BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 17 - 08:41 AM

Ah, your defensiveness gives you away Gnomie boy.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 May 17 - 08:56 AM

The "awful ideas" to which I referred were the twaddle in this very thread, Keith, and you know it. Disingenuous doesn't suit you, you ain't young enough to get away with it!

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 May 17 - 09:08 AM

Does anyone have any idea what poobad is on about? Have you found any examples of me screaming Islamophobe in relation to any such list or can we safely assume that you are, as usual, making things up?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 09:27 AM

The "right kind of behaviour," as defined by the organised religions, is intended to keep and control the flock. I had to do my Easter Duties, otherwise hellfire. I was not to masturbate, use any form of contraception or support abortion, otherwise hellfire. Homosexual? Well I'd better remain celibate, otherwise hellfire. I was not to miss Mass on Sundays or Holy Days of Obligation, otherwise hellfire. Only baptised Catholics went to heaven. Limbo was full of unbaptised innocent babies, because they were stained by "original sin." Don't have impure thoughts, always pray to Our Lady when washing one's genitals and don't even begin to contemplate sex before marriage. Hellfire awaits. The ways available to us for risking hellfire were multifarious and oft forcibly related. The threat of an eternal adverse afterlife was by far the most damaging aspect of my religious upbringing. It is patently absurd to regard belief in an afterlife, as defined by religions, as harmless. Naturally, I expect to be told that enlightenment has mitigated some of these horrors. I've got two things to say about that. First, only SOME of these horrors, and there are are still many unenlightened parts of the world. Second, they simply have to be mitigated in this global village of ours, otherwise the Church becomes a laughing stock. "Dragged kicking and screaming" sums it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 09:28 AM

I am sure "we all agree that Jim. And that."
You asked wat was "evil" about relighios ides
"So, where are these "awful religious ideas?"
You have two of their most common misuses by the religeus
"That is just your assertion with no evidence in support. Hardly a "carefully-constructed argument" !"
No Keith - life after death it totally illogical and beyond any practical evidence
If you have an insight into it, it is your job to prove it - we have logic and personal experience on our side - yours is based on superstition and nothing more
"That is not my experience. "
Religion has been used as a blunt instrument of control for time immemorial
Ask a Cathoic who wished to use contraception or a woman who needs a pregnancy termination for health reasons, or has been a rape victim, or subjected to incestuous sex....
How can you describe any of this as anything but "control"?
And that doesn't begin to touch on the interference of the church in elections or referenda......
As the Jesiuits admitted - "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man " - a defiant boast of what control they hold over children
"Humanists would endorse the same."
No "Humanist" is in a position to invole a supernatural being ot threaten hell fire and damnation if their wishes are not obeyed,
The worst example of "control" is in that wielded over young people in serial cases of rape and physical abuse.
"Atheist regimes like Stalin's and Hitler's were harsher than most."
Historically that is utter nonsense
Torture, persecution and mass murder lasted for centuries when wielded by the church
I can't remember reading about Stalin or Hitler torturing or burning people to death as Henry VIII did
Your God created national disasters like famines - man may have handled them badly but 'im upstairs "he who controls all" brought them about
Christians like Sir Charles Trevelyan claimed that they we divine punishment on the Irish for being - well - Irish
You don't get a larger conceit that the definitive nature of virtually all religions, particularly Christianity.
A typical example is your telling us about life after death and claiming it's our job to disprove it.
And you wonder why religion is mocked in the 21st century....
This is positively medieval
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 09:36 AM

There you go Keith - especially aimed at those of us interested in traditional music
The church at its most humble
Jim Carroll

Irish Hierarchy's Statement on Dancing (1925)

