Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

Bristolscale7

Cabaal

Expect a complaint to be made against RTE for allowing such comments against god

magicbastarder

bloody hell, the gurning head on gay byrne is hard to watch.

NIMAN

You can tell Gay is really annoyed by his comments.

Cabaal

magicbastarder wrote: »

bloody hell, the gurning head on gay byrne is hard to watch.

Don't worry, they'll be a gap next week when he retires for the 50th time and doesn't show up for 7 days after retiring.

But he'll be back to do the gay byrne gun show and he'll be back out of retirement as quick as a flash by mid Feb

folan

magicbastarder wrote: »

gay byrne is hard to watch.

agreed

Tar.Aldarion

Perfectly reasonable, I've always said that even if that god existed it was not worthy of following, in fact anybody that demands worship should not get it.

lazygal

Not able to youtube, can anyone give me a brief summary?

obriendj

That is a great clip.

You could listen to Stephen Fry all day and he would never repeat himself.

I love how Gay Byrne's smug question "you think your going to get in saying that" is just batted away by Fry's response.

I think when Gay sits back in his chair with a face of contempt, is completely disrespectful. How dare someone disagree with him but i dont watch the show so he might always be like that when he is listening intently.

I probably will watch this episode.

sbsquarepants

The intentions of any god who created a universe with gay byrne in it really have to be questioned!

That being said he did once stop his car and change a wheel for a girl I know after some awards show or other- she said he was a perfect gentleman.

Bristolscale7

lazygal wrote: »

Not able to youtube, can anyone give me a brief summary?

Byrne asks what Fry would do if he found himself at the Pearly gates. Fry responds by giving one of the most concise, articulate summaries of the problem of theodicy. Bryne is visibly uncomfortable.

obriendj

lazygal wrote: »

Not able to youtube, can anyone give me a brief summary?

Gay asks if he does exist what will you say to god when you get to heaven.

Frys response. Bone cancer in children? whats that about? How dare you create a world that is so unjust. its evil why should i respect a God that creates a world full of injustice and pain.

Gay Byrne asks "you think you will get in with that"

Fry says " I dont want to get in on His terms, you are a maniac."

He then continues to say that why does a Omnipotent God need worship etc.

Gay "thats the longest response I have had to that question"

Fry *laughs* (proud of his answer)

silverharp

Excellent , it sums up the view that the god made up by the Jews to make them fly straight was a bit of a prick, as the american comedian lewis black put it.
Fry is a great word smith

robindch

obriendj wrote: »

[...] Gay Byrne's smug [...]

Can't say I disagree. In Gay Byrne's defence though, from time to rare time, he provided an outlet for the nation, and stimulated a national debate, which existed nowhere else in the country.

The program he did on the letters written in response to the death of Ann Lovett and her child was perhaps one of the most devastating ever broadcast by RTE:

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/the-ann-lovett-letters-sorrow-shame-anger-and-indignation-1.1673920

seamus

Despite what is clearly extreme discomfort from Gay Byrne in listening to Fry's response, it's a demonstration of the class of interviewer that he is, that he is at least capable of regulating his response. And at the end, rather than get into a debate where Byrne knows that;

a) He is dealing with a much more intelligent opponent, and
b) He himself is too emotionally invested in it to risk getting into a debate about it

Instead, he commends Fry for the quality of his response rather than discuss the actual content of it.

I'm not a huge fan of Gay Byrne as a person, he is egotistical up there with the worst of them. But it would be fair to say that he does have a true dedication to honest journalism and has never really shied away from discussing difficult issues in the public forum, regardless of his own belief.

I think the reason the late late show seemed to dip in quality so badly after he left has less to do with the quality of the interviewers who have come after him and more to do with editorial control. In Gaybo's day, he was untouchable. He could say whatever he liked, bring on whomever he liked, and stir up controversy. Once he left, the management at RTE seized majority control over the show, and this has only gotten worse over time. Now what's discussed on TLLS is what the solicitors and Iona and the advertisers will allow you to discuss, rather than what should be discussed.

magicbastarder

fair enough re the answers, but fair play to steven fry for not reacting to byrne's theatrics. obviously the camera was on fry most of the time, but if byrne was pulling those faces even while the camera was not on him, that would come across as rude.

obriendj

robindch wrote: »

Can't say I disagree. In Gay Byrne's defence though, from time to rare time, he provided an outlet for the nation, and stimulated a national debate, which existed nowhere else in the country.

