Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

feargale

NIMAN wrote: »

You can tell Gay is really annoyed by his comments.

How so? He seems to me to be intensely interested and open to what was said.

Cabaal wrote: »

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

No doubt there will be a few nutters who don't understand that free speech is for everybody, but especially for those you disagree with. You get those too where atheism is in the ascendancy, wanting to suppress those who they disagree with. You don't have to go beyond Boards to find some.

Turtwig

feargale wrote: »

How so? He seems to me to be intensely interested and open to what was said.

Now I'm not the best at reading facial expressions and picking up on social cues and even I can tell that this is not intense interest and openness.

colossus-x

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah, so the man engineers his own happiness for publicity reasons?

Celibate one minute, getting married the next.

Shrap wrote: »

Gosh, that's charming :pac: Stephen Fry is awesome. That is all.

And I'm Irish, in Ireland and watch QI religiously. *cough* Atheistically, even. Still though, I'm sure there are much less "peculiar" people in great abundance on the telly box to suit your needs, but us lovers of "peculiar" people pay our TV license too, so balls to your rant that weirdly makes a thing out of his celibacy.

I'd love to meet the man. And Alan Davies - jaysus, I'd pick him up, bring him home and feed him so many ham sangwiches and cake, he'd be unable to leave

I'm Irish, in Ireland, lived many years in England, watch a lot of UK TV and and very proud to say I'm immune from being hypnotized by the BBC and UK media in general as to who I think deserves to be regarded as someone of note, celebrity or whatever you want to call it. It's not me that makes a thing of his celibacy , it's HIM that made a think about of his celibacy and is now getting married ( weirdly ).

Frankly I think he's something of a fraud. I don't' think he's anywhere as intelligent as we're meant to think he is. An oscar wilde wannabe that falls well short. He does a good act of acting the toff with that silly accent and manner of speaking he's fine tuned over the years but really as far as I can see he sticks his nose in wherever he can for the purposes of self promotion and he certainly does a good job of that I have to admit, unfortunately.

Nodin

colossus-x wrote: »

Celibate one minute, getting married the next.

.

1993-2015. Long minute.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=94095955

swampgas

colossus-x wrote: »

Celibate one minute, getting married the next.



I'm Irish, in Ireland, lived many years in England, watch a lot of UK TV and and very proud to say I'm immune from being hypnotized by the BBC and UK media in general as to who I think deserves to be regarded as someone of note, celebrity or whatever you want to call it. It's not me that makes a thing of his celibacy , it's HIM that made a think about of his celibacy and is now getting married ( weirdly ).

Frankly I think he's something of a fraud. I don't' think he's anywhere as intelligent as we're meant to think he is. An oscar wilde wannabe that falls well short. He does a good act of acting the toff with that silly accent and manner of speaking he's fine tuned over the years but really as far as I can see he sticks his nose in wherever he can for the purposes of self promotion and he certainly does a good job of that I have to admit, unfortunately.

Jayzus, enough already! We get it - you really don't like him. I'm not sure what your point is though? Most people here seem to like him, and I'm a big fan myself. Never mind, I'm sure Stephen isn't lying awake at night worrying about how much of a fraud you think he is.

Time to move on, maybe?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not of the view that God is punishing an individual child with disease. Rather, mankind is at war with God and is suffering the consequences of doing battle.

So is it that God is deliberately using such tactics to force us to submit to make them stop?
Or is it that it's only a side effect of his battle on us and he's simply not bothered to use his infinite power to avoid collateral damage or to help those affected by it?

If a person did either of these things, would you call them evil?
If so (assuming you are sane and not a troll) then how could God not be evil and/or the basis for your concept of good and evil?

magicbastarder

the gas thing is that humanity, even at war, has made illegal wilful or wilfully negligent collateral damage, such as allowing kids to be targetted in conflict (even if we don't always apply the law).
so we're holding ourselves to a higher standard than an all-knowing, all-wise omnipotent being? go humanity!

sh1tstirrer

NIMAN wrote: »

You can tell Gay is really annoyed by his comments.

