Frankie Boyle tears into celebrity atheists like Ricky Gervais and Richard Dawkins. Subscribe for more: bit.ly/hattricksub Visit Our Website: www.hattrick.co.uk/ Follow Hat Trick: / hattrickprod Like Hat Trick: pages/Hattri...
@@brentmeistergeneral6074 I think they were going to have a series 3 but something happened inbetween and they settled on one long special instead. I think I remember that anyway. I'll leave it to whoever is sad enough to make a wikipedia page to correct me.
@@burnsloads he’s famous because he was a key writer for Jimmy Carr and then when he went in his own he was incredibly popular and on shows like Mock The Week and has been playing to sell out audiences for over a decade. But yes he did also offend a disabled child.
For such an edgy humoured comedian who never pulls punches, he is a surprisingly logical and sensitive person who injects his humour even into those types of conversations. I fucking love him
He's not that logical. This is the same guy who criticized Gervais about making jokes about trans people and yet was the same guy who had made jokes about Katie Price's handicapped son, Harvey. Double standards? I think so.
He is not very sophisticated. Before you assume I care to defend celebrity atheists I am only criticising Boyle here. His apologetics for religion is low level simple logic. "some violence is religion, some is lager" what an incredibly oversimplified position on religious violence if not even offensive to religion to suggest that its violence and striggles are as simple as mere emotions spilling over. Also, does he not see the irony of calling out dogmatic atheism while defending religion? He even says "it all seems a but religious". He is an edge comedy hipster. Edgy offensive religion bashing is so mainstream now. It used to cool when Carlin and Hicks did but now everyone does it.
"Just because you disagree with someone's religion doesn't mean you shouldn't give it the same respect as any other mental illness" - Frankie Boyle, 2014
@@yasserhayatli1818 Yes, and it it seems you've completely ignored the point I made which is the harm and misinformation and ignorance that is spread by religion. Perfect case in point: *Richard Dawkins vs. Wendy Wright Highlights* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1XrOscFu1y8.html Believing in God if it gives someone comfort is all very well and good. Ricky and even Richard Dawkins acknowledge this but when it comes to religion and the various doctrines in different religions and what they teach that's another thing completely.And it's a bit rich for Frankie to criticize Ricky as looking down on people (which he doesn't) when he does precisely that when it comes to Brexit supporters.
@@robertmcelwaine7024 Gervais (don't... don't call him Ricky like you know him), does look down on religious people. And Dawkins arguments are little more than bias confirming bollocks which ignores so many other factors including history and international politics.
@@happygoluckyscamp I'll refer to him however I like thankyou very much. And he doesn't look down on religious people. His own parents themselves were religious. As for Dawkins arguments being "bias confirming bollocks", I suppose certain things like The Spanish Inquisition for example never happened? You know, that certain something that historically occurred. Or how about sectarianism?
@@happygoluckyscamp *Richard Dawkins: Best arguments against religion/faith #1* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w35krx_WQZs.html Yeah, I can see why you would think his arguments are "bollocks" *eyes rise*
I'm an atheist and I totally agree with Frankie Boyle here. When Gervais has a go at religion he comes across as a smug little know-it-all bully. The belief in god gives a lot of people hope that their lives are not meaningless and death may not be the end. I suppose it's easier to get out of bed in the morning as an atheist if you've got a few million quid in the bank and you can live out your little heaven on earth. The average person is a slave to capitalism until death, let people believe what they want unless they're breaking the law.
Fuckin, Cheers Dee Dee Seriously though, this was a great comment, I totally agree with you. I believe in God because I want to believe in something better than this, and I try to be a decent person, but I don't force my religion on people nor do I condemn people for having different or no religion for that matter. People like Gervais need to quit their narcissistic rhetoric of being insufferable know-it-all wanks. If you don't believe then fine, but don't claim to know categorically that God doesn't exist - that is just naive and ironically extremely stupid. Same goes for me, I never said God exists, but I believe he might... profound difference.
