Stephen Fry Speaks out Aggains the Catholic Church

These videos state so much more eliquently than I ever could my possition on religion. The brilliant Mr Fry argues so intelligently, and is so very well informed.



And

Stephen Fry is a true genius of the english language and whilst I fear his veiws may upset some people he does raise valid points.

S+F

reply to post by Shamatt


As much as I hate all religions, Islam is the worst by far. Far worse than Catholicism could or has ever been. The Spanish Inquisition was a walk the park compared to what the Jihadists have install for us! Just playing the game & following the lead from some people in other threads! lol lol lol!

The Catholic church is not Christianity. It thinks it is, but it isn't. It is a polluted and self-serving use of the bible. I grew up in a Roman Catholic church, and didn't find God until I attended a Baptist church when I was 19. God met me there. I could feel his presence in a way that is unable to be explained, and I still enjoy that presence today. They don't teach that in the Catholic church because they don't know God. They serve the pope and mary, respectively. Garbage.

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Shamatt

 

As much as I hate all religions, Islam is the worst by far. Far worse than Catholicism could or has ever been. The Spanish Inquisition was a walk the park compared to what the Jihadists have install for us! Just playing the game & following the lead from some people in other threads! lol lol lol!

i can't tell if you are being serious, or joking. I will assume you are making a joke, as I am sure there is no one on this site unintelligent enough to actually believe what you said.

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Shamatt

 

As much as I hate all religions, Islam is the worst by far. Far worse than Catholicism could or has ever been. The Spanish Inquisition was a walk the park compared to what the Jihadists have install for us! Just playing the game & following the lead from some people in other threads! lol lol lol!

i can't tell if you are being serious, or joking. I will assume you are making a joke, as I am sure there is no one on this site unintelligent enough to actually believe what you said.

Like it or not, islam is worse than catholicism. The catholics only rape their children, they do not give them suicide vests.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Shamatt

 

As much as I hate all religions, Islam is the worst by far. Far worse than Catholicism could or has ever been. The Spanish Inquisition was a walk the park compared to what the Jihadists have install for us! Just playing the game & following the lead from some people in other threads! lol lol lol!

i can't tell if you are being serious, or joking. I will assume you are making a joke, as I am sure there is no one on this site unintelligent enough to actually believe what you said.

Like it or not, islam is worse than catholicism. The catholics only rape their children, they do not give them suicide vests.

Ummm, would you rather be shot by a pistol or a rifle? Either way you are dead - so one is not any worse than the other. I'm not saying religion will kill you, just making a simile.

And it would probably be a good idea to do some research about suicide bombers and the history of that action before you talk about it.

Originally posted by Shamatt
I'm not saying religion will kill you, just making a simile.

If said religion be the death cult known as "islam" it can kill you. That is the whole problem.

I love listening to Fry, he's very passionate and well versed.. Certainly a treasure of our time.

True or false?

When Stephen Fry gets an erection, he calls it a fry up.

Stephen Fry has said what needs to be said.
religons are about controling people and power.

reply to post by Shamatt



Wonderful video.

It's so refreshing to see someone argue against the Catholic Church without absolutely frothing at the mouth. It gives me hope for humanity.

Well, no surprises there then! (I can't see videos, but I know the kind of thing he'll say.) He's a charter member of the Dawkins site, and has expressed his anger, spite and bitterness in many places.
It's gets pretty old, y'know?
He has three important reasons for being an AIA (Angry Internet Atheist) none of which have anything to do with the merits (if any) of atheism.
I won't say what they are, but anyone who knows much about his life will know what they are!

What I have noticed about AIAs, is that often, very often, it all comes down to their pants. (Sex.)

Originally posted by Vicky32
Well, no surprises there then! (I can't see videos, but I know the kind of thing he'll say.) He's a charter member of the Dawkins site, and has expressed his anger, spite and bitterness in many places.
It's gets pretty old, y'know?
He has three important reasons for being an AIA (Angry Internet Atheist) none of which have anything to do with the merits (if any) of atheism.
I won't say what they are, but anyone who knows much about his life will know what they are!

