How old is this documentary? I have taught R.E. in a faith school for 14 years. This is very inaccurate. In fact any teacher/school that taught like this would fail. The R.E. curriculum must encourage all students of all faiths or no faith to think and question belief.
I'm glad this documentary decided not to take the inflammatory route of trying to discredit religion which never gets anybody anywhere, but instead decided to focus on what religion can and can't do in a liberal democracy. This is a much more useful debate.
If you are secular and at to the point where it would offend to be exposed to anyone's religion why send your child to a religious school especially if you know you do not want your child exposed to religion..presumably not only do the school have R.E. lessons included but the other parents and the kids attending are going to be of that religion. Best test scores? Nearest?
Maybe I missed something crucial in this man's story, which by the way I sympathize with..
@snapcrackleandpop99 I concur with Dario. I myself was taught in a non-denominational school and was taught religious stories as factual information in assemblies at an early age.
Realigion is good when it tells you to love, give, and be kind to others,it is bad when it teaches you to hate, persecute, and repress others.
I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to understand. Anything is bad when taken to an extreme, but that doesn't mean that it's bad in general.
p.s.
And, for the record, I believe an act is only sinful if in doing it you are knowingly causing harm to someone else or knowingly denying aid to someone who needs it.
Yes, it's good when it encourages good values, and bad when it protects lesser values. However, there is also the question of whether the very nature of religion, a belief-based following of divine powers, is the best way to encourage a better society. You don't need to believe in God/Gods to understand the benefits of treating others with respect, so why is spreading your beliefs to others necessary? At the core, problems with religion arise as spreading your belief is seen as Gods work.
I agree with the fahter at the begining of this clip that we are forced to chose a belief system by peer pressure as there is not option for not believing. I always stood by my beliefs whether at anytime I was a Christian faith follower or an Athiest and copped flacked no matter what.
Super rusty boy, with that said, it still doesnt make any sense. Thats the ramblings of a schizophrenic, not a profit. To all else, I dont know If I do believe in a god. But I certainly wont take any advice from any books. Ill learn any movements' beliefs, whether from the Bible of Karan or whatever but It wont dictate to me becasue It doenst add up and to be honest alot of the values of any religious movement are pretty slapdash.
I want to see the version of Jerry Springer the Opera as described in the pamphlets of of the fundies with 10,000 swear words and "Jesus in a nappy". It would be even better!
All I was saying was the man in the Vid needs to reread his Bible before telling everyone else what to do. There is no mention of the holy trinity in the Bible. Yes different denominations either agree or disagree on the concept. But if Christianity can't agree on incidental details and dogma who are they to say what the rest of the world should do?
Anyway, I'm not going to spend my life explaining this concept to people who can't take the time to read a post before they comment.
If you believe that sort of thing it would be the Father, Son and Holy spirit. But I'm going from memory, I don't own a Bible. I'm not a Christian. That said. That while the holy Trinity links Jesus and God together it does not mean they are the same. Other wise God did not sacrifice his only son to save us did he?
Anyway, no need to call me a cock. Remember, always look on the bright side of life *whistles*
although i agree about the bit about should think about telling people what they can and cant watch (im not religious and a believe in absolute freedom of speech)
but i do also have a working knowledge of christianity and a bible because its a fundamental aspect of our cultural heritage
but basically in christianity god, jesus and the holy spirit are one. they are different aspects of the same entity so jesus is god
No that's Jesus making a speech, and they are open to all sorts of interpretation, depending on what denomination you are. Also, I could declare myself to be God, it doesn't make it true. If you had a quote from Bible with God saying " Jesus and I are one" I would happily "shut the fuck up" as you so imaginatively put it.
The word of Jesus not good enough for you? If the Trinity holds true, as many denominations believe, then the word of Christ IS the word of God.
Anyway, seeing as religion is bullshit and the bible more than most, it could be Jesus, God or a seven-hundred foot ant/lizard saying it - you said you wanted a quote from the Bible, you got one. Now go and get your fucking shine box.....
Hamish Renfrew is absolutely right. there is too much correctness and those fundamentalists should learn what the word "tolerance" means and they are supported too often by selfish politicians who seek power. This whole appealing to certain masses and not individuals is genuinely frightening because those who define themselves as being non-believers are cast out. This is no productive way to organise Society.
wow, who'd of thought channel 5 would not only show something clever, satirical and ponient, but also something that containes stewart lee, a comedy treasure and not dom jolly.
Well thats the thing isn`t it? Not all people have reached your dizzying heights of maturity, Mr smuggy smug smug. Oh and heres a little smiley face so you won`t take offence :)
The smiley was not intended to prevent you from taking offence, but to make you sure that the last sentence is joke. And, by the way, if you look at the sense of the joke, my second sentence turns out to be a joke as well (an ironic one). Suprising, isn't it? All i wanted to say in my comment is that I am a bit tired of pointless discussions, however I am very aware that awareness is good.
'but secular schools forbid to teach on any kind of faith full stop, so the ignorance comes here does it not?'
That is not true, though. Secular school are not atheist. They do not teach that no god exists. They simply leave faith-based education to parents, and provide information about major religions without judgement one way or another.
Yes, all schools should be secular and teach children facts. If parents want to teach their kids fairy-tales about SkyDaddies or whatever, they can do so at home.: )
I missed it when it was on. A very intelligent programmes there from Stewart Lee highlighting the unholy alliance against our freedoms by an authoritarian government and the proponents of religious offence-taking.
Religion is certainly a delusion in my opinion, but as a side note, don't be too critical of those caught up in its web - very often they haven't had the chance to know any other way of living. It's hard to be rational when you've been brought up to dismiss any other way of viewing life as 'wrong'.
'Tis true. There's a couple of YouTube videos where a person's faith is tested by fundamental questions that atheists ask of thiests, and it's as if they've NEVER been asked these questions before. They're genuinely gobsmacked. Their whole world is rocked - "Y-you mean... there isn't a God?" It's very sad.
Thats not true, I have a faith and there is a general presumption that I am an unthinkin moron who hasent thought anything though - despite that assumption I am freethinking and open to debate. Not many atheists see the irony that by passing off all religious people as being unthniking idiots there being just as ignorant as the religious fundamentalists.
That was in response to this btw "'Tis true. There's a couple of YouTube videos where a person's faith is tested by fundamental questions that atheists ask of thiests, and it's as if they've NEVER been asked these questions before. They're genuinely gobsmacked. Their whole world is rocked - "Y-you mean... there isn't a God?" It's very sad. "
Oh I'm only thinking of certain people. Everyone is different, obviously, and I certainly don't think that of absolutely everyone. There ARE those who's faith has never been tested, but that's through no fault of their own. When their faith is actually challenged, I believe that they will start to think openly and will be open to debate. I have too much faith in people not to think that, no matter what conclusions they reach.
