god did not say build a church and be ruled by the leader . man did. god did not say contaminate yourself,ruin the earth . man did man made desruction god simply said he would save you from it if you take him into your heart and live a good life with all the evil in the world shouldn't you be glad of his offer?no- instead of even a half hearted try man runs around mocking him and trying to disprove him. dont even start me on the catholic church - hitler in a dress.
Roman Catholicism is the most evil organization in the world that murdered innocent people and abused who knows how many children.
The pope is lier,sinner and a sorry excuse for a human being who protects pedophiles and has alot of blood on his hands.
The Roman Catholic Church invented so many doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and has practiced rites and ceremonies taken from paganism, like other denominations.
I don't think it's right to judge the catholic church based on what it did a century ago.
I think that with both christians and athiests can work together to make the world a better place rather than just fighting over each other because a christian said that to an athiest and an athiest said that to a christian and 'THEY STARTED IT FIRST' Arguement so I don't like them... Look. Just forgive and forget, im sure that's better than hating.
@xaxie1 How about what they do now? Condemning the use of condoms in the face of appalling AIDS statistics in Africa. The Catholic church's hands remain steeped in blood and I, for one, will not forgive and forget their wickedness in 1812 or 2012.
Then the hate will never end. I disagree with the catholic church for doing this however I do not therefore hate god or christianity, and there are many catholics I know who use condoms and do different things to the catholic teachings.
The problem is that the teachings of the church are killing people, dude.
Killing. People.
Why should I be forgiving of an organisation that has harbored child molesters, preaches against condoms in AIDS ravaged countries, and condemns homosexuality as a sin?
These are evil actions that have cost lives. We, as moral people, are obligated to condemn these actions. It's not about hate, it's about showing respect for the thousands who have died at the hands of the RCC.
Not all teachings of the church are bad, the ones that you state are killing people are mainly those of the catholic church. The one I go to teaches love. I don't think its right to simply christianity when a majority of the people who go to it are good hard working lovers of god and only the people at the top are the ones who are condemning it.
You have to admit a lot of the teachings of the bible are very good.
Oh sure. "Love thy neighbor" is great. However, when someone says, "The Bible is the perfect word of God," they are claiming that it is infallible, and, by default, are claiming to endorse all of the bible, including the horrible bits.
Also, then, I need to see the good hardworking lovers of God step up to the Pope and say, "HEY! STOP PREACHING THAT BULLSHIT!" However, instead of doing that, they are gathering in droves at the vatican to sing his praises. I find that disgusting.
Taking the Bible literally is a bad thing to do correct, saying that is like saying You will walk into the lava and if you don't you are an abomination before God.
As for the second thing I saw a programme on tv a year or two ago about a catholic who objects to the popes teachings about condoms, but the main reason they don't is because they don't want to be looked down upon by the vatican or the other catholic churches.
It sounds silly I know but it is difficult as a christian to fight against somebody who is technically on your side and a believer in God.
But yes something must be done.
Im not a catholic if you didnt know btw im Non-Demonational.
What I don't get is why him saying you cannot use Condoms makes Africans not use condoms? Does the pope have people who watch them day and night to see if they use condoms? I think Red Cross should simply hand them out more often.
@xaxie1 yes, these poor deluded Africans believe they are being watched at all time by God, and if they displease him(by having sex not for procreation) then they go to hell for eternity. God is the best gestapo, he's free.
Well, you have to understand, it would be one thing to say to the Africans, "the use of condoms is against our religion, so please consider abstinence as your first defense against AIDS."
However, instead of doing that, the RCC decided to spread the lie that using condoms actually increased the chances of infection.
Also, the Pope doesn't need to post people to watch them day and night: he simply convinces the poor, uneducated africans that God is always watching them.
Well, I can't post links on youtube comments, or I'd give you one of the sites, but, if you are really interested in seeing the evidence, simply google "reducing unwanted pregnancies" and read the articles on the subject. There isn't a single one that doesn't mention making contraceptives available and educating women on their use as a part of the process to reduce unwanted pregnancies and STD's
@SirKickz - I find if you take out the "w's" at the start and put (dot) in place of the actual "dot" you're likely should have success with any links.
@mmmail1969 The evidence is clear, American states with abstinence only education have the highest teen birth rates, those with higher use of contraceptives and with proper health education have much lower rates.
@mmmail1969 Oh look, we read into his data and there is a lack of education about sex in schools and knowledge about access to affordable birth control is limited.
I dare you to criticise Islam publicly Steven, go on! You are aware Islam also approved of African slavery. Yeah right you cowardly hypocritical cunt.
it gets like this though when talking to religious people, they dont just click or understand some of the more confusing things about the bible, its simple to see that some things in the bible just dont add up, and its hard to make religious people see and understand that
@BarriosGroupie I'm straight as an arrow and I hate the church, too. You don't have to have had your lifestyle condemned by the church to be outraged by its actions and its condemnations of others.
@BarriosGroupie No...Stephen Fry hates the church because it rejects moral relativism in favour of "faith", which is to say it rejects thinking for yourself in favour of listening to an old guy in Rome who probably doesn't even speak your language very well (the current one certainly sounds retarded when he tries speaking mine).
@mmmail1969 You encourage us to look at the "scientific" contributions of a church which says condoms CAUSE AIDS, yet neglect to mention a single one of these contributions. Please do so, then I will respect your opinion. Thank you.
@BoJanglezzzzzz - I don't want, let alone need you to respect my opinion - you're ignorant and obviously lazy - Google is your friend - but stupidity clearly your lover! The RCC will give you a science lesson anytime you want! The Pontifical Academy of Sciences - World Class - World Acclaimed! Further, from the Father of the Big Bang Theory, to the Father of Atomic Theory, to the first person to record the transit of Mercury - as I said, the RCC will give you a science lesson anytime!
@BoJanglezzzzzz - a fraction of the THOUSANDS of RC's cleric and lay who've impacted the sciences. Coulomb established the fundamental laws of static electricity. Columbo discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood. Buffon wrote the first work on natural history. Eustachius, for whom the Eustachian tube was named, was one of the founders of modern anatomy. Caesalpinus, a Papal physician, was the first to construct a system of botany. Becquerel, founder of electro-chemistry....
@BoJanglezzzzzz - Braille invented the Braille system for the blind. Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease. Herzog discovered a cure for infantile paralysis. Lancist, a Papal physician, was the father of clinical medicine. Galilei, a great astronomer, is the father of experimental science. Laennec invented the stethoscope. Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian. Steensen, a Bishop, the father of geology!
@JK192837 - don't why it's amusing. considering 1) the advocating of "heliocentrism" had been going on since, ohh, 3rd C BC with Aristarchus of Samos. Galilei, a brillant Roman Catholic Scientist, got into trouble with the RCC, because he broke his own agreement with the Church not to dabble in arguments of theology and his inability to prove his theory, yet he repeatedly presented it as fact. Proof was centuries off (cont)
@mmmail1969 No, the 'agreement' he broke was not to advocate heliocentrism, which the church decided was a matter of theology, when it obviously is not. Science conflicted with scripture, the church came down heavily on the side of scripture.
You are of course right that the church has often backed rather than blocked science, and that this is sometimes overlooked. But to try and claim that the church has *never* opposed science, and didn't persecute Galileo, is just naive.
@JK192837 - the only "imprisonment" Galilei ever experienced was house arrest - in a palace!!! The remarkable Galilei certainly new how to rub people up the wrong way, he had life long feuds regards the discovery of sun spots and called the early theory of the moon impacting tides "a useless fiction". Galilei, could be said to be brilliant, but perhaps not to bright! Anything else you need reminding on?
