Stephen Fry on god

[magisme]

Why does there have to be a point? It's when someone ends the debate (I'd prefer discussion, personally) that you'd better head for cover.

[Facekicker]

God?

I don't know. You don't know. Nobody does.

Right that's that then. On to the next topic.

[magisme]

Whys it so complicated? People right? A broad network of inter-connected human beings, whether it be through a philosophy, an identity, and electorate, the broader human populus bound by certain shits that we agree on. So in a sense, in these days at least, the whole worlds populations is a society then sub-divided up based on like...their specifics.

The bit you said about the freaky maths guy in the woods kinda made it click, certain realities tie us altogether, Maths is a great example cuz...we're all kinda bound to that, in a sense, right?

Don't laugh if i said something stupid

EDIT: Right...and society came into being based on those mutually accepted thingies, there you go, Uncle Len sorted that connundrum out for you there eh? *walks over to a mirror and winks at himself*

It's so complicated because the tiniest detail can fuck the whole thing up, just like you did with your edit. See, you're leaning again toward this idea that individuals before society come together, after having been individuated, and create society. I do not agree. I do not believe there was ever, is ever, or could ever be an individual without society, nor vice versa.

I jus over extemporised and fucked my shit up but the rest is accurate right?

I don't know. Read my posts, you dick. I wanted you to clarify what you meant with the math part. I like the first paragraph, although I don't think it has to be a "broad network."

[Lithium]

Why is nihilism no good?

[OmarBradley]

I see our problem. You went the way of the analytic philosophers. I can tell by the way you write. We're never gonna come to terms. You guys always want to talk about Truth, as if that's even a thing.

Seriously, though, which statement do you mean wasn't meant generally? The "if your life intersects" part? If so, then yes, I'll be pretty dogmatic about that... perhaps. If A then B. If your life intersects in any way with society, you are part of society. We will probably have to work out this "part of" thing.

I love that the wolves always come up. Homo homini lupus est. Man is a wolf to man. But can one have society with animals and without other humans? If we're gonna use words like 'raised' I'd say yes.

How big is a society? There are villages in Vietnam floating on water, some residents never leave the village for the duration of their lives. There are plenty of remote, small tribes who live like this all over the world.

Yes, that is society.

We really need to agree on a definition of society to move forward. Is a society simply a group of people (as in two or more) who follow similar laws/customs? Or is it more complicated.

Let's start with that and see where it takes us. I think that was pretty much Len's gist too, although I think he might have been after some bigger fish with what he said about being connected by math. What did you mean by that, Len?

Yes, yes, him being the smartest man alive and all, I know it all too well. Pol. phil. was my degree focus..... so I also have a good deal of fun with these discussions. Though I never went too far past the 19th century, so I'm not so well read on Derrida.

Wisest, not smartest.

You should read Derrida.

Why is mourning important? It might be to you, but perhaps not to another culture, or a past culture.

You're right. It doesn't have to be mourning. But any culture that wishes to maintain a connection with its ancestors must practice some form of remembrance, formalized or not.

I guess we can't prove it either way, but I'm trying to argue that there is (or it's at least possible) currently, or in history, at least one person/group which doesn't/didn't care at all about it's deceased members. I'm not an anthropologist, but I'd have to imagine that among the slew of cultures that have existed, at least one (either due to primitiveness or belief) did not care about their dead at all. Does a lack in care for the deceased make one non-human? (just being a dick, don't answer it )

You're not being a dick at all. You're touching on some of the most profound philosophical questions going. Many have argued that the primary difference between man and animal is that man has a relationship with and cognizance of his own mortality. What is proper to man? Death.

The grocery store was a madhouse, I don't feel like responding. Call it a draw.

I am going to the grocery store soon, so mags don't take my lack of reply as victory!

I just did that. You can't multitask for shit. I win!

I waited at the deli for 27 minutes! I was in a haze of fury that would have colored my response.

[Mysteron]

I've always found him to be a self satisfied cunt who overestimates his own intellect.

He is the total opposite, haha. Stephen Fry is one of the nicest guys you will ever meet. Really genuine and very interesting.

He has lived most of his life with depression, no confidence whosoever, panic attacks, suicidal tendencies, the whole package.

He fell in with a good bunch at uni, which helped, and has had good support around him since.

During the Edinburgh festival here, he is always around, as are many of his era, especially Paul Merton. Great, great people

[magisme]

I've always found him to be a self satisfied cunt who overestimates his own intellect.

