Some thoughts on free speech, blasphemy and religion.
Curiously whilst the BBC reports this, Benedict Cumberbatch in call to pardon convicted gay men, it hasn’t bothered to report the words of one of its favourite sons, Stephen Fry, when he denounced God……off with his head! And they were pretty keen on his gay marriage after all….Why is Stephen Fry’s decision to get married a major news story for the BBC?
Stephen Fry, a staunch atheist, has launched an impassioned attack on religion, stating that any God who created this universe was “an utter maniac, totally selfish” and “evil”.
The newly married broadcaster was asked what he would do if he found himself at the “pearly gates” after his death.
“I’ll say: bone cancer in children, what’s that about?” he said.
“How dare you. How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that’s not our fault? It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil.
“Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?”
Fry was being interviewed for an Irish television show called The Meaning of Life when he launched into an impassioned tirade about God’s existence.
Asked if he thought he would get to heaven, he replied: “No, but I wouldn’t want to. I wouldn’t want to get in on his terms. They’re wrong.
He added: “The God who created this universe, if he created this universe, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish.
“We have to spend our lives on our knees thanking him. What kind of God would do that?
“Yes, the world is very splendid, but it also has in it insects whose whole life cycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. Why? Why did you do that to us? It is simply not acceptable.
“Atheism is not just about not believing there’s a god. On the assumption there is one, what kind of God is he? It’s perfectly apparent that was monstrous, utterly monstrous, and deserves no respect.”
He added: “The moment you banish him, your life becomes simpler, purer cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.”
Fry said he preferred the religion of the ancient Greeks whose Gods did not present themselves as being “all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all beneficent”.
The Catholic convert that is Tim Stanley makes a hash of countering Fry on God’s behalf.
Perhaps just a little bit too much free speech there for the BBC’s liking in these controversial times.
Things were different once….or not….Cleese bashing the Bishop and coming out on top…..
“Stephen Fry, a staunch atheist, has launched an impassioned attack on religion, stating that any God who created this universe was “an utter maniac, totally selfish” and “evil”.
Surely an atheist speaking to God is an oxymoron. Or is it that Fry is the Moron ?
I don’t know how anyone can feel anything but queasy and a little bit repulsed as we watch this conveyor belt of older men ‘marrying boys’ being paraded as the new normal by the media – Fry , Daly …
older men ‘marrying boys’ being paraded as the new normal
Fry’s husband is 27. Hardly a “boy”. Tom Daley is 20, i.e., a full adult.
And if you start converting your “queasy and a little repulsed” homophobia into whining about the age gap, please explain how it’s acceptable for heterosexuals to have similar age gaps, if not larger, that don’t turn your oh-so-delicate stomach? How about Rupert Murdoch and Wendi Deng? They may be divorced now, but there’s 38 years between them. Where’s your disgust about that?
Difference is older men and younger women is not item number 1 on the national news I have many gay friends so don’t try and turn the argument that way I am making an observation but certainly seems to have hit a nerve eh
Difference is older men and younger women is not item number 1 on the national news
And when was Stephen Fry’s marriage “number 1 on the national news”? It was mentioned at the same level, or less, than other celebrity marriages.
I have many gay friends
Yeah, I bet you do. And they all get round from place to place on the back of airborne porcines…
Scotty boy all we are trying to say is that the fact that somebody is an uphill gardener or a regular missionary type person is not something our national broadcaster should be reporting on at 10 each evening . Europe is in flames , we are a few clicks away from an energy crisis , the NHS is failing due to mass immigration there is plenty to debate same sex relationships are of no interest to 99.9 % of the UK population
The news isn’t that Fry is gay, the news is that one of Britain’s most popular broadcasters and celebrities has got married. Your issue should be with our celebrity-obsessed culture which makes big news out of their private lives, and the BBC is by no means alone amongst media outlets in reflecting that.
I assume when there was so much media reporting on George Clooney’s marriage to Amal Alamuddin you registered your disapproval here in the same way as you are now? Or is it just because Fry is gay?
I like how you claim to know what 99.9% of the population thinks though.
I think it is about a person who has through his profile hijacked the moral high ground, and rather seedily, thereafter, had his way as it where
MY disgust, Scott, is that they’re the same sex. Abhorrent, in my view.
Abhorrent, in my view.
Thankfully, your voice is just one feeble whimper amongst a global conversation. Although I appreciate you seem to think it’s more important than others’.
“Thankfully, your voice is just one feeble whimper amongst a global conversation”
Really Scott, Tell me how Homosexuals are treated in:
Africa
The sub continent
Middle East
China
Russia
The fact remains coming out is only really safe in Western Democratic countries. But that’s just it, quite rightly minorities such as blacks,browns,gays, disabled are afforded equality under the law. Yet and a big yet once those very people have got equality what do they say:
“WE are different and demand to be given more rights and status due to our difference.”
What part of, “we all shit out of the same hole don’t you understand”? (Well actually you talk shite, but that is a different subject)
I was taught that nobody is better than me and that I was no better than anybody else. So why is frys words about God or his marriage such a big deal for the bBC. I mean rather than attack the Church, which is moving in the right direction, why didn’t he target Islam. Oh hang on there’s good reason why he didn’t opine against the cult of Mohammed , which is why Scott today you won’t be visiting your local mosque and informing them , that you are a homosexual.
Now don’t you think that the bBC would be better off reporting the intolerance of Islam against Homosexuals across the world (Never mind in the UK) rather than attacking a faith he knows won’t harm him.
I was taught that nobody is better than me and that I was no better than anybody else.
And yet, your behaviour always seems to suggest that you don’t quite believe that. Instead, you behave like a judgemental bully boy. Try listening to those teachings the next time you threaten to beat the shit out of someone just because of opinions they’ve expressed on the internet.
Yet and a big yet once those very people have got equality what do they say:
“WE are different and demand to be given more rights and status due to our difference.”
Bollocks, as usual. And as usual, Biased BBC commenters make nonsense up to try and justify their own prejudices. But hey, you carry on believing that you’re right, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.
. So why is frys words about God or his marriage such a big deal for the bBC.
And there was Alan, moaning that the BBC hasn’t reported it. Ah, Biased BBC: too busy perpetuating their own prejudices to even bother to get their demented arguments straight.
Instead, you behave like a judgemental bully boy. Try listening to those teachings the next time you threaten to beat the shit out of someone just because of opinions they’ve expressed on the internet.”
Care to point out exactly where I threaten to beat the shit out of somebody Scott? I’m sure in your collection of pounce posts you should have one or two. So go on post them?
No, you’re right, your style is so very, very different:
Maybe I should drop a few flyers around the local mosque complete with your picture to warn all the local Muslims you are a racist. I’m sure a few of the local shop keepers will recognise you and inform the local gangs.
Pity poor Pounce: The man who finds a way of combining his love of violence and his hatred of Muslims, so that he can delude himself that he’s not a miserable excuse for a human being.
Still waiting Scott
Still waiting Scott
Erm, you posted a picture and implied you knew where Scott worked and lived. In language I’d imagine you thought was cleverly opaque but which any jury would see through. That was deeply disturbing.
‘Questwhoom’, I trust that is not a freshly minted pseudonym. You must be aware of how much your soul-mate Scott/flimflam disapproves of such deceptive freshly minted pseudonyms.
