a god? As we generally understand what the word means, the answer is NO!
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 20:09
Why not? What precludes it?
Dwendt44 February 2nd, 2015 at 20:31
Lack of evidence is a real biggie. A ‘god’ that’s all powerful, that can create a world or a person with the snap of it’s fingers would be easy to see or find. Evidence would be all over the place and would be hard to avoid and/or deny.
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 21:40
pure presumption. Why would evidence be ‘all over the place’?
Dark matter and dark energy is now thought to make up 96%+/- and yet wasn’t/isn’t very obvious…
Mountain gorillas, the largest of all primates, wasn’t discovered until 1902… when folks decided to go look for them to check into a myth.
And there are many things that today are considered ‘established fact’ that arrived so via ancillary observations only… higs-bos comes to mind.
A lack of evidence doesn’t mean diddley, especially when it isn’t being sought.
tracey marie February 1st, 2015 at 23:51
when did magic become real?
eric collins February 2nd, 2015 at 18:28
There is only one side to any “argument, here. Humans invent a God, then argues that such an entity exists, as the godly powers of human imagination have now transcended the laws of physics as we know them, and created an all powerful entity that explains all that was previously unexplained. Coincidentally, this entity has fingers and toes, essentially a better version of ourselves, who would have guessed?
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 20:11
Nothing in your post is hard data, just opinion.
eric collins February 2nd, 2015 at 21:02
You mean it’s a fact that humans did not invent God/s?
My opinion is that those who say that a God speaks to them are plainly deluded. The believers keep adding or altering their religious “facts” through the short time of the current belief systems existence. Age of the earth and it’s place, relative to the sun, in the cosmos is still “debatable” according to those who wish to pursue their religious book as infallible, literal truth. Almost an art form, religion can be studied, ridiculed or embraced. the fact that can’t be disproved is that your God/s do not exist without us humans to invent him/her/them.
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 21:24
“You mean it’s a fact that humans did not invent God/s?
My opinion is that those who say that a God speaks to them are plainly deluded.”
No, I never said it is a fact either way.
And your opinion on them being deluded is a valid one to look into. That is actually my point as well, it is all opinion, either way so far, so lets look into it.
“The believers keep adding or altering their religious “facts”…”
Yes they do, but they aren’t facts, they can call them that, just as the other side does with their opinions, but they aren’t. But one must also look into(and it is a whole topic on its own) the ones that ‘change’ the ‘facts’, what is their agenda, why the ‘change’, etc.
“the fact that can’t be disproved is that your God/s do not exist without us humans to invent him/her/them.”
And there you slid right into what the other side does… not, it is not a fact that a god/s do or do not exist w/out humans. Matter of fact, the premise of a god was it existed before humans, or so they claim.
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 12:04
sounds like bief to me. The I thinks and I believe crap goes bad always.
Robert M. Snyder January 31st, 2015 at 22:12
I read Rabbi Harold Kushner’s book “When Bad Things Happen to Good People” many years ago. Since then I have continued to believe in a higher power, but I no longer believe that power plays games with the laws of physics. It’s pretty clear that the laws of physics apply equally to everyone, regardless of their moral character or religious affiliation. If we could observe every cell at the molecular/DNA level, bone cancer in children could be completely explained by the laws of physics.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 00:05
well, of course, cancer has an explanation…the point is that “god” is NOT that explanation and never will be
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 00:33
My point is that a person can be open to the possibility of a higher power without necessarily believing in miracles. I don’t claim to know whether a higher power exists, but I prefer to keep an open mind, and I do not see the fact that children suffer as a reason to disbelieve. A lot of people seem to think that they need answers to these questions. I do not feel the need for answers. I’d rather live with a sense of wonder.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 01:43
I don’t lack an open mind – others just lack evidence
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 06:27
Since both sides of the argument lack hard data, neither side can be definitive on the ‘evidence’ aspect of choosing.
EDIT: oltwpa(2)
Carla Akins February 1st, 2015 at 07:40
Not exactly, if one party states something (or someone) exists – the onus is on them to provide evidence. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be taking a stance that pink unicorns exist.
Sometimes the lack of evidence/proof is hard data.
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 08:34
And yet there are data points that say there could be a god… but nothing in the way of data points that say there isn’t.