@mmmail1969 And I don't know why you're trying to demonstrate to me that he wasn't all that brilliant. I never claimed he was. You're the one who brought him up.
@JK192837 - I, who fully achnowledge the considerable scientific achievements of Galileo, raised his name as one among many. YOU, not me - Y O U specifically raised him, regards the confrontation he had with RCC, which you claim "imprisoned him for advocating heliocentrism". It did NOT and to suggest so, is a LIE. The RCC long supported such scientific endeavour, such as Galileo's work and indeed often funded it - as it continues to do today, in some of the worlds finest institutes.
@mmmail1969 Do I really have to spell this out for you? You cited him as a scientist the church has supported. I then argued that the church did not always support him. You then started explaining why he wasn't brilliant.Yes, I brought the MAN up, but YOU brought up the idea that he was or was not "brilliant", which is something I did NOT bring up. I then asked why you had brought it up, and then you claimed that I had brought it up. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.
@JK192837 - I said Galileo was "brilliant", but also a difficult man to deal with! He, Galileo, also reflected the ignorance for his age, as every generation, including our own, does! Maybe you should have a cool drink and sit in the shade for a while, seem top be getting a bit hot under the collar.... :)
@mmmail1969 And even the smallest bit of research into the Galileo affair will disabuse you of the notion that the church never opposed him. I'm not going to write out a history book for you, but you could at least spend 2 minutes with wikipedia before claiming such nonsense.
@JK192837 - what dingbat you are - seriously! Friend, here is a great shock for you - wikipedia and its like, are N O T scholarly sources! The RCC NEVER had a problem with Galileo doing science, the Church has always supported sound science - again I say for you, the problem with Galileo was he, Galileo, over stepped the line into areas of theology and further, wanted his Theory to be presented as a Law, which it would not be for hundreds of years. I WILL spend the time to state the Truth!
@mmmail1969 I just knew you were gonna say wikipedia isn't a valid source. Is there any kind of source you would ever accept? Could you perhaps explain why Pope John Paul II apologised in 2000 for the trial of Galileo? You simply cannot deny this happened. Or perhaps why the Inquisition lifted a ban in 1718 on printing his works, which they had previously imposed? You are either massively naive or trolling.
@mmmail1969 Direct quotation from the trial: "We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that .... the earth moves and is not the center of the world". Wikipedia is not my source.
@JK192837 - direct quote from me - "...he, Galileo, over stepped the line into areas of theology and further, wanted his Theory to be presented as a Law, which it would not be for hundreds of years..." got it???
Whoa, hold on just a second...are you seriously trying to say that Galileo deserved to be burned at the stake for discovering that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe?
@mmmail1969 - "...he, Galileo, over stepped the line into areas of theology and further, wanted his Theory to be presented as a Law, which it would not be for hundreds of years..."
This kinda looks like your trying to defend the church's decision to burn him alive. If that's not what your saying, then clarify.
Right. So...clearly I was under a misapprehension.
So, swapping out "burned at the stake" for "indefinite house arrest," my point still stands. You seriously still sound like you're defending the church's decision to condemn him for making a discovery that showed a bunch of verses in the bible to be full of crap.
@SirKickz - friend, "burned at the stake" to "house arrest" - which I suspect by his (Galileo's) time of death even that was long past, is a massive difference - as I said, if you couldn't get that most basic of truths right - there's no point going further! Obviously, you're just as wrong in the rest of your statement! Also, why fascination with the RCC and some man called "Galileo" go ask the other churches, how they treated exactly the same new thinking of the time???
You are completely missing the point. The fact is, the RCC condemned a man (without anything even resembling a fair trial) just for making a scientific discovery. Perhaps Galileo wasn't burned, but make no mistake that others were, for other completely harmless things, like being accused of a witch.
The RCC disgusts me with its actions, both throughout history and today. I'm also fascinated with people like you who keep trying to rationalize blatantly immoral things.
@SirKickz - uhm, you discust me at your complete lack of education - there were actually multiple "trials" ONLY after years, upon years, upon years of discussions by both parties! YOU have no ability to rationalise period! Go away and bore somebody else....
...huh. Your ability to simply spew ad hominem attacks at me without actually addressing the point I made is rather astounding. Congratulations on that, I guess.
Though I suppose that that is a necessary skillset when you set out to defend an evil organization like the RCC.
@BoJanglezzzzzz - and yet people have either the arrogance or the ignorance - it's got to be one of the two - to attack the RCC regards "science"! The saying, "lost for words" comes to mind. Re the condom comment - ask the lawyers of the condom makers, why they subtly changed condom marketing from the basis of "safe sex" to "safer sex". hhhmmm?
@BarriosGroupie Stephen Fry hates the church because it's the organizational embodiment of ignorance and stupidity. And he is, of course, 100% correct.
Religion will continue to exist as long as there are those willing or stupid enough to believe in it; those kinds of people are always going to exist, so can someone enlighten me as to why this pointless debate continues?
i met stephen yesterday and showed him my theory. he was very impressed and said it was mindblowing. i have posted what happened on you-tube site "un human rights chief highlights australian".
@paranoidAndroid23 its all good 'for show', but emotion (especially anger) does cloud the mind in matters of "empirical" or "enlightened" thought processes.
When a person makes physical insults about someone else
they've already lost the argument and probably have no point to make anyway,
If you think organised religion is a Paradigm of morality then make your case.
Many Popes have directly murdered and indirectly killed people in the past.
Mohammed Murdered many many people Married Children and generally not a nice guy.Many organised religions don't believe in evolution and teach fairy tales to children
@MrIrishBilly I meant to write narrow minded, not small minded. I apologise for that. That means I do still have a point to make. Just because a load of Popes killed people doesn't mean I agree with killing. Anything Mohammed did does not affect me as I am a Christian. I belive in evolution, not the story of creation. My grandpa used to be an RE teacher and was told by a Bishop to stop reaching kids the story of Creation.
@MrIrishBilly Also, you need to look up the definition of 'child abuse'. I'm sure you're fine with children being read actual fairy tales. The stories in the Bible are there to teach people about right and wrong more than anything, not to try and convince children that bushes can talk, or that a bloke can see the future in his dreams.
I think you need to start with the following "After decades of being shown the truth, the Church finally conceded it was wrong. As with all other religious groups, each has had to change it's 'truth' to fit in with the facts when shown such by *cough* science".
Then you'll have a much more accurate base on which to commence your most useful other points :)
@ellenmelon771 coould I just remind you that all the morality tales in the bible were established over a millennium before the bible was written by the Greeks and the Indians, they're just stolen ideas, nothing remarkable whatsoever. humans established their own moral code simply by coexisting with each other and learning, Noubt to do with god
@simmy3000 Guess what, everyone copied stuff off of the Greeks. The Romans actually ncked their Gods, but just changed the names, and they nicked the stories about their Gods as well.
Nothing you just said has anything to with morality. Furthermore, 'Regarding 'unknown laws,' yes, I don't assume in these statements that we are correct or likely or even able to be correct about reality, but regardless, its laws operate, it exists as it is...' Making a statement like that is meaningless. It exists as it is? That's like saying grass is green not because we use green as a value but because there is some external law outside of our space-time that rules it green. Morality is not..
@biggingeryeti ...that clear cut. It's a value judgement, not a definite statement. In morality we ask people to place a value on, for example, human life or property. We deem such actions as being harmful to another and thus immoral. But situations occur where an immoral action may be the moral thing to do. That doesn't mean there is no law outside of our existence that declares something moral or not but until you can show evidence that there is, there is no reason to assume there is.