"When their faith is actually challenged, I believe that they will start to think openly and will be open to debate. I have too much faith in people not to think that, no matter what conclusions they reach. " I am open to debate and and also on several times sit down and think about my faith. Earlier you wanted to start calling atheists "undelusional" does that mean I am delucianal? For to me someone not having a faith I find hard to understand
We have evolved to the point where we are able to reason and study, but some of us choose to believe in mythical beings. I see God as I see the Loch Ness monster, as I see ghosts and goblins, as I see Bigfoot, as I see Gandalf.
In fact, the majority of those things don't provide you with false hopes and lies dressed up as love. Yes, it's self delusion. In fact, it's more than that: it's weakness.
I certainly don't think of religious people as "unthinking morons", and I don't know of many atheists that do (although, of course, they exist - a great deal of them on YouTube), and I agree that those atheists are just as ignorant as fundamentalists, displaying one-dimensional thinking and a snobbery reserved for those they abhor.
It doesn't negate the fact that I think religion is ridicluous, backwards and emotionally and physically harmful.
I don't think they are referring to people like you. They seem to be talking about the religious who fear free thought or questioning of belief and you don't seem to fit that description. Below they talk about "testing faith" which is ok when one tests their own faith but not someone else's. The only universal understanding is that there is little that can be understood universally.
I can't understand how {quote catalyst08} "(Religion) Is a form of mental illness" can be said about Religion as a concept, but that is only directed against certain people. That statement is directed against all religious people whether thats what he meant or not. I love free speech, and I would like you to choose whether you have a faith or If you want to debate Religion with me. I do have a problem with you calling me mentaly ill because I have a faith, I find that insulting.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And that statement means that YOU are trying to force YOUR opinions on to those that have an alternate viewpoint to you.
I think that what this programme is trying to say is that we should allow people to be different & to believe what they believe, but the Law should not be used as a tool to justify Religious actions or intolerances.
Most religions teach love, and if we love each other then we allow people to 'live and let live', don't we?
This film shows them ( religious nutjobs ) pushing their shit onto others. If anyone wants to mind their own lives they can believe what they want. These plonkers can fuck off.
but if this progame is about putting down religion, then what is the issue about faith schools teaching children with faith?.....would you rather they go to secular schools and enduring what this programe is about?
Because faith schools reinforce the sense of division that already exists in communities with a mixture of strongly represented faiths. It is pure common sense that by educating children of different faiths together, you engender understanding and tolerance; by educating them seperately, you engender suspicion, distrust, and potentially hate.
but secular schools forbid to teach on any kind of faith full stop, so the ignorance comes here does it not?
in Northen Ireland they teach Catholics and Protestants together, it has done well true, but, faith schools do not reinforce division they teach tolerance.......well my school did.
"suspicion, distrust and potentially hate" mmmm sounds more like todays politics to me!
Hmmm, I'm not sure it's correct that faith schools forbid teaching on any kind of faith... I attended a declaredly secular state school with a strong multi-faith intake, and had mandatory lessons for my entire career there on world religions. There was an emphasis on Christianity and Islam as these were the most common faiths in the school, but a basic grounding in all major religions was certainly given. This finished a year ago.
The only reasoning against religion that I received was at home.
in Canada before lessons started the school would start the day with a prayer over the speakers, now its forbidden. sure my comment was broad spectrum but increasingly the ability to share your faith in secular schools or work is deemed a form of fundamentalism. this is frustrating and sad. question: did you resent learning other faiths or gain insight regardless of your beliefs now?
wouldn't find that kind of "education" in my country! ha ha! when i was a boy, we read the Bible and said the "Lord's prayer". had a play, "Joshua fights the battle of Jericho." things have changed a lot!
"we have to cooperate with Christians, because they exist," and that's the kind of thing that i object to.
bad things aren't done to women in my church... just for the record. check the muslims on that.
"In the case that that was an accidental double-negative, nukes weren't built for the purposes of science, they were built to blow each other up. That, to me doesn't seem like scientific reasoning, it is more like human reasoning. "
But it required scientific knowledge to invent them in the first place. And with a few exceptions (Oppenheimer, Einstein), scientists had no problem inventing them.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that there is no such thing as a point of view untainted by religion or its offshoots, and that there is definitely no way that a human being can claim to be undeluded by their own personal belief system or putative lack thereof.
Yes, there is such a thing as a point of view untainted by religion. Mine and hundreds of millions of other people's points of view, to be more accurate.
If you mean, no one can be totally 100% sure they are right, then yeah i agree. The point is, scientific belief is transient. All theories are challenged. Experimentation proves results. Religious belief cannot be challenged. It is completely rigid. Therefore statistically science is most likely to be correct. That's not delusion.
"If you mean, no one can be totally 100% sure they are right, then yeah i agree. The point is, scientific belief is transient. All theories are challenged. Experimentation proves results. Religious belief cannot be challenged. It is completely rigid. Therefore statistically science is most likely to be correct. That's not delusion. "
But it's not a 100% accurate view of the universe, it's still just a hypothesis. Humans can never get past their own filters. Read Robert Anton Wilson for more.
"Religious belief cannot be challenged. It is completely rigid."
That is patently false. For proof, I would piont out the countless sects of Christianity. I don't mean that any single Christianity is right or wrong, but it's obvious to me that religion evolves.
By all means criticize religion. However, there is wisdom in religion that we cannot deny. Hell, much of what we take for granted - ideas of personal liberty, human rights, etc - comes from religious thinkers. I believe religion evolves, and frankly I find the idea of getting rid of everything to do with religion rather frightening.
All of those things are good things that we should keep in our society, but we can surely do away with the bad sides of religion, ie. the power it has as demonstrated in this video. Religion isn't necessary for our societies to have those concepts in them, they are independant of it.
true, but i would say that "religion" should be got rid of to be replaced by personal spirituality. "religion" means doctrine. spirtuality means personal learning and this is where the old knowledge of relgion is helpful like alan moore said, the original christians (i.e. the gnostics) were about searching for answers
Actually, ideas for personal libery, human rights and modern western schools of thought came from philosophers such as Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. These deep thinkers developed such ideas 400 years before Christianity was 'invented'.
They developed such ideas, for sure, but Athenian democracy in no way resembled our currents systems Our ideas of the primacy of the individual came from St. Augustine, and much of our philosophy, while influenced by Aristotle and others, came to us through Thomas Aquina. BTW, Plato was religious, and not just in nominal way, and much of the works of the Greeks were preserved by Muslim philosophers.
Fantastic program, Stewart Lee is as excellent as always. They really couldn't have ended with a better song, optimistic and light-hearted! Thanks for uploading!
There is no moral imperative in science. If all life on Earth were destroyed by nuclear winter or bioweapons, there is nothing in the philsophy of pure science that would prevent that.
If there was no moral imperative in science then we'd have no modern medicine, no technology at all. We'd still be in the dark ages. Besides, where is the moral imperative for stoning someone to death in the name of God or disallowing contraception in the name of God? Hypocracy is rife in religion, it seems.