The Irish hierarchy issued the following statement in 1925 at their October meeting in St. Patrick's College, Maynooth:
We have a word of entreaty, advice and instruction, to speak to our flocks on a very grave subject. There is danger of losing the name which the chivalrous honour of Irish boys and the Christian reserve of Irish maidens had won for Ireland. If our people part with the character that gave rise to that name, we lose with it much of our national strength, and still more of the high rank we have held in the Kingdom of Christ.
Purity is strength, and purity and faith go together. Both virtues are in danger these times, but purity is more directly assailed than faith. The danger comes from pictures and papers and drink. It comes more from the keeping of improper company than from any other cause; and there is no worse fomenter of this great evil than the dancing hall.
We know too well the fruit of these halls all over the country. It is nothing new, alas, to find Irish girls now and then brought to shame, and retiring to the refuge of institutions or the dens of great cities. But dancing halls, more especially, in the general uncontrol of recent years, have deplorably aggravated the ruin of virtue due to ordinary human weakness. They have brought many a good, innocent girl into sin, shame and scandal, and set her unwary feet on the road that leads to perdition.
Given a few frivolous young people in a locality and a few careless parents, and the agents of the wicked one will come there to do the rest, once a dance is announced without proper control. They may lower or destroy the moral tone of the whole countryside.
Action has to be taken while the character of the people as a whole is still sound to stop the dangerous laxity that has been creeping into town and country.
Amusement is legitimate, though some of our people are overgiven to play. What, however, we condemn is sin and the dangerous occasions of sin. Wherever these exist, amusement is not legitimate. It does not deserve the name of amusement among Christians. It is the sport of the evil spirit for those who have no true self-respect.
The occasions of sin and sin itself are the attendants of night dances in particular. There may be and are exceptions, but they are comparatively few.
To say nothing of the special danger of drink, imported dances of an evil kind, the surroundings of the dancing hall, withdrawal from the hall for intervals, and the dark ways home have been the destruction of virtue in every part of Ireland.
The dancing of dubious dances on Sunday, more particularly by persons dazed with drink, amounts to woeful desecration of the Lord's Day wherever it takes place.
Against such abuses, duty to God and love of our people compel us to speak out. And what we have to say each for his own diocese, is that we altogether condemn the dangerous occasions, the snares, the unchristian practices to which we have referred.
Very earnestly do we trust that it may not be necessary for us to go further.
Our young people can have plenty of worthy dancing with proper supervision, and return home at a reasonable hour. Only in special circumstances under most careful control, are all-night dances permissible.
It is no small commendation of Irish dances that they cannot be danced for long hours. That, however, is not their chief merit, and while it is no part of our business to condemn any decent dance, Irish dances are not to be put out of the place, that is their due, in any educational establishment under our care. They may not be the fashion in London or Paris. They should be the fashion in Ireland. Irish dances do not make degenerates.
We well know how so many of our people have of late been awaiting such a declaration as we now issue. Until otherwise arranged it is to be read at the principal Mass on the first Sunday of each Quarter of the Ecclesiastical Year. The priests will confer with responsible parishioners as regards the means by which it will be fully carried into effect. 'And may the God of Peace Himself sanctify you in all things, that your whole spirit and soul and body may be blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' (Thess. v. 23).
Given at Maynooth on 6th October, 1925.
Signed on behalf of the archbishops and bishops of Ireland.
Chairman —
+PATRICK O'DONNELL, Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland. Secretaries —
+ROBERT BROWNE, Bishop of Cloyne.
+THOMAS O'DOHERTY, Bishop of Galway.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 May 17 - 11:10 AM

Plenty of worthy dancing... not the Bapt?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 11:50 AM

Mrrzy,
The "awful ideas" to which I referred were the twaddle in this very thread, Keith, and you know it.

Sorry but I really did not recognise any. Please just remind us of a couple.

Steve,
The "right kind of behaviour," as defined by the organised religions, is intended to keep and control the flock.

Just another assertion, but most groups have some kind of rules to preserve the continuity of the group.

It is patently absurd to regard belief in an afterlife, as defined by religions, as harmless.

just another assertion that I do not accept.

Jim,
No Keith - life after death it totally illogical and beyond any practical evidence
If you have an insight into it, it is your job to prove it

Why does only one side need proof?
There is no proof, but quite a lot of evidence, e.g. ghost sightings, spirit messages, out of body experiences, near death experiences, etc.

Not proof. Not even very convincing, but still evidence.