Scott,
what is it with you and hiding behind different IDs. I ask you to put up, you don’t and then reply by pretending to be somebody else.
How fucking Old are you?
Now here’s a point to note. If I was half the angry evil bigoted bastard you claim I was. Don’t you think I would have knocked on your door and expressed my inability to communicate intelligently with your face. The fact that nobody here has done so pisses all over your stance that we on this blog are violent people.
Just be thankful we aren’t all like you:
Bigoted, racist and arseholes.
Erm… didn’t Scott identify himself years ago with a big public announcement that he was going to unsubscribe from BiasedBBC? Now you want to smear the folk here as having sinister motives in identifying him?
Anyway; isn’t Scott’s favourite insult to everyone here that they’re ‘old’. I’d guess he’s right; most are probably relatively old. Seems surprisingly insulting, coming from someone so PC, but anyway; should we have a picture in our heads of little old ladies and gents hobbling around to Scott’s on their Zimmer frames?
Pounce:
what is it with you and hiding behind different IDs… [you] reply by pretending to be somebody else.
No, I haven’t. It’s not the first time you’ve made such a claim. I seem to remember you claimed I had visited your blog and posted under David Vance’s name, when I had done no such thing. Of course, you had no evidence, because there was none to be had: that didn’t stop you then, and I daresay it won’t stop you now.
And then, as now, you lost your temper when your bully boy tactics didn’t work. Poor little Pounce, who wants to threaten and cajole, and loses his rag when he realises the impotence of his fury.
Just be thankful we aren’t all like you:
Bigoted, racist and arseholes.
There was another thread where you admitted that you called me racist not because I was, but to wind me up (which of course isn’t “trolling” behaviour, because hypocrisy).
You saw that as having been successful, claiming that I “would spend an inordinate amount of time trying to clear [my] name”, whereas in fact all I did was remind you – whenever you repeatedly insulted me – that there was no basis for your abuse.
Mind you, you’ve also claimed that you have no trouble with gay people, but have no difficulty in reaching for terms like “cock sucker” and “shirt lifter” as terms of abuse.
Honesty isn’t exactly your strong suit, is it?
The whole point of Alan’s post was that the BBC didnt cover his comments in the interview.
His reply was about ‘God’. I’d presume he was talking about the Abrahamic God. That’s the one Christians and Muslims share.
We can agree on one thing though Pounce. You’re definitely not better than anyone.
And he’s old. Which means that kind of attitude will die out shortly.
Yes Stephen Fry is old and he will die out
‘And he’s old. Which means that kind of attitude will die out shortly. ‘
A sentiment just one step away from employing the gas chamber – which just goes to prove: inside every leftist ‘liberal’ there’s a little Hitler bursting to get out. And who are you to talk on behalf of the ‘younger’ generations anyway? Not all have succumbed to the totalitarian leftist brainwashing dished out by our schools in the last 40 years – thankfully.
And good luck with your Brave New World, Jerry, with its social justice, money trees, sustainability, windmills, zero ‘carbon’ emissions, multiculturalism, militant trade unions, biologically-impossible birth certificates, ‘extended’ families, debt mountains, Islamic supremacy and overwhelming absence of pragmatism, reality and common sense.
Unfortunately some of us ‘olds’ will still be around when the whole sorry mess comes crashing around your collective Watermelon arses. But sorry to have to tell you this: it will be you who’s left to pick up the pieces – that is, unless you lefty young ‘uns have prematurely ‘died out’.
It’s not one step, johnny.
There is a big, nay massive, difference between saying “Attitudes generally held by the elderly will die out” and saying “We are going to kill anyone who disagrees with us”.
“that proves every leftist is a little Hitler”. OK. Because that’s not a ridiculously overdrawn conclusion at all. No way. Go on, prove that every single leftist wants to kill everyone they disagree with. I dare you.
I assume, based on your comment, that you oppose gay marriage? If so, how arrogant of you to presume that the only reason most young people these days accept gay marriage is because they have been brainwashed. Of course, it’s completely impossible for people to think for themselves and reach the conclusion that there’s no reason whatsoever two people who love each other can’t get married. No, it must be because they’ve been indoctrinated.
Doh.
It’s a common sentiment I’ve found amongst leftists before, but yes, expressed a lot more strongly than above (e.g ‘the sooner you lot die off the better’) – including on the BBC – which I should probably have explained. Behind it is a desire – whether you like to admit it or not – for older generations not to sully your ideologically-fashioned, totally impractical, self-destructive ‘promised land’ with their common sense and decades of hard-won experience.
‘I assume, based on your comment, that you oppose gay marriage?’
Yes I do, though you use the word ‘oppose’, which is confrontational (I’d prefer ‘disagree with’). And your friend Scott, in a previous thread, did not deny me that right (in one of his rare, non-authoritarian moments). Much in the same way that you would have ‘opposed’ the death penalty in the fifties, at a guess. And by the way, I do remember gay rights activists, when civil partnerhsips were being mooted, saying on the BBC and elsewhere that they would not lead to demands for gay ‘marriage’ – thin end of the wedge, and all that (seen it so many times over six decades, don’t you know).
‘If so, how arrogant of you to presume that the only reason most young people these days accept gay marriage is because they have been brainwashed.’
Would Stonewall tolerate anything less in our schools? And less of the ‘arrogant’, if you don’t mind.
‘Of course, it’s completely impossible for people to think for themselves and reach the conclusion that there’s no reason whatsoever two people who love each other can’t get married.’
Er, we are talking schoolkids here.
I know how they are taught, from slavery to Israel, from ‘climate change’ to Islam – I’ve seen both my granddaughters go through it – and believe me (but I would guess you already know) it’s got nothing to do with having anything like an impartial presentation of the facts with which to ‘think for themselves’.
So in your view, if schools teach kids that it’s perfectly OK if two men want to get married that counts as brainwashing?
If religious schools teach kids that it’s not OK if two men want to get married does that count as brainwashing?
This is from the US, but every age group is increasingly supporting gay marriage, including the older generations. http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09/24/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
So I don’t think it’s down to school education.
I disagree with your description of school education. I felt encouraged to think for myself at my school. I accept, though, that others’ experiences may be different.
‘So in your view, if schools teach kids that it’s perfectly OK if two men want to get married that counts as brainwashing?’
I think you just answered your own question.
‘If religious schools teach kids that it’s not OK if two men want to get married does that count as brainwashing?’
Where did I say anything about religious schools? But, as I’m a polite kind of guy I’ll anwer your question. No, I don’t think it’s OK. Just to re-iterate: children need to be given an impartial summary of the facts – from both sides of the argument. The one-dimensional leftist view of the world and its history they leave school with is something this country should be deeply ashamed of.
Didn’t bother with your link – I don’t care what your or anyone else’s opinion polls might say, I have my own deeply-held values on marriage and bringing up children and no amount of hectoring will change that.
Yes, just like employing the gas chanber, just like that.
My point is only that those kinds of views are largely held in civilised societies by ignorant, old bigots….and they will soon be consigned largely to history. I don’t want to bring about his death…nature will do that all by itself.
I like your last paragraph though….gotta run though, the sky is falling down….the end is nigh!
‘I like your last paragraph though….gotta run though, the sky is falling down….the end is nigh! ‘
So how’s it going in your beloved Eurozone at the moment?