He was pulling the same faces at Daniel o Donnell last night does that mean he was annoyed at him

When asked did he believe in the afterlife Clint Eastwood replied I'm not sure but I am in no hurry to find out

efb

colossus-x wrote: »

Celibate one minute, getting married the next.



I'm Irish, in Ireland, lived many years in England, watch a lot of UK TV and and very proud to say I'm immune from being hypnotized by the BBC and UK media in general as to who I think deserves to be regarded as someone of note, celebrity or whatever you want to call it. It's not me that makes a thing of his celibacy , it's HIM that made a think about of his celibacy and is now getting married ( weirdly ).

Frankly I think he's something of a fraud. I don't' think he's anywhere as intelligent as we're meant to think he is. An oscar wilde wannabe that falls well short. He does a good act of acting the toff with that silly accent and manner of speaking he's fine tuned over the years but really as far as I can see he sticks his nose in wherever he can for the purposes of self promotion and he certainly does a good job of that I have to admit, unfortunately.

anything to back that up, or just a green eyed hunch???

stevejazzx

Firstly while its cool being in a battle with god I really don't like the odds - he's got a cancer wand and a earthquake incantation all I got is some old fashioned logic and a science book (it seemed so plausible, why god why!)

Puts a whole new outlook on Christians being offended by what us measly atheists say - I mean their bossman is giving our kids aids and yet they get offended when we say he's a bit of dick - is like every Christian is suffering from Stockholm syndrome

Buona Fortuna

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.

My wife has an aunt who whenever she is given a lift (infrequent obviously), insists on chanting the names of children that died before baptism so that they can go to heaven.

The whole thing, the concept, the OCD nature of it makes me feel physically sick.

Hence I'd sooner let the old witch get the bus.

efb

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

My wife has an aunt who whenever she is given a lift (infrequent obviously), insists on chanting the names of children that died before baptism so that they can go to heaven.

The whole thing, the concept, the OCD nature of it makes me feel physically sick.

Hence I'd sooner let the old witch get the bus.

Is it like one of those hell and back persuits???

Akrasia

guitarzero wrote: »

Was Frys response really all that impressive? Has it not gotten to the point where conveying there is no god is like explaining how the planets and stars dont circle the earth? People are constantly patting this guy on the back for spouting what the vast majority already know. He just does it with a bit of eloquence and pompousness and suddenly everyone gets excited.

If we were at the point where the non existence of god went without saying, Stephen wouldn't have been asked that question in the first place.

Sadly belief in god is still the default configuration. Happily, this is rapidly changing, thanks in no small part to contributions to public discourse from respected figures like Stephen Fry

stevejazzx

Turtwig wrote: »

Now I'm not the best at reading facial expressions and picking up on social cues and even I can tell that this is not intense interest and openness.

You just need to read the thread specifically the posts which address Byrnes theatrics over his many years. Although he is certainly not in alignment with atheist principles he is comfortable exchanging ideas on the subject and probably resides nearer agnosticism than religion as he ages. Interpreting the facial expression without balancing it out with his 'theatric' persona (evident in all kinds of interviews) is just a kind of childish wish fulfillment Fry unleashed his might to GB's shock and horror - if we know anything about the nature of TV that's really not what happended.

Mars Bar

porsche959 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381529/Richard-Dawkins-wants-to-fight-Islamism-with-erotica.-Celebrity-atheism-has-lost-it.html

His point is that they never pretended to be al loving. The Greek gods that were arses never alluded to being loving. We're expected to love, respect and worship a god that clearly has more than a few flaws.

That article was just tosh.

RikuoAmero

Mars Bar wrote: »

His point is that they never pretended to be al loving. The Greek gods that were arses never alluded to being loving. We're expected to love, respect and worship a god that clearly has more than a few flaws.

That article was just tosh.