Religion has been used as a blunt instrument of control for time immemorial

So has every religion, but back then religion was ubiquitous. That does not mean that everything bad was the fault of religion. The sword was a sharp "instrument of control," and very effective too.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 12:01 PM

"Why does only one side need proof?"
Because there if not a shred of dependable expendable evidence other than unprovable stories
Don't be silly
Go make your fame and fortune by providing soem
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:06 PM

They are not "just assertions," you insulting bugger. I gave you my reasoned argument as to how religions use the afterlife notion as an instrument of control with examples from my own experience, and I'm hardly unique in having endured them. There's is not the slightest scrap of evidence that there is an afterlife, unless you believe in ghosts and ouija boards. I wouldn't put it past you, as you appear to believe in mythology in every area of argument you enter into. It is up to you to provide evidence for outrageously improbable notions, not for me to disprove them.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:40 PM

If we are discussing religion, forget evidence and proof.
There actually is some evidence for an afterlife, and none against.
No proof though. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:43 PM

There actually is some evidence for an afterlife, and none against.
No proof though. Sorry."
Contradiction in terms
Sorry
Hearsay is not evidence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:08 PM

"Dancing, is, for the most part, attended with many amorous smiles, wanton compliments, unchaste kisses, scurrilous songs and sonnets, effeminate music, lust provoking attire, ridiculous love pranks, all which savor only of sensuality, of raging fleshly lusts. Therefore, it is wholly to be abandoned of all good Christians.

William Prynne" (about 1632)

Some ideas take a long time to modernise.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:09 PM

This is reaching a new low with regard to Keith-gibberish! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:13 PM

There actually is some evidence for an afterlife, and none against.

There is plenty of evidence against that is of the same quality as that which is for. Only last night I had a vision that a multicoloured zen goat in a tree told me that there was no afterlife but after eights did exist in all dimensions.

It was pretty convincing and fuck all to do with a gallon of black sheep.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:18 PM

Haha DMcG, doesn't sit well with the Christian song 'Lord of The Dance'.

'Dance, then, wherever you may be,
For I am the Lord of the Dance', said He.
'And I'll lead you all, wherever you may be,
And I'll lead you all in the dance." said He.

Isn't it interesting that most worldly pleasures have been banned at one time or another by various religions? I admit I'd be done for gluttony and sloth. (Slobbing around on the sofa eating buttered crumpets)

My husband's form of Islam (Sunni) doesn't allow singing or dancing, miserable lot. But apparently, a woman is permitted to 'dance seductively to arouse her husband'!! Mine is still living in hope...

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:30 PM

Hearsay is not evidence

There are lots of first hand testimonies for the things I mentioned, and for previous life memories which I forgot.

Not proof, not convincing, but certainly evidence of a sort.
You have none.

Some sects of some religions briefly banned dancing.
Atheist Nazis banned Jazz and Blues.
Atheist Soviets banned Western popular music.

Dave, dreams do not count as evidence.

Do not ask for evidence or proof of religion because there is none, just as there is none against.
Pointless debate. Not interested.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Senoufou
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:41 PM

Near-death experiences have been extensively studied by scientists, and there are many examples online of their research and findings.

They seem to conclude that such phenomena are due to physical causes such as anoxia, too much carbon dioxide, hallucinations produced by opiates such as diamorphine, and other physical brain disturbances.

It's interesting that most NDEs are similar ('light at end of tunnel', visions, voices, sensation of floating etc) which suggest to me they are phenomena associated with unusual brain activity (or lack of)

I can truly say I 'believe' in an afterlife, but there is no way I can prove it. And I would never try to assert such a belief forcefully to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 May 17 - 03:44 PM

It wasn't a dream. It was a vision.

A few thousand years ago Moses heard a burning bush give him 10 rules

2000 years ago Jesus heard the devil tempting him

1400 years ago Mohammed heard the angel Gabriel give him some secrets

Last night a multicoloured goat told me there was no afterlife

Who the hell are you to say which is more valid?

Now, Steve, is it worth getting out the holy bingo balls again?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 May 17 - 03:51 PM

Like I said before, Keith, read the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 17 - 04:38 PM

If the garden of Eden did exist I think it would be down in West Kerry, the view from the top of the Connor Pass is astonishingly beautiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 May 17 - 05:49 PM

There actually is some evidence for an afterlife

And this "evidence" is.....?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 05:59 PM

I found St Patrick's Cabbage at the top of Connor Pass in 1977. It was raining!

Only if you can find a charity shop that can miraculously replace clickety-click and two fat ladies, Dave. And if we are going to photocopy the bingo cards, we must introduce at least some variation. I can't take it any more if thirty old women are going to shout "house!" simultaneously!