And when your hallowed windmills run out of puff and there’s no gas, oil or coal to fall back on, what do you think is going to happen?
Think before you post.
The perennial claim of youth – ‘Tomorrow Belongs To Me’
You seem to have an obsession with couple-ism, That’s a very selfish, short-sighted attitude. If we needed to extend marriage beyond the biological male-female partnership, surely we should have taken an inclusive approach to enrich our diverse multicultural society. What is so special about couples? What about singles? Threes? Fours? Mores?
Here’s a heart-warming story from the US about how one lady overcame the vile prejudice in society to marry herself:
Houston Woman Marries Herself
**Bless**
Scott, Personally I find homophobia distasteful and rude and I fully support the right of gay/lesbian people to marry so my comment is not about the “gayness” of the relationship. I have qualms – as I would about heterosexual marriages with similar discrepancies in age, financial asset and ‘power’. My suspicion is along the lines of the famous joke “so Debbie, what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?”
There is enough literature based on the theme of unequal marriage to fill several libraries starting with Pride and Prejudice which no doubt you keep close to hand.
I have qualms – as I would about heterosexual marriages with similar discrepancies in age, financial asset and ‘power’.
So you were condemning of the Murdoch/Deng marriage, which had a 38 year age gap? Or Deng’s previous relationship, with a married man 30 years her senior?
Does Sam Taylor-Wood’s relationship with Aaron Johnson make you queasy? Do you have qualms about Calista Flockhart’s relationship with Harrison Ford? What about Celine Dion, who has been happily married to a man 26 years her senior for two decades? Or is it just two men that you fret about, despite your shakily-presented protestations to the contrary?
But still. I’m sure all these couples will be distraught to know that their relationships give a judgemental, hypocritical, pseudonymous no-mark on the internet “qualms”.
Isn’t the leftist orthodoxy now that first proposed by Andrea Dworkin, that ‘All men are rapists’ or, for same-sex couples, that a dominant partner is a rapist? I would have expected lefties to be pushing for new government legislation to restrict partnerships to age-gaps that ensure equality, rather than to encourage a free-for-all where the vulnerable can be exploited? The left are not very consistent.
“So you were condemning of the Murdoch/Deng marriage, which had a 38 year age gap? Or Deng’s previous relationship, with a married man 30 years her senior”?
What part of his statement didn’t you understand Scott. I take it reading comprehension isn’t your forte. But back to your question at hand. I think you will find each and every person on this blog is disgusted at the marriage of Mohammed to a 6 year old……Happy?
Yes, I ought to have known that sooner or later you’d bring everything back to Islam. No other topic is more likely to get Pounce stirred up and abusive than Muslims – so he steers every conversation round to that, in order to vent the violent temper tantrums he is so well known for.
Poor Pounce. Those anger management sessions really aren’t working, are they?
Whilst your at the local open day at your local mosque today ask them their views on Mr Fry ?
Scott you didn’t respond to this one any feedback from your little trip to open mosque day ? I went down to the pub a nice little 16th century boozer great company bit of grub no ethnic diversity no LBGT crap being thrust on me -I was allowed to be a free human being for a couple of hours
Cripes – we agree on something. Yes I DO have issues with the Murdoch / Deng marriage – but that may be a marriage of people equally ruthless and driven. I Don’t know who Sam Taylor wood is and yes I do find the Ford / Flockhart relationship odd, along with the much discussed Allen / Previn (!!!!) relationship. Add in the Ecclestone / Flossi case and even you will get the picture…..
As for me being hypocritical, my life partner is the same age as myself, has similar financial resources, has the same educational attainment as me and is a thoroughly independent person. There is no power/status in-balance between us; but I guess you must be assuming assumed that I am an old white male super rich member of the aristocracy / celebratii with a string of dependent subjugated sex slaves at my beck and call and therefore not in a position to make a mild “tutt”. Mild, but enough to earn me some of your famous ill focused abuse. FFS Scott, I am sure that you are aware that the gay community has a reputation for extreme bitchiness about all aspects of human behaviour, dress and relationships. So much so that entire TV series about gay relationships have successfully dominated light entertainment. Saying “tutt” isn’t a product of homophobia, and it isn’t against the law to express a mild opinion.
I re iterate the point – there is an entire oeuvre of literature dedicated to un balanced relationships, some of which is rated as the finest produced by humanity, often by “judgemental, hypocritical pseudonymous* no marks (wtf does that mean by the way?)
*A common aspect of 19th century literature produced by female authors….
I guess you must be assuming assumed that I am an old white male super rich member of the aristocracy / celebratii with a string of dependent subjugated sex slaves at my beck and call and therefore not in a position to make a mild “tutt”.
No, I assume you’re a sad little man who feels he has to express public distaste towards gay couples, where you keep your thoughts about straight couples to yourself – until, at least, you have to trot them out after much prompting. And yet you claim you don’t try gay people differently. That’s the hypocrisy. But never mind, when it comes to hypocrites who have a higher opinion of themselves than the facts would suggest and lack the intellect to recognise their own shortcomings, there are plenty of others on Biased BBC to keep you company.
Scott you are immune to irony:
“when it comes to hypocrites who have a higher opinion of themselves than the facts would suggest and lack the intellect to recognise their own shortcomings, there are plenty of others on Biased BBC to keep you company.”
Perhaps you could apply that gauge to yourself
“judgemental, hypocritical, pseudonymous no-mark”
From someone who is clearly not judgemental etc etc.
Go boil your head
CCE, I realise that you don’t – or won’t, or maybe can’t – appreciate the difference between appraising someone’s comments on this site, and passing judgement on the relationship status of people whom you have never met and most likely never will.
Go boil your head
Now there’s the level of debate that Biased BBC commenters enjoy. As long as they’re politically inclined a certain way, of course. “Biased BBC: where we demand standards of you, but have none ourselves.”
**sigh**
my recommendation that you boil your head is a product of exasperation, I’m sorry but when someone I don’t know presumes to conclude that I am a ‘sad little man’ a ‘hypocrite’, that I am stupid and bigoted I sometimes get exasperated.
Frankly Scott there is no point in engaging you in a debate, for all your prosing and assumption of the mortal high ground you resort to abuse from the outset and you are totally impervious to the inconsistencies in your argument. On the evidence of your many contributions I conclude that you are every bit as bigoted and blinkered as some of the contributors to this site that you wax so prolix about.
I’m sorry but when someone I don’t know presumes to conclude that I am a ‘sad little man’ a ‘hypocrite’, that I am stupid and bigoted I sometimes get exasperated.
So I see. But your exasperation doesn’t automatically make those charges any less true.
On the evidence of your many contributions I conclude that you are every bit as bigoted and blinkered as some of the contributors to this site that you wax so prolix about.
Well, at least you acknowledge that this site is riddled with bigots. Which is a start.
Scott
I see you have crawled back. Now then, I thinK I made it clear to you that you are not wanted here. You are an attention seeking obnoxious little troll that adds nothing to this site. I suggest you slink your hook now. Don’t forget our previous conversation.
CCE I think you’re being unfair to Scott, he is not as bigoted and blinkered as others on here – he is streets ahead of anyone else here in these “qualities”.