The gorilla was considered a myth, only eyewitness testimony from natives of the area. They are not a myth now.
There were only math formulas that suggested a hob-gib particle, and many other things that for a long time were ‘myths’, yet turned out to be true.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 11:42
there’s NO data for any god
you are drinking too early in the day
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 12:43
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that there may be a god, and such information is called ‘data points’ in many disciplines.
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 13:08
one, just give one data point that even comes close to suggesting that there may be a god – just one.
Dwendt44 February 1st, 2015 at 13:59
In most cases, a scientific assumption (as opposed to ‘theory’) clearly states that it is an assumption. Life on other planets is a educated assumption based on life here. The several methods of life here are present on other planets, especially those in the ‘zone’ (liquid water). Few, if any, that believe in a deity would ever suggest that it’s ONLY an assumption.
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 19:15
This may seem like a side issue, but bear with me and I’ll directly answer your question, ok?
Out of all the umbrella cultures that anthropologists know of, ancient and current, how many universals are there?
fahvel February 2nd, 2015 at 01:05
all life forms need a place to poop. space between solids is full. balding comes from the maternal side. and hell hath no furry greater than…………actually I have no idea what your questions means
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 10:55
So you’re ruling out the possibility of life on other planets, since there is currently no hard evidence to support the claim.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 11:42
I’ll just wait for the Vulcans to show up….
Carla Akins February 1st, 2015 at 11:50
There is tons of evidence of life on other planets. We may not have seen it yet, but the evidence is that it exists.
Robert M. Snyder February 1st, 2015 at 12:25
My everyday working assumptions are that (1) life exists on other planets, (2) there is a higher power, (3) there is no such thing as miracles – the laws of Physics are always in effect, (4) I could be wrong about 1, 2, and 3 because my brain is just too small to comprehend the universe. That’s why I like the term “working assumptions” as opposed to “beliefs”.
We could spend the next three centuries looking for evidence of life on other planets and come up empty-handed. I hope not, but if we don’t find it on Mars, it isn’t likely that we’ll find it in our solar system, and beyond that the distances are pretty incredible.
ChrisVosburg February 1st, 2015 at 13:36
I’m reminded that Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson went camping in the English countryside one fine day, and after pitching a tent and enjoying a fine meal and a good bottle they retired.
In the middle of the night, Holmes nudges the Doctor awake and asks, “Watson, look up at the stars and tell me what you deduce.”
Watson thoughtfully replies, “I see millions of stars and even if a few of those have planets, it’s quite likely there are some planets like Earth, and if there are a few planets like Earth out there, there might also be life.”
Holmes replies, “Quite so, old fellow, but more to the point, it would appear that someone has stolen our tent.”
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 13:47
Capital! Thanks, I stole that.
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 12:42
Can you point me to one piece of evidence of such?
EDIT: oltwpa
Carla Akins February 1st, 2015 at 13:00
There have been a number of discoveries of microbial activity found in meteorites. One is called Allan Hill (something) and a NASA scientist named Hoover also made a similar discovery on a separate meteorite. There are the Mars canals and Europa a moon of Jupiter. Mostly it’s ridiculous to think that we are the only living being in such a vast system. If we exist, based on what we know scientifically to be true and valid – then life would exist elsewhere.
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 19:59
Only certain building blocks, not all and not in one sample, have been discovered, not to mention many scientists believe those could have been contamination issues as well.
Mars canals have not been proven to have been made via intelligence, more probable is running water.
“Mostly it’s ridiculous to think that we are the only living being in
such a vast system.”
Size has nothing to do with evidence, merely ‘increases the odds of possibility’.
If we exist, based on what we know scientifically to
be true and valid – then life would exist elsewhere.
Again, that is pure ‘belief’, you have yet to show any hard data of life anywhere else, only statistical models, with every variable a guess.
How many stars are there? unknown, guessed.
How many stars have planets? unknown, guessed.
How many planets in the ‘goldie locks zone’. unknown, guessed.
How many have running water/other ‘friendly to life’ ecozones? unknown, guessed.
Based off of that, and some others, how accurate can the statistical model be?