True evidence must be robust enough to submit to independent corroboration. Experimental evidence must be repeatable and peer-reviewed. The bar is very high. As I've said before, there is a list of things that are not evidence. The list includes witness, assertion, traditional belief, hearsay, edict, ceremony, myth, miracles, recourse to ancient texts that can't be independently verified, and the sayings of holy men. Silly claims about near-death experiences, ghosts, poltergeists, appearances by the Virgin and similar are not evidence. Anyone who proposes a phenomenon that goes against everything we know about nature, for example the existence of a supernatural deity or an afterlife, is responsible for providing evidence. Failure to do so invites criticism and ridicule.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 May 17 - 06:42 PM

Failure to provide proper evidence invites ridicule? You mean like Portugal winning the Eurovision?

Oh, sorry, wrong thread...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 08:00 PM

I can prove it, Dave. It came to me in a dream, interrupting as it did my reveries about a couple of somewhat fit fairies at the bottom of the garden.

...Oh, hang on... I was actually watching the show, so it wasn't a dream. And I think the fairies were the nurses on Holby City...

Anyone else noticed that there are at least three times as many beautiful nurses and lady doctors in just the one hospital on Holby City than in all of the rest of the NHS put together? If I ever get sick, that's the place for me! Mind you, I wouldn't be too keen on them squabbling over their sex lives while they were sewing a new kidney into me...

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Thompson
Date: 13 May 17 - 09:58 PM

Richard Dawkins is coming to Ireland and is trailing his coat,
suggesting the controversial prayer that opens the proceedings of the Dáil each day should be replaced by a prayer to Thor or the fairies, in hope that he may be prosecuted to test the law. (The link is to the UK paper The Independent rather than The Irish Times, because the latter has taken to paywalling some articles, and being a subscriber I don't know if a piece I link may be unreadable for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:18 AM

For Dawkins to do that would be unwise: most countries have laws that can prosecute incitement of various kinds. He could easily fimd himself in court facing a totally different law.

For him to act on that way is a totally different situation to Fry's where he did not set out to provoke but just answered a question put to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:58 AM

I found Jim Carroll's quote of the Irish Hierarchy's Statement on Dancing (1925) to be funny and a bit quaint. I suppose that's not a proper way for me to respond, to be merely amused by the thinking of our forbears a hundred years ago. If I had a proper mindset, I suppose I should be appalled and contrite. But I'm not. I just think it's amusing.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:24 AM

"Not proof, not convincing, but certainly evidence of a sort."
You have no evidence whatever.
You can't prove a negative for a start and the fact you can't is not "evidence" in any shape or form
Ghosts and after-life have been around since prehistoric times - they appear in literature as far back as Homer and have materialised as drawings on the walls of caves - they have been part of popular superstition for as long has man has worshiped trees and animals
They are primitive man's efforts to explain the unexplained, and in all that time - millions of years - they have never been substantiated - they remain as they started - a primitive invention.
Despite many centuries of research, they remain as they began, the attempts of the primitive mind to explain what they saw or or thought they saw.
Significantly, they were seized on and became the property of ambitious members of societies who used them to their own advantage - shamen, high priests, oracles - and eventually, High Priests, Pontiffs and Prophets.
All organised religions, I believe, are deliberate developments of superstitions which have been capitalised upon by the ambitious.
Superstitions have become mixed in with other aspects of the human condition - curiosity, fear, grief, anger, frustration, desire - unconscious states, like dreaming, hallucination brought on by illness - even drugs and hypnotism.
As society "progressed (?)" and our access to knowledge and understanding increased, beliefs in the supernatural have decreased and our primitive explanations of the world has dissipated
Once they were the meal-tickets of priests and prophets, nowadays they are a handy earner for producers of ham-fisted 'ghost hunting' television programmes aimed at the gullible
Not a single shred of tangible, touchable evidence over millennia should be enough evidence for any sensible person.      
I've spent the last thirty-odd years recording stories of ghosts and afterlife - a few from people who actually believed them but most who didn't but found them entertaining
Did you know that much of the Irish belief in fairies has its basis in the Bronze Age people and that virtually all of it's lisses, and fairy forts are settlements and burial chambers from that period?
The Jack-o'-the-Lantern and the Will-o'-the Wisp turned out to be phosphorus from marsh-gas - our personal 'Jackie' turned out to be the moon shining on our wind-blown New Zealand Flax
Whan very much younger I was a bit of a fan myself with my liking for Bram Stoker, Mary Shelly, H.P. Lovecraft and M R James - I felt the same about H G Wells's and Issac Assimov's flying Saucers and Conan Doyle's Professor Challenger stories - but like Topsy, "I just growed".
Bring your evidence - till then - I've still got Dracula and War of the Worlds and the Lord of the Rings on the bookshelves
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:38 AM

Hmm...I don't know Joe, despite the antiquity of the language which has been rendered comical by present day standards, the extract printed by "D McG" is simply saying that promiscuity is bad for society and should not be encouraged.
Surely this is the same message that present day health agencies are attempting to get across to a population which is being re-educated into views which seek to redefine sexual mores and values like monogamy and the creation of family.