Wow Fry, equating moral relativism with thought? That's utter balderdash! Objective thought is not relative. If reality exists then it follows set rules, it has a nature of what it is and what it is not, REGARDLESS of whether humans can know those rules. Philosophical relativism is therefore aprioristically logically rejectable since it pretends that reality can be both what it really is & somehow otherwise to that. So causality in effect of human action inquired into by moral science=OBJECTIVE
So I'm apparently not able to understand that, reality being reality, moral relativism is utterly stupid in that regardless of whether our inquiries into moral science bear the fruit of truth or not, there are laws of reality that condition the effect of actions which means that even if we can't scientifically find these laws they are in effect. Moral relativism=rejection of trying to adhere to codes of action that our inquiries show are benifcent in effect. Causality is objective
Allow me to make this crystal clear: you may disagree with the findings of an inquiry into the effects of specific mores but only if you claim that I can both be wrong in asserting a specific causality and yet right in attributing some phenomenon to that causal human action (more) are you morally and philosophically relativist. Since reality exists there must be laws of reality and reality must be defined and so it is with causality in moral affairs.
Putting it clearer; if u believe a causes b and I believe that a in truth causes c, we are making a differing statement of objective reality. Regardless of who is right, we are being philosophical objectivists in claiming that it can't be true that a particular natural law is internally contradictory. Perhaps u are quite aware of this already. But if you state that x more has this or that defined effect you are also rejecting moral relativism within primary ontological assumption.
What people like you fail to understand is that moral science can be studied in terms of causal laws regarding the determined effects of particular actions. It can be seen which ethics are more productive according to economic laws. Value judgements which are of course utterly subjective have nothing to do with the laws of reality that condition the effects of phenomena in reality (so try to deduce these laws). You agree with this implicitly if you believe that reality exists.
Finally, what may poison your view of moral objectivism (which doesn't claim to be right, only that it is possible to be wrong and that laws if we knew them would show us what statements concerning the effects of human action, are true, of course knowing them is perhaps impossible) as an epistemology, is crass-empiricism used in largely-State sponsored inquiries into the effects of action. Action determines prices, not the other way around. Tendency in law
tendency in law of what results from particular human actions (according 2 the laws implied by conscious i.e. human action such as marginal-utility in value) can be deductively defended; on the other hand precise quantities in e.g. prices can't be predicted so even if we had a laboratory to control causal factors, in social science, we would have no use for those controlled experiments as empirically measurable price data wouldn't falsify what consciousness implies
@cannotbebothered100 Enough of your Craigist apologetics. There are no moral laws. Moral norms have changed over time and, I suspect, will continue to change. And what Fry is stating is that those who think objectively as opposed to blindly accepting what they are told often come to differing conclusions on moral issues when compared with the status quo.
My friend, I am not claiming that we must accept what we are told. Let us assume that I, you and everyone is wrong about everything. That doesn't mean that there isn't a reality that independent of what we think, is right. You know that fully well, I presume, insofar as you believe that reality exists in a definite way. So we can epistemologically know that our statements of causality concerning physical laws/moral (human action) laws are right OR wrong, not both
@cannotbebothered100 Of course there could be an independent reality of our space-time, or unknown laws governing them. There is no evidence to suggest there is, so it is mere speculation. Reality, as I understand it, does cause certain actions in certain ways, but morality is a grey area, killing an innocent for no reason is wrong, but to save a million it would (probably) be the right thing to do. I would say that it was. Others would say it wasn't. There are a massive number of variables.
If there is an independent aspect of what exists then it is part of what exists as a totality. Obviously. 2 save a million would not be the 'right' thing 2 do, it would be the thing 2 do if you value saving human life, which is an arbitrary human value. This has nothing 2 do with whether there are laws concerning human action, consciously performed mores, which there simply must be because human choice can't imply economic laws and not those laws simultaneously. Objective inquiry.
Objective inquiry which also means wertfreiheit value-free inquiry. We analyse things as they are. It is NOT scientific to say that it is 'moral' to save life or to defend property rights, it is scientific to analyse the consequences of assigning such rights or using a different value system, given the findings of supposedly objective laws of economics implied in human action and therefore part of moral-scientific inquiry into regular causality i.e. laws of human action.
That we suppose those laws are either wrong or right, i.e held to an objective standard of conforming with Reality, is proof of our non relativistic position on the philosophy i.e the inquiry into the truth of morals and their causal effects. Moral relativism as a system of denying that there are laws which we will ignore at our peril, is nonsensical, though of course moral relativism in the sense of there being value free inquiry, is essential 2 being scientific
Regarding 'unknown laws,' yes, I don't assume in these statements that we are correct or likely or even able to be correct about reality, but regardless, its laws operate, it exists as it is, including your implied 'multiverse' which if it is real is different facets of the same reality i.e. reality is not internally contradictory, it is not both real and not real, i.e. it is what is independent of our judgements, however diversely heterogeneous it may seem.
Finally, relativism is an epistemological denial that there is truth. If you believe you may be wrong, that is not relativistic, it is precisely because you know that you can't be right when you're wrong in making a statement about reality. If reality is split into a and b then it's still one unified reality. You confuse the concept of spatio-temporal unity with independent realities, it's all one reality else it isn't real so you imply you're wrong unless you say it's one reality
I meant to say the objective laws of human action (what human action IS) condition the RESULTS of some social norm such as property rights or jurisdictional i.e. extra-contractual, extra-Lockean imposition of agency or 'interventionism,' obviously the knowledge we think we have is implied in our statement of the law as we think it is. RE physical relativism, if in this part of reality, x works like x because it is x, that doesn't mean that reality can internally differ on this law
'There are no moral (concerning the effects of human action according 2 what is implied by conscious action) laws'=as absurd as saying that there R no physical laws. Belief in physical laws changes. We think *objectively*. We find that time-honoured truths are in fact false. That we believe they are *either* true or false even if we don't know WHICH, is why we are not philosophical or indeed moral relativists. There is no arbitrary standard of value-there is causality from action.
I will allow you to finish this debate after this comment. I don't really know whether you're saying that we need to say that any framework for inquiry into moral science can be both right and wrong i.e. non-objective in epistemology, or whether you are saying that human values concerning what is a desirable goal, are ever changing, in which case there is no disagreement. I refer to praxeologically implied laws that decide the effect of norms, market phenomena being so derived.
Soz, one last thing (he says like Columbo), I should add that I know what Fry is trying to say, that arbitrarily justified moral VALUES are in the truest sense of the word; stupid, but my point is that this is precisely because moral relativism is wrong and there are objective laws that decide the effects of phenomena, so the objective thinker will as you say try to find the effects of those laws rather than listening to dogma, & as I say they can't objectively be wrong AND right.
BTW I'm an atheist so I'm not apologising for those who besmirch the name of moral objectivism in claiming a divine inherently unable to be critically analysed justification for human decisions, I'm apologising, that is, defending, that A=A, reality exists so the refined set of laws of social interaction that explain regularity in effects of human action without trying to account for all that is random/incidental from free will, might be wrong or right, not both.
Conceive working in providing that which is of exactly homogeneous value to already rendered supply, according to the law of marginal utility that behaviour will tend towards attaining a lesser market value from the pattern of voluntary exchanges for that work. This doesn't mean we can predict the extent of that swing to fall in e.g. wages or revenues for sole-trader's product, it's just an implication that conditions knowledge of results of e.g. minimum wage law. Moral science.
and the prices wouldn't be determined in a mechanical deterministic modellable fashion by particular actions because they are determined by free will, so the data can't show us what is going to happen next in social affairs, even if we had a hypothetical historical laboratory to do precise experiments on human reaction to the same stimuli, which in the social sphere are the effect of human choice, not the determiner of that choice.