What I have noticed about AIAs, is that often, very often, it all comes down to their pants. (Sex.)

So - without watching the video you accuse him of anger, spite and bitterness. If you had seen them, you would know that he spoke quietly, with a calm respect.

I don't know where you get AIA from, but this is not an internet issue - it was a live debate in London, which just happens to have been put om the internet for us all to share.

I think you should take the time to view these videos. To have such a strong opinion of what you think he may have said just shows you up. You have no idea what he said, and therefore your opinion is worthless.

It boggles my mind that you would be so presumptuous to be honest.

Originally posted by Shamatt



I don't know where you get AIA from, but this is not an internet issue - it was a live debate in London, which just happens to have been put om the internet for us all to share.

I think you should take the time to view these videos. To have such a strong opinion of what you think he may have said just shows you up. You have no idea what he said, and therefore your opinion is worthless.

It boggles my mind that you would be so presumptuous to be honest.

Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just skim? I said I can't see videos, not won't.... I have read a great deal of what Stephen Fry has written elsewhere, including the Dawkins site, so I know the kind of things he's said, and I have no reason to believe that what he says in the videos will be any different!
Anger, spite and hatred can be expressed in a faux reasonable and polite manner you know! AIAs (so called to distinguish them from everyday atheists who don't feel a pathetic need to make their vews known at every opportunity) often seem very reasonable, and the shouty ones are thankfully in a minority.
Before atheism became so very fashionable, as Alister McGrath has said, they were the usually the kind of cranky old man who'd sit in the public library, writing letters to the editor in green ink, and defacing library books with their rants.
Now they can make videos, internet posts and host 'debates'...

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Shamatt



I don't know where you get AIA from, but this is not an internet issue - it was a live debate in London, which just happens to have been put om the internet for us all to share.

I think you should take the time to view these videos. To have such a strong opinion of what you think he may have said just shows you up. You have no idea what he said, and therefore your opinion is worthless.

It boggles my mind that you would be so presumptuous to be honest.

Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just skim? I said I can't see videos, not won't.... I have read a great deal of what Stephen Fry has written elsewhere, including the Dawkins site, so I know the kind of things he's said, and I have no reason to believe that what he says in the videos will be any different!
Anger, spite and hatred can be expressed in a faux reasonable and polite manner you know! AIAs (so called to distinguish them from everyday atheists who don't feel a pathetic need to make their vews known at every opportunity) often seem very reasonable, and the shouty ones are thankfully in a minority.
Before atheism became so very fashionable, as Alister McGrath has said, they were the usually the kind of cranky old man who'd sit in the public library, writing letters to the editor in green ink, and defacing library books with their rants.
Now they can make videos, internet posts and host 'debates'...

Perhaps you allso skimmed what I wrote. But I will elaborate: This was part of the Intelligence2 (as Intelligence squared) debate in London, where some people (Like Anne Widicomb) argued for the motion that the Cotholic church was a force for good in the world, and Stephen Fry argues against the motion. It was subsequently posted on the internet. It would therefore be very wrong to label him an AIA.

Regardless of what you may have read alswhere, unless you have listened to the content of these videos you have no right to comment on them. I have therefore gone to the trouble of finding a transcript od said videos, and will sopy it in here for you to read and then comment on. Perhaps you will be able to see that there is no malice or anger in his words, and that there is logic and sence in what he sais, however hard it is to hear.

The entire debate can be read here: www.amindatplay.eu...