The program he did on the letters written in response to the death of Ann Lovett and her child was perhaps one of the most devastating ever broadcast by RTE:

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/the-ann-lovett-letters-sorrow-shame-anger-and-indignation-1.1673920

From Time to Rare Time is correct, I always felt that if ever spoke out against the Church on the Late Late it was always uncomfortable.

On his program in 1984, he says “too many letters. They couldn’t be ignored.” Doesnt that say if we only got a few letters we could have ignored them?

When he posed his smug question to Fry, he was waiting for him to retract what he said, which Fry didn't - Brilliant.

magicbastarder

obriendj wrote: »

When he posed his smug question to Fry, he was waiting for him to retract what he said, which Fry didn't - Brilliant.

no he wasn't; he didn't expect fry to. he's a seasoned interviewer and asked a pointed question to get an interesting answer - which is his job.

obriendj

seamus wrote: »

In Gaybo's day, he was untouchable. He could say whatever he liked, bring on whomever he liked, and stir up controversy. Once he left, the management at RTE seized majority control over the show, and this has only gotten worse over time. Now what's discussed on TLLS is what the solicitors and Iona and the advertisers will allow you to discuss, rather than what should be discussed.

Did management seize control or was this down to the presenters that followed him?
Pat Kenny has never been able to conduct a decent interview and respond to what people are saying, instead he just went on to his next question.

While Tuburdy is more dynamic, he is just too middle of the road ask hard hitting questions.

Perhaps TLLS is now just light entertainment, leave the serious discussion to Prime Time and Vin B. Back in Gay's day it was the only show in town.

obriendj

magicbastarder wrote: »

no he wasn't; he didn't expect fry to. he's a seasoned interviewer and asked a pointed question to get an interesting answer - which is his job.

I disagree. He could have asked "Do you want to get in?" or "would you then just walk away?"

As seamus mentioned, he didnt engage with Fry, as I would expect from a seasoned interviewer.

But I could be wrong perhaps if we see the entire episode it might be more clear.

Daith

magicbastarder wrote: »

no he wasn't; he didn't expect fry to. he's a seasoned interviewer and asked a pointed question to get an interesting answer - which is his job.

He might be a seasoned interviewer but I don't think he's actually a good one.

eviltwin

Didn't realise this was on, looking forward to it. Gaybo is a smug git at the best of times. Fry should be well able for him.

lee_baby_simms

magicbastarder wrote: »

no he wasn't; he didn't expect fry to. he's a seasoned interviewer and asked a pointed question to get an interesting answer - which is his job.

His body language is awful. If you don't agree with the answer at least try to mask your contempt and show some manners. Gay Byrne seems to think he's earned to right to be rude and condescending.

Fry gives a very thoughful answer and all Gay can say is "thats the longest answer i've ever received."

Poor.

sbsquarepants

obriendj wrote: »

On his program in 1984, he says “too many letters. They couldn’t be ignored.” Doesnt that say if we only got a few letters we could have ignored them?

Much as it goes against the grain for me to come out in support of gaybo, I do think you're being a bit harsh there. Fact of the matter is he didn't ignore them and he should be commended for that not, berated because he could have!
Similarly with fry - rightly or wrongly (ok just wrongly!) gaybo is tv royalty here, he could have easily just interviewed people he agreed with and rte would delightedly hand him a big fat wad of our hard earned cash to do it, but he didn't. Again he should be commended for that I think.

obriendj

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Much as it goes against the grain for me to come out in support of gaybo, I do think you're being a bit harsh there. Fact of the matter is he didn't ignore them and he should be commended for that not, berated because he could have!
Similarly with fry - rightly or wrongly (ok just wrongly!) gaybo is tv royalty here, he could have easily just interviewed people he agreed with and rte would delightedly hand him a big fat wad of our hard earned cash to do it, but he didn't. Again he should be commended for that I think.

I see your point, and I suppose I was harsh on him "we couldn't ignore" probably just means that there was a massive response.

And he could have just spoke to the irish celebs. But Fry is TV royalty not just in Britain so he knows its a good coup. I still think that from the clip he sure comes across poorly.

Dades

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

His body language is awful. If you don't agree with the answer at least try to mask your contempt and show some manners. Gay Byrne seems to think he's earned to right to be rude and condescending.

Fry gives a very thoughful answer and all Gay can say is "thats the longest answer i've ever received."

Poor.

