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

[BertrandRussell]

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

Granny
Why shouldn't he answer a theological question just because somebody else doesn't agree with it? Why have the programme in the first place if nobody has the courage to say what they think?

You dont have to agree with him but he has the right to his opinion.

And he has most certainly "dissed Allah" in the part- notably after the Charlie Hebdo attackz

Stephen Fry sometimes says things with which I don't agree. I also sometimes say things that others don't like. I'd be horrified to be silenced and I'd hate for the same to happen to him

Userwhatever the show has been running since 2009.

SF doesn't watch TV, he's said so before.

The questions he wanted to ak the hypotheticlgod in question were reasonable questions; regardless of how 'old' or 'unimaginative' they are, they are still unanswered.

Luckily, science keeps asking the same questions until the answers are discovered, and then new questions are asked. That tends to be how things work.

So you think he agreed to do a show not knowing what it entailed?

And David Attenborough is only an agnostic in the same way that Richard Dawkins is

BertrandRussell you are wrong. Richard Dawkins is most definitely not an agnostic. He's an atheist. David Attenborough has described himself as an agnostic. These are facts.

We should be clear on that because I'm sure Dawkins would vehemently object to being described as an agnostic as you said he was. He's not and I respect that view.

Attenborough may have described himself as an atheist and if you can find the links I'll be happy to accept them. But until then, I won't.

We should be clear on facts and respect the way people want to describe themselves. Especially if they are as thoughtful as Dawkins and Attenborough. That said, it's wrong to impose our views on anyone. Don't you agree?

Richard Dawkins describes himself as an agnostic in The God Delusion. Among other places. And here, during a discussion with The AB of C.
"There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.
An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”
Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs"

"So you think he agreed to do a show not knowing what it entailed?"

Of course not. And the questions that he would want to ask God are the questions anyone would want to ask. They express the fundamental issue with an omnipotent, all loving paternal God.

Many people are philosophically agnostic but atheistic in their belief (or lack thereof). There are also people (quite a few Cof E clergy) who are also philosophically agnostic but do believe in a deity. Agnosticism is an issue of provability one way or the other - most people who've given the matter serious thought are agnostic. It doesn't mean unsure of belief or apatheistic, it means they understand logic and proof.

My apologies Bertrand. I accept Attenborough and Dawkins have the same views. So do I. I wish, but in my heart of hearts I know that my loved ones have gone forever and one day so will I.

He knew exactly what it entailed, but he didn't watch the first 7 series and work out his answers in advance.

if you think he's 'dissing' the god of the bible, he is most certainly 'dissing' Allah, too.

Until the woman-hating toff specifically uses the term Allah when he berates God as a 'maniac' you will not convince me that his craven reticence is not deliberate.

SF doesn't watch TV, he's said so before.

No, because he's too busy swanning around the world on taxpayer's money making achingly informative BBC documentaries.


Psolomon, you really aren't doing yourself or your cause any favours at all, you know. Maybe calm down a bit and talk rationally?

Ad Hominem attacks always say so much more about the attacker than the subject of the attack, don't they?

Does anyone remember Dawkins interview when he was asked to name Darwin's Origin of the Species in full. I think he had been having a go at Christians who didn't know the bible, then he called on God for help. It was hilarious.

Sorry, not Stephen Fry but just came into my head.

"Does anyone remember Dawkins interview when he was asked to name Darwin's Origin of the Species in full. I think he had been having a go at Christians who didn't know the bible, then he called on God for help. It was hilarious."

Yes- he has an excellent sense of humour. I don't care for him, but I have to give him that.

It was funny wasn't it, particularly the Oh God bit. I heard another interview where he was much more precious, it was all about what a clever little boy he was because he realised there wasn't a Father Christmas and told everyone so when he was very young, 4 or 5 I think. I thought, "What a chump, my 45 year old hasn't admitted that yet. He just takes the presents and smiles." I have to add my 45 year old doesn't actually hang his socks up for Santa but he would have walked over hot coals before he admitted that at 4 or 5. He was much too savvy for that.

You do know, by ththe way that saying things like "Oh God" are part of our language, and not reserved for Christians? And do not mean that the person is secretly a believer who 's been caught out?