What I meant is that there is no scientific reason why nuclear weapons, for example, should not be used. In fact, it was a scientist, Edward Teller, who came up with the idea of a "winnable" nuclear war.
In the case that that was an accidental double-negative, nukes weren't built for the purposes of science, they were built to blow each other up. That, to me doesn't seem like scientific reasoning, it is more like human reasoning.
I don't clearly see what any of the above has to do with my original point, though.
"Are you saying nuclear weapons 'should' be used??"
Of course not. But what I'm saying is that from a purely scientific perspective, there is no reason why they shouldn't. There is no such thing as morality from a purely scientific point of view. If Earthlings blew themselves up, from a purely scientific point of view the universe would go on entirely as normal.
The laws of science exist regardless of whether or not there are people to observe them. Therefore, if the Earth was destroyed, it would be utterly meaningless in terms of science.
The laws of science exist regardless of whether or not there are people to observe them. Therefore, if the Earth was destroyed, it would be utterly meaningless in terms of science.
No, the laws of science are human constructions based on observations. Hence if there are no people (no scientists, no observers) it follows that there would be no science. Again, science is a human activity. The notion that the destruction of earth would have no consequences for science is frankly amusing (ask any scientist!).
Hang on. Are you actually trying to argue that if the world was destroyed the only view would be religious? as it would only God left to observe matters? That doesn't work. That would be like saying if only Brad Pitt was left then becuase he has followers then he would be religious. Only only God exists then God is just an entity not a religion. Religion is a mechanism of worship.
No i'm not. Obviously religion is a human construction as well. And the destruction of earth would have consequences for religion as well (namely that it would vanish). This is all rather obvious. As far as i know rocks, dust, gas, even bacteria (whatevers left in the universe) are not religious. My point was that they are not scientific either. Science is precisely the human attempt to understand the workings of the universe. If humans vanish then our science vanishes too.
That was great. Thanks "I Am"... at primary school we always sang Christian hymns. There was no choice. So, aged 5-10 we just sang them. We made our own sweary words up and sniggered. But they were indoctrinating us into being C of E. As an adult you think "what the hell was that all about?"
in the twenty-FIRST century I was given a detention for not singing in assembly. The hymn was I vow to thee my country, a hymn that should have been thrown out as archaic centuries ago. I told the chaplain of the school that I objected to the content. He told me that the school had centuries of religious heritage and that I should be grateful for such a wonderful opportunity at enjoying it. I told him I didn't believe in God. He SNEERED at me and told me that I would grow up one day.
you don't think a hymn that revels in going to foreign countries and enslaving them, stealing their land and calling it an empire in the name of God is a bit unsavoury and shouldn't be taught to kids in the 21st century?
You're the one that sounds like a pillock, I'm just standing up for the right to an opinion.
You don't sound like a pillock at all. Luckily, I was at a school where not praying went unnnoticed. Or, if it was noticed, it was certainly not punishable. To have been presented with the reaction you got, you reacted in exactly the right way, ie not kow-towing to something you do not believe in. Being punished for that is wrong. You do not sound like a pillock as you were not kicking up an unnecessary fuss.
since it's a hymn it should definitly be taught because it's just a piece of literature, maybe it should not be taught as the right thing to do but since a hymn is just a sort of song or poem why not teach it
I agree, but it wasn't being taught as history or literature, it was being forced upon us as devotional prayer to a god that some of us practised no devotion towards.
Telling kids "here is a song from a long time ago, it's a bit outdated, read the lyrics and see what you make of them" is one thing. Saying "sing this and sing it like you mean it or you'll get a detention" is another.
There's a difference between a "filter", or an opinion, and a complete delusionary belief system upon which your entire outlook and life is founded, for which there is no proof!
Well, there is no way of proving that you are in fact not a brain in a vat. Even believing in a solid physical world is a matter of faith. Sorry, but you are not "undeluded" if you don't believe in God. You are just going by your own observation, which is ultimately a subjective view of the universe.
My own observations are obviously subjective based on my own condition, but they are a hell of a lot less deluded than people who believe in a supreme entity for whom there is no evidence. And there is no way of proving I'm not a brain in a vat, but the solipsist view of the universe is almost pointless to defend - as one philosopher said, to who are you writing this book (or comment) if you don't think anyone else exists?
There was no evidence for subatomic particles before the 20th century. Does that mean they didn't exist?
My point is that perception is everything. And again, you haven't proven that we aren't all figments of your imagination. (I don't personally believe we are, but that's as maybe.)
There was no evidence before the 20th century for subatomic particles - therefore there was no reason to believe in them, but of course they existed. Now there is evidence that suggests they exist, so science reorientates its position to accomodate them. This is the scientific method - constantly considering new positions, not being dogmatic like religion. If evidence for god (besides a 2000 year old book) can be found, then I'll happily acknowledge his existence.
However, you still have your own prejudices and beliefs whether you call them that or not. There is nothing inherent in the human condition that suggests that, for example, people should be treated equally.
That was great. I haven't seen Jerry Springer: The Opera and I don't know Stewart Lee (I'm American) but that was an insightful, articulate documentary that all fans of comedy and all thinking people should see. I'll be seeking out more from Lee now.
GorbachevSausages. Much respect. I realise that I sometimes get so wound up by religious folk spouting nonsense that I tend to argue back and critique their belief and become as bad as them. The important point from the Stewart Lee documentary and for the future of mankind is that no-one forces their belief on anyone else whatever that may be.
well done stu. 14th century w h smiths only two branches each selling one book. Atheism is non-evangelial. Eventually christians and muslims will be treated to that same mumbo jumbo test applied to other earlier delusions. a bunch of stoytellers, millions of people must've made a nice living out of it by reminding their neighbours about hell death etc. - cheers stu all the best mate. chrism
What, can I ask, is the evidence for a doctrine that rests wholly upon the belief that we cannot understand how we are composed? If the basic proposition is that we cannot understand it, then why is there a belief sytem that entitles itself a 'science' and proposes to do just that? Creationism is absurd and religion is anathema.
They seem to have the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religion. I could equally argue of course my own belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Like all religions, my Faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. I have faith that it is pink and I logically know that it is invisible-because I can't see it.
If he repents he will be forgiven? What a pointlessly absurb belief.
I have just killed a child, sexually molested a horse and wiped my semen on a picture of jesus, but aslong as I ask some form of forgiveness from a deity things will be as sound as a pound.
This parent would be better off considering how his children are being indoctrinated into believing Darwinism. Like most people, he is probably completely unaware that schools teach only the bits that seem to support the Theory of Evolution and reject the majority of evidence that supports Creation.
I believe the bible is the literal truth, I don't need some scientist telling me that the bible is right... If you need someone telling you that the word of god is true you do not have true faith in god. I don't need to argue with evolutionist because my faith in God is complete and unwavering. If this was true of you, you wouldn't need to either.