Scott,
In general, discussion works better if all participants opt to be charitable with their opponents, not reading in worst and weakest positions into their statements, but the strongest. In your comments in this thread you have repeatedly decided to read things into others’ comments that are speculative and what you clearly think are damaging. This is a silly debating tactic. It is more akin to trolling and baiting than anything productive. If that is what you are after then fine. But it seems like a waste of time to me.
Scott it must be troubling to see bigotry when none is expressed.
Its a scientifically proven fact that much of man’s (human kind) progress has been the result of older men having children by young women. They conclude that the life experiences of the male are conveyed genetically into the offspring of the woman’s “blank page”. The woman having little life experience.
It has been the norm through millennia that young women are attracted by wealthy, powerful and successful older men.
Since older men cannot procreate with younger men this is irrelevant. Studies show that older homosexuals prey on young boys. The majority of homosexuals have a history of relationships with much older men starting at a very young age.
The thing is 20 year age gap is seedy gay or hero capishe?
Surely an atheist speaking to God is an oxymoron. Or is it that Fry is the Moron ?
You could try watching the interview, in which he’s asked the direct question and he answers it with passion. But I do realise that if you start watching evidence, you risk getting thrown out of the Biased BBC Club For Fact-Free Deranged Ranters.
You’ve kept that quiet. How do I join?
You are quite right Scott, Stephen Fry was responding to a direct question from Gay Byrne and as you also quite rightly say, answered it with passion. However, as others have said, Why Is This News? I find Stephen Fry an amusing entertainer, but that’s all he is – an entertainer.
Why are his musings on the evils of a mythical God a major news story?
However, as others have said, Why Is This News?
Ask Alan. He was the one complaining about the BBC not reporting on it.
It was certainly reported on the Steven (Stephen?) Nolan show on 5Live last night and a lengthy excerpt of the RTE interview was played.
“Why are his musings on the evils of a mythical God a major news story? ”
I thought the whole point of Alan’s rant was that the BBC failed to report Fry’s comments. As Alan says:
“…….it [the BBC} hasn’t bothered to report the words of one of its favourite sons, Stephen Fry, when he denounced God”
No doubt if the BBC had reported Fry’s thoughts then Alan would also have seen this as evidence of bias!!
Because folk like you are talking about it doh !
An amusing entertainer ? Not really he is a nationalised comedian who along with all the other comedians such as joe brand brigstoke Davis et al bring us mild irony as opposed to laughter. They have gradually through the law of diminishing returns made us a po faced moronic embarrassing cohort
But he was excellent in Twelfth Night at The Globe.
He appeals to the so called problem of evil, of course. The passion takes away from his argument, not just because he relies on it, which is fallacious, but because as an atheist he presumably doesn’t believe in evil or goodness, except as human categories, so why would he be so excised about them. He says that if God exists he is monstrous. But if he means that God is objectively evil, where is a naturalist or materialist like him getting his values from, except his own subjective preferences? In that part he doesn’t seem to be just accepting his opponents arguments but to be putting forward his own impassioned moral plea.
And so far as he is accepting the theist’s arguments for the sake of it, to critique them, aside from not introducing dubious appeals to emotion, what he to do is put an argument that shows that the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God is contradicted by the existence of evil. In general, philosophers recognise that the purely logical problem of evil fails. That is, there isn’t a strict contradiction between God and the existence of any evil. This is why today almost all versions put forward are of the evidential problem of evil, which suggests that the level of evil in the world means it is unlikely God exists. This is an argument about probability and cannot offer certain proof, even if it were correct. There are defences and theodicies which go a long way to answering the problem of evil. It is certainly a highly controversial argument and Fry’s appeals to emotion are hardly a persuasive presentation of it. Largely, the problem of evil is psychological and not logical or philosophical. It is about what people feel about the amount of suffering in the world.
What is more, it ignores the fact that classical theist arguments, like those of a Platonic or Aristotelian bent, give arguments that identify God with the Good. So, what the problem of evil here would be trying to do is appeal to a standard of Good beyond the Good itself, which is absurd.
And despite Alan’s rather disparaging remark, I agree with Tim Stanley that the worst thing about this is that some seem to think Fry was making some interesting and original point, rather than rehashing an old philosophical debate – which certainly has not been one by the atheists – in an uninteresting, yet overly emotional way.
He is an atheist, as anyone capable of critical thinking is, but he was asked a ‘what if’ question. ‘What if you get to the pearly gates?’.
I can understand why Fry might get exercised about insects that burrow through the eyeballs of children. I do too.
I see you trot out the old, where does he get his values from. We don’t need them to be given to us by the dictator in the skies, I would prefer to live in a world without those insects. Why would an all-loving, all powerful God put them in? The two notions are incompatible. Remove God however and there’s no mystery.
Your appeal to authority, in that ‘philosophers recognise that the purely logical problem of evil fails’ is not convincing either. The faitful have been trying to come up with an answer to the question for a couple of thouands years and they still flounder. They do not ‘go a long way to answering the problem of evil’.
Even when the faithful blame man for the evil, they have no explanation for the God that designed a world which includes the flaw of earthquakes. No fault of man but responsible for the deaths and suffering of millions. And completely incompatable with your God. Of course, without God, there’s no mystery.
Fry’s argument isnt remotely controversial, except for those who think their stupid, ignorant, primitive beliefs are beyond criticism and are shocked when someone articulates their inherently contradictory nature.
He’s not appealing to a ‘standard of Good beyond good’. He’s appealing to a 21st century, educated,evolved and enlightened standard. Which is demonstrably superior to God’s standard. God doesn’t meet our standards, his law is inferior to ours. If he was put on trial, he’d be found guilty and imprisoned as a monster and a serial murderer.
It’s almost like God’s standards are the same as those illiterate, stupid men who lived in Bronze age Palestine and knew infinitely less about the world than my 11year newphew does. Funny that isnt it?
‘He is an atheist, as anyone capable of critical thinking is…..’
Ah, so you know there’s no creator, then, of a religious or any other kind? Please share your conclusive evidence with us or admit that atheism is just another belief system.
Or did you mean agnostic?
We can be as sure as we can of most things, that there isnt a theistic god. That myth was exploded a long time ago.
A deistic god is a little more likely, it leaves little more room for doubt – but then there’s no reason to worship such a god, or to think its good. In fact, we might as well lives our lives as if it doesnt exist.
I know its been said a thousand times before, but atheism is a lack of belief. But I think I know why the faithful make the charge:
a) They knows it annoys athiests
b) It would mean atheism was open to all the same criticisms that faith is. Demonstrating the faithful’s own insecurity in their own beliefs.
How was it exploded?
Atheism is open to the same criticisms, so far as the burden of proof goes. Anyone making a claim, negative or positive, must support it. Atheism includes claims about the evidence for God and for what the evidence points to about the universe if not God, so the atheist, if he makes these claims, must support them. He bears equal proof to the theist. The same goes too to for the agnostic.
‘I know its been said a thousand times before, but atheism is a lack of belief. But I think I know why the faithful make the charge:
a) They knows it annoys athiests
b) It would mean atheism was open to all the same criticisms that faith is. Demonstrating the faithful’s own insecurity in their own beliefs.’
I was seeking clarification, not looking to annoy you.
So if I have understood you correctly it’s a lack of belief in god or gods but not necessarily a creator.