Obewon February 1st, 2015 at 20:31
Curiosity Rover: “Certified organics! I detected organics for the 1st time on the surface of Mars”- @MarsCuriosity Dec 16 #AGU14 http://go.nasa.gov/1A5NeSQ NASA Curiosity rover finds Active and Ancient organic chemistry on Mars. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4413 https://twitter.com/MarsCuriosity/status/544924314982576128
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 10:00
people CLAIMING the existence of a god are making a CLAIM.
They are required to come up with evidence – something they have failed to do for 1000’s of years.
I make no claim. I’m simply pointing out there’s a lack of evidence
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 11:33
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to put the topic into question. There was only a claim there was the atom… then folks started directly looking for it and voila, found it. I can actually think of no attempt at proving the existence, not one.
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 13:05
agreed to a point. It’s not lack, it’s none none none.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 17:08
psssst, I’m being diplomatic (I know, how unusual, har har)
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 19:52
You do realize science works in just the opposite way, right? A scientist makes a claim, then the peers do their best to disprove it.
cecilia February 2nd, 2015 at 00:04
noooo.
Scientist don’t go around making wacka-doodle statements just to hear the sound of their voices.
Often a scientist will be “playing” around with things (chemicals, bacteria, whatever happens to be in their field) and maybe they notice something that they don’t understand. This will start them going in a direction that didn’t occur to them before.
They will do tests, try things out and keep doing that until they are satisfied they have reached a point where they might do a formal study/publish.
Now, you might not know this but writing a SCIENCE paper with the expectation of publishing isn’t like just sending in a letter to the editor.
There are strict rules as to how it is written. The vocabulary, the definitions, how that paper is organized, the data that is Required to be present, etc.
If you have done experiments you MUST provide all information and procedures so that others can replicate your experiment.
If you don’t write your paper correctly it will be rejected.
And that’s just the first step.
The general public has some notion that science is done in some sloppy manner. And good science never is….because it will get thrown in the trash otherwise.
And, yes, once a scientist(s) has presented his/her/their experiment then others test it out and see if it flys.
Scientists do NOT fling ideas out in public after some drunken stupor. That’s what religion does.
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 07:09
ok
:)
Dwendt44 February 2nd, 2015 at 01:32
Of course, and if they can’t ‘disprove it’, then it’s a scientific fact. But then science is based on evidence, facts, observation, experimentation, etc.
Believe has none of that.
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 07:14
We’re not discussing belief though, we’re discussing can there be a god… not even if there is one, but can there be one.
Dwendt44 February 2nd, 2015 at 12:13
Can there be a god? As we generally understand what the word means, the answer is NO!
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 21:09
Why not? What precludes it?
Dwendt44 February 2nd, 2015 at 21:31
Lack of evidence is a real biggie. A ‘god’ that’s all powerful, that can create a world or a person with the snap of it’s fingers would be easy to see or find. Evidence would be all over the place and would be hard to avoid and/or deny.
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 22:40
pure presumption. Why would evidence be ‘all over the place’?
Dark matter and dark energy is now thought to make up 96%+/- and yet wasn’t/isn’t very obvious…
Mountain gorillas, the largest of all primates, wasn’t discovered until 1902… when folks decided to go look for them to check into a myth.
And there are many things that today are considered ‘established fact’ that arrived so via ancillary observations only… higs-bos comes to mind.
A lack of evidence doesn’t mean diddley, especially when it isn’t being sought.
tracey marie February 2nd, 2015 at 00:51
when did magic become real?
eric collins February 2nd, 2015 at 19:28
There is only one side to any “argument, here. Humans invent a God, then argues that such an entity exists, as the godly powers of human imagination have now transcended the laws of physics as we know them, and created an all powerful entity that explains all that was previously unexplained. Coincidentally, this entity has fingers and toes, essentially a better version of ourselves, who would have guessed?
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 21:11
Nothing in your post is hard data, just opinion.
eric collins February 2nd, 2015 at 22:02
You mean it’s a fact that humans did not invent God/s?
My opinion is that those who say that a God speaks to them are plainly deluded. The believers keep adding or altering their religious “facts” through the short time of the current belief systems existence. Age of the earth and it’s place, relative to the sun, in the cosmos is still “debatable” according to those who wish to pursue their religious book as infallible, literal truth. Almost an art form, religion can be studied, ridiculed or embraced. the fact that can’t be disproved is that your God/s do not exist without us humans to invent him/her/them.