Agree. Especially with this part

Saying that you prefer the Greek gods to the Christian one is akin to screaming “I did classics at school!” and is really just showing off. It’s also morally corrupt, because the Greek gods rather liked raping and murdering – and were often immune to human pleas for compassion.

It's morally corrupt to like raping and murdering gods...as opposed to what? The raping and murdering god of the bible?

Mars Bar

colossus-x wrote: »

Celibate one minute, getting married the next.



I'm Irish, in Ireland, lived many years in England, watch a lot of UK TV and and very proud to say I'm immune from being hypnotized by the BBC and UK media in general as to who I think deserves to be regarded as someone of note, celebrity or whatever you want to call it. It's not me that makes a thing of his celibacy , it's HIM that made a think about of his celibacy and is now getting married ( weirdly ).

Frankly I think he's something of a fraud. I don't' think he's anywhere as intelligent as we're meant to think he is. An oscar wilde wannabe that falls well short. He does a good act of acting the toff with that silly accent and manner of speaking he's fine tuned over the years but really as far as I can see he sticks his nose in wherever he can for the purposes of self promotion and he certainly does a good job of that I have to admit, unfortunately.

Okay so you don't like him but you're also completely wrong about him!

He doesn't claim to be intelligent. He's got an incredible memory and that's why he appears intelligent. He has said so in his books. He could do nothing for a full semester in college, read an essay, regurgitate it and pass with flying colours. He feels guilty that he didn't have to work that hard at it.

His accent is typical of his area is it not?

He loves Oscar Wilde. He read lots of Oscar Wilde coz they didn't watch a lot of TV in their house. Big ****ing deal. It's not as if he is trying to be Oscar Wilde.

He uses big words because he knows what they mean. He has studied language to a very high degree. I also recommend his series "Planet Word" on Netflix. It's very interesting!

A lot of people seem to think that he's just a social commentator. He's not. He's an actor, a wonderful comedy writer, director, mental health activist and educator. People just happen to like to hear his opinion.

Tordelback

Mars Bar wrote: »

His point is that they never pretended to be al loving. The Greek gods that were arses never alluded to being loving. We're expected to love, respect and worship a god that clearly has more than a few flaws.

That article was just tosh.

Absolutely. How that many words got past an editor when it completely misrepresents the very explicit point of Fry's remark is a mystery. The Greek gods were ****s too, but at least they weren't hypocrites. Also, wine!

antiskeptic

Double post

antiskeptic

magicbastarder wrote: »

so god thinks that giving a kid cancer is a valid response to what he sees as 'a battle' with humanity?

good luck with your god. he's an odious ****ing asshole. he has not got a single shred of honour worth worshipping.

How very Stephen Fry: strong on indignant righteousness, light on addressing the argument with argument. Par for the course in New Atheist land where the likes of that response attracts sheep like applause from hoards.

Dawkins has a lot to answer for.

parttime

philiplittle wrote: »

I have to commend Stephen Fry on his comments.

Well I for one dont find his answer that groundbreaking. I remember saying something similair to my Mum when I was a child. But just cos its the national treasure Stephen Fry....

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I would have the exact same reaction as Fry if the question had been "Hypothetical scenario - You find yourself standing in front of the Emperor from Star Wars. What is your response to him?" I would have demanded to know just why he had to blow up Alderaan, etc.
Just because the character is deemed fictional doesn't mean we can't have an emotional reaction to it. After all, that's the point of literature.

When you're in the literature. Stephen was being interviewed and was getting quite wound up.

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

How very Stephen Fry: strong on indignant righteousness, light on addressing the argument with argument. Par for the course in New Atheist land where the likes of that response attracts sheep like applause from hoards.

Dawkins has a lot to answer for.

So no real point then...? Just a bit of a whine? Don't worry, perhaps tomorrow you can have new cornflakes and eat them before someone pisses in them.

MrP

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

When you're in the literature. Stephen was being interviewed and was getting quite wound up.