*I'm an atheist and I totally agree with Frankie Boyle here. When Gervais has a go at religion he comes across as a smug little know-it-all bully. The belief in god gives a lot of people hope that their lives are not meaningless and death may not be the end. I suppose it's easier to get out of bed in the morning as an atheist if you've got a few million quid in the bank and you can live out your little heaven on earth. The average person is a slave to capitalism until death, let people believe what they want unless they're breaking the law.* I don't think so. Gervais's was born in to a Christian household, and having seen interviews with him he says that he doesn't generally dislike people of faith. Hover, that doesn't mean he has to agree with said faith, or that he is a condescending prick like Boyle would like to think that he is. If he comes across like that in his stand-up routines that's because his cheeky personae is part of his act. Like comics like Jim Jefferies who himself is an Atheist or George Carlin, you have to separate then man from what you see on stage. Some of the best comedy is that which is satirical, edgy and pushes boundaries which is what people like those who I have mentioned have all done. In terms of letting people do what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone is all very well and good, but that just isn't always the case. Religion has been utilized as a means to push foward legislation in the past in terms of things that I think no religious organization should have a right in getting involved in. If we did then blasphemy, anti-homosexuality and abortion laws would still be illegal. Not to mention the medical and ethical issues that can be raised in parents not allowing a child to have say, a blood transfusion or a live organ transplant that could save their lives due to their beliefs, or the subject of circumcision as it pertains to Judaism or Islam. These aren't just harmless little things that one can't just simply ignore because, oh they're entitled to their beliefs. Well, what of the child's welfare and his/her right to choose their own fate when they aren't at an old enough age to decide for themselves? In short, there's a lot of people who are a slave to brainwashing and that can't be a good thing.
Spot on Derek. No suprise that religion does well where there is most poverty and despair. But Ricky Gervais cannot disprove God, whether he exists he or not. Fortunately for him in the materail world he dwells in with his bank balance he doesn't need give a fuck about the next life. It can't be much better than this for him anyway.
But you can't prove that there is a God either. Ricky isn't the one claiming that there is a God in the first place. And last time I looked much of the poverty and despair in the world what caused by religion. Fortunately for him he isn't brainwashed in to believing in crap and doesn't have to give a fuck about the so called next life, because here and now is what is important.
"But you can't prove that there is a God either" Then we're all square then . Empiralism/Capitalism/Colonialism/Economic slavery plays the biggest part. I've no time for Ricky Gervais or organised religion. I was just stating the fact that it will flourish where there is poverty and agreeing with the sentiment of the above comment not making a case for Gods existance
@@maxhaughton1964 not just religion lol he lampoons her on a few topics. Nothing wrong with that people can believe what they want. My nuance is that like science or technology, with religion itself isn't necessarily the issue but the application, who is using it and how its used. Can be good or bad
@@carpathianhermit7228 My point isn't that the debate is bad but rather Gervais is totally out of his depth in that debate and Afterlife is a fever dream nightmare world that revolves solely around Gervais rather than his characters (for example he's long spoken about wanting to beat up some youths, surprise surprise he does it in afterlife)
I agree with Frankie as an atheist who believes in freedom of religion. The problem is not religion itself, it's people treating others worse because of their beliefs. You can believe whatever you want, I just won't accept those beliefs as an excuse for terrible behavior.
Beliefs inform actions, those people who have fewer unjustified, irrational, core beliefs are going to be less likely to do irrational things in support of them.
@@georgedoyle2487 People do some awful things because their holy book/religion tells them it's right. What immoral action do atheists commit based on atheism? Not the same thing.
That's actually what Gervais says too; he says believe what you want but the problem is if you are abusive towards others because your religion tells you to be (killing in the name of religion, being homophobic, anti-women's rights etc.). It's not acceptable to commit unethical atrocities based on your faith and that's what Gervais takes issue with.
Ted the commentator, well actually, if he was atheist, I would actually respect him more. But the fact that he's saying atheism is "pushy" makes him look like a fool to anyone with a brain. I guarantee you're just some normal guy, you probably haven't even spent any time on the subject. And no, he's not a good political comedian. I'm a philosopher and a comedian, and politics has been a large part of my knowledge. He knows as much about politics as you do about politics, nothing.