Spirit of America February 2nd, 2015 at 22:24
“You mean it’s a fact that humans did not invent God/s?
My opinion is that those who say that a God speaks to them are plainly deluded.”
No, I never said it is a fact either way.
And your opinion on them being deluded is a valid one to look into. That is actually my point as well, it is all opinion, either way so far, so lets look into it.
“The believers keep adding or altering their religious “facts”…”
Yes they do, but they aren’t facts, they can call them that, just as the other side does with their opinions, but they aren’t. But one must also look into(and it is a whole topic on its own) the ones that ‘change’ the ‘facts’, what is their agenda, why the ‘change’, etc.
“the fact that can’t be disproved is that your God/s do not exist without us humans to invent him/her/them.”
And there you slid right into what the other side does… not, it is not a fact that a god/s do or do not exist w/out humans. Matter of fact, the premise of a god was it existed before humans, or so they claim.
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 13:04
sounds like bief to me. The I thinks and I believe crap goes bad always.
Spirit of America January 31st, 2015 at 22:49
Actually, I don’t see what is ‘stunning’ about the answer. Some believe in a god and others don’t, it is that simple. The ones that currently don’t believe, when asked such a question, will often give such answers and why shouldn’t they, they don’t believe there is a god and therefore why not be ‘cute’ or ‘defiant’ when answering now?
That aside, it is actually a good question; why set up a system that does indeed have children suffer? If there is indeed a god that created all this, and could have made anything the way they wanted it, why not make a ‘paradise’ and have it last from the git go?
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 12:02
god made it his/her way – why should it accomodate any of the idiocies that humans have planted in the great ones persona? Silly me – believing is fun but it aint real!
Spirit of America January 31st, 2015 at 23:49
Actually, I don’t see what is ‘stunning’ about the answer. Some believe in a god and others don’t, it is that simple. The ones that currently don’t believe, when asked such a question, will often give such answers and why shouldn’t they, they don’t believe there is a god and therefore why not be ‘cute’ or ‘defiant’ when answering now?
That aside, it is actually a good question; why set up a system that does indeed have children suffer? If there is indeed a god that created all this, and could have made anything the way they wanted it, why not make a ‘paradise’ and have it last from the git go?
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 13:02
god made it his/her way – why should it accomodate any of the idiocies that humans have planted in the great ones persona? Silly me – believing is fun but it aint real!
William February 1st, 2015 at 01:12
Good questions.
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 09:21
If there is a god, it’s obvious he doesn’t give a sh*t about this planet, or Boko Haram and Isis and other extremists of all varieties wouldn’t be allowed to commit the atrocities they do.
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 18:51
one doesn’t preclude the other. How man acts, good or bad, has no bearing on whether there is a god, or not.
William February 1st, 2015 at 02:12
Good questions.
Larry Schmitt February 1st, 2015 at 10:21
If there is a god, it’s obvious he doesn’t give a sh*t about this planet, or Boko Haram and Isis and other extremists of all varieties wouldn’t be allowed to commit the atrocities they do.
Spirit of America February 1st, 2015 at 19:51
one doesn’t preclude the other. How man acts, good or bad, has no bearing on whether there is a god, or not.
Jake February 1st, 2015 at 11:22
Religion is a cancer.
TAX the CHURCHES!
fahvel February 1st, 2015 at 12:15
Cecilia, you are perfect here!!!!!!!!
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 16:04
why, thank you….I think I was inspired by the “spirit” of Hitchens for about 5 seconds…no guarantee it will ever happen again
:)
ChrisVosburg February 1st, 2015 at 13:28
Oh great, Cecilia, you know how thin-skinned Him What Done It All is, now he’s gonna get all smitey again.
cecilia February 1st, 2015 at 16:04
eh, he’s a big cry baby
tracey marie February 1st, 2015 at 23:50
Cancer
hitler
teabaggs
kkk
christians
religion
tracey marie February 2nd, 2015 at 00:50
Cancer
hitler
teabaggs
kkk
christians
religion
Edith Helstad February 5th, 2015 at 03:55
2015 Hot Trends in Women’s Fashion(Brand Outlet)