Dancing of course is a wonderful experience for those of us fortunate enough to posses a sense of rhythm and a love of music, but in 1625 I suppose could be imagined the thin end of the wedge? :0).

Sexual "liberation" has caused many more problems than it has cured, both in health and social issues.    PFA factsheet.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:59 AM

My favourite line in the Bishops' statement on dancing is where it says We well know how so many of our people have of late been awaiting such a declaration as we now issue. Such an exaggerated sense of their own importance; as if the young men and 'maidens' could not decide for themselves about attending a dance.

Yes, it is over 90 years ago. But the arrogance and self importance continues; it is a veey human trait. To me, Richard Dawkins riding in to rescue the poor deluded Irish smacks of the same conceit.

William Pryne's book which I quoted, ake, covers a great deal more than that. It was primarily about attending plays but he soon got into the swing of it and ranted aboutalmost everyrhing he could think about.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 04:06 AM

"a hundred years ago. I"
The clergy's attitude to dancing and music lasted up to the point when, in co-operation with the government, it helped introduce the 'Dance Halls Act' which destroyed music making in the homes - the crossroads dances had virtually disappeared with the assistance of the parish priest's stick, when he beat the participants and smashed their instruments and outlawed their music.
The churches role in the destruction of Irish music is well established Joe.
I one attended a talk given by one of our finest local fiddle players, Junior Crehan - then into his his 80s
He was one of the most devout Christians I have ever met, yet as he spoke with fondness and pleasure of the kitchen dances and the home music, he ended by looking pointedly at a row of priests and nuns in the audience and said "And my curse on those who destroyed them".
Don't think I've ever seen such an uncomfortable group of people!
Not funny and quaint Joe - tragic and mindlessly destructive
Scotland suffered equally at the hands of the church and the Chapel helped destroy Welsh music.
Traditional music in England never has the same national significance, but I believe that the church played a significant part in damaging 'The Devil's Music' in your neck of the woods
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 17 - 04:14 AM

Gaelic culture was not destroyed by the Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 04:32 AM

"Yes, it is over 90 years ago. But the arrogance and self importance continues; it is a veey human trait. To me, Richard Dawkins riding in to rescue the poor deluded Irish smacks of the same conceit."

Well when the Pope visited Ireland I don't recall indignant non-adherents of his suggesting that he'd "ridden in" to save the poor wretched Irish people. I suppose that if you're one of those people who doesn't agree with Richard Dawkins you're going to see him as riding in to the "rescue of the deluded" wherever he goes. Your remark smacks of a preemptive strike at him. Not that I'm equating Richard Dawkins and the Pope. Richard would be most offended by that

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 May 17 - 04:35 AM

my wife died on the operating table twice, and they revived her. she said it was just like being asleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 14 May 17 - 04:43 AM

As I hope I have made clear, I think the blasphemy law should be scrapped. It is nothing to do with whether I agree with Dawkins or not, but when it is right for a celebrity from another country to take on a role. Again as I made clear when Steven Fry accidentally fell foul of this bad law I fully support him defending himself if he wished. But for Dawkins to take it on himself to provoke the law is arrogant. Are there no people on Eire capable of challenging the law? Of course there are.

And the idea that i am making a pre-emptive strike against Dawkins is silly. I am merely challenging whether he is the best person to do it. For my money, it shpuld be a resident of Eire.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 04:45 AM

Interesting. I don't think I ever actually know that I'm asleep when I'm asleep. If you know what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Stu
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:05 AM

"There actually is some evidence for an afterlife, and none against."