He is the total opposite, haha. Stephen Fry is one of the nicest guys you will ever meet. Really genuine and very interesting.

He has lived most of his life with depression, no confidence whosoever, panic attacks, suicidal tendencies, the whole package.

He fell in with a good bunch at uni, which helped, and has had good support around him since.

During the Edinburgh festival here, he is always around, as are many of his era, especially Paul Merton. Great, great people

Yeah, now that I'm reading Derrida I'm feeling much more generous to everyone. I'm sure he's a lovely person, and I have the utmost respect and consideration for people who battle anxiety and depression. When I say things like that, I'm speaking about a public image and not a flesh and blood human being.

[Mysteron]

I've always found him to be a self satisfied cunt who overestimates his own intellect.

He is the total opposite, haha. Stephen Fry is one of the nicest guys you will ever meet. Really genuine and very interesting.

He has lived most of his life with depression, no confidence whosoever, panic attacks, suicidal tendencies, the whole package.

He fell in with a good bunch at uni, which helped, and has had good support around him since.

During the Edinburgh festival here, he is always around, as are many of his era, especially Paul Merton. Great, great people

Yeah, now that I'm reading Derrida I'm feeling much more generous to everyone. I'm sure he's a lovely person, and I have the utmost respect and consideration for people who battle anxiety and depression. When I say things like that, I'm speaking about a public image and not a flesh and blood human being.

Yeah, I like the new you. You are a lot cooler and more considerate.

It is an odd thing with UK celebrities, they like to keep up appearances. They created that persona with their early appearances on TV, then they carry it on for decades. Stephen Fry is no different. Stephen, himself, once said that to become a comedian you have to create an identity that is different to your own, sometimes create a voice or a persona for the identity. It is almost like being a ventriloquist without a dummy. Fake personas create a fake confidence.

[magisme]

All the different magismes are cool.

[Mysteron]

All the different magismes are cool.

You are probably right

It is tough on these forums to know people properly. The Magisme 2015 version is cool though.

[Darkness Descends]

For an atheist, the very question about meeting 'god' or imagining an entity and heaven/hell is ridiculous.

There is no god. There is injustice which solely to be blamed on humans or on the environment. And quite frankly, the way humans are multiplying and destroying the earth for no reason, its good that bunch of kids get diseases and bombs kill people. I guess it controls the population somewhat.

God is humanity. You live a disciplined lifestyle, have a kid if its necessary to procreate and have enough money to spend on the kid/support it forever, do your job, help your fellow humans and die peacefully. How difficult is that?

Isnt god just another whipping boy just like some artists and revolutionaries have been? Just a scapegoat for no reason? Stop blaming a 'god'. There is none.

[SoulMonster]

Just skimmed the rest of the responses - which seemed to trail off a bit - did magisme ever actually defend his ludicruous statement that "humanism is just as retarded as any religion"? Or explain what he has against Stephen Fry?

And oh yeah, this sentence: [Humanism]'s retarded because it places something at the center of all existence that has no business being at the center. What does it place at its center?

Edited February 1, 2015 by SoulMonster

[magisme]

lol SoulMonster, still crying because I won't talk to him

[SoulMonster]

'Genius', Stephen Fry - fuck off. Listen I like QI as much as the next guy but you do realise that he has a writing team who writes those questions. He cannot be that much of a genius: he spent the first few years of adulthood filching credit cards.

But thats the point, he ain't said that, it's just our collective reaction to people that talk about things other than what The Daily Mirror reports on the telly.

Soul monster claimed he was a genius above.

I think I wrote "the genius of Stephen Fry", which, and my apologies if my grasp on English lets me down - I think is more a testament to his existence and imprint on society, than on his intellectual powers alone. Not that I think he isn't marvellous, just that I am careful to not refer to anyone as a genius.

[Len Cnut]

What is a humanist? Bertrand Russell was one, wasn't he? Valuable bit of information there, Bertrand Russell was a humanist, oh yeah, whats a humanist then? Len: I dunno

1. Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).