(Having re-read through this - it is not a full transcript there is some text missing for some reason I cannot explain. However there is enough for you to get a very good idea of his argument)

Stephen Fry

I genuinely believe that the Catholic Church is not, to put it at its mildest, a force for good in the world, and therefore it is important for me to try and martial my facts as well I can to explain why I think that. But I want first of all to say that I have no quarrel and no argument and I wish to express no contempt for individual devout and pious members of that church. It would be impertinent and wrong of me to express any antagonism towards any individual who wishes to find salvation in whatever form they wish to express it. That to me is sacrosanct as much as any article of faith is sacrosanct to anyone of any church or any faith in the world. It’s very important. It’s also very important to me, as it happens, that I have my own beliefs. They are a belief in the Enlightenment, a belief in the eternal adventure of trying to discover moral truth in the world, and there is nothing, sadly, that the Catholic Church and its hierarchs likes to do more than to attack the Enlightenment. It did so at the time: reference was made to Galileo and the fact that he was tortured, for trying to explain the Copernican theory of the Universe. Just imagine in this square mile how many people were burned for reading the Bible in English. And one of the principle burners and torturers of those who tried to read the Bible in English, here in London, was Thomas More. Now, that’s a long time ago, it’s not relevant, except that it was only last century that Thomas More was made a saint, and it was only in the year 2000, that the last pope, the Pole, he made Thomas More the Patron Saint of Politicians. This is a man who put people on the wrack for daring to own a Bible in English: he tortured them for owning a Bible in their own language. The idea that the Catholic Church exists to disseminate the word of the Lord is nonsense. It is the only owner of the Truth for the billions that it likes to boast about, because those billions are uneducated and poor, as again it likes to boast about. It’s perhaps unfair of me, as a gay man, to moan at this enormous institution, which is the largest and most powerful church on Earth, has over a billion, as they like to tell us, members, each one of whom is under strict instructions to believe the dogmas of the church, but may wrestle with them personally of course. It’s hard for me to be told that I’m evil, because I think of myself as someone who is filled with love, whose only purpose in life was to achieve love, and who feels love for so much of nature and the world and for everything else. We certainly don’t need the stigmatisation, the victimisation, that leads to the playground bullying when people say you’re a disordered, morally evil individual. That’s not nice, it isn’t nice. The kind of cruelty in Catholic education, the kind of child—let’s not call it child abuse, it was child rape—the kind of child rape that went on systematically for so long, let’s imagine that we can overlook this and say that it is nothing whatever to do with the structure and nature of the Catholic Church, and the twisted and neurotic and hysterical way that its leaders are chosen, the celibacy, the nuns, the monks, the priesthood, this is not natural and normal, ladies and gentlemen, in 2009, it really isn’t.

I have yet to approach one of the subjects dearest to my heart, I’ve made three documentary films on the subject of AIDS in Africa. My particular love is the country of Uganda, it is one of the countries I love most in the world. There was a period when Uganda had the worst incidence of HIV/AIDS in the world, but through an amazing initiative called ABC—Abstinence, Be faithful, Correct use of condoms—those three, I’m not denying that abstinence is a very good way of not getting AIDS, it really is, it works, so does being faithful, but so do condoms, and do not deny it! And this Pope, this Pope, not satisfied with saying “condoms are against our religion, please consider first abstinence, second being faithful to your partner,” he spreads the lie that condoms actually increase the incidence of AIDS, he actually makes sure that aid is conditional on saying no to condoms. I have been to the hospital in Bwindi in the west of Uganda, where I do quite a lot of work, it is unbelievable the pain and suffering you see. Now yes, yes it is true abstinence will stop it. It’s the strange thing about this church, it is obsessed with sex, absolutely obsessed. Now, they will say we with our permissive society and our rude jokes, we are obsessed. No, we have a healthy attitude, we like it, it’s fun, it’s jolly, because it’s a primary impulse it can be dangerous and dark and difficult, it’s a bit like food in that respect only even more exciting. The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese, and that in erotic terms is the Catholic Church in a nutshell.

Do you know who would be the last person ever to be accepted as a prince of the Church? The Galileean carpenter. That Jew. They would kick him out before he tried to cross the threshold. He would be so ill-at-ease in the Church. What would he think, what would he think of St. Peter’s? What would he think of the wealth, and the power, and the self-justification, and the wheedling apologies? The Pope could decide that all this power, all this wealth, this hierarchy of princes and bishops and archbishops and priests and monks and nuns could be sent out in the world with money and art treasures, to put them back in the countries that they once raped and violated, they could give that money away, and they could concentrate on the apparent essence of their belief, and then, I would stand here and say the Catholic Church may well be a force for good in the world, but until that day, it is not. Thank you.