Can you supply references from peer-reviewed publications? I'd like to have a look at this evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:08 AM

As an aside, I tend to link issues together, so separating threads is not always easy. So I am afraid I have to bring Brexit into this. There is talk at the moment of perhaps "solving" the hard border issue by a reunification of Ireland. There will be a lot of talk about trade and services and such like if that is being promoted. I expect to see very little talk of the fact that NI would be under the laws of Eire which means things like the abortion laws and this blasphemy law. So even if NI voted for reunification these issues could prove a major problem for the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:27 AM

"Gaelic culture was not destroyed by the Church."
No it wasn't - it was driven underground
In Scotland it flourished out of reach of the church - In Ireland it was reducced from a flourishing tradition to a faint shadow - the church and state having colluded to drive the people into newly constructed 'Ballrooms of Romance' built for profit - the church's excuse was the protection of the morals of young people.
In Wales, it was as I said
Be happy to se if you had anything more than denials to offer
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:39 AM

Well, DMcG, why did you refer to him as "riding in?" That elicits notions of his entering the country in sparkling armour on his noble steed in order to drive out delusion with missionary zeal. All he's doing is going to Ireland, presumably at someone's invitation. Whether he's the right man, etc., is moot. Last I heard, Ireland has free speech. The Irish people are perfectly capable of weighing up what he has to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:55 AM

Why did you refer to him as "riding in?" That elicits notions of his entering the country in sparkling armour on his noble steed in order to drive out delusion with missionary zeal.

Good, that is the image I wanted for him to come in the defend the people of Eire against the blasphemy law. As if they are incapable of doing it by themselves. By all means, be an expert witness called for a case brought by a citizen.

All he's doing is going to Ireland, presumably at someone's invitation. Whether he's the right man, etc., is moot. Last I heard, Ireland has free speech

Well, no, Ireland has free speech subject to the blasphemy law, which is what the thread is about. If all he is doing is going to speak in Ireland and say the same sort of things he normally does, (including the comparisons with Thor,   which is a substandard debating trick and he is capable of better than that) all well and good. But if he goes with the express intention of breaking the law - albeit a bad law - that is a different thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:04 AM

Evidence can be disputed, but it is still evidence.
Just don't ask for proof, because God and the afterlife are not amenable to proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:22 AM

What are we going to do about the blasphemers on here, Steve? I mean, Keith has ridiculed our religion saying my vision was just a dream and does not count as evidence. I reckon being tied to the bingo machine while we tell a few dozen old ladies it was all a fix will be punishment enough. We can save the wrath of Lilo Lil for more serious sins such as nicking someone elses beer. As co-messiah you have last say on what is to be done to those who rail against Liverpool.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:35 AM

I meant that he's perfectly free to go there to speak. They don't put restrictions on foreigners apropos of speech that don't apply to Irish citizens. If the Irish think he's not welcome, they'll let him know. Your is-he-the-right-man argument is specious. Let the risk be his. The Irish don't need protecting from Dawkins.

God and the afterlife have been deliberately put beyond scientific investigation by religions, Keith. They disobey all laws of nature as we know them, and there is very little likelihood that we'll discover new ones that encompass them. They are inventions, Keith, in other words. You've been duped. As for proof, etc., well I can make the most outrageous assertion imaginable and tell you that you can't "prove" I'm wrong. The moons of the planets of Alpha Centauri are made of green cheese and dragons live on them. That is a certainty. Nothing you can come up with will persuade me otherwise. Prove me wrong. God and the afterlife are in precisely the same brackets as that.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:39 AM

I try not to mention L*verp**l on match day, Dave, as I'm very superstitious. Kick-off's at 2.15 and it's crucial. Maybe I should pray they'll win. But that means I'm praying for West Ham to lose and their manager's job's on the line as it is, and he's a good socialist. Can nothing be simple?

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: DMcG
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:46 AM

As I say quite often, I try to stick to stating once, explaining once, and then letting other readers think what they will. I remind those interested that the point was not whether Dawkins was the right man or not but whether he is showing the same sort of arrogance that the Bishops' did in the reports quoted. Now it's up to others to decide: I won't argue it further.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Stu
Date: 14 May 17 - 07:11 AM

"Evidence can be disputed, but it is still evidence."

Meaningless waffle. Whatever evidence you are referring to, let's see it. If you don't provide this evidence, then we call safely assume it doesn't exist, as we cannot see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 07:27 AM

"Just don't ask for proof, because God and the afterlife are not amenable to proof."
And there you have the longest running cop-out ever
"safely assume it doesn't exist, as we cannot see it.
Sort of like his ghosts and bogey-men
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
From: Stu
Date: 14 May 17 - 08:32 AM

300!