Makes sense i suppose, not the worst idea anyone ever had. Use your fuckin' brain basically So humanism puts humans at the centre of everything? humans and their ability to think critically and consider evidence. I suppose that could be where it trips cuuuuuz...well, your critical thinking could be fucked, or limited, or like...your understanding only reaches a certain point...and yeah, if you're always tryna assign logic to everything it ain't gonna work since something are just illogical, crazy, random. But then, logically you'd file em under illogical, crazy and random and deal with it though, no? As in like, thats how humanism would processes those things so it kinda does deal with em. But i guess that doesn't make it any less founded on a commitment that might trip you up. The over reliance or like...yeah, i guess it kinda makes a God of like...human beings in a way, there's an arrogance there i think, centralising yourself and like, one of your abilities in a sense. Nah but fuck that, what else we supposed to use?!? No, wait, I'm using my brain to think what I'm thinkin' now to criticise humanism and find faults in it so there is more you can do. But then isn't that just critical thinking again? With a kind of use with care sticker?

Ah, fuck this

Edited February 1, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

The definition doesn't claim that humanism, or more specifically, critical thinking and rationalism and empiricism, is infallible, only that it is more suited (for understanding the world we live in) than the alternatives, like revelation, divination, etc. As for the ethical part, if we are to construct an ethical system that is to be applied to humans, then naturally is must "emphaszie the value and agency of human beings". Just like if we were to come up with an ethical system to govern the interaction of canines, it would emphasize the value and agency of dogs.

It isn't hard to come up with fair criticism of humanism, as you, lenny, just did, and this fits nicely into a long tradition of deservingly criticising it. But the fact that it has weaknesses doesn't really take from its established merits, nor the fact that it miht be the best we have. E.g., no one would immersed in the 21st century could deny the powers of rationalism and empiricism as it has played out in science and research. So again, claiming that humanism is "just as retarded as any religion", is just bollocks.

And yes, Bertrand Russell most definitely was a humanist...and also one of my favourite thinkers Some might call Russell a "philosophist" but that term has been so polluted in recent decades that I am scant to attach it to Russeell lest he be mixed in with Derrida and the likes.

Edited February 1, 2015 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

What do you think are it's weaknesses?

[SoulMonster]

What do you think are it's weaknesses?

As I think you touched upon, components of humanism, like critical thinking, relies on humans' ability to think which is far from perfect. Basically, any man-made concept or idea might on some level, small or grand, contain errors because we are not infallible -- not even as a collective. This is of course why science attempts to move away from any methods that relies on human interpretation. Humans aren't evolved to tackle the grandest of questions, we are evolved for simpler thinking and tend to make mistakes when we push our cognitive faculties to their limits. The whole idea that the universe and everything within should be within the grasp of human minds' is a bit arrogant, I think. There are biological limits on our intelligence and ability to, even through concerted, accumulated efforts like science, unravel and understand everything. But as I said, this doesn't mean we have any better alternatives, and being aware of the weaknesses, and how they might affect the outcomes, gives us at least some way to minimize their effect.

The same goes for man-made ethics vs divined ethics (I believe this distinction is a fallacy, even ethical systems found in religions are man-made). We might attempt to come up with the perfect ethical systems to regulate our behaviour, but it will still be derived from our flawed brains and hence, probably, not be the theoretically best, although it might be the best we have.

[magisme]

lol SoulMonster, tears staining his gown

[Len Cnut]

What do you think are it's weaknesses?

As I think you touched upon, components of humanism, like critical thinking, relies on humans' ability to think which is far from perfect. Basically, any man-made concept or idea might on some level, small or grand, contain errors because we are not infallible -- not even as a collective. This is of course why science attempts to move away from any methods that relies on human interpretation. Humans aren't evolved to tackle the grandest of questions, we are evolved for simpler thinking and tend to make mistakes when we push our cognitive faculties to their limits. The whole idea that the universe and everything within should be within the grasp of human minds' is a bit arrogant, I think. There are biological limits on our intelligence and ability to, even through concerted, accumulated efforts like science, unravel and understand everything. But as I said, this doesn't mean we have any better alternatives, and being aware of the weaknesses, and how they might affect the outcomes, gives us at least some way to minimize their effect.

The same goes for man-made ethics vs divined ethics (I believe this distinction is a fallacy, even ethical systems found in religions are man-made). We might attempt to come up with the perfect ethical systems to regulate our behaviour, but it will still be derived from our flawed brains and hence, probably, not be the theoretically best, although it might be the best we have.