Originally posted by Shamatt


Regardless of what you may have read alswhere, unless you have listened to the content of these videos you have no right to comment on them. I have therefore gone to the trouble of finding a transcript od said videos, and will sopy it in here for you to read and then comment on. Perhaps you will be able to see that there is no malice or anger in his words, and that there is logic and sence in what he sais, however hard it is to hear.

The entire debate can be read here: www.amindatplay.eu...

(Having re-read through this - it is not a full transcript there is some text missing for some reason I cannot explain. However there is enough for you to get a very good idea of his argument)

Stephen Fry

I genuinely believe that the Catholic Church is not, to put it at its mildest, a force for good in the world, and therefore it is important for me to try and martial my facts as well I can to explain why I think that. But I want first of all to say that I have no quarrel and no argument and I wish to express no contempt for individual devout and pious members of that church. It would be impertinent and wrong of me to express any antagonism towards any individual who wishes to find salvation in whatever form they wish to express it. That to me is sacrosanct as much as any article of faith is sacrosanct to anyone of any church or any faith in the world. It’s very important. It’s also very important to me, as it happens, that I have my own beliefs. They are a belief in the Enlightenment, a belief in the eternal adventure of trying to discover moral truth in the world, and there is nothing, sadly, that the Catholic Church and its hierarchs likes to do more than to attack the Enlightenment. It did so at the time: reference was made to Galileo and the fact that he was tortured, for trying to explain the Copernican theory of the Universe. Just imagine in this square mile how many people were burned for reading the Bible in English. And one of the principle burners and torturers of those who tried to read the Bible in English, here in London, was Thomas More. Now, that’s a long time ago, it’s not relevant, except that it was only last century that Thomas More was made a saint, and it was only in the year 2000, that the last pope, the Pole, he made Thomas More the Patron Saint of Politicians. This is a man who put people on the wrack for daring to own a Bible in English: he tortured them for owning a Bible in their own language. The idea that the Catholic Church exists to disseminate the word of the Lord is nonsense. It is the only owner of the Truth for the billions that it likes to boast about, because those billions are uneducated and poor, as again it likes to boast about. It’s perhaps unfair of me, as a gay man, to moan at this enormous institution, which is the largest and most powerful church on Earth, has over a billion, as they like to tell us, members, each one of whom is under strict instructions to believe the dogmas of the church, but may wrestle with them personally of course. It’s hard for me to be told that I’m evil, because I think of myself as someone who is filled with love, whose only purpose in life was to achieve love, and who feels love for so much of nature and the world and for everything else. We certainly don’t need the stigmatisation, the victimisation, that leads to the playground bullying when people say you’re a disordered, morally evil individual. That’s not nice, it isn’t nice. The kind of cruelty in Catholic education, the kind of child—let’s not call it child abuse, it was child rape—the kind of child rape that went on systematically for so long, let’s imagine that we can overlook this and say that it is nothing whatever to do with the structure and nature of the Catholic Church, and the twisted and neurotic and hysterical way that its leaders are chosen, the celibacy, the nuns, the monks, the priesthood, this is not natural and normal, ladies and gentlemen, in 2009, it really isn’t.

I have yet to approach one of the subjects dearest to my heart, I’ve made three documentary films on the subject of AIDS in Africa. My particular love is the country of Uganda, it is one of the countries I love most in the world. There was a period when Uganda had the worst incidence of HIV/AIDS in the world, but through an amazing initiative called ABC—Abstinence, Be faithful, Correct use of condoms—those three, I’m not denying that abstinence is a very good way of not getting AIDS, it really is, it works, so does being faithful, but so do condoms, and do not deny it! And this Pope, this Pope, not satisfied with saying “condoms are against our religion, please consider first abstinence, second being faithful to your partner,” he spreads the lie that condoms actually increase the incidence of AIDS, he actually makes sure that aid is conditional on saying no to condoms. I have been to the hospital in Bwindi in the west of Uganda, where I do quite a lot of work, it is unbelievable the pain and suffering you see. Now yes, yes it is true abstinence will stop it. It’s the strange thing about this church, it is obsessed with sex, absolutely obsessed. Now, they will say we with our permissive society and our rude jokes, we are obsessed. No, we have a healthy attitude, we like it, it’s fun, it’s jolly, because it’s a primary impulse it can be dangerous and dark and difficult, it’s a bit like food in that respect only even more exciting. The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese, and that in erotic terms is the Catholic Church in a nutshell.

