STEPHEN FRY

I think I get the point of what your saying...that there are many people, especially of the older generation that have a poisonous streak in them when it comes to religious dogma and prejudice. Mind you, there's plenty of younger people who have been indoctrinated to spout the same bile...
What can you do but sigh...will these people ever change?
Back in the 80s, I used to hear stories, about kids whose parents were religious conservatives, throwing their kids out on the streets when the found out they were HIV positive. It takes a lot of courage for people to admit they are wrong...even the catholic church today still protects the abusive priests of the past, shielding them with lawyers and barracking victims...disgusting. (Remember the commission that looked into abuse in Ireland?)

Now I'm ranting...I hope you understand that a lot of people feel the way you do... I know all about that dogmatic religious hypocrisy.

Peace and Love...that's part of common humanity - not dogma.

I think you misunderstand Richard Dawkins arguments. He does not claim that something like a god doesn't exist, but follows the line that Bertrand Russell laid down, that it is impossible to prove one way or the other, like saying that on some planet far away in the universe there live green polka dot flying elephants. You can't prove it or disprove it.

But one's persons idea of god can differ greatly from that of others...a spiritual loving being, to an observer, to a god red in tooth and claw, armed with an AK 47.

The problem lies with the fact that many people have a fixed idea of a god as something that is a reflection of human beings...thus the dogmatic obsession with sex, sexuality and attitudes to women, ideas of shame, and guilt.

I have nothing against genuinely spiritual people who's faith is lodged with a degree of introspection and understanding of the human condition and respect for others...it's just all the man-made stuff about controlling people's morality and life through dogmatic bigotry. If we look hard enough we can find something to justify any old bile-ridden BS.

Peace and

I think that you have mistaken Gerald the Gorilla for a baboon in fact -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCYGm1vMJO

As for the existence of god...I don't deny the possibility. The real issue is that in pure terms the idea of god's existence and life after death have been muddled up. If a supreme, inconceivable being did create the universe, did he plan the fact that our consciousness persisted after we died? That the very fact we are aware of our existence we have a right to go on?

Someone once said to me - I didn't exist before I was born, why should I exist after I die? Scary

That was good. I have no conscious memory of that sketch, but I absolutely loved that show. I had Gerald Bostock of (make believe) Jethro Tull fame in mind when I used the name for my baboonian example of made up legends.

Have Not the Nine O'Clock News episodes ever been made available on DVD? I'd love to see them again.

I've bought several BBC DVD sets over the past few yaers, but haven't yet seen any NTNON. Speaking of the sets I own, I should recommend some to my fellow non-British Stephen Fry fans. A Bit of Fry and Laurie and Blackadder are the obvious ones, but might I also recommend Alfresco and The Thin Blue Line (although Fry only appears in one episode - he's great in it, and I think it's an excellent, at times emotionally stirring, Ben Elton creation).

Who needs God when we've got high quality, well-written, British comedy?

Hi Nitro!

I offered a couple Dawkins quotes above. Of course, the question of what is or isn't insulting/hateful is open to subjective opinion. By my own judgment, calling someone's beliefs "dangerous nonsense" or suggesting that their brains might "drop out" is unkind. I accept that I may be overly-sensitive. Although I was not the target, I also perceive your "religious garbedly-gunk" line as arrogant, insulting and unkind.

In my early teens, I thrilled in exactly this sort of debate: "How could THAT many animals fit on one boat? That's sooo stupid. What are these people, morons?" As I aged, my arguments became - in my opinion - less insulting and offensive.

I recognize that Dawkins appeals to a younger audience for the same reason Ayn Rand does: They're both very intelligent, incredibly arrogant, and very often insulting/debasing to people who hold views contrary to their own.

Here's a fun bit of trivia. Richard Dawkins is married to the ex-wife of Tom "Dr. Who" Baker. She was one of the actresses who played Romana.

Part One: Unfair Generalizations
I think you unfairly categorize "The religious folks" in the same manner that a racist person might with blacks, or homophobes would when discussing homosexuals. For example: "The blacks have killed innocent bystanders as they commit their property crimes" or "The gays are molesting our children, at school and in the parks".

I see "The religious folks have gone as far as to kill in favor of (sic) their beliefs" as undeniably similar to the above examples.

I think we all recognize the above generalizations regarding blacks and homosexuals as unacceptably ignorant and offensive. Why not "The religious folks" as they "kill in favor of their beliefs"? (yes, I realize "in favor of their beliefs" doesn't actually make sense, but the point remains the same).

Who among us can think of a murderous rampage committed by the Amish, or the Buddhists? Ba'hai? How about the Jains (Gandhi's religion)?

Part Two: The Non-Argument
Hitler was only once quoted as calling for the extermination of the Jewish people. There are many people who consider this a viable argument against the Holocaust ever having occured. I understand their arguments, but consider them (the arguments and indeed the arguers) very, very inadequate.

I'm not saying Dawkins is Hitler. Only that those who deify humans (as nazis did and neo-nazis/holocaust deniers do with Adolf Hitler) are generally comfortable with striking out the statements of their idols with the qualifier "He only said it (X) times! I mean, if he said it (X+1) times, I'd understand your position". If I used Christ or a Christian as the figure, I suspect you'd begin to see things my way: "Jesus only sanctified slavery once!" or "King James was only TWO times recorded as saying that the witches of Europe ought to be burned to death - big deal... It's not like he said it three times a day, every day of his life".

I do agree with your point about the religious folks burning you alive. I think they shouldn't, and I'll tell them the same to their faces if you'd like.

You've misspelled "written" and "dissection".

There's an example of what you claim I'm doing.

In reality, the point I've made about generalizations by offering similar examples which we all recognize as bigoted stand on their own. The same can be said of my explaining that "he only said it "x" number of times, so it doesn't count" (an argument you presented) is silly and unworthy of intelligent debate. I see no straw dogs here (look it up).

I've conceded to your point about the people you fear may burn you alive. They are acting unacceptably, and you are within your rights to report their threats to the police (and yes, you ought to name specific individuals - they won't take you seriously if you cry, "The religious folks aim to burn me!")

Let's call it quits on this one. We're not getting anywhere. I was young once too, and to be honest, I think I'm being unnecessarily hard on you.

Peace,
Derek