With all that mind do you not get something of an indicator of why someone might take a dim view to it? I mean i don't really get all this stuff aside from like, what I've read yous all talk about but just based on that surface level understanding and i might just be like, not understand it properly but, like i said, just on what I've gathered here I'd rather sort of...lean away from humanism too because although i understand the idea that it sort of makes concessions for it's own critique and everything it just seems to have like, the focus badly placed. I suppose it's like the idea that everythings a work in progress and open for adjustment and everything but i kinda get what i perceive Mags to be saying too, if somethings wrong to begin with what makes you think adjusting it's gonna make it better? Not that i think thats what Mags was saying, at any rate he seems to propose a more malleable philosophy.

And also like, when you follow a thing, the way human beings work is...you tend to have different shades of commitment and to present a thing that has certain holes in it like that as the best possible solution as of now then aren't you kinda in a way...clinging to something that you know to be wrong because, for the day it appears to serve your limitations well?

[SoulMonster]

What do you think are it's weaknesses?

As I think you touched upon, components of humanism, like critical thinking, relies on humans' ability to think which is far from perfect. Basically, any man-made concept or idea might on some level, small or grand, contain errors because we are not infallible -- not even as a collective. This is of course why science attempts to move away from any methods that relies on human interpretation. Humans aren't evolved to tackle the grandest of questions, we are evolved for simpler thinking and tend to make mistakes when we push our cognitive faculties to their limits. The whole idea that the universe and everything within should be within the grasp of human minds' is a bit arrogant, I think. There are biological limits on our intelligence and ability to, even through concerted, accumulated efforts like science, unravel and understand everything. But as I said, this doesn't mean we have any better alternatives, and being aware of the weaknesses, and how they might affect the outcomes, gives us at least some way to minimize their effect.

The same goes for man-made ethics vs divined ethics (I believe this distinction is a fallacy, even ethical systems found in religions are man-made). We might attempt to come up with the perfect ethical systems to regulate our behaviour, but it will still be derived from our flawed brains and hence, probably, not be the theoretically best, although it might be the best we have.

With all that mind do you not get something of an indicator of why someone might take a dim view to it?

Not really, since I really see no better alternative

[Len Cnut]

What do you think are it's weaknesses?

As I think you touched upon, components of humanism, like critical thinking, relies on humans' ability to think which is far from perfect. Basically, any man-made concept or idea might on some level, small or grand, contain errors because we are not infallible -- not even as a collective. This is of course why science attempts to move away from any methods that relies on human interpretation. Humans aren't evolved to tackle the grandest of questions, we are evolved for simpler thinking and tend to make mistakes when we push our cognitive faculties to their limits. The whole idea that the universe and everything within should be within the grasp of human minds' is a bit arrogant, I think. There are biological limits on our intelligence and ability to, even through concerted, accumulated efforts like science, unravel and understand everything. But as I said, this doesn't mean we have any better alternatives, and being aware of the weaknesses, and how they might affect the outcomes, gives us at least some way to minimize their effect.

The same goes for man-made ethics vs divined ethics (I believe this distinction is a fallacy, even ethical systems found in religions are man-made). We might attempt to come up with the perfect ethical systems to regulate our behaviour, but it will still be derived from our flawed brains and hence, probably, not be the theoretically best, although it might be the best we have.

With all that mind do you not get something of an indicator of why someone might take a dim view to it?

Not really, since I really see no better alternative

Why the need to attach yourself to the best possible, even though it has holes in it? And why would you be willing to embrace something that has these points that you know to be fucked up...thats close to a leap of faith sort of, no? Not in a strictly identical sense but the principle, like you have something that you know ain't the full ticket but you embrace it...until something better comes along or you're presented with something better. Why not focus on that journey rather than kinda embrace this thing that, to some degree, is kinda taking you away possibly from what...the real thing is?

I guess my question is why do you have to be a humanist seeker instead of just a seeker? I'm not trying to change your mind about anything I'm just saying, is the other side of the coin that difficult to entertain? Seems pretty logical to me. (perhaps humanist by extension? )

Edited February 1, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Orsys]

For a guy who doesn't believe in God, he seems to get very angry at Him.

I think man needs God to take the blame, to be the bad guy, and to provide hope where there isn't any (that snunami is part of god's plan - which suggests a greater good somewhere down the line).

I think Satan plays exactly the same role.

[Dazey]

Satan gets a pass for the good tunes.

[Len Cnut]

And the pornography. If God like knockers i might get on with him a bit more.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Len B'stard