I think Fry's answer really caught him off guard - at one point his eyes widen involuntarily!

Though I'm not sure what else he could have said. He's not there to argue, he's there coax someone else's perspective on matters spiritual out of them.

Not a Gaybo fan, but obviously he's a professional and rather than descending in A&A debate he moved on. Will have to see the whole thing now.

legspin

http://entertainment.ie/life/9-Gay-Byrne-reaction-memes-for-every-ossible-situation/335134.htm

Tar.Aldarion

Dades wrote: »

I think Fry's answer really caught him off guard - at one point his eyes widen involuntarily!

Though I'm not sure what else he could have said. He's not there to argue, he's there coax someone else's perspective on matters spiritual out of them.

Not a Gaybo fan, but obviously he's a professional and rather than descending in A&A debate he moved on. Will have to see the whole thing now.

I'm very confused by it, from those that work with him he apparently researches everything and works hard to the point of thinking out exactly what to say on his shows, and the manner in how it is said. "hardest working presenter I've seen". So he would know what Stephen Fry would say.

Also he apparently was on the Ray Darcy show a couple of months ago and said he doesn't know what to be believing anymore and has gotten less religious as he has gotten older. I can't see how this was a shock to him, was he reacting involuntarily or was he reacting how others might react that are watching? Were they even recorded in context or for drama or to spur Fry on?

Then has a quip quip to reset the tone and take the interview to it's next question.

philiplittle

I have to commend Stephen Fry on his comments.

Baggy Trousers

Well done Mr Fry, great answer.

Kidchameleon

If god did exist, how do we know he/she/it demands worship? Because the church says so? The bible is not a valid source by the way.

aidanleahy

What Fry doesn't understand is that the hardships we face are a test set for us by God. We all have a different path to walk.

Baggy Trousers

aidanleahy wrote: »

What Fry doesn't understand is that the hardships we face are a test set for us by God. We all have a different path to walk.

Even small children? It's an IQ test some people need.

silverharp

aidanleahy wrote: »

What Fry doesn't understand is that the hardships we face are a test set for us by God. We all have a different path to walk.

that makes god a bit of a dick no? I wonder how long I'd get away with pulling those stunts with my kids? :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

Pretty sure GB was the first person to unroll a condom on Irish TV

ShooterSF

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If god did exist, how do we know he/she/it demands worship? Because the church says so? The bible is not a valid source by the way.

What? Going by Gay Byrne's question re: the pearly gates it seems the conversation is focused on the Christian God, except when fry mentions the greek pantheon, so what source have we for the attributes of the Christian god but it's church and instruction manual (i.e the bible)?

Unless you mean if a god exists but that wasn't what Fry was asked about.

porsche959

Gay Byrne is perhaps too polite (or insufficiently attuned) to question Fry on his affection for the Greek gods.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin!_or_Tobacco_and_Boys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

robindch

porsche959 wrote: »

Gay Byrne is perhaps too polite (or insufficiently attuned) to question Fry on his affection for the Greek gods.

Gay Byrne is so far out of his depth that he'd need to be ten miles tall to touch the seafloor.

catbear

Maybe Fry's comfortable openness with his own sexuality explains Gay's crimpled posture rather than whether there is a god or not; humans are after all self seeking.

eviltwin

aidanleahy wrote: »

What Fry doesn't understand is that the hardships we face are a test set for us by God. We all have a different path to walk.

ffs don't insult our intelligence

Kidchameleon

ShooterSF wrote: »

What? Going by Gay Byrne's question re: the pearly gates it seems the conversation is focused on the Christian God, except when fry mentions the greek pantheon, so what source have we for the attributes of the Christian god but it's church and instruction manual (i.e the bible)?

Unless you mean if a god exists but that wasn't what Fry was asked about.

True enough. A bit off topic but I have often wondered if I was a god, would I want my creations to worship me? Certainly not!

RikuoAmero

aidanleahy wrote: »

What Fry doesn't understand is that the hardships we face are a test set for us by God. We all have a different path to walk.

So...when a young child, let's make this even easier, a toddler who has yet to learn how to speak gets a terminal illness and dies...what test did that toddler have? Remember, God is a personal god (or so I hear), so don't couch your response in terms of what a wider population might learn or be tested on. This is about the individual toddler. What was that toddler tested on, was the illness part of the test?

Cabaal

Its all about scale,

Imagine you created the entire planet earth (No solar system, galaxys etx) and on earth you build an ant hill in some back arse of no where in Africa.