I totally agree with you bilko, but what do you do with a generation that has been brainwashed to trust in false science? You have to try and redress the balance. Even many Christians have a hard job believing the Creation account due to scientists having to perpetuate the lies to receive their funding and feed their families, so I think it is important. Anyway, I hate lies, don't you? My replies to lordhaku in Part 2 are pertinent.
The series was not made to debate the existence of a higher power (which you seem to have gathered), but to question why people can use the word "belief" as a carapace for religious notions from legitimate questions. He asks why it is that writers must be censored just because someone may be offended. If you don't want to hear something because it offends you, you don't have to listen. In your case you have seemed to just miss the point entirely. Which is your prerogative.
He has the right to free speech, just as you do. Just because I disagree with your views does not mean you're not allowed to spout them like you do. It's the same with Stewart Lee - he has every right to speak his views, it's not hatred, it's opinion.
It's not just about getting a laugh, either, the reason he made this show and the stage show was to make people question things. If you never have, that's your problem.
where do you get this crap? there is no "hatred", just rational thought and reasoned argument. Sit down with an open mind and start again from the beginning.
you use the word "faith" to mean a disregard of all logic and evidence in favour of something you have been told, and yet you accuse scientists of being brain washed? the word science means a body of knowledge formed through empirical testing. surely ideas formed that way are better supported than "i know the bible is true because it says so in the bible". its a cirular explanation. if you believe god gave you a brain then do it justice and use it.
anyone elce think that atheist is kida a dick..
Sboy200 1 week ago
How old is this documentary? I have taught R.E. in a faith school for 14 years. This is very inaccurate. In fact any teacher/school that taught like this would fail. The R.E. curriculum must encourage all students of all faiths or no faith to think and question belief.
pefta1 2 weeks ago
those protestors looked a right cackle of losers
majorkeybaree 3 weeks ago
Oh, Skycake. Why must you be so delicious?
2muchbacon 6 months ago
Stewart Lee is embarassed to say which football team he supports...so he is clearly a Man Utd fan.
NickOLarse999 9 months ago
i wonder what football team stewart lee supports
TheAlmightyAss 9 months ago
@TheAlmightyAss didnt he just say that he didnt follow any team at all?
MrZulle89 7 months ago
When life seems jolly rotten, theres something you've forgotten, and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
randomsamno9 1 year ago
Very many thanks for uploading as missed originally. And have only ever seen Jerry Springer The Opera on DVD because of those damnable divs
jkcfx 1 year ago 4
Fuck me, this was shown on Channel 5???
JimmyStrident 1 year ago 12
@JimmyStrident haha exactly what i thought
armadillospin 1 year ago
@JimmyStrident No way!!?? Was it inbetween 'The boy with a shed for a head' and the endless gambling?
comanchio1976 1 year ago
@JimmyStrident
Didn't Stewart Lee describe, channel 5 as having sewage being pumped straight into your living room, on his commedy vehicle?
fritspas 8 months ago
@fritspas hehe no that was channel 4
majician2000 8 months ago
fantasy book writers would have nothing to pad the pages with without our religious heritage
angrywhenroused 3 months ago
This is very interesting. Thanks for uploading this.
dylandior123 1 year ago
T__T They scare me witless too T____T
MistressArte 1 year ago
good material. thx for upload
utar88utar 1 year ago
i liked the bit about the ice storm.
GlasgowCelticPat1888 1 year ago 2
I'm glad this documentary decided not to take the inflammatory route of trying to discredit religion which never gets anybody anywhere, but instead decided to focus on what religion can and can't do in a liberal democracy. This is a much more useful debate.
sickboyfromluton 1 year ago 42
Perhaps even funnier than the show itself was the trailer for what was coming next. Channel five. What a place.
MalariaColon 2 years ago
those protesters make me ashamed to be from liverpool. it's such a conservative, racist, bigoted and narrow minded city
kierandoyle1992 2 years ago 4
EY LAD. WEEY.
0mgh4xftw 2 years ago
aw don't do the whole city down- there are bigots in every corner. liverpool's a great cosmolitan cultural centre of ... at least the country. innit?
LauraNheques 1 year ago
@LauraNheques It's actually considered to be the cultural capitol of europe! believe it or not!
SolTetto 1 year ago
@kierandoyle1992 the show was protested in loads more places than liverpool.
Apriltheses 1 year ago
If you are secular and at to the point where it would offend to be exposed to anyone's religion why send your child to a religious school especially if you know you do not want your child exposed to religion..presumably not only do the school have R.E. lessons included but the other parents and the kids attending are going to be of that religion. Best test scores? Nearest?
Maybe I missed something crucial in this man's story, which by the way I sympathize with..
snapcrackleandpop99 2 years ago
@snapcrackleandpop99 Well, I don't recall the guy saying that his kids went to a religious school. I'd assumed it was non-denominational.
DarioBattisti 1 year ago
@snapcrackleandpop99 I concur with Dario. I myself was taught in a non-denominational school and was taught religious stories as factual information in assemblies at an early age.
TearTheRoofOff 1 year ago
Poor stewart lee, channel 5!
richardemg 2 years ago 2
good program. Little be one sided.
toocoolcat 2 years ago
Realigion is good when it tells you to love, give, and be kind to others,it is bad when it teaches you to hate, persecute, and repress others.
I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to understand. Anything is bad when taken to an extreme, but that doesn't mean that it's bad in general.
p.s.
And, for the record, I believe an act is only sinful if in doing it you are knowingly causing harm to someone else or knowingly denying aid to someone who needs it.
ajkl27 2 years ago
@ajk27
Yes, it's good when it encourages good values, and bad when it protects lesser values. However, there is also the question of whether the very nature of religion, a belief-based following of divine powers, is the best way to encourage a better society. You don't need to believe in God/Gods to understand the benefits of treating others with respect, so why is spreading your beliefs to others necessary? At the core, problems with religion arise as spreading your belief is seen as Gods work.
blahdelablah 2 years ago 4
I agree with the fahter at the begining of this clip that we are forced to chose a belief system by peer pressure as there is not option for not believing. I always stood by my beliefs whether at anytime I was a Christian faith follower or an Athiest and copped flacked no matter what.
mushroomfat 2 years ago
Super rusty boy, with that said, it still doesnt make any sense. Thats the ramblings of a schizophrenic, not a profit. To all else, I dont know If I do believe in a god. But I certainly wont take any advice from any books. Ill learn any movements' beliefs, whether from the Bible of Karan or whatever but It wont dictate to me becasue It doenst add up and to be honest alot of the values of any religious movement are pretty slapdash.
mushroomfat 2 years ago
Right lets put an end to this bickering. I am God, and I say I don't exist.
There
Dukeyboy 2 years ago 5
All hail Glyphon!