Human history therefore can't falsify but with reference only to its own specific events hence 'verstehen.' Crass empiricism might say that in x situation, humans reacted to those conditions in y manner but their free will means that even statistically significant correlations (& data interpreted is done so in an a-priori framework) don't prove that humans are determined to act out that response to those conditions that are determined by human action not the other way around
i am atheist but but but but but,,,,,,,,,, i think if a religion can give someone hope ,faith ,love thats good for the people to follow if they want to ,,,,,, just imagine can u or anyone in this world can give hope to someone who has suffered emotionally and mentally,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,what will give them hope that everything will be all right ???????? ........if it has to come from any religion i think everyone will not mind and we all will agree
i am atheist but but but but but,,,,,,,,,, i think if a religion can give someone hope ,faith ,love thats good for the people to follow if they want to ,,,,,, just imagine can u or anyone in this world can give hope to someone who has suffered emotionally and mentally,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,what will give them hope that everything will be all right ???????? ........if it has to come from any religion i think everyone will not mind and we all will agree
i am atheist but but but but but,,,,,,,,,, i think if a religion can give someone hope ,faith ,love thats good for the people to follow if they want to ,,,,,, just imagine can u or anyone in this world can give hope to someone who has suffered emotionally and mentally,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,what will give them hope that everything will be all right ???????? ........if it has to come from any religion i think everyone will not mind and we all will agree
yes thats right the words stephen fry say are good words he is clever man i like the words that he says. christians are bad they dont like science and like wars and slaves. so they are bad. yes :)
@Cruzader80 Ah, you're right. I wasn't sure (due to the cut) that she was exactly the person sat next to him, but when I come to think of it, same jacket, and his mic is trembling as he speaks, right next to her.
This has been flagged as spam show
I AM JESUS,
I AM THE 666 IN REVELATION,
I AM THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH....
THE MARKS / NUMBERS FORMING UPON MY FACE WILL SOON BE TOTALLY UNDENIABLE...
ulived1969 1 day ago
god did not say build a church and be ruled by the leader . man did. god did not say contaminate yourself,ruin the earth . man did man made desruction god simply said he would save you from it if you take him into your heart and live a good life with all the evil in the world shouldn't you be glad of his offer?no- instead of even a half hearted try man runs around mocking him and trying to disprove him. dont even start me on the catholic church - hitler in a dress.
mamamonster2011 2 days ago
@mamamonster2011 God didn't say anything. It was man the whole time.
ninjajesus81 2 days ago
I've seen Demolition Man at least ten times
uncleplugs 2 days ago
When a relegion has a leader, the purpose has already been contaminated.
SerChade 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Roman Catholicism is the most evil organization in the world that murdered innocent people and abused who knows how many children.
The pope is lier,sinner and a sorry excuse for a human being who protects pedophiles and has alot of blood on his hands.
The Roman Catholic Church invented so many doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and has practiced rites and ceremonies taken from paganism, like other denominations.
Mcstroke57 2 days ago
I don't think it's right to judge the catholic church based on what it did a century ago.
I think that with both christians and athiests can work together to make the world a better place rather than just fighting over each other because a christian said that to an athiest and an athiest said that to a christian and 'THEY STARTED IT FIRST' Arguement so I don't like them... Look. Just forgive and forget, im sure that's better than hating.
xaxie1 3 days ago
@xaxie1 How about what they do now? Condemning the use of condoms in the face of appalling AIDS statistics in Africa. The Catholic church's hands remain steeped in blood and I, for one, will not forgive and forget their wickedness in 1812 or 2012.
evo5dave 3 days ago
@evo5dave
Then the hate will never end. I disagree with the catholic church for doing this however I do not therefore hate god or christianity, and there are many catholics I know who use condoms and do different things to the catholic teachings.
xaxie1 2 days ago
@xaxie1
The problem is that the teachings of the church are killing people, dude.
Killing. People.
Why should I be forgiving of an organisation that has harbored child molesters, preaches against condoms in AIDS ravaged countries, and condemns homosexuality as a sin?
These are evil actions that have cost lives. We, as moral people, are obligated to condemn these actions. It's not about hate, it's about showing respect for the thousands who have died at the hands of the RCC.
SirKickz 2 days ago
@SirKickz
Not all teachings of the church are bad, the ones that you state are killing people are mainly those of the catholic church. The one I go to teaches love. I don't think its right to simply christianity when a majority of the people who go to it are good hard working lovers of god and only the people at the top are the ones who are condemning it.
You have to admit a lot of the teachings of the bible are very good.
xaxie1 2 days ago
@xaxie1
Oh sure. "Love thy neighbor" is great. However, when someone says, "The Bible is the perfect word of God," they are claiming that it is infallible, and, by default, are claiming to endorse all of the bible, including the horrible bits.
Also, then, I need to see the good hardworking lovers of God step up to the Pope and say, "HEY! STOP PREACHING THAT BULLSHIT!" However, instead of doing that, they are gathering in droves at the vatican to sing his praises. I find that disgusting.
SirKickz 2 days ago
@SirKickz
Taking the Bible literally is a bad thing to do correct, saying that is like saying You will walk into the lava and if you don't you are an abomination before God.
As for the second thing I saw a programme on tv a year or two ago about a catholic who objects to the popes teachings about condoms, but the main reason they don't is because they don't want to be looked down upon by the vatican or the other catholic churches.
xaxie1 2 days ago
@SirKickz
It sounds silly I know but it is difficult as a christian to fight against somebody who is technically on your side and a believer in God.
But yes something must be done.
Im not a catholic if you didnt know btw im Non-Demonational.
What I don't get is why him saying you cannot use Condoms makes Africans not use condoms? Does the pope have people who watch them day and night to see if they use condoms? I think Red Cross should simply hand them out more often.
xaxie1 2 days ago
@xaxie1 yes, these poor deluded Africans believe they are being watched at all time by God, and if they displease him(by having sex not for procreation) then they go to hell for eternity. God is the best gestapo, he's free.
edcampion19 2 days ago
@xaxie1
Well, you have to understand, it would be one thing to say to the Africans, "the use of condoms is against our religion, so please consider abstinence as your first defense against AIDS."
However, instead of doing that, the RCC decided to spread the lie that using condoms actually increased the chances of infection.
Also, the Pope doesn't need to post people to watch them day and night: he simply convinces the poor, uneducated africans that God is always watching them.
SirKickz 2 days ago
@SirKickz - show me the statistical evidence for freely available "birth control" reducing STD's and unwanted pregnancies???
mmmail1969 2 days ago
@mmmail1969
Well, I can't post links on youtube comments, or I'd give you one of the sites, but, if you are really interested in seeing the evidence, simply google "reducing unwanted pregnancies" and read the articles on the subject. There isn't a single one that doesn't mention making contraceptives available and educating women on their use as a part of the process to reduce unwanted pregnancies and STD's
SirKickz 1 day ago
@SirKickz - I find if you take out the "w's" at the start and put (dot) in place of the actual "dot" you're likely should have success with any links.
mmmail1969 1 day ago
@SirKickz here's a link for you and others to consider youtu(dot)be/sski0eebAAo
mmmail1969 1 day ago
@mmmail1969 The evidence is clear, American states with abstinence only education have the highest teen birth rates, those with higher use of contraceptives and with proper health education have much lower rates.
MeakerSE 1 day ago
@mmmail1969 Oh look, we read into his data and there is a lack of education about sex in schools and knowledge about access to affordable birth control is limited.