Do you know who would be the last person ever to be accepted as a prince of the Church? The Galileean carpenter. That Jew. They would kick him out before he tried to cross the threshold. He would be so ill-at-ease in the Church. What would he think, what would he think of St. Peter’s? What would he think of the wealth, and the power, and the self-justification, and the wheedling apologies? The Pope could decide that all this power, all this wealth, this hierarchy of princes and bishops and archbishops and priests and monks and nuns could be sent out in the world with money and art treasures, to put them back in the countries that they once raped and violated, they could give that money away, and they could concentrate on the apparent essence of their belief, and then, I would stand here and say the Catholic Church may well be a force for good in the world, but until that day, it is not. Thank you.

edit on 27-2-2011 by Shamatt because: (no reason given)

Did you do the transcription? Because it has sme glaring language errors that a dyslexic might make, but that Stephen Fry never would..
Even so, I am reading it.
V.

reply to post by Vicky32


Stephen Fry says he believes in enlightenment, so he is not in my opinion an atheist. In fact he is saying that we should not be told what god is but to find out for ourselves. He is not against Jesus and his message.

reply to post by Vicky32


Look, it'a an ignorant character attack!

I'm sorry, but calling anyone who happens to be a vocal atheist on the internet 'angry' is absurd. Stephen Fry, of all people, should be referred to as level-headed.

Oh, and please, continue denigrating atheists. The more we get pushed down, the more people publicly mock us, the more we're going to start making ourselves heard in numbers.

reply to post by Vicky32

Originally posted by Vicky32
Anger, spite and hatred can be expressed in a faux reasonable and polite manner you know!

Please, demonstrate 'anger, spite and hatred' in anything Stephen Fry has written.

And now, for bigotry!

AIAs (so called to distinguish them from everyday atheists who don't feel a pathetic need to make their vews known at every opportunity)

Pathetic whatnow? I'm sorry, but occasionally writing articles about atheism on a website which promotes positive atheism isn't pathetic. Stephen Fry has books and television shows, he isn't constantly making his atheism know through them. Have you never watched QI?

Thanks for the further bigotry!

often seem very reasonable, and the shouty ones are thankfully in a minority.

Seem? We tend to be more reasonable than the average theist. Why? Well, we reasonably changed our views.

Before atheism became so very fashionable,

Yes, so very fashionable to be in a group where most people don't publicly admit their membership.

If I'm not mistaken, you're in a country that is ~45% declared Christian and ~35% declared nonreligious...with I'm guessing the remaining 20% being other religious groups. Yet you claim that everyone is atheist over there. Huh, it's so popular yet it goes undeclared.

as Alister McGrath has said, they were the usually the kind of cranky old man who'd sit in the public library, writing letters to the editor in green ink, and defacing library books with their rants.

Alister McGrath? You mean the guy who says that the largest growing segment of the population with regards religious belief is in the decline? The theologian whose argument against Dawkins is that he is ignorant of theology? The guy who actually doesn't have a single good arrow in his quiver?

Alister McGrath is part of that ignorant segment of the vocal Christian theologians who has attempted to distance what is currently emerging now from atheism of the past. He has thrown on the label 'New Atheism' whenever he could and has never justified it. It seems that his problem with modern atheism is that it is popular rather than academic.

Now they can make videos, internet posts and host 'debates'...

You do realize that the debates are almost always hosted by theists, right? Watch debates where Hitchens is the atheist speaker, 99 out of 100 times it's hosted by a religious group trying to show how atheism is wrong.