Slapbass13 2 years ago
YOU child, faithful one! Seek out the chalky dust of the love-salmon
mushroomfat 2 years ago
I want to see the version of Jerry Springer the Opera as described in the pamphlets of of the fundies with 10,000 swear words and "Jesus in a nappy". It would be even better!
wid85 2 years ago 8
great documentary.
russelledwards001 2 years ago 4
All I was saying was the man in the Vid needs to reread his Bible before telling everyone else what to do. There is no mention of the holy trinity in the Bible. Yes different denominations either agree or disagree on the concept. But if Christianity can't agree on incidental details and dogma who are they to say what the rest of the world should do?
Anyway, I'm not going to spend my life explaining this concept to people who can't take the time to read a post before they comment.
Hail Glyphon!
pixiejojo 2 years ago
5:44 needs to reread his Bible before he goes telling people what they can and can't watch. In the book Jesus is not God he's his son. Duh!
pixiejojo 2 years ago
YOU reread your bible, cock. What is the holy trinity?
ryko26 2 years ago
Comment removed
pixiejojo 2 years ago
If you believe that sort of thing it would be the Father, Son and Holy spirit. But I'm going from memory, I don't own a Bible. I'm not a Christian. That said. That while the holy Trinity links Jesus and God together it does not mean they are the same. Other wise God did not sacrifice his only son to save us did he?
Anyway, no need to call me a cock. Remember, always look on the bright side of life *whistles*
pixiejojo 2 years ago
Well, sorry I called you a cock. Very unchristian of me.
ryko26 2 years ago
although i agree about the bit about should think about telling people what they can and cant watch (im not religious and a believe in absolute freedom of speech)
but i do also have a working knowledge of christianity and a bible because its a fundamental aspect of our cultural heritage
but basically in christianity god, jesus and the holy spirit are one. they are different aspects of the same entity so jesus is god
mytimetravellingdog 2 years ago
If you can quote me a part of the Bible that directly refers to Jesus as God, I'm happy to stand corrected.
pixiejojo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
John 10:30 - 'I and The Father are one'. Now shut the fuck up.
SuperRustyBoy 2 years ago
No that's Jesus making a speech, and they are open to all sorts of interpretation, depending on what denomination you are. Also, I could declare myself to be God, it doesn't make it true. If you had a quote from Bible with God saying " Jesus and I are one" I would happily "shut the fuck up" as you so imaginatively put it.
xxxxx oooops , I mean +++++++
pixiejojo 2 years ago 5
The word of Jesus not good enough for you? If the Trinity holds true, as many denominations believe, then the word of Christ IS the word of God.
Anyway, seeing as religion is bullshit and the bible more than most, it could be Jesus, God or a seven-hundred foot ant/lizard saying it - you said you wanted a quote from the Bible, you got one. Now go and get your fucking shine box.....
SuperRustyBoy 2 years ago
Thats when u get into the circles that religion seems to like...
Jesus says he's God > Jesus is God > Jesus' word is God's Word > Jesus says he's God > Jesus is God... you know the rest.
kinamod2k 2 years ago
and I and you are one.... so be nicer
Jadabh3 2 years ago
That ought to go as much for evangelical atheist fundamentalists. But it never seems to.
DrCruel 2 years ago
Hamish Renfrew is absolutely right. there is too much correctness and those fundamentalists should learn what the word "tolerance" means and they are supported too often by selfish politicians who seek power. This whole appealing to certain masses and not individuals is genuinely frightening because those who define themselves as being non-believers are cast out. This is no productive way to organise Society.
Regenmacher175 2 years ago 2
wow, who'd of thought channel 5 would not only show something clever, satirical and ponient, but also something that containes stewart lee, a comedy treasure and not dom jolly.
speedmetal99 2 years ago 5
i like the top few comments here, nice effort, no religious essays. Noone sensible cares.
seamuslowe 2 years ago
How to worship Stuart Lee.. you will need: a love of comedy and satire, an open mind, and a weak lemon drink.
RockingOnPluto 2 years ago 6
And a couple of eggs to smash.
trallala 2 years ago
Thanks for the upload, good doc.
danleespencer 2 years ago
Why does everyone write long paragraphs in the comments? Get mature, you people! Everyone knows those things and nothing will help the others. :)
poliklosio 2 years ago
Well thats the thing isn`t it? Not all people have reached your dizzying heights of maturity, Mr smuggy smug smug. Oh and heres a little smiley face so you won`t take offence :)
bugblood1978 2 years ago 8
The smiley was not intended to prevent you from taking offence, but to make you sure that the last sentence is joke. And, by the way, if you look at the sense of the joke, my second sentence turns out to be a joke as well (an ironic one). Suprising, isn't it? All i wanted to say in my comment is that I am a bit tired of pointless discussions, however I am very aware that awareness is good.
poliklosio 2 years ago
I was probably in a pissy mood that day, im sorry.
bugblood1978 2 years ago
Brilliant. Thank you for uploading
Fangus13 2 years ago
^ this =]
greenday21 2 years ago
blowbubblesnotbombs:
'but secular schools forbid to teach on any kind of faith full stop, so the ignorance comes here does it not?'
That is not true, though. Secular school are not atheist. They do not teach that no god exists. They simply leave faith-based education to parents, and provide information about major religions without judgement one way or another.
jb21uk 2 years ago
Presumption of belief - the notion is an illusion and people who espouse it are misguided.
tellyisrubbish 3 years ago
Yes, all schools should be secular and teach children facts. If parents want to teach their kids fairy-tales about SkyDaddies or whatever, they can do so at home.: )
winterstellar 3 years ago 7
Thanks for posting this
I missed it when it was on. A very intelligent programmes there from Stewart Lee highlighting the unholy alliance against our freedoms by an authoritarian government and the proponents of religious offence-taking.
pete975 3 years ago 5
I think the term "athiest" should be replaced with "undeluded".
ScarranHalfBreed 3 years ago 3
Ah, no. There's plenty of other delusions as well, so one doesn't necessarily flow from the other.
jimbobeire 3 years ago 5
This is true.
ScarranHalfBreed 3 years ago 3
Religion is certainly a delusion in my opinion, but as a side note, don't be too critical of those caught up in its web - very often they haven't had the chance to know any other way of living. It's hard to be rational when you've been brought up to dismiss any other way of viewing life as 'wrong'.
sebasvard 2 years ago
'Tis true. There's a couple of YouTube videos where a person's faith is tested by fundamental questions that atheists ask of thiests, and it's as if they've NEVER been asked these questions before. They're genuinely gobsmacked. Their whole world is rocked - "Y-you mean... there isn't a God?" It's very sad.
ScarranHalfBreed 2 years ago
Thats not true, I have a faith and there is a general presumption that I am an unthinkin moron who hasent thought anything though - despite that assumption I am freethinking and open to debate. Not many atheists see the irony that by passing off all religious people as being unthniking idiots there being just as ignorant as the religious fundamentalists.
bobbis15 2 years ago
That was in response to this btw "'Tis true. There's a couple of YouTube videos where a person's faith is tested by fundamental questions that atheists ask of thiests, and it's as if they've NEVER been asked these questions before. They're genuinely gobsmacked. Their whole world is rocked - "Y-you mean... there isn't a God?" It's very sad. "
bobbis15 2 years ago
Oh I'm only thinking of certain people. Everyone is different, obviously, and I certainly don't think that of absolutely everyone. There ARE those who's faith has never been tested, but that's through no fault of their own. When their faith is actually challenged, I believe that they will start to think openly and will be open to debate. I have too much faith in people not to think that, no matter what conclusions they reach.