MeakerSE 1 day ago
I would love to hear their reply to that question :p
PenguinMad101 4 days ago
@PenguinMad101 - who's "they"? and what is the question?
mmmail1969 4 days ago
A beautiful clip that sums up all that i love about Stephen Fry. Clever, witty, OPPOSED TO STUPIDITY...i could go on
Smellycat1990 5 days ago
wanted to see the speechless rebuttal though.
Choo69 1 week ago
I dare you to criticise Islam publicly Steven, go on! You are aware Islam also approved of African slavery. Yeah right you cowardly hypocritical cunt.
TheLondonIrish 1 week ago
@TheLondonIrish erm.....piss off!
zxcthethird 1 week ago
@TheLondonIrish Bit retarded? There there.
devilzsmile 1 week ago
@TheLondonIrish The debate's about the Catholic Church, why would he bring up Islam?
paranoidAndroid23 1 week ago
Oh wow. He is so spot on here.
LegalVampire 1 week ago
Fry = Legend
amar1989 2 weeks ago
it gets like this though when talking to religious people, they dont just click or understand some of the more confusing things about the bible, its simple to see that some things in the bible just dont add up, and its hard to make religious people see and understand that
LJ587846 2 weeks ago
I love Stephen Fry so much. <3
SuperFluffylicious 2 weeks ago
@NORTHERNIRISHULTRAS2 um, yeees... how is it relevant...?
MrJellyBabiez 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
William Lane Craig has a brain, it scares Dorky. Run Dorky Dawkins run, God never sleeps.
IdaSputum 2 weeks ago
Stephen fry hates the Church because he's gay and this is seen as a sin by most religions
BarriosGroupie 2 weeks ago
@BarriosGroupie I'm straight as an arrow and I hate the church, too. You don't have to have had your lifestyle condemned by the church to be outraged by its actions and its condemnations of others.
212melc 2 weeks ago 15
@212melc would you verbally bully someone like that? neither would I
BarriosGroupie 2 weeks ago
@212melc - true, just be ignorant and you can be as big an idiot as is humanly possible!
mmmail1969 4 days ago
@BarriosGroupie I despair at your wilful ignorance.
TheBesuited 2 weeks ago
@BarriosGroupie No...Stephen Fry hates the church because it rejects moral relativism in favour of "faith", which is to say it rejects thinking for yourself in favour of listening to an old guy in Rome who probably doesn't even speak your language very well (the current one certainly sounds retarded when he tries speaking mine).
BoJanglezzzzzz 2 weeks ago
@BoJanglezzzzzz - yes, yes, obviously given the RCC's vast contribution to education, science etc it's totally against thinking - IDIOT!
mmmail1969 2 weeks ago
@mmmail1969 You encourage us to look at the "scientific" contributions of a church which says condoms CAUSE AIDS, yet neglect to mention a single one of these contributions. Please do so, then I will respect your opinion. Thank you.
BoJanglezzzzzz 2 weeks ago
@BoJanglezzzzzz - I don't want, let alone need you to respect my opinion - you're ignorant and obviously lazy - Google is your friend - but stupidity clearly your lover! The RCC will give you a science lesson anytime you want! The Pontifical Academy of Sciences - World Class - World Acclaimed! Further, from the Father of the Big Bang Theory, to the Father of Atomic Theory, to the first person to record the transit of Mercury - as I said, the RCC will give you a science lesson anytime!
mmmail1969 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mmmail1969 "The RCC will give you a science lesson anytime you want!"
Until you use that science to call their bullshit for what it is. Then it's book burning time.
TomFynn 1 week ago
@BoJanglezzzzzz - a fraction of the THOUSANDS of RC's cleric and lay who've impacted the sciences. Coulomb established the fundamental laws of static electricity. Columbo discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood. Buffon wrote the first work on natural history. Eustachius, for whom the Eustachian tube was named, was one of the founders of modern anatomy. Caesalpinus, a Papal physician, was the first to construct a system of botany. Becquerel, founder of electro-chemistry....
mmmail1969 2 weeks ago
@BoJanglezzzzzz - Braille invented the Braille system for the blind. Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease. Herzog discovered a cure for infantile paralysis. Lancist, a Papal physician, was the father of clinical medicine. Galilei, a great astronomer, is the father of experimental science. Laennec invented the stethoscope. Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian. Steensen, a Bishop, the father of geology!
mmmail1969 2 weeks ago
@mmmail1969 It's amusing you bring up Galilei. Remind me, who was it who imprisoned him for advocating heliocentrism?
JK192837 1 week ago
@JK192837 - don't why it's amusing. considering 1) the advocating of "heliocentrism" had been going on since, ohh, 3rd C BC with Aristarchus of Samos. Galilei, a brillant Roman Catholic Scientist, got into trouble with the RCC, because he broke his own agreement with the Church not to dabble in arguments of theology and his inability to prove his theory, yet he repeatedly presented it as fact. Proof was centuries off (cont)
mmmail1969 1 week ago
@mmmail1969 No, the 'agreement' he broke was not to advocate heliocentrism, which the church decided was a matter of theology, when it obviously is not. Science conflicted with scripture, the church came down heavily on the side of scripture.
You are of course right that the church has often backed rather than blocked science, and that this is sometimes overlooked. But to try and claim that the church has *never* opposed science, and didn't persecute Galileo, is just naive.
JK192837 1 week ago
@JK192837 - the only "imprisonment" Galilei ever experienced was house arrest - in a palace!!! The remarkable Galilei certainly new how to rub people up the wrong way, he had life long feuds regards the discovery of sun spots and called the early theory of the moon impacting tides "a useless fiction". Galilei, could be said to be brilliant, but perhaps not to bright! Anything else you need reminding on?
mmmail1969 1 week ago
@mmmail1969 And I don't know why you're trying to demonstrate to me that he wasn't all that brilliant. I never claimed he was. You're the one who brought him up.
JK192837 1 week ago
@JK192837 - I, who fully achnowledge the considerable scientific achievements of Galileo, raised his name as one among many. YOU, not me - Y O U specifically raised him, regards the confrontation he had with RCC, which you claim "imprisoned him for advocating heliocentrism". It did NOT and to suggest so, is a LIE. The RCC long supported such scientific endeavour, such as Galileo's work and indeed often funded it - as it continues to do today, in some of the worlds finest institutes.
mmmail1969 1 week ago
@mmmail1969 Do I really have to spell this out for you? You cited him as a scientist the church has supported. I then argued that the church did not always support him. You then started explaining why he wasn't brilliant.Yes, I brought the MAN up, but YOU brought up the idea that he was or was not "brilliant", which is something I did NOT bring up. I then asked why you had brought it up, and then you claimed that I had brought it up. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.
JK192837 6 days ago
@JK192837 - I said Galileo was "brilliant", but also a difficult man to deal with! He, Galileo, also reflected the ignorance for his age, as every generation, including our own, does! Maybe you should have a cool drink and sit in the shade for a while, seem top be getting a bit hot under the collar.... :)
mmmail1969 6 days ago
@mmmail1969 And even the smallest bit of research into the Galileo affair will disabuse you of the notion that the church never opposed him. I'm not going to write out a history book for you, but you could at least spend 2 minutes with wikipedia before claiming such nonsense.
JK192837 6 days ago
@JK192837 - what dingbat you are - seriously! Friend, here is a great shock for you - wikipedia and its like, are N O T scholarly sources! The RCC NEVER had a problem with Galileo doing science, the Church has always supported sound science - again I say for you, the problem with Galileo was he, Galileo, over stepped the line into areas of theology and further, wanted his Theory to be presented as a Law, which it would not be for hundreds of years. I WILL spend the time to state the Truth!
mmmail1969 6 days ago
@mmmail1969 I just knew you were gonna say wikipedia isn't a valid source. Is there any kind of source you would ever accept? Could you perhaps explain why Pope John Paul II apologised in 2000 for the trial of Galileo? You simply cannot deny this happened. Or perhaps why the Inquisition lifted a ban in 1718 on printing his works, which they had previously imposed? You are either massively naive or trolling.