Yes...because he's taking a hypothetical scenario, imagining himself standing before a figure that he (and I) deems to be absolutely evil and imagining himself demanding answers. He's getting wound up because he knows himself, he knows his mindset and his convictions. He knows/imagines how he would react were he to be facing a tyrant. I too would have had the exact same answer if I had been the one asked.

guitarzero

Akrasia wrote: »

If we were at the point where the non existence of god went without saying, Stephen wouldn't have been asked that question in the first place.

Sadly belief in god is still the default configuration. Happily, this is rapidly changing, thanks in no small part to contributions to public discourse from respected figures like Stephen Fry

What was the demographic of ppl watching that show? Surely those watching it were largely atheist, n the fence or indifferent about his comments except for the militant atheists here. The older generation would have an issue but thats it. And the older generations belief in god has no negative impact. Those who believe in god here, its largely their own and they dont cause any negative impact by it.

Now if it were broadcasted say in some muslim countrys then I would see his words as being effective. But here, so what.

PopePalpatine

antiskeptic wrote: »

How very Stephen Fry: strong on indignant righteousness, light on addressing the argument with argument. Par for the course in New Atheist land where the likes of that response attracts sheep like applause from hoards.

Dawkins has a lot to answer for.

God be with the days when there were Inquisitions...:rolleyes:

silverharp

guitarzero wrote: »

What was the demographic of ppl watching that show? Surely those watching it were largely atheist, n the fence or indifferent about his comments except for the militant atheists here. The older generation would have an issue but thats it. And the older generations belief in god has no negative impact. Those who believe in god here, its largely their own and they dont cause any negative impact by it.

Now if it were broadcasted say in some muslim countrys then I would see his words as being effective. But here, so what.

we live in a country where the dead hand of the catholic church restricts the choice of where your kids might go to school, how a mother to be receives medical treatment and topically how gay people can legally manage their relationships. There is plenty to do here

antiskeptic

TheLurker wrote: »

Can you name one western democracy that uses it in the context of crime and punishment that isn't reviled for doing so?

Sanction against Russia for their interference in the Ukraine. The Federal is being acted against, the innocence of individuals isn't on the menu.

Yes, as you yourself say not as an act of punishment.

As you might expect, were it the case that the whole Christian shebang is true, then things would be complex and nuanced. You could have punishment along the lines of reaping what you sow. And you could have Federal suffering. They would look the same from the outside.

Fry would no doubt say that to punish an innocent child as part of a federal system of mankind, assuming such as system even exists, is evil. As evil as it would be to punish German children in WW2 for the actions of their Nazi government.

I wouldn't have supposed it policy to be punishing German children. That was a by product of the overarching campaign. Mankind rejected God and in doing that were cast out of an existence of health, immortality, contentment etc. The opposite of those things is what we experience.

You seem to have skipped over the "it is evil bit" and go on to explain the some what convoluted set up Christians believe about the covenant between God and mankind. Can we stick with the "it is evil" bit. A covenant between mankind and God is not evil. Causing the suffering of members of that covenant through disease and parasites is.

I'm not sure you can choose dark with getting the consequences of dark. Offering choice involves, necessarily, choices consequences. I don't see it as evil to give choice to reject God and what communion with God entails.

So cancer and parasitic worms are the "consequences" of doing battle?

The consequence of being contra-God and living in an environment that is contra-God.

Like before this analogy falls apart on examination. The allies pummeled the German home land for 2 reasons, they had no other method to stop German aggression and they wished to provoke the Germans into wasting resources attacking London.

The Allies pummelled Germany with the express intent of degrading their ability to wage war.

The point of an analogy isn't to cover every base but to point out the difference between acting against a Federal and acting against an individual

The idea that God is some how on the back foot against us in this "battle" of yours is ridiculous.

I would agree. God is going to win.

What justification is there to say that cancer and parasites are the consequence of this battle? Who decided that was justifiable consequence of battling God (by that do you simply mean not doing what we were told?)

There is no higher court than God so no point in looking elsewhere for the justness of his actions. All you might conclude is that if there is this much pain and misery arising out of conflict with God then this is a very serious matter.