ScarranHalfBreed 2 years ago
"When their faith is actually challenged, I believe that they will start to think openly and will be open to debate. I have too much faith in people not to think that, no matter what conclusions they reach. " I am open to debate and and also on several times sit down and think about my faith. Earlier you wanted to start calling atheists "undelusional" does that mean I am delucianal? For to me someone not having a faith I find hard to understand
bobbis15 2 years ago
We have evolved to the point where we are able to reason and study, but some of us choose to believe in mythical beings. I see God as I see the Loch Ness monster, as I see ghosts and goblins, as I see Bigfoot, as I see Gandalf.
In fact, the majority of those things don't provide you with false hopes and lies dressed up as love. Yes, it's self delusion. In fact, it's more than that: it's weakness.
ScarranHalfBreed 2 years ago
Well said Scarran. I'd go a step further though, & say that it's a form of mental illness.
catalyst8 2 years ago
"It's weakness"
Yes. Testify!
Volterator 2 years ago
I certainly don't think of religious people as "unthinking morons", and I don't know of many atheists that do (although, of course, they exist - a great deal of them on YouTube), and I agree that those atheists are just as ignorant as fundamentalists, displaying one-dimensional thinking and a snobbery reserved for those they abhor.
It doesn't negate the fact that I think religion is ridicluous, backwards and emotionally and physically harmful.
ScarranHalfBreed 2 years ago
I don't think they are referring to people like you. They seem to be talking about the religious who fear free thought or questioning of belief and you don't seem to fit that description. Below they talk about "testing faith" which is ok when one tests their own faith but not someone else's. The only universal understanding is that there is little that can be understood universally.
Tradesclub 2 years ago
I can't understand how {quote catalyst08} "(Religion) Is a form of mental illness" can be said about Religion as a concept, but that is only directed against certain people. That statement is directed against all religious people whether thats what he meant or not. I love free speech, and I would like you to choose whether you have a faith or If you want to debate Religion with me. I do have a problem with you calling me mentaly ill because I have a faith, I find that insulting.
bobbis15 2 years ago
Just discovered this series. Fantastic! My thanks to the poster.
billyshake 3 years ago 2
Fuck the religious fundementals,
grenangle 3 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And that statement means that YOU are trying to force YOUR opinions on to those that have an alternate viewpoint to you.
I think that what this programme is trying to say is that we should allow people to be different & to believe what they believe, but the Law should not be used as a tool to justify Religious actions or intolerances.
Most religions teach love, and if we love each other then we allow people to 'live and let live', don't we?
wrighton23 3 years ago
This film shows them ( religious nutjobs ) pushing their shit onto others. If anyone wants to mind their own lives they can believe what they want. These plonkers can fuck off.
grenangle 3 years ago 7
i don't really see how saying 'fuck the religious fundamentalists' is forcing anything upon anyone.
dmich12 3 years ago
but if this progame is about putting down religion, then what is the issue about faith schools teaching children with faith?.....would you rather they go to secular schools and enduring what this programe is about?
blowbubblesnotbombs 3 years ago
Because faith schools reinforce the sense of division that already exists in communities with a mixture of strongly represented faiths. It is pure common sense that by educating children of different faiths together, you engender understanding and tolerance; by educating them seperately, you engender suspicion, distrust, and potentially hate.
sebasvard 2 years ago
but secular schools forbid to teach on any kind of faith full stop, so the ignorance comes here does it not?
in Northen Ireland they teach Catholics and Protestants together, it has done well true, but, faith schools do not reinforce division they teach tolerance.......well my school did.
"suspicion, distrust and potentially hate" mmmm sounds more like todays politics to me!
blowbubblesnotbombs 2 years ago
Hmmm, I'm not sure it's correct that faith schools forbid teaching on any kind of faith... I attended a declaredly secular state school with a strong multi-faith intake, and had mandatory lessons for my entire career there on world religions. There was an emphasis on Christianity and Islam as these were the most common faiths in the school, but a basic grounding in all major religions was certainly given. This finished a year ago.
The only reasoning against religion that I received was at home.
IcarusVI 2 years ago
in Canada before lessons started the school would start the day with a prayer over the speakers, now its forbidden. sure my comment was broad spectrum but increasingly the ability to share your faith in secular schools or work is deemed a form of fundamentalism. this is frustrating and sad. question: did you resent learning other faiths or gain insight regardless of your beliefs now?
blowbubblesnotbombs 2 years ago
Comment removed
Eldritchard 3 years ago
maybe Jerry Springer IS omnipotent?
numsig 3 years ago 5
There is no battle retard and if there was it would be between enlightened educated individuals on those who are in religious cults.
You have the right to believe what you want however you have no right to enforce them on other which every major religion is guilty of.
benjidove 3 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
wouldn't find that kind of "education" in my country! ha ha! when i was a boy, we read the Bible and said the "Lord's prayer". had a play, "Joshua fights the battle of Jericho." things have changed a lot!
"we have to cooperate with Christians, because they exist," and that's the kind of thing that i object to.
bad things aren't done to women in my church... just for the record. check the muslims on that.
it seems there's a battle--which side are you on?
adopted3 3 years ago
What was that shit the announcer said at the end
"Not quite the bright side"
Huh?
moltenslag 3 years ago
'always look on the bright side of life' - it's from the end of the Life of Brian.
yaarg 3 years ago
She was introducing the next programme.
leahcrow 3 years ago
"In the case that that was an accidental double-negative, nukes weren't built for the purposes of science, they were built to blow each other up. That, to me doesn't seem like scientific reasoning, it is more like human reasoning. "
But it required scientific knowledge to invent them in the first place. And with a few exceptions (Oppenheimer, Einstein), scientists had no problem inventing them.
wookie72 4 years ago
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that there is no such thing as a point of view untainted by religion or its offshoots, and that there is definitely no way that a human being can claim to be undeluded by their own personal belief system or putative lack thereof.
wookie72 4 years ago
Yes, there is such a thing as a point of view untainted by religion. Mine and hundreds of millions of other people's points of view, to be more accurate.
If you mean, no one can be totally 100% sure they are right, then yeah i agree. The point is, scientific belief is transient. All theories are challenged. Experimentation proves results. Religious belief cannot be challenged. It is completely rigid. Therefore statistically science is most likely to be correct. That's not delusion.
karadan100 4 years ago
"If you mean, no one can be totally 100% sure they are right, then yeah i agree. The point is, scientific belief is transient. All theories are challenged. Experimentation proves results. Religious belief cannot be challenged. It is completely rigid. Therefore statistically science is most likely to be correct. That's not delusion. "
But it's not a 100% accurate view of the universe, it's still just a hypothesis. Humans can never get past their own filters. Read Robert Anton Wilson for more.
wookie72 4 years ago
"Religious belief cannot be challenged. It is completely rigid."