JK192837 6 days ago
@JK192837 - for all to read. catholiceducation(dot)org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html
mmmail1969 6 days ago
@mmmail1969 Direct quotation from the trial: "We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that .... the earth moves and is not the center of the world". Wikipedia is not my source.
JK192837 6 days ago
@JK192837 - direct quote from me - "...he, Galileo, over stepped the line into areas of theology and further, wanted his Theory to be presented as a Law, which it would not be for hundreds of years..." got it???
mmmail1969 6 days ago
@mmmail1969
Whoa, hold on just a second...are you seriously trying to say that Galileo deserved to be burned at the stake for discovering that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe?
SirKickz 5 days ago
@SirKickz - no, but I am calling you an idiot and a troll! Go actually read what people say!
mmmail1969 5 days ago
@mmmail1969 - "...he, Galileo, over stepped the line into areas of theology and further, wanted his Theory to be presented as a Law, which it would not be for hundreds of years..."
This kinda looks like your trying to defend the church's decision to burn him alive. If that's not what your saying, then clarify.
SirKickz 4 days ago
@SirKickz Galileo wasn't burnt, he died under house arrest. That declared, carry on.
KenmoreT 4 days ago
@SirKickz - Galileo died an "old Man" in his own bed! If you can't get that right, give us all a break and move on - NOW! ;)
mmmail1969 4 days ago
@mmmail1969
Right. So...clearly I was under a misapprehension.
So, swapping out "burned at the stake" for "indefinite house arrest," my point still stands. You seriously still sound like you're defending the church's decision to condemn him for making a discovery that showed a bunch of verses in the bible to be full of crap.
SirKickz 3 days ago
@SirKickz - friend, "burned at the stake" to "house arrest" - which I suspect by his (Galileo's) time of death even that was long past, is a massive difference - as I said, if you couldn't get that most basic of truths right - there's no point going further! Obviously, you're just as wrong in the rest of your statement! Also, why fascination with the RCC and some man called "Galileo" go ask the other churches, how they treated exactly the same new thinking of the time???
mmmail1969 3 days ago
@mmmail1969
You are completely missing the point. The fact is, the RCC condemned a man (without anything even resembling a fair trial) just for making a scientific discovery. Perhaps Galileo wasn't burned, but make no mistake that others were, for other completely harmless things, like being accused of a witch.
The RCC disgusts me with its actions, both throughout history and today. I'm also fascinated with people like you who keep trying to rationalize blatantly immoral things.
SirKickz 3 days ago
@SirKickz - uhm, you discust me at your complete lack of education - there were actually multiple "trials" ONLY after years, upon years, upon years of discussions by both parties! YOU have no ability to rationalise period! Go away and bore somebody else....
mmmail1969 3 days ago
@mmmail1969
...huh. Your ability to simply spew ad hominem attacks at me without actually addressing the point I made is rather astounding. Congratulations on that, I guess.
Though I suppose that that is a necessary skillset when you set out to defend an evil organization like the RCC.
SirKickz 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SirKickz - "Right. So...clearly I was under a misapprehension" only honest thing a troll like you has ever said!
mmmail1969 2 days ago
@mmmail1969 In what way did he cross the line into theology? Do tell.
JK192837 5 days ago
@JK192837 - I won't waste my time telling you (again) - watch more TRUTH for all here youtu(dot)be/-xpVueJyjwc
mmmail1969 5 days ago
@BoJanglezzzzzz - and yet people have either the arrogance or the ignorance - it's got to be one of the two - to attack the RCC regards "science"! The saying, "lost for words" comes to mind. Re the condom comment - ask the lawyers of the condom makers, why they subtly changed condom marketing from the basis of "safe sex" to "safer sex". hhhmmm?
mmmail1969 2 weeks ago
@mmmail1969 Because condoms sometimes rip?
BoJanglezzzzzz 2 weeks ago
@BoJanglezzzzzz - like the link to your brain!
mmmail1969 2 weeks ago
@BarriosGroupie Stephen Fry hates the church because it's the organizational embodiment of ignorance and stupidity. And he is, of course, 100% correct.
KryzMasta 2 weeks ago
God isn't wrong, it's how some people believe it is.
vodka3097 3 weeks ago
Do you mean your classmates in junior school?
BillyfromConsett 3 weeks ago
A soundbite from Stephen Fry. Any chance of a reply from the other side?
Thought not...
BillyfromConsett 3 weeks ago
@BillyfromConsett
They'd just molest children, if they had the chance. Better left as it is, yes. ;)
resident19guy 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
@BillyfromConsett It's quite easy to find the entire debate Billy. Just click one of the links...
PascalsWager5 3 weeks ago
But if there is not god then who is Stephen Fry?
glointhadark 3 weeks ago 20
FUCK THIS BIGOT
gogolplex74 3 weeks ago
@gogolplex74
Which one are you talking about the? The one in the skull cap on the left or the one sitting next to him in the white?
4ebees 3 weeks ago
Stephen fry is says god is wrong which makes it fact.
SuperSilentWalrus 4 weeks ago
Religion will continue to exist as long as there are those willing or stupid enough to believe in it; those kinds of people are always going to exist, so can someone enlighten me as to why this pointless debate continues?
SuperQweertyuiop 4 weeks ago
Religion will come to an end, or it will be our end. Simple as that.
Treyb3yond 4 weeks ago
The bible teaches slavery, punishment by death, burning torching souls, yeah great book for children.
BPLucifer 1 month ago
What, indeed...
DrSpooglemon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i met stephen yesterday and showed him my theory. he was very impressed and said it was mindblowing. i have posted what happened on you-tube site "un human rights chief highlights australian".
figbat1 1 month ago
GO STEVE!
jonship 1 month ago
I have seen this clip about 30 times, and it never gets old
kennyingram 1 month ago
And I thought FUSRODAH was strong, DAMN! Fry fuckin invented it!
WHAT. ARE YOU. FOOOOR! *church falls*
Eniacbc 1 month ago 9
Mature and intelligent...
TheWisemonkey8 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos 3
Oh I just love the conviction, frustration and anger in his voice. Absolutely spot on Stephen!!!
paranoidAndroid23 1 month ago 56
@paranoidAndroid23 its all good 'for show', but emotion (especially anger) does cloud the mind in matters of "empirical" or "enlightened" thought processes.
oc00011 2 weeks ago
@paranoidAndroid23 - yeah for a statement that makes no sense it does sound rather loud!
mmmail1969 2 weeks ago
If you look to organised religion for morality then you are a lost soul indeed.
MrIrishBilly 1 month ago 5
@MrIrishBilly That's a bit harsh.
ellenmelon771 1 month ago
@ellenmelon771
not even near harsh enough
MrIrishBilly 1 month ago
@MrIrishBilly Really? Are you actually that small-minded?
ellenmelon771 1 month ago
@ellenmelon771
When a person makes physical insults about someone else
they've already lost the argument and probably have no point to make anyway,
If you think organised religion is a Paradigm of morality then make your case.
Many Popes have directly murdered and indirectly killed people in the past.
Mohammed Murdered many many people Married Children and generally not a nice guy.Many organised religions don't believe in evolution and teach fairy tales to children
which is child abuse.