P.S. I am not a religious person, just curious about how this old universe thing got here. You might like this Oxford Prof’s theory:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10451983/Do-we-live-in-the-Matrix-Scientists-believe-they-may-have-answered-the-question.html
The point is he appeals to some objective or realist idea of morality, and yet he, as materialist or naturalist, cannot really account for this. You do the same throughout your post, and compound it with talk of evolved standards and so on. Where do you get such standards from? Maybe you do believe in some sort of atheistic Platonism and are a moral realist, but almost all atheists today, including Fry, are naturalists and materialists who cannot really support their appeals to objective or realist morality. So, the impassioned pleas and talk of standards is really just an appeal to subjective preference. You have no foundation for all the grandiose rhetoric about God not meeting our standards.
You do not show that the existence of evil and God is contradictory. This is the largely abandoned logical problem of evil. Care to actually show how God’s existence and evil are contradictory?
The standard theodicies, which are not mutually exclusive, are evil as privation of the good, evil as a result of free will, and evil as a juxtaposition to good qualities. There is also sceptical theism, which says we cannot answer the question, or whole question, with our current knowledge. The field is no doubt controversial but the atheists most certainly haven’t won out, far from it.
And there is the Platonic or Aristotelian argument that God is the Good. This undermines the problem of evil entire, because it would be like appealing to a greater good than the Good itself. If the atheist attacks these by attacking the whole notion of objective values, then he is undermines the whole problem of evil – as it relies on their being objective values and not just subjective preferences for its bite.
Also, as you clearly know little of philosophy or the history of thought, and don’t really put forward a proper argument, it is strange you are so arrogant and dismissive. Is it all bluff?
He was asked a ‘what if’ question.
Difficult for the faithful to grasp I’m sure.
Surely Mr Fry has earned his piccadillo having worked at the coal face of equality he should be able to rest in his autumn years with the sweetest fruit that was plucked from the sanctity of soho ?
Shouldnt the left wing, atheist BBC be gleefully reporting this Alan?
Fry is entitled to his point of view and the BBC to broadcast it, I just wish they would present the alternate point of view.
Songs of Praise will be on shortly.
It’s not that with me as I’m an atheist myself, but if he’d been equally, or even less, critical of Islam the recording would not have been shown anywhere. Or if it was Fry would be denounced as a racist and banned from TV ever again.
I dont know whether the BBC broadcast it or not, but Alan seemed to think they hadnt.
It was a one on one interview – hence there isnt a third person to put the other view. I would suggest the other view is put…in the stupefied face of the believer reacting to his reply.
Don’t forget our previous conversation
That’ll be the one straight after one of your regular commenters – cowering behind yet another freshly minted pseudonym – had posted details of where I lived, where I worked, the route I took between the two, and encouraged others to harass my work colleagues. That’ll be the conversation where you made it quite clear that not only were you not going to condemn his actions, but that you didn’t understand why such actions constitute harassment. Where you made it quite clear that you were more concerned about protecting the identity of that lowlife than you were in doing the decent thing.
Is that the conversation you meant?
Such an accusation surely calls for a response from David Vance?
Why?
The narcissistic little troll has plastered his name and face all over the internet. It took me less than 30 seconds to find the information he mentions above. That’s the joy and downside of Google and LinkedIn.
Contrary to his opinions of people that frequent this site, I’m balanced enough not to take it further. If he’d been more civil, less confrontational and generally less self absorbed then maybe people wouldn’t have bothered to even look him up in the first instance. As it was, his vitriol aimed at contributors to this site had hit unacceptable levels. That’s not to say it was all one-way traffic and there was some heated exchanges that went way beyond the bounds of civilised debate by all concerned.
In Scott’s case it’s self inflicted. For a while after his information was (briefly) published he went away, but like a junkie he came back for his fix. If he’d stayed away, or been less confrontational on his return then this exchange of views would not be happening. He knew what was going to happen, but he likes being the centre of attention. And once again he’s succeeded.
If David Vance had or has advised Scott and others of their conduct, and the consequences, then it’s down to them. If they all choose to ignore the warnings then they deserve what they get.
It took me less than 30 seconds to find the information he mentions above.
Enlighten me – where does it say that people are entitled to harass work colleagues? To harass me?
If he’d been more civil, less confrontational and generally less self absorbed then maybe people wouldn’t have bothered to even look him up in the first instance.
So it’s okay to harass somebody’s work colleagues because they’re “confrontational” on this website?
No wonder so many of Vance’s abusive little cronies cower behind pseudonyms. They’re obviously petrified that if what I was subjected to is acceptable, they’d get far, far worse in spades.
Except, of course, nobody would – because the psychopathy that deems such behaviour acceptable is coming from one direction only on this site.
“Enlighten me – where does it say that people are entitled to harass work colleagues? To harass me?”
Nowhere in my reply above do I say it’s acceptable, but following some of your exchanges it isn’t unexpected. Some people are less accomodating of abuse than others.
As I said, that’s the joy and downside of Google and LinkedIn; if you insist on plastering yourself across various sites using your real identity that’s the risk you take.
Using a pseudonym is the first level of protection to avoid identity theft – which you in your chosen field of employment really should understand.
Actually scott I posted the details of where you lived, how you travelled to work and the route you took. I actually not only used to work in the same building as you, but we have shared drinks together (As part of a group).
While I put up with your sanctimonious ways (bragging to anybody who would listen about Dr Who, actting rightwing bigots and the bloody theatre (And whom you had just met) But when your last boyfriend left you , you became intolerable.
Hoiwever we all put up with your high voiced antics even laughing at your posts on this blog. Yet when you revealed another mans financial dealings and stated that you were going to go out in which to wreak that man’s living, I had enough.
So if you want to play the innocent victim on a blog you only visit to wind people up (You really should learn to stop bragging about what you do on line you sad git) then maybe you should admit to exactly what you did before that post of mine.
Now you may have an inkling of who I maybe, but am I a boy or a girl?
So report me to the flith for posting your details and I will do likewise with the post where you not only posted details of DVs financial dealings (I take it that’s the reason he communicated with you directly threating legal action, well you just can’t keep your mouth shut can you big ears) but where you demanded people to contact those companies in which to get them to divest from DV.
P.S
Still doing the nose candy?
Yet when you revealed another mans financial dealings and stated that you were going to go out in which to wreak that man’s living
Lies. I’ve never done any such thing.
I will do likewise with the post where you not only posted details of DVs financial dealings
If such a post exists, it wasn’t written by me. I have no knowledge of Vance’s financial dealings, nor do I care about them.
(I take it that’s the reason he communicated with you directly threating legal action, well you just can’t keep your mouth shut can you big ears)
Nope, my only communication with David Vance outside this blog has been because of the harassment to which you are making claim – and to which he refused to take any action.
Although if he believes I was the author of such a post, it would provide additional reason why he was so reluctant to help.
Still doing the nose candy?
And again, lies. In fact, I’m not sure there’s anything truthful in anything you’ve posted, is there?
Well, maybe. I do have big ears. Genetics, eh. What can you do…
He is clearly a troll, but why respond in kind? What you did, if my reading is correct, was wrong and unhelpful. Everyone here who trolls Scott back simply confirms his low opinion of conservative and BBC critics, especially trying to circulate his personal information.
