Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumStephen Fry and his atheist flock be damned: I believe in God
Torygraph writer Emma Barnett expresses her extreme displeasure that she can't address Stephen Fry's points about her god. Other than to say, "Well that's not the god I believe in." So that makes Fry and all atheists evil and mean. Does she have an account on DU?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11390228/Stephen-Fry-and-his-atheist-flock-be-damned-I-believe-in-God.html
Nothing like the tried and true method to avoid discussion about gods by simply attacking anyone who asks tough questions about them. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Barnett demonstrates no awareness of irony when she writes:
So what exactly did she just attempt to do with Fry?
libodem
(19,288 posts)Is right
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)which I saw in an office management course. Everything he was instructing us not to do, he did, in the most hilarious fashion imaginable. He really drove home the point he was making.
Perhaps she is just trying to out brit the brits with subtle self-referen . . . what was I thinking? Never mind.
progressoid
(49,996 posts)More exposure for Fry!
onager
(9,356 posts)I have to wonder. Some of her statements seem to be ignoring a big elephant in the room/world:
Theism is an intensely personal thing.
And none of us Evil Atheists (tm) would ever have a problem if you KEPT it personal.
Instead I write in defence of believers and their right not to be treated like they are deranged should they dare speak of their conviction.
Every week billions of them "dare speak of it" at synagogues, churches, mosques and $cientology Celebrity Centres. I haven't seen Stephen Fry and his Awesome Atheist Army trying to stop any of those services. Or even organizing to stand outside those places and laugh at the allegedly deranged.
Like her I wish people were more tolerant tolerant enough to at least debate the issues as opposed to creating awkward environments that shut down discussion and make participants feel ashamed.
Yes, tolerant enough to let me witter on endlessly about my Awesome God. But also tolerant enough to politely shut up when your atheist arguments hurt my delicate fee-fees.
Underlying these patronising reactions is the supposition that believers are opposed to science, or in some way anti-Enlightenment. Again this is utter tosh.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, anyone? Either this "journalist" is incredibly ignorant of events in the rest of the world. Or (my suspicion) she's ignoring anything that doesn't fit her preconceived slant for this article.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)I think that Fry's comments are excellent openings for serious discussions. The problem is that it is awkward to try to suggest that what he said isn't true. But that isn't our fault.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)any more than the rest of us do.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Her piece exists solely to give the believers something to cling to in light of Stephen's biting and deadly accurate criticisms.
"He's just a meanie! And my god is different than that. Somehow. Don't ask me to explain."