The reason you should respect someone more for being an atheist is that you can atleast say they're not delusional about the nature of reality. But when you say what he says, it takes any kind of intellectual integrity away from him. And you can't suck someone's dick primarily on them being an atheist, because it's purely just the non belief in God. But it does make you more intelligent if you don't believe in an imaginary friend who cares about you whilst being the creator of the universe, and you say we're the fools.....
When I was a teenager I liked Frankie because teenagers are naturally drawn to edgy humour. As an adult, I like Frankie because I can now see his appeal doesn't end at the offensive humour and he tends to have really insightful beliefs.
@Clippy You didn't say it was important, you said you have to be nuanced in order to be insightful. Which is untrue. And your long-winded rant that followed, it's a panel show, they have to make quick short comments, they don't have the time to delve deeper into the topic.
honestly I'm not a religious person myself but I can tell you that anyone who thinks religion is the cause of all violence has never ran into a mean drunk
@@Nilguiri Said no one you've ever met, I've seriously ran into people who genuinely think religion causes all violence, those kinds of people do exist. You should consider yourself lucky that you've never ran into anyone who thinks like that.
@@MythicSuns I have to call bullshit. A lot of violence, yes but anyone with a bit of common sense would not say that religion causes ALL violence. If you did (which I'm dubious about) then they are idiots but one's who are in the overall minority of Atheists.
@@carpathianhermit7228 So was Frankie slamming Gervais about making jokes about transpeople when he had once cracked a joke in his stand-up, about Katie Price's handicapped son Harvey. It seems that some people, including Boyle, have a short memory.
Nah, its sad that Boyle seems to have lost that, dont give a toss about offending, as all types of comedy should be on the plate, attitude he once had and is now seemingly so reliant on BBC money that he has become the stereotypical BBC panelshow lefty progressive.
@@davekp6773 this is an immensely stupid opinion. Whether you want to admit it or not frankie has always been deeply left wing, he's expressed that in his guardian articles. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean he's been kidnapped by the BBC's to further an evil communist agenda
Nah, Frankie's as offensively natured as ever. He just doesn't give a toss who gets upset about his opinions, doesn't mean his opinions have to be bad ones.
Looking back at his edgy humour, he always shoots up and uses his jokes to talk about important topics rather then demean them. It's not that he doesn't care about offending, he cares about the topics so that's why he's making jokes about them
What you see on stage or on comedy programs is an act. His jokes may stem from beliefs, but not necessarily. They are made for comedic effect. What you see when watching interviews is more of his true self. That doesn't mean he's afraid to challenge anyone, but he simply doesn't feel the need to offend for the sake of it.
I'm an atheist, and when I was first on Twitter, I followed a bunch of professional atheists - Ricky Gervais, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Fry. It didn't take me long to realize that professional atheists (except for Stephen Fry, who is actually an actor and a comedian) are just as horrible as proselytizing Christians. So rude, so negative, and so much trolling of religious people. No thank you! Live and let live, for Christ's sake. Pun intended.
@Behave yourself? That's not what he was saying, but you give yourself an excuse to have a go at someone you've never met, who was simply recounting their own observations.
Sunshine....You are confused... What is your definition of "Atheist" What is a "Professional Atheist" You say you are an Atheist..yet you say "live and let live for christs sake" Not only are you confused, but you are also...dishonest.
Dawkins at least isn't one of those cowardly atheists who either insult and criticise "religion" in general, or Christianity in particular, but shy away from singling out Islam for criticism even though there are very good reasons to. In fact, he just recently posted a tweet on the subject.
Frankie boyle seems like such a nice and loving guy. fucking intelligent. I properly rate him. its a shame we dont see him on tv as much these days. the dude is a ledge!
I’m an atheist with deeply religious extended family. Some of my family have suffered deep personal loss and pushed more into religion to seek comfort. Others, like me, turned away from it. We’re both right in that we have chosen the path that makes the most sense for us and our personal situations. I would never criticise my family for becoming even more deeply religious if it means they’re happy. It does irk me sometimes that they want to convert everyone they meet but I know they ultimately mean well. I don’t go on about my beliefs to them because it hurts them when I do. It’s just the way that it is. I also don’t appreciate the celebrity atheists when they try to force their views on others and assume religious people are simple or stupid. The world would be so much happier if we all just accepted that other people like different things and think differently based on their whole life’s experience, and we can learn from them rather than turn them away.