Well said, John. I’ve tried to have a reasonable discussion with Scott on a number of occasions but he inevitably responds with insults and monotonous and zealous re-iterations of his gay rights agenda.
So I decided best to ignore.
Well, one thing is firmly settled. Stephen Fry is not a smart man. The argument, if you can call it that, that he presents has a very long complicated theological history that Mr Fry clearly has no knowledge of. One can rail at God for one’s suffering but it is not a position beyond a solipsistic disappointment that time does not stands still and that none should die or suffer. Children are prone to this and it is heartbreaking to see suffering. Parents often get pets so that children understand the life cycle in all its complexities and disappointments and gain a mature understanding of life. My feeling is that atheists talk too much about God. A real atheist would not – could not – talk about something that they believe does not exist. Maybe Mr Fry should get a dog.
*sigh* He was asked a ‘what if’ question.
Maybe atheists talk about God, because we recognise how monumentally stupid an idea it is, and how utterly discredited it it…and yet we can’t open a newspaper without being confronted with another horror show conducted by the religious.
Apparently there is an answer to Fry’s point….its just very long and complicated.
Theology can get complicated. Theists go through somersaults to try and provide answers to these questions, and this is one they repeatedly fail on, despite a couple of thousand years of trying. Theology is a non-subject, remove the assumption of God and it falls, like taking a rug out from under it.
But a priori, for an atheist it cannot be a “what if”. If an atheist is requiring evidence for God he can never find it. Thus, no God. If atheists believe there is no God – and they could well be right – then they should really ignore the discussion. If you are arguing that “religion” is the actual cause of suffering, are you serious? Religious people? Maybe all those people going to church should have to register as possible source of violence. I expect all religious people will be subject to surveillance so that those peaceful atheists don’t suffer.
Ahhhhhh!!!!!!!!
If you had three wishes, what would you wish for?
Apparently your answer would be, there’s no way a wish could be made to come true, therefore I’m not answering the question.
Fry doesnt believe there’s a God. I would propose that would be because there’s no evidence of such, we understand how the world around us works without the need for it as an explanation, and when you introduce the idea, you find its incompatible with what we do know.
The question put, is what if when you die you are confronted with God what do you say? I think its an interesting question and worth discussing.
Was Bertrand Russell not a real atheist? Asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on the judgement day and God asked him, “Why didn’t you believe in Me?” Russell replied, “I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'”
I liked a comment Hitchens once made in reply to the question. Along the line of ‘Excuse me, do you mind, I’m busy, please get out of my way’ or put another way ‘Quo warranto’, by what right have you to judge me or ask such questions.
I dont say that religion is the actual cause of all suffering. Plenty of it yes, but of course not all.
The point is simple though. There is no evidence for a God, yet his followrs are responsible for great evils because of their beliefs , it has and continues to retart civilisation and human development. It is stupid and dangerous.
Bad things happen because we are a moderately well evolved species, living on a planet which is on a climatic knife edge, surrounded by predators etc etc. There’s no mystery to why bad things happen. But posit a God into this universe, a designer, you immediatley convict him. If you take God to be the God of the Bible, then in his own words he is a monster.
So, ‘God’ is evil whatever way you look at it.
We understand God only through the prism of religion. Incidentally, I prefer Wittgenstein to Russell for his understanding of the language on this issue because he doesn’t use wit to skate over thin ice. You say “religion” has caused “great evils” and “retarded” civilisation. Well, we tend to describe civilisations through their religions, a la Braudel. So, all religions have this feature? Philosophical ideas usually overlap with theological structures and many great civilisations seemed to have the “God concept” with no harm to their development. I could go on…but I would invite you to say ask yourself: Are all religions the same and feature the same harm factor? The answer would clearly be not. Is there any religion that particularly concerns you as being a dangerous idea?
Fry didn’t just accept the theist’s assumptions for the sake of it, he clearly went past this and added his own judgment about God. As a materialist or naturalist he has no objective standards to appeal to, and yet he talks about God as evil with great passion. This is silly. You do the same, when you call him a monster and the like.
And if he is accepting the theist’s assumptions for the sake of argument, he doesn’t deal with the various theistic conceptions of the Good, most especially the classical theist one’s which identify it philosophically with God. Unless he can offer a proper critique of these, he is appealing from the Supreme Good to a higher standard of Good, which is absurd. And if he tries to deal with these arguments by maintaining there are objective values, then the so called problem of evil fails entire, because it means God is only evil on some subjective notion of evil.
And Fry made no attempt to deal with the various answers to the so called problem of evil – privation, free will, and so on. He didn’t even show awareness of their existence. Atheists have not refuted these decisively, far from it. Of course, atheists love this argument because it is the only positive argument they have against theism, but it isn’t really a very good one. Its force is almost entirely psychological and not logical or rational. It relies on whispering in the ear that can a good God really create such suffering. It doesn’t show he can’t.
Bertrand Russell was a great philosopher, but not when it came to the philosophy of religion. This is why no one except a few Gnus quote him on it any more. He, for example, seems to think the cosmological argument says all things have a cause but then it arbitrarily excepts God. Yet no reputable theistic philosopher has ever presented such a version of the cosmological argument. Of course, this strawman of the cosmological argument has hallowed roots, going back to J.S. Mill if not Hume.
He accepted the assumption of the question and then asked what kind of God it must be if it created the world we live in. A judgement on that God naturally follows from the question.
Human well-being is an objective standard. If an objective standard HAS to come from outside humans, then you are setting up the scenario for yourself to create a God. And as we see, how can we get that standard from a God when he fails so miserably to meet the standard that any decent, ethical human has?
I say a world without insects that eat children’s eyeballs is better for human welfare than a world which does have them. Do I need a God to make that judgement?!?
I don’t think it a fair criticism that he didnt deal with the theistic critques in one answer to one question in a tv interview, which I’d guess you’ve only seen one clip of. He’s said plenty on religion before, and mentions theodacy in his first sentence. Besides, theodacy arguments are shit.
Let me refute then the free will argument – evil exists because humans have free will to choose to do evil. Most crime, and violent crime is done by men between the ages of 18 and 32. Most violent crime is committed by men rather than women. So we could still have been designed, and still had free will, and not have the heinous violence we see in this world.
Have you seen the movie Avatar? The alien species had a god. It was a god which was real, which was part of and central to their existence and they could communicate with it too. They sometimes got angry or jealous and committed ‘sins’. But they werent capable of mass murder of others in gas chanbers. They wouldnt have had the imagination or been capable. We could have been designed and given free will without the kind of man made evil we see today.
Then there are sociopaths and psychopaths. Created by God, designed that way, sent out into the world to wrought destruction, causing untold grief and suffering , and then condemned at the end of their life by the same God that created them. If we condemn the psychopath, then what of the omnipotent being that created him?? (I might also mention that in the Christian tradition, that same psychopath rapist and murderer only has to repent in the electric chair and he gets a free pass into heaven, while his athiest victim goes to hell)
But while the free will argument is a cop out, it only covers man made evil. What about physical evil? What about earthquakes and volcanoes which are not our fault, which are inherent flaws in the design and which have resulted in untold suffering, death and grief. Those are incompatible with a loving, omnipotent God. Of course, remove God from the equation, and there’s no mystery.