That is patently false. For proof, I would piont out the countless sects of Christianity. I don't mean that any single Christianity is right or wrong, but it's obvious to me that religion evolves.
wookie72 4 years ago
By all means criticize religion. However, there is wisdom in religion that we cannot deny. Hell, much of what we take for granted - ideas of personal liberty, human rights, etc - comes from religious thinkers. I believe religion evolves, and frankly I find the idea of getting rid of everything to do with religion rather frightening.
wookie72 4 years ago
All of those things are good things that we should keep in our society, but we can surely do away with the bad sides of religion, ie. the power it has as demonstrated in this video. Religion isn't necessary for our societies to have those concepts in them, they are independant of it.
eaglepies 4 years ago
I don't think they are, but we have to agree to disagree.
wookie72 4 years ago
true, but i would say that "religion" should be got rid of to be replaced by personal spirituality. "religion" means doctrine. spirtuality means personal learning and this is where the old knowledge of relgion is helpful like alan moore said, the original christians (i.e. the gnostics) were about searching for answers
eweyewewe 4 years ago
Actually, ideas for personal libery, human rights and modern western schools of thought came from philosophers such as Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. These deep thinkers developed such ideas 400 years before Christianity was 'invented'.
karadan100 4 years ago
They developed such ideas, for sure, but Athenian democracy in no way resembled our currents systems Our ideas of the primacy of the individual came from St. Augustine, and much of our philosophy, while influenced by Aristotle and others, came to us through Thomas Aquina. BTW, Plato was religious, and not just in nominal way, and much of the works of the Greeks were preserved by Muslim philosophers.
wookie72 4 years ago
Fantastic program, Stewart Lee is as excellent as always. They really couldn't have ended with a better song, optimistic and light-hearted! Thanks for uploading!
eaglepies 4 years ago
Okay lets get this all out of the way:
Fuck all you, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Sabians, Catholics, Mazdakists, Scientologists, Mormons, etc etc etc etc.
Happy happy blasphemy!
perydwyn 4 years ago
Fuck Religion
eris38 4 years ago
Science is the persuance of truth through rigorous analysis of all aspects of a theory to prove or disprove the result.
Religion is the acceptance of truth through information passed to an individual as fact without question.
One of the above statements will help human civilisation evolve. The other will not.
karadan100 4 years ago 11
There is no moral imperative in science. If all life on Earth were destroyed by nuclear winter or bioweapons, there is nothing in the philsophy of pure science that would prevent that.
wookie72 4 years ago
If there was no moral imperative in science then we'd have no modern medicine, no technology at all. We'd still be in the dark ages. Besides, where is the moral imperative for stoning someone to death in the name of God or disallowing contraception in the name of God? Hypocracy is rife in religion, it seems.
karadan100 4 years ago
What I meant is that there is no scientific reason why nuclear weapons, for example, should not be used. In fact, it was a scientist, Edward Teller, who came up with the idea of a "winnable" nuclear war.
wookie72 4 years ago
Are you saying nuclear weapons 'should' be used??
In the case that that was an accidental double-negative, nukes weren't built for the purposes of science, they were built to blow each other up. That, to me doesn't seem like scientific reasoning, it is more like human reasoning.
I don't clearly see what any of the above has to do with my original point, though.
karadan100 4 years ago
"Are you saying nuclear weapons 'should' be used??"
Of course not. But what I'm saying is that from a purely scientific perspective, there is no reason why they shouldn't. There is no such thing as morality from a purely scientific point of view. If Earthlings blew themselves up, from a purely scientific point of view the universe would go on entirely as normal.
wookie72 4 years ago
If earthlings blew themselves up there wouldn't be a scientific point of view.
ExMachine 4 years ago 2
The laws of science exist regardless of whether or not there are people to observe them. Therefore, if the Earth was destroyed, it would be utterly meaningless in terms of science.
wookie72 4 years ago 2
The laws of science exist regardless of whether or not there are people to observe them. Therefore, if the Earth was destroyed, it would be utterly meaningless in terms of science.
wookie72 4 years ago
No, the laws of science are human constructions based on observations. Hence if there are no people (no scientists, no observers) it follows that there would be no science. Again, science is a human activity. The notion that the destruction of earth would have no consequences for science is frankly amusing (ask any scientist!).
ExMachine 4 years ago
Hang on. Are you actually trying to argue that if the world was destroyed the only view would be religious? as it would only God left to observe matters? That doesn't work. That would be like saying if only Brad Pitt was left then becuase he has followers then he would be religious. Only only God exists then God is just an entity not a religion. Religion is a mechanism of worship.
fuzzygreen 3 years ago
No i'm not. Obviously religion is a human construction as well. And the destruction of earth would have consequences for religion as well (namely that it would vanish). This is all rather obvious. As far as i know rocks, dust, gas, even bacteria (whatevers left in the universe) are not religious. My point was that they are not scientific either. Science is precisely the human attempt to understand the workings of the universe. If humans vanish then our science vanishes too.
ExMachine 3 years ago 2
That was great. Thanks "I Am"... at primary school we always sang Christian hymns. There was no choice. So, aged 5-10 we just sang them. We made our own sweary words up and sniggered. But they were indoctrinating us into being C of E. As an adult you think "what the hell was that all about?"
bodnotbod 4 years ago
In 1990 I started school, in 1991 I started doubting Christianity and a teacher actually hit me for not singing in assembly.
Rah61121 4 years ago
in the twenty-FIRST century I was given a detention for not singing in assembly. The hymn was I vow to thee my country, a hymn that should have been thrown out as archaic centuries ago. I told the chaplain of the school that I objected to the content. He told me that the school had centuries of religious heritage and that I should be grateful for such a wonderful opportunity at enjoying it. I told him I didn't believe in God. He SNEERED at me and told me that I would grow up one day.
Herzog1012 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm an athiest but you still sound like a pillock.
fuzzygreen 4 years ago
you don't think a hymn that revels in going to foreign countries and enslaving them, stealing their land and calling it an empire in the name of God is a bit unsavoury and shouldn't be taught to kids in the 21st century?
You're the one that sounds like a pillock, I'm just standing up for the right to an opinion.
Herzog1012 4 years ago 5
You don't sound like a pillock at all. Luckily, I was at a school where not praying went unnnoticed. Or, if it was noticed, it was certainly not punishable. To have been presented with the reaction you got, you reacted in exactly the right way, ie not kow-towing to something you do not believe in. Being punished for that is wrong. You do not sound like a pillock as you were not kicking up an unnecessary fuss.