Now, would you care if one of those billions of ants believed in or worshipped you? Would you care if one of those billions of ants believed in a different god... Especially when you've given them no actually proof you exist to begin with.

Of course you wouldn't, they are meaningless.

Now, think on a much much much much bigger scale. Our solar system is a grain of sand in a sand box (each grain represents another solar system) and theres thousands of other sand boxes as well.

If a god did actually exist, would it really care about what a bunch of atoms on a grain of sand amongst millions of grain, amongst hundreds or even millions of sand boxes thinks of it? No of course not.

We are not that important and some people have a problem with this reality, if we want our lifes and world to be better... We must be that change, not some invisable friend.

Creating a god is our species way of trying to feel like we are the center of the universe,

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

True enough. A bit off topic but I have often wondered if I was a god, would I want my creations to worship me? Certainly not!

It would get very annoying very fast.

But the constant begging for favours would be worse. All that hassle from one tiny pale blue dot in a vast universe, it's just not worth it.

Pherekydes

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It would get very annoying very fast.

But the constant begging for favours would be worse. All that hassle from one tiny pale blue dot in a vast universe, it's just not worth it.

Yeah, I'd be thinking of sorting them out. And it wouldn't be no bloody flood!

Deranged96

Cabaal wrote: »

Its all about scale,

Imagine you created the entire planet earth (No solar system, galaxys etx) and on earth you build an ant hill in some back arse of no where in Africa.

Now, would you care if one of those billions of ants believed in or worshipped you? Would you care if one of those billions of ants believed in a different god... Especially when you've given them no actually proof you exist to begin with.

Of course you wouldn't, they are meaningless.

Now, think on a much much much much bigger scale. Our solar system is a grain of sand in a sand box (each grain represents another solar system) and theres thousands of other sand boxes as well.

If a god did actually exist, would it really care about what a bunch of atoms on a grain of sand amongst millions of grain, amongst hundreds or even millions of sand boxes thinks of it? No of course not.

We are not that important and some people have a problem with this reality, if we want our lifes and world to be better... We must be that change, not some invisable friend.

Creating a god is our species way of trying to feel like we are the center of the universe,

This is silly because its high fantasy. You can't take religion and apply your own brand of divine psychological analysis to it and then watch the electrons spiral out of orbit. Easily refuted by redefining God to fit whatever case you want to press:

God is a force with dominion over space and time, its interested only in sentient beings and thus out of all the grains of sand in the sandbox, it is this grain it has 100% of its immense focus on. it has put us each her with a purpose and each of us have our own burdens in life, it has given us the tools so that we may prove ourselves worthy of paradise. It has watched us fail and succeeded a hundred thousand times as time loops on and on and does what time does.. its waiting until the scene is set for it to intervene once again. Yoda Yoda

I actually think I tell a better yarn than you too

Personally too I think that humans are the centre of the universe... to argue any other way doesn't strike me as making much sense as this is the only picture we have of the universe... as far as we know there are not even germs to be found on other planets. Yes the universe is infinite and there is bound to be something somewhat exciting living somewhere but there comes a point where you lose all perspective if you keep zooming out.

catbear

If heaven is a reward for being good on earth then what about morality?

Bristolscale7

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So...when a young child, let's make this even easier, a toddler who has yet to learn how to speak gets a terminal illness and dies...what test did that toddler have? Remember, God is a personal god (or so I hear), so don't couch your response in terms of what a wider population might learn or be tested on. This is about the individual toddler. What was that toddler tested on, was the illness part of the test?

Yes, nicely put. In this case, what would a successful test look like? The toddler bears his suffering with stoicism? What about failure? The toddler whinges too much?

Deranged96

catbear wrote: »

If heaven is a reward for being good on earth then what about morality?

Is this for me?

Anyway I suppose some people would say you can't be good or bad without morality. people wouldn't have personalities and extension I suppose souls..making heaven redundant. And God.

catbear

Deranged96 wrote: »

Is this for me?

No, sorry. Just general musings.

delthedriver

I have met Gay Byrne both professionally and socially and can only describe him as a perfect Gentleman. We could do with a few more in our country.

Stephen Fry is an academic, actor, highly intelligent and very modest too.

Having watched the clip , Stephen Fry answered the questions put to him in a very open manner, which is one of his strengths. Perhaps Gay was slightly taken aback by Stephen's direct approach and frankness.

Personally I have great time for both guys.:)