What about the lion and the wildebeest? God designed the lion, allowing it to evolve its nature over millions of years, so that it hunts the wildebeest in packs, seperating the weak, sick, disabled or young from the herd, killing and eating it in front of its parents. What kind of God would condemn the wildebeest or the lion to such an existence? If I was the designer, I wouldnt do that. I’m better than God. But of course, there’s no mystery if you dont make the God presumption.
The Praying mantis sometimes eats its mate after copulation. As do some species of spider. What kind of design is that? What kind of plan is it that designs such a creature to evolve after millions of years? And, its a seperate point, if before God created it, there was only a void, that means the idea of a creature that eats its mate after copulation comes entirely from the imagination of that God. Whatever might be said about that God, it cannot be said that he is all good. That’s one sick mind.
There are some pretty good evolutionary explanations for why some creatures do this. There’s no mystery to it if you remove God.
There’s no mystery to why 99% of species that have ever lived have gone extinct if you remove God from the equation. And that’s just the waste and destruction on our little planet.
Of course, the theists have a cast-iron explanation for all this! The incident with the talking snake, angels falling from heaven etc etc
No, he didn’t just accept the theist’s premises. He started mouthing off in a very impassioned way, which he could only do if he was invoking objective standards.
And human well being, firstly, is not necessarily objective. There are many subjectivists who would disagree with you there. Secondly, to say objective human well being is objective doesn’t mean it is objectively good in an ethical sense. A utilitarian could make the same argument. You’d need a framework like that of an Aristotelian or Platonist to make this argument. A naturalist or materialist would have a hard time doing it.
Before we go wandering off into the question of theodicies, it would be good if you presented a concise argument about how the existence of evil is inconsistent with the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God. So far you have just said there is a contradiction, without showing it, and claimed that there is clear judgment of God is we accept the theist’s premises, without showing how this is so. Your argument, as usual for presentations of the so called argument from evil, relies on little more than psychological prods and nudges about whether we really think God could allow such suffering. Your argument is not really logical or rational. It is an appeal to emotions.
If you accept the theist’s premises, then you accept that there is objective good. It is hard not to see this good as being identical with God, on the theist’s premises. Certainly, classical theism – that of Plato, Aristotle, the Fathers, and the Schoolmen – would identify evil as privation of the good. That is, they would suggest that being and goodness are interchangeable and that evil is a lack of goodness, a lack of being. God being the ground of being is the supreme good. You then cannot appeal to a higher good in judgment of him. Other theistic frameworks basically suggest the same thing.
The atheist cannot get around this by dropping the idea of objective good, because he needs it to show the theist’s beliefs are contradictory and, also, if there is no objective good then there is no objective evil and the whole problem of evil is meaningless. He can try to show that there is a strict logical contradiction in an all-powerful, all-good God, but he is unlikely to be able to do this and it hasn’t been convincingly achieved. He can try and show that the framework for theistic understanding the good are wrong, and that – in an argument somewhat reminiscent of Euthyphro dilemma – God cannot be identified with the good. But that is a hard task, especially if dealing with a classical theist whose position naturally implies the good must be identified with being itself, as must God.
The best option for the atheist is probably to just say, can we really be sure God would allow this suffering if he were good. Hasn’t our reasoning gone wrong? But this is a psychological appeal and not a very strong argument. Certainly, it has nothing like the power that Fry and some atheist’s strangely seem to think the so called problem of evil has. And that is without even discussing theodicies and defences.
Impressive analysis. The problem of Fry is a common one in the dumbed down celebrity world. They are willing to give vent to some ill-formed idea with the conceit that they consider it simple. Media outlets like BBC., RTE, etc, think this dumbing down engages with what they think is the capability – showing their contempt also – of their audience. There are any number of instances where complex issues allow some celebrity to opine to their heart’s content. In this particular context Gay Byrne is no Bryan Magee. Byrne’s purpose is the RTE obsession of recent times – going after the Church – and that’s why Fry is asked the question.
*sigh* He was asked a ‘what if’ question.
Maybe atheists talk about God, because we recognise how monumentally stupid an idea it is, and how utterly discredited it it…and yet we can’t open a newspaper without being confronted with another horror show conducted by the religious.
Apparently there is an answer to Fry’s point….its just very long and complicated.
Theology can get complicated. Theists go through somersaults to try and provide answers to these questions, and this is one they repeatedly fail on, despite a couple of thousand years of trying. Theology is a non-subject, remove the assumption of God and it falls, like taking a rug out from under it.
Yawn.
Oh dear. Another thread taken up by Scott and his hangers on because people won’t learn the lesson.
The troll who continually screams his hatred for this blog and its regulars, but keeps buzzing around it like a fly around a cow’s arsehole, shows his bigotry by abusing those who criticise , however legitimately, gay lifestyles and propaganda. He obviously he thinks heterosexuals have no right to criticise. He’d be right at home with the U.S. gay lobby who will tolerate no criticism whatsoever and will actively campaign to get their critics fired from their jobs, businesses closed down or even arrested under “Hate Crime” laws. It’s becoming a severe problem in America that’s causing concern about the effectiveness of the 1st Amendment guaranteeing the right to free expression. It’s ironic that those gays who demand tolerance from the rest of us won’t tolerate those who disagree with them. God forbid ( I’m an atheist – I’m just using a figure of speech) that the likes of Scott ever get into government. Now that WOULD be a never-ending nightmare!
God forbid ( I’m an atheist – I’m just using a figure of speech) that the likes of Scott ever get into government. Now that WOULD be a never-ending nightmare!
There in lies the problem. Homosexuals and Gay activists are over represented in Parliament relative to the population. Whether this has has been an organised strategy by organisations like Stonewall is unknown. It may be their natural bent for being serial victims casts them in this role.
Well what a lot of attention this one has gained from our hitherto occasional BBC supporters and what a minor miracle that they should all pop up simultaneously in one of the, erm, less controversial threads – that is, unless this group are connected with some purpose in common.
Then you’ve got to suspect that some of them could be closer to the BBC than we think. Is ‘The Truth’ (aka dezzz) really privy to some internal BBC objective when he says ‘BTW Scott if he has made threats send it to the BBC. They are actively looking for evidence to ban this vile troll from the airwaves.‘ or just being his normal dickhead self? If the former, how would he know?
What’s for sure, the BBC worry a lot more about this site than our trolling guests care to admit. The evidence of bias presented here day in day out – 99% of which goes unchallenged – is overwhelming and must be of massive concern to them.
“The evidence of bias presented here day in day out – 99% of which goes unchallenged – is overwhelming and must be of massive concern to them.”
I disagree only on this statement. It is clear that the BBC don’t give a stuff about their unremitting bias being constantly proved here and on other sites. If they did they would take more care to disguise it. They don’t care because there is nobody either capable or willing to do anything about it.
Cameron would have had an outright victory in 2010 with more conservative policies than now, and would be romping home this year too if he had done something about it. As he hasn’t he has shown utter stupidity. He won’t be PM probably after May so has blown his chance of ever winning outright.
Demon – should have made myself clearer. It’s just a theory I was putting forward that these trolls might be more closely connected to the BBC than we realise and that therefore the BBC are taking a keener interest than we think – ‘The Truth’s’ statement might have been nothing more than wishful thinking – but who knows. There is also of evidence they are keeping records of what has been said in older threads.