ChristophStokes 4 years ago 2
since it's a hymn it should definitly be taught because it's just a piece of literature, maybe it should not be taught as the right thing to do but since a hymn is just a sort of song or poem why not teach it
XxGradaKxX 3 years ago
I agree, but it wasn't being taught as history or literature, it was being forced upon us as devotional prayer to a god that some of us practised no devotion towards.
Telling kids "here is a song from a long time ago, it's a bit outdated, read the lyrics and see what you make of them" is one thing. Saying "sing this and sing it like you mean it or you'll get a detention" is another.
Herzog1012 3 years ago 26
This is a great series, but I find it annoying when atheists say they live without filters or delusions - EVERYBODY has a filter of some sort.
wookie72 4 years ago 2
There's a difference between a "filter", or an opinion, and a complete delusionary belief system upon which your entire outlook and life is founded, for which there is no proof!
eaglepies 4 years ago
Well, there is no way of proving that you are in fact not a brain in a vat. Even believing in a solid physical world is a matter of faith. Sorry, but you are not "undeluded" if you don't believe in God. You are just going by your own observation, which is ultimately a subjective view of the universe.
wookie72 4 years ago
My own observations are obviously subjective based on my own condition, but they are a hell of a lot less deluded than people who believe in a supreme entity for whom there is no evidence. And there is no way of proving I'm not a brain in a vat, but the solipsist view of the universe is almost pointless to defend - as one philosopher said, to who are you writing this book (or comment) if you don't think anyone else exists?
eaglepies 4 years ago
There was no evidence for subatomic particles before the 20th century. Does that mean they didn't exist?
My point is that perception is everything. And again, you haven't proven that we aren't all figments of your imagination. (I don't personally believe we are, but that's as maybe.)
wookie72 4 years ago
There was no evidence before the 20th century for subatomic particles - therefore there was no reason to believe in them, but of course they existed. Now there is evidence that suggests they exist, so science reorientates its position to accomodate them. This is the scientific method - constantly considering new positions, not being dogmatic like religion. If evidence for god (besides a 2000 year old book) can be found, then I'll happily acknowledge his existence.
eaglepies 4 years ago 2
However, you still have your own prejudices and beliefs whether you call them that or not. There is nothing inherent in the human condition that suggests that, for example, people should be treated equally.
wookie72 4 years ago
all british state schools must have an"act of collective worship"everyday.the parents must opt their children out.how scary is that?
dogball123 4 years ago
That was great. I haven't seen Jerry Springer: The Opera and I don't know Stewart Lee (I'm American) but that was an insightful, articulate documentary that all fans of comedy and all thinking people should see. I'll be seeking out more from Lee now.
TulseLuper 4 years ago
These comments = concentrated insanity.
JunkerJames 4 years ago
Thanks very much for uploading this. :)
slinkyskunk 4 years ago
Can I direct everyone to the One True Religeon at venganza dot org...Hail! The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...We're all Pastafarians now!
MrHardwick2 4 years ago
GorbachevSausages. Much respect. I realise that I sometimes get so wound up by religious folk spouting nonsense that I tend to argue back and critique their belief and become as bad as them. The important point from the Stewart Lee documentary and for the future of mankind is that no-one forces their belief on anyone else whatever that may be.
venners77 4 years ago
God is dead.
getchi 5 years ago
Yeah but so is Nietzsche.
..sorry couldn't resist.
sonicwingnut 4 years ago
well done stu. 14th century w h smiths only two branches each selling one book. Atheism is non-evangelial. Eventually christians and muslims will be treated to that same mumbo jumbo test applied to other earlier delusions. a bunch of stoytellers, millions of people must've made a nice living out of it by reminding their neighbours about hell death etc. - cheers stu all the best mate. chrism
xtcxtc123 5 years ago
hillarious series, once again Lee has shone
mrlewisdj 5 years ago
What, can I ask, is the evidence for a doctrine that rests wholly upon the belief that we cannot understand how we are composed? If the basic proposition is that we cannot understand it, then why is there a belief sytem that entitles itself a 'science' and proposes to do just that? Creationism is absurd and religion is anathema.
boydie333 5 years ago
They seem to have the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religion. I could equally argue of course my own belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Like all religions, my Faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. I have faith that it is pink and I logically know that it is invisible-because I can't see it.
GorbachevSausages 5 years ago
Thanks for posting these, I hadnt heard anything from Lee since the UK Tour.
TRWolf 5 years ago
If he repents he will be forgiven? What a pointlessly absurb belief.
I have just killed a child, sexually molested a horse and wiped my semen on a picture of jesus, but aslong as I ask some form of forgiveness from a deity things will be as sound as a pound.
BrianBlessedO 5 years ago
This parent would be better off considering how his children are being indoctrinated into believing Darwinism. Like most people, he is probably completely unaware that schools teach only the bits that seem to support the Theory of Evolution and reject the majority of evidence that supports Creation.
UnvarnishedTruth 5 years ago
Is it fun being an adult and still believing in fairy-t ales?
nightmareofsolomon 5 years ago
I believe the bible is the literal truth, I don't need some scientist telling me that the bible is right... If you need someone telling you that the word of god is true you do not have true faith in god. I don't need to argue with evolutionist because my faith in God is complete and unwavering. If this was true of you, you wouldn't need to either.
bilko123 5 years ago
I totally agree with you bilko, but what do you do with a generation that has been brainwashed to trust in false science? You have to try and redress the balance. Even many Christians have a hard job believing the Creation account due to scientists having to perpetuate the lies to receive their funding and feed their families, so I think it is important. Anyway, I hate lies, don't you? My replies to lordhaku in Part 2 are pertinent.
UnvarnishedTruth 5 years ago
The series was not made to debate the existence of a higher power (which you seem to have gathered), but to question why people can use the word "belief" as a carapace for religious notions from legitimate questions. He asks why it is that writers must be censored just because someone may be offended. If you don't want to hear something because it offends you, you don't have to listen. In your case you have seemed to just miss the point entirely. Which is your prerogative.
GorbachevSausages 5 years ago
He has the right to ask the question. He doesn't have the right to stir up tension in order to a) get a laugh and b) vent his hatred.
UnvarnishedTruth 5 years ago
He has the right to free speech, just as you do. Just because I disagree with your views does not mean you're not allowed to spout them like you do. It's the same with Stewart Lee - he has every right to speak his views, it's not hatred, it's opinion.
It's not just about getting a laugh, either, the reason he made this show and the stage show was to make people question things. If you never have, that's your problem.
GorbachevSausages 5 years ago 2
Well, he has. Look it up.
jacksn66 5 years ago
where do you get this crap? there is no "hatred", just rational thought and reasoned argument. Sit down with an open mind and start again from the beginning.
Rumpio 4 years ago
you use the word "faith" to mean a disregard of all logic and evidence in favour of something you have been told, and yet you accuse scientists of being brain washed? the word science means a body of knowledge formed through empirical testing. surely ideas formed that way are better supported than "i know the bible is true because it says so in the bible". its a cirular explanation. if you believe god gave you a brain then do it justice and use it.
lf56 4 years ago