MrIrishBilly 1 month ago 3
@MrIrishBilly I meant to write narrow minded, not small minded. I apologise for that. That means I do still have a point to make. Just because a load of Popes killed people doesn't mean I agree with killing. Anything Mohammed did does not affect me as I am a Christian. I belive in evolution, not the story of creation. My grandpa used to be an RE teacher and was told by a Bishop to stop reaching kids the story of Creation.
ellenmelon771 1 month ago
@MrIrishBilly Also, you need to look up the definition of 'child abuse'. I'm sure you're fine with children being read actual fairy tales. The stories in the Bible are there to teach people about right and wrong more than anything, not to try and convince children that bushes can talk, or that a bloke can see the future in his dreams.
ellenmelon771 1 month ago
@ellenmelon771
Well I'm glad you agree that the bible is full of insane nonsensical
fairy tales and its not for literal teaching to children as in my opinion
this is mental child abuse. Your probably a Catholic
as all catholic priests are under orders to not teach creationism as
its untrue. The only thing good about the catholic church is it has a science wing
where priests are actually trained scientists, but the Catholic church is a safe haven for idiot child abusers and not morality
MrIrishBilly 1 month ago
@MrIrishBilly
I think you need to start with the following "After decades of being shown the truth, the Church finally conceded it was wrong. As with all other religious groups, each has had to change it's 'truth' to fit in with the facts when shown such by *cough* science".
Then you'll have a much more accurate base on which to commence your most useful other points :)
4ebees 3 weeks ago
@MrIrishBilly Don't make assumptions like that, matey, as I'm not a Catholic. Also, why do you put a space between each line of your comment?
ellenmelon771 2 weeks ago
@ellenmelon771
Well congratulations on not being born a Catholic.
I was born one but I'm against all forms of organised religion now
I'm also agnostic.
All churchs and "holy" books are insane and not a good source of morality
Human beings innately know the difference between wrong and right
How else do atheists children not all end up criminals?
MrIrishBilly 2 weeks ago
@ellenmelon771 coould I just remind you that all the morality tales in the bible were established over a millennium before the bible was written by the Greeks and the Indians, they're just stolen ideas, nothing remarkable whatsoever. humans established their own moral code simply by coexisting with each other and learning, Noubt to do with god
simmy3000 3 weeks ago
@simmy3000 Guess what, everyone copied stuff off of the Greeks. The Romans actually ncked their Gods, but just changed the names, and they nicked the stories about their Gods as well.
I'm too tired to carry on arguing. Goodnight.
ellenmelon771 2 weeks ago
@ellenmelon771 yes that was my point, you just repeated it so no need to argue
simmy3000 2 weeks ago
@simmy3000 *blows raspberry* xD xXx
ellenmelon771 2 weeks ago
@ellenmelon771 *whilst sticking fingers in ears* classic response
simmy3000 2 weeks ago
@simmy3000 Hahahahha, OK then.... *pokes your nose*! xP xXx
ellenmelon771 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Areet then Stephen calm down you freak..
YouBloodyTuber 1 month ago
@YouBloodyTuber Wow... the perfect idiots response to a well made argument... what a doucher you are
cusack2 1 month ago
then what are you FORS RO DAH
detahdomo 1 month ago 12
I hate when people compare Stephen Fry to God. I mean, he's good and all, but he's no Stephen Fry!
zimmawoman 1 month ago 180
@zimmawoman Gold! Haha!
ThumperGreentree 2 weeks ago
@zimmawoman and Stephen Fry definitely exists...
philthy122 1 week ago
Nothing you just said has anything to with morality. Furthermore, 'Regarding 'unknown laws,' yes, I don't assume in these statements that we are correct or likely or even able to be correct about reality, but regardless, its laws operate, it exists as it is...' Making a statement like that is meaningless. It exists as it is? That's like saying grass is green not because we use green as a value but because there is some external law outside of our space-time that rules it green. Morality is not..
biggingeryeti 1 month ago
@biggingeryeti ...that clear cut. It's a value judgement, not a definite statement. In morality we ask people to place a value on, for example, human life or property. We deem such actions as being harmful to another and thus immoral. But situations occur where an immoral action may be the moral thing to do. That doesn't mean there is no law outside of our existence that declares something moral or not but until you can show evidence that there is, there is no reason to assume there is.
biggingeryeti 1 month ago
Wow Fry, equating moral relativism with thought? That's utter balderdash! Objective thought is not relative. If reality exists then it follows set rules, it has a nature of what it is and what it is not, REGARDLESS of whether humans can know those rules. Philosophical relativism is therefore aprioristically logically rejectable since it pretends that reality can be both what it really is & somehow otherwise to that. So causality in effect of human action inquired into by moral science=OBJECTIVE
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
@cannotbebothered100 I don't think you actually understood what you just typed.
biggingeryeti 1 month ago
So I'm apparently not able to understand that, reality being reality, moral relativism is utterly stupid in that regardless of whether our inquiries into moral science bear the fruit of truth or not, there are laws of reality that condition the effect of actions which means that even if we can't scientifically find these laws they are in effect. Moral relativism=rejection of trying to adhere to codes of action that our inquiries show are benifcent in effect. Causality is objective
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
@biggingeryeti
Allow me to make this crystal clear: you may disagree with the findings of an inquiry into the effects of specific mores but only if you claim that I can both be wrong in asserting a specific causality and yet right in attributing some phenomenon to that causal human action (more) are you morally and philosophically relativist. Since reality exists there must be laws of reality and reality must be defined and so it is with causality in moral affairs.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
Putting it clearer; if u believe a causes b and I believe that a in truth causes c, we are making a differing statement of objective reality. Regardless of who is right, we are being philosophical objectivists in claiming that it can't be true that a particular natural law is internally contradictory. Perhaps u are quite aware of this already. But if you state that x more has this or that defined effect you are also rejecting moral relativism within primary ontological assumption.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
What people like you fail to understand is that moral science can be studied in terms of causal laws regarding the determined effects of particular actions. It can be seen which ethics are more productive according to economic laws. Value judgements which are of course utterly subjective have nothing to do with the laws of reality that condition the effects of phenomena in reality (so try to deduce these laws). You agree with this implicitly if you believe that reality exists.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
@biggingeryeti
Finally, what may poison your view of moral objectivism (which doesn't claim to be right, only that it is possible to be wrong and that laws if we knew them would show us what statements concerning the effects of human action, are true, of course knowing them is perhaps impossible) as an epistemology, is crass-empiricism used in largely-State sponsored inquiries into the effects of action. Action determines prices, not the other way around. Tendency in law
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
@biggingeryeti
tendency in law of what results from particular human actions (according 2 the laws implied by conscious i.e. human action such as marginal-utility in value) can be deductively defended; on the other hand precise quantities in e.g. prices can't be predicted so even if we had a laboratory to control causal factors, in social science, we would have no use for those controlled experiments as empirically measurable price data wouldn't falsify what consciousness implies
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
@cannotbebothered100 Enough of your Craigist apologetics. There are no moral laws. Moral norms have changed over time and, I suspect, will continue to change. And what Fry is stating is that those who think objectively as opposed to blindly accepting what they are told often come to differing conclusions on moral issues when compared with the status quo.
biggingeryeti 1 month ago
@biggingeryeti
My friend, I am not claiming that we must accept what we are told. Let us assume that I, you and everyone is wrong about everything. That doesn't mean that there isn't a reality that independent of what we think, is right. You know that fully well, I presume, insofar as you believe that reality exists in a definite way. So we can epistemologically know that our statements of causality concerning physical laws/moral (human action) laws are right OR wrong, not both
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
@cannotbebothered100 Of course there could be an independent reality of our space-time, or unknown laws governing them. There is no evidence to suggest there is, so it is mere speculation. Reality, as I understand it, does cause certain actions in certain ways, but morality is a grey area, killing an innocent for no reason is wrong, but to save a million it would (probably) be the right thing to do. I would say that it was. Others would say it wasn't. There are a massive number of variables.