Pain and suffering are indicators of something being amiss. They are the sign of ill health: whether physical, mental or society-caused. They don't belong in the realm of a right relationship with God.

If England was an overwhelming military force that faced no physical thread from the Nazis and could simply walk into Germany and over throw the government there would be no debate about the morality of carpet bombing the country as they did it, as there would be not justification or excuse for such excessive force. If this vastly over powered English army decided to teach Germany a lesson by rounding up all the children and shooting them no one would say "just the consequences of starting a war with England" as if that was a moral justification. It would be evil, pure and simple.

Certainly God could bring this whole show to a halt in an instant. However, we are in process: every man will have an opportunity to decide whether to capitulate in his rebellion (the inherent desire resist God's rule is something we are born with, the result of the infection of Adams sin rolling down to all just as a genetically transmitted disease.).

When you think of it, pain is one of the more effective ways of getting our attention.

stevejazzx

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sanction against Russia for their interference in the Ukraine. The Federal is being acted against, the innocence of individuals isn't on the menu.




As you might expect, were it the case that the whole Christian shebang is true, then things would be complex and nuanced. You could have punishment along the lines of reaping what you sow. And you could have Federal suffering. They would look the same from the outside.




I wouldn't have supposed it policy to be punishing German children. That was a by product of the overarching campaign. Mankind rejected God and in doing that were cast out of an existence of health, immortality, contentment etc. The opposite of those things is what we experience.




I'm not sure you can choose dark with getting the consequences of dark. Offering choice involves, necessarily, choices consequences. I don't see it as evil to give choice to reject God and what communion with God entails.





The consequence of being contra-God and living in an environment that is contra-God.




The Allies pummelled Germany with the express intent of degrading their ability to wage war.

The point of an analogy isn't to cover every base but to point out the difference between acting against a Federal and acting against an individual





I would agree. God is going to win.



There is no higher court than God so no point in looking elsewhere for the justness of his actions. All you might conclude is that if there is this much pain and misery arising out of conflict with God then this is a very serious matter.


Pain and suffering are indicators of something being amiss. They are the sign of ill health: whether physical, mental or society-caused. They don't belong in the realm of a right relationship with God.




Certainly God could bring this whole show to a halt in an instant. However, we are in process: every man will have an opportunity to decide whether to capitulate in his rebellion (the inherent desire resist God's rule is something we are born with, the result of the infection of Adams sin rolling down to all just as a genetically transmitted disease.).

When you think of it, pain is one of the more effective ways of getting our attention.

^
Jeez..
That hurt my brain
Alright antiskeptic - I'm going to make really easy for you and save you a lot of time.
There is no God

Source: Logic

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mankind rejected God and in doing that were cast out of an existence of health, immortality, contentment etc. The opposite of those things is what we experience.

That is just another way of saying what Fry has already said, that God created cancer and parasites and inflicted them upon us. And as Fry explained that was evil.

All you seem to be able to say is that he did this for a reason (we broke a covenant, we are in a bad relationship with him, we have turned away from him etc).

You seem to think that pointing this out will make everyone, Fry included, stand back and go "Oh, he did it for a REASON. Why didn't you just say that in the first place. If he had a REASON to do this then clearly it cannot be evil." You have dedicated at lot of time explaining this reason in detail as if it should be self evident that it justifies the result and thus the result cannot be evil.

Stephen Fry is well versed in Christian theology. He knows very well Christianity teaches that God did this for a reason. He knows what those reasons are supposed to be. So do I. So do most people.

The point is the reason doesn't make the action less evil.

To use an example already brought up, when Darth Vader blows up Aldaran in the Star Wars movie that is an evil act. Saying "No guys you don't understand, Vader had a REASON to do this, the Princess was hiding secrets and he needed to demonstrate his power" the audience doesn't go "Oh, he had a REASON, well why didn't you say so"

Stop explaining that God had a reason to do what he did and explain how the reason and actions taken based on that reason weren't evil.