The old chestnut once again; anyone disagreeing with bBBC regulars must work for or be associated with the BBC. An assertion that is regularly trotted out but never backed up with evidence.
As for keeping records – hardly necessary when the posts are all archived right here.
‘An assertion that is regularly trotted out but never backed up with evidence.’
So your explanation for ‘The Truth’s’ post is what, exactly? Here’s a reminder (but I’d prefer it if you read posts properly before replying):
‘They are actively looking for evidence to ban this vile troll from the airwaves.‘
And how did you all suddenly come together on this one thread? Unless your observational powers are failing you, it’s a very unusual occurrence.
The old chestnut once again; anyone disagreeing with bBBC regulars must work for or be associated with the BBC. An assertion that is regularly trotted out but never backed up with evidence.
Er… how would someone know that the BBC was ‘actively looking for evidence’ unless they worked for, or were associated with, the BBC? What a stupid comment.
TheTruth? TheNonsense more like.
If I was running a £4 billion protection racket, I’d have a team analysing social media, blogs etc and where possible seek to influence such things.
If anyone here believes the bbc doesn’t do just that, you’ve lost your marbles.
To be fair johnny you make a good point. I do believe that most of these droids and trolls DO work for the BBC. The ironically named “The Truth” finally let it slip in his anger. (Which is probably the nearest thing he has ever come to telling a truth on here.)
But I still think they don’t give a stuff about how much bias they show. They probably only come on here for a “bit of fun” (and wasting poll tax payers’ money) thinking that their arguments will be so clever that they will cause us to explode. They don’t realise how infantile and weak their points actually are and how easily their points are refuted.
” I do believe that most of these droids and trolls DO work for the BBC.”
What evidence do you have to support your belief or is this just another bBBC assumption?
‘What evidence do you have to support your belief…?
Interesting precedent. Not sure the guys in CECUTT will thank you for that. Or, indeed, a whole slew of ‘sources who say’ BBC editors.
‘‘They are actively looking for evidence to ban this vile troll from the airwaves.‘
Proof.
Why should I have to prove an assertion made by someone else?
“What evidence do you have to support your belief or is this just another bBBC assumption?”
I replied to this already but I can’t see where it’s disappeared. So again:
1. The Gaffe by “The Truth” (sic).
2. A similar gaffe by one of your colleagues some years ago (I can’t remember who – probably Dezi or Scott).
3. The fact that you are all directed by one central point where, what and how to attack a particular thread: The reason why someone christened you “Flokkers”. It is almost certainly organised by the BBC, but if not it will be a closely related fellow common purpose organisation.
Besides, if something is yellow, looks like a banana, smells like a banana, peels like a banana and tastes like a banana then one must assume it is a …… . You get the picture.
“A similar gaffe by one of your colleagues some years ago (I can’t remember who – probably Dezi or Scott).”
Neither Dez or Scott are colleagues of mine. I also do not know either of them!!
“The fact that you are all directed by one central point where, what and how to attack a particular thread”
Not directed by anyone or any organisation – sorry!!!
“Besides, if something is yellow, looks like a banana, smells like a banana, peels like a banana and tastes like a banana then one must assume it is a …… . ”
Good to know you are a banana. Thanks for the info.
Albaman; Did you not spot the reference to Common Purpose? In case you were confused, here’s a link for you:
Common Purpose Exposed
Fully aware of who Common Purpose are. Sorry to disappoint you but I have no connection with them nor have I attended any event hosted or organised by them.
Apologies if this once again blows another of your assumptions out of the water.
Congratulations Albaman! There can’t be many individuals in the UK today who haven’t had CP guff force-fed to them in one way or another – you’re pretty special! But before you get too big-headed, consider that you have probably been
brain-washedinfluenced by them. For example, the Daily Mail said of Robert Peston:Mr Peston, the BBC’s business editor, is a prominent supporter of Common Purpose, a controversial leadership training charity described as the Left’s answer to the old boys’ network…
Clearly Fry is a very confused individual, and seemingly unable to think through his inner demons, preferring instead to try and simplify issues.
So his solution to the dilemma of the horrors of life that would have been created by God is to deny the existence of God. Then for him: “life becomes simpler, purer cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.” 🙄
So reading today Raymond Ibrahim’s monthly update of the Muslim Persecution of Christians he recounts this horrific account given by Anglican priest, Andrew White:
IS turned up and they said to the [Christian] children, “You say the words [shehada, convert to Islam], that you will follow Muhammad.” And the children, all under 15, four of them, they said, “No, we love Jesus [Yesua]. We have always loved Jesus. We have always followed Jesus. Jesus has always been with us.” They [IS] said, “Say the words!” They [children] said, “No, we can’t.” [White starts sobbing] They chopped all their heads off. How do you respond to that? You just cry. They’re my children. That is what we have been going through. That is what we are going through.
I wonder what Fry thinks of his employers, the ones who’ve helped him see life as simpler, purer and cleaner, that they won’t even call these scum terrorists?
Any wonder Fry has psychological issues?
Ironic that the name of the interviewer referred to in this thread is Gay Byrne
In each and every land where Islam is the predominate faith, people of other faiths fear for their lives. Yet the left scream Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.
In each and every land where Islam is the minority , the left scream out Non-Muslims are the bigots, Non Muslims are the bigots and Non Muslims must accept what the left tell them. Meanwhile in the real world we have:
ISIS,Boko Haram, the Taliban, terrorism by the score,FGM, rape gangs,Shraia law patrols on the streets of France, Germany and Great Britain, electoral fraud , Honour killings and the left tries to tell me Islam is a religion of peace and that I am a bigot for pointing out all of the above.
‘By their deeds shall ye know them’
Odd. I could have sworn this was posted earlier. Hope it lasts longer this time:
Guest Who February 3, 2015 at 2:05 pm
‘Look out, it’s a t…actic!’
This thread was going to be a hoot from the get go, but has really developed wonderfully over time.
Certainly the full Staffel has been lured out to buzz around discussing and denouncing pretty much anything bar the BBC, so a welcome counter diversion indeed to spare other threads. Really enjoying the convolutions tasking the site’s obsessive hall Vizzini, he says, having been elevated to Monitor:)
It’s got everything… and everyone. Indeed it has people who are, or may be other people. Or not.
Who’s who? Who knows? Who cares? And I speak as a Who who has of course been dopplegangered too.
What if the blessing whose name should not be spoken was in fact the same as the one supposedly outing them, providing much height in dudgeon and scope for flounce.
Or The Truth as we know it is in fact a triple bluff false flag deployed by pranksters to add special association to the arguments of those s/he appears around or in defence of as if by magic? Having seeded that one, be fun if a few heads spin on processing the possibilities and consequences. Deny? Denounce? Defend? Whichever way no loss to the teasing potential offered.
Clearly the BBC does monitor this site (I recently posted links to show how much and for how long), and it would seem… ‘unlikely’ staff on duty or on furlough would resist pitching in. Or a chum. Especially any who do not have other lives, as one once rather unfortunately raised.
Certainly serves to keep the ratings counter twirling. 40 Mill not far off. About the only aspect that has some evidence that can be checked, even by one of the most proven negative pseudonymonous posters here.
Assuming… it can be trusted.
Note: No adverse blogging entities were fed directly in the making of this post