biggingeryeti 1 month ago
If there is an independent aspect of what exists then it is part of what exists as a totality. Obviously. 2 save a million would not be the 'right' thing 2 do, it would be the thing 2 do if you value saving human life, which is an arbitrary human value. This has nothing 2 do with whether there are laws concerning human action, consciously performed mores, which there simply must be because human choice can't imply economic laws and not those laws simultaneously. Objective inquiry.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
Objective inquiry which also means wertfreiheit value-free inquiry. We analyse things as they are. It is NOT scientific to say that it is 'moral' to save life or to defend property rights, it is scientific to analyse the consequences of assigning such rights or using a different value system, given the findings of supposedly objective laws of economics implied in human action and therefore part of moral-scientific inquiry into regular causality i.e. laws of human action.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
@biggingeryeti
That we suppose those laws are either wrong or right, i.e held to an objective standard of conforming with Reality, is proof of our non relativistic position on the philosophy i.e the inquiry into the truth of morals and their causal effects. Moral relativism as a system of denying that there are laws which we will ignore at our peril, is nonsensical, though of course moral relativism in the sense of there being value free inquiry, is essential 2 being scientific
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
@biggingeryeti
Regarding 'unknown laws,' yes, I don't assume in these statements that we are correct or likely or even able to be correct about reality, but regardless, its laws operate, it exists as it is, including your implied 'multiverse' which if it is real is different facets of the same reality i.e. reality is not internally contradictory, it is not both real and not real, i.e. it is what is independent of our judgements, however diversely heterogeneous it may seem.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
Finally, relativism is an epistemological denial that there is truth. If you believe you may be wrong, that is not relativistic, it is precisely because you know that you can't be right when you're wrong in making a statement about reality. If reality is split into a and b then it's still one unified reality. You confuse the concept of spatio-temporal unity with independent realities, it's all one reality else it isn't real so you imply you're wrong unless you say it's one reality
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
I meant to say the objective laws of human action (what human action IS) condition the RESULTS of some social norm such as property rights or jurisdictional i.e. extra-contractual, extra-Lockean imposition of agency or 'interventionism,' obviously the knowledge we think we have is implied in our statement of the law as we think it is. RE physical relativism, if in this part of reality, x works like x because it is x, that doesn't mean that reality can internally differ on this law
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
'There are no moral (concerning the effects of human action according 2 what is implied by conscious action) laws'=as absurd as saying that there R no physical laws. Belief in physical laws changes. We think *objectively*. We find that time-honoured truths are in fact false. That we believe they are *either* true or false even if we don't know WHICH, is why we are not philosophical or indeed moral relativists. There is no arbitrary standard of value-there is causality from action.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
I will allow you to finish this debate after this comment. I don't really know whether you're saying that we need to say that any framework for inquiry into moral science can be both right and wrong i.e. non-objective in epistemology, or whether you are saying that human values concerning what is a desirable goal, are ever changing, in which case there is no disagreement. I refer to praxeologically implied laws that decide the effect of norms, market phenomena being so derived.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
Soz, one last thing (he says like Columbo), I should add that I know what Fry is trying to say, that arbitrarily justified moral VALUES are in the truest sense of the word; stupid, but my point is that this is precisely because moral relativism is wrong and there are objective laws that decide the effects of phenomena, so the objective thinker will as you say try to find the effects of those laws rather than listening to dogma, & as I say they can't objectively be wrong AND right.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
@biggingeryeti
BTW I'm an atheist so I'm not apologising for those who besmirch the name of moral objectivism in claiming a divine inherently unable to be critically analysed justification for human decisions, I'm apologising, that is, defending, that A=A, reality exists so the refined set of laws of social interaction that explain regularity in effects of human action without trying to account for all that is random/incidental from free will, might be wrong or right, not both.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
Conceive working in providing that which is of exactly homogeneous value to already rendered supply, according to the law of marginal utility that behaviour will tend towards attaining a lesser market value from the pattern of voluntary exchanges for that work. This doesn't mean we can predict the extent of that swing to fall in e.g. wages or revenues for sole-trader's product, it's just an implication that conditions knowledge of results of e.g. minimum wage law. Moral science.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
@biggingeryeti
and the prices wouldn't be determined in a mechanical deterministic modellable fashion by particular actions because they are determined by free will, so the data can't show us what is going to happen next in social affairs, even if we had a hypothetical historical laboratory to do precise experiments on human reaction to the same stimuli, which in the social sphere are the effect of human choice, not the determiner of that choice.
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
Human history therefore can't falsify but with reference only to its own specific events hence 'verstehen.' Crass empiricism might say that in x situation, humans reacted to those conditions in y manner but their free will means that even statistically significant correlations (& data interpreted is done so in an a-priori framework) don't prove that humans are determined to act out that response to those conditions that are determined by human action not the other way around
cannotbebothered100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Create a video response or Post
i am atheist but but but but but,,,,,,,,,, i think if a religion can give someone hope ,faith ,love thats good for the people to follow if they want to ,,,,,, just imagine can u or anyone in this world can give hope to someone who has suffered emotionally and mentally,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,what will give them hope that everything will be all right ???????? ........if it has to come from any religion i think everyone will not mind and we all will agree
skygurung13 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Create a video response or Post
i am atheist but but but but but,,,,,,,,,, i think if a religion can give someone hope ,faith ,love thats good for the people to follow if they want to ,,,,,, just imagine can u or anyone in this world can give hope to someone who has suffered emotionally and mentally,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,what will give them hope that everything will be all right ???????? ........if it has to come from any religion i think everyone will not mind and we all will agree
skygurung13 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Create a video response or Post
i am atheist but but but but but,,,,,,,,,, i think if a religion can give someone hope ,faith ,love thats good for the people to follow if they want to ,,,,,, just imagine can u or anyone in this world can give hope to someone who has suffered emotionally and mentally,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,what will give them hope that everything will be all right ???????? ........if it has to come from any religion i think everyone will not mind and we all will agree
skygurung13 1 month ago
Fry + Hitchens = religion get pwned
gooders1002 1 month ago
awesome!...haha!...religion is pathetic
MrCOLTSR2 1 month ago
yes thats right the words stephen fry say are good words he is clever man i like the words that he says. christians are bad they dont like science and like wars and slaves. so they are bad. yes :)
Mrfriendlymilk 1 month ago
yes!! steven you are sayin it!!!
jay7920 1 month ago
I'd go ahead and suppose that the hair on the left of the frame belongs to Richard Dawkins, but that's not entirely sure.
ManuABG 1 month ago
@ManuABG hahaha. You can see who that is at 27 seconds.
Cruzader80 1 month ago
@Cruzader80 Ah, you're right. I wasn't sure (due to the cut) that she was exactly the person sat next to him, but when I come to think of it, same jacket, and his mic is trembling as he speaks, right next to her.
ManuABG 1 month ago
@ManuABG It's Christopher Hitchens, the woman (Ann Widdecombe) is further away.
olivecronas 1 month ago
@ManuABG It's probably Christopher Hitchens, who was also at the debate.
GeneralGoosey 1 month ago
Stephen Fry FTW!
matszz 1 month ago 87
18 people were shouting "GOD IS REAL" in their head while watching this.
theafi99000 1 month ago 68
@theafi99000 2 others were simply masturbating in their own feces and lent on their mouse.
LeoRikimaru 1 month ago