To be disappointed that Stephen Fry isn't....

[BertrandRussell]

....going to be tried for blasphemy? I was so looking forward to it!

Well, at least this nonsense (and I don't mean on SF's part) has resulted in New Zealand politicians realising it still has blasphemy laws on its books and pledging to repeal http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/stephen-fry-blasphemy-new-zealand-change-law-bill-english-british-humanist-association-a7726321.html.

I'm guessing that his words were perfectly timed and intended to be provocative so as to challenge/highlight the Act which is already teetering on the edge of repeal?

You'd guess completely wrongly. Why are people commenting when they don't even know what its all about?

Engaging with religious people does not involve entertaining the notion that there is a God. Because there isn't. Rather, it's to do with trying to understand why people choose to believe in a God

Another person who clearly didnt actually watch the programme or understand what he actually said.

You're just being offensive now. Running away sobbing? : the man had a serious mental breakdown and attempted suicide, so thats bad taste at best.

You should try watching it before forming an opinion, its pretty dickish not to.

How ironic, when in fact it's most christians who skim read the bible even though it's bollocks content is off the scale.

I think the interviewer knew what he was going to get for an answer. Stephen has always been consistent in what he thinks of any God if they were to exist in any interviews he has had.

He is entitled to say what he feels. Maybe it hit a nerve with some people who couldn't argue against his opinion on a 'benevolent' God who allows such horrors world wide to be inflicted on 'his children'.

Believe what you want according to your personal religion but you cannot sensor another person's views on it.

I've watched it. I remember watching it when he first did and thinking...so pointless.

You can shout logic fail at me all you like. If you don't believe in god it's bizarre to entertain the idea you might meet him. You won't. What religious people find most shocking IME is not what is effectively banter about not understanding god (that's kind a of a big thing in most religions, that whole 'we don't understand Him but have to trust in Him' thing) but just a clear unequivocal - there's no point hypothesising about god because there isn't one. End of.

You clearly don't understand a hypothetical discussion.
Massive logic fail. Maybe watch it again and you might understand?

I never understand the "if you don't believe in God why would you want to talk about him?" argument.

I never understand the "if you don't believe in God why would you want to talk about him?" argument.

Me neither.

I think the blasphemy laws need to go, but I don't particularly enjoy laws being mocked. They are the foundation of our (and all) civilised society.

Christians (I'm one) shouldn't be bothered by blasphemy. I don't do it as I am a Christian, but God is big and amazing enough to cope with Stephen Fry et al saying their peice.

Stephen Fry would happily worship a god who jolly well knew fewer words than him and who was a bit more..well.. left

These binary, strict types just won't do at all.

Why on earth is it bizarre to enertain the idea you might meet God and what you might say or do, if you don't believe in him? It only needs simple imagination, and you can have that no matter what you believe.

What on earth are you thinking?

I do think engaging in questions like that never ends well. If you don't believe in God you don't believe, so to start hypothesising that if he exists he's evil is bizarre. That argument also doesn't work because of all the good and happiness in the world.

No, it's not in the least bizarre. To start with, he was asked a question based on that hypothesis, and given that he'd agreed to come on the programme and answer questions it would have been weird to refuse to answer. Secondly, it was an entirely logical answer: in effect, if there were a god, it is incredibly difficult to understand how an omnipotent and beneficent being would allow all the evil things he is responsible for, and those who worship him would need to be able to explain why they would worship a being that is happy with the notion of children having bone cancer. Therefore it is more logical to assume that there isn't a god, because you can't get round that inherent contradiction.

I wonder if Dave Allen would've been dragged into court if he was still alive?

The story of Job etc is a well known one. The contradictions inherent in believing in God but bone cancer have been explored for hundreds of years. Stephen Fry isn't going to overturn all that theology / philosophy no matter how jolly clever he is.

Anyone with serious faith just shakes their head at stuff like that and says things like ah, he is not wise. It's just... all a bit predictable and pathetic. The unbeliever being selfish saying oh if god was real I/people would be happier and the believers having true happiness/glory etc etc. Boak.

If you don't believe in god it's bizarre to entertain the idea you might meet him. You won't.

Never played that game of "what six living or dead people would you have to a dinner party" I take it.

Thought experiments can give up and go home too ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment )

"The story of Job etc is a well known one. The contradictions inherent in believing in God but bone cancer have been explored for hundreds of years. Stephen Fry isn't going to overturn all that theology / philosophy no matter how jolly clever he is."

There are only contradictions if you are trying to find a way to square the circle of an all loving benevolent God and bone cancer. It's quite simple for the rest of us.

Dave Allen was a much smarter atheist than Stephen Fry, who is overrated and bombastic.

This was never going anywhere - one disgruntled viewer complains, Gardai investigate and decide nothing's going on. But it probably needs to fall off the statute book in case other religions become prominent in Ireland and decide to take it seriously. I'm guessing that's why the UK dropped it, fairly recently.

2008, I had to look it up

Dave Allen kept his religious belief ambiguous. Because he wanted the widest audience possible.

Fry is an arse in many areas of his life. But he is not "bombastic" about his atheism. He speaks clearly and unequivocally on the subject.

Dave Allen, truly great.

"I'm an atheist ... thank God."

I got the feeling that Dave Allen, like many of us brought up that way, hated organised religion and what it had become which was so far from the ideals.

As for wanting the largest audience, I'm not sure that was his motive. As far as I can tell he took the piss out of both Catholics and Prodestants. He received death threats and was banned from TV at one point.

Dave Allen was such a clever man and ahead of his time. I watched a compilation dvd of his the other week from the 70's/80's - much of his work is timeless.

"That argument also doesn't work because of all the good and happiness in the world."

That's so hilariously wrong-headed I wouldn't even know where to start....