Love Frankie, though he does cross the line a bit sometimes. Really respect his answer here. I'm religious. Will completely agree with all the concerns about bad theology, bad Bible interpretation, violences, abuse, intolerance. But good theology, good Bible interpretation, care, community and affirmation can be life-giving.
hitcnens most famous quote was. you can have your religion and do with what you wish with it. but don't force it on me. using the word toy as a metaphor. but when religion has been the cause of so much death and destruction in the world. we have the right to complain about it.
This is true, too many people are quick to preach what is right and wrong when it feels like healthy discussion to respectfully disagree with people has gone
I'm also an atheist and while I like some people and arguments of the New Atheism movement, when Ricky Gervais try to be like one of them he always makes me cringe so hard. His comedy is just acting like a smug high-schooler, no debt or real critique at all. Frankie is one of the few interesting comedians today.
Silence is compliance. Religion is organised lunacy. It's one of the reasons we are going to self-extinct our own species within 200-300 years. Saying nothing is like ignoring the Nazis during the Holocaust because you aren't Jewish, or saying nothing about what the Israelis are doing because you're not Palestinian. Silence is acquiescence to madness being the rule. "It doesn't affect me because I'm not mad, like they are." Yeah, you are ...
As someone who got pulled into the "new atheist" stuff back in the late 2000's/early 2010's it's kinda depressing how true this is. I look back on most of the Atheist YTers I used to watch as pretentious assholes and/or sellouts.
I have friends who are believers and non-believers, I get annoyed whenever I hear my friends justify their atheism just by reading books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc. They come off as pretentious and I just can't take them seriously. It got worst when I was in college, there was a club called the "freethinkers club", but it didn't last long due to lack of funding/members.
To be consistent just remember that what Boyle hates about New Atheists is what New atheist hate about religion in m any ways, the piety, the certainty etc. if he simply said they are no better than religion sure. But he defends religion while doing it which spectacularly ironic and shows no awareness. Difference between the dogmatic religious and dogmatic atheists is being a new atheist is cringe at best, however, religious apologetics is harmful. It allows absolutely ludicrous ideas to be respected and normalised in the context of religion as if that is something in and of itself to be respected. Mocking Scientology is a cheap laugh and akin to a Nickelback joke. Its a cheap gag with very little risk. Mocking the story of Mohamed flying on a horse is not so risk free. People who consider themselves respectful of others would rationalise this attitude with some story about the perception of Muslims adding to the sensitivity around such mockery but I believe it is more about the fear of repercussions. I know plenty of people that today are are very vocal about equality, justice and respect that if you look back even 8 years ago on their Facebook page make jokes like "I look like a tranny in that photo". They convince themselves that they have changed when really all that has happened is that their prejudices have become the subject of more popular public scrutiny. Religious apologetics helps to do this. Don't get me wrong I agree and feel sympathy for you as someone who felt a sense of belonging in the new atheist garbage that exists on the internet, but I don't think its useful to overcorrect. Its religious apologetics and overzealous cultural sensitivity has, in my opinion, led to what we are seeing in relation to people asking whether the we are racist or bigoted to comment on the leadership of Afghanistan under the Taliban. I see news stories everyday from credible news outlets that feature interviews with people such as "Taliban's cultural commission" as if we have all forgotten what barbaric monsters the Taliban are. As soon as they went from militia to the leaders of Afghanistan, suddenly western media has started treating critiques of the "new regime" with kid gloves, scared to be culturally insensitive or disrespectful to what may be either the Taliban's cruel authoritarianism or simply values held by other Islamic nations or cultures. Its almost like a fear of being accused of dog whistling to colonialism or imperialism is enough to subdue the decrying to horrible human rights abuses.
I hear people say quite a lot "All wars are caused by religion" When I hear that I politely point out the actual percentage of all recorded wars caused by religion is just 7%.
@@drawingsticks5333 “Do you have any studies” “There’s no f…ckin way it’s only 7%” Ho the irony!! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!! What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!! The (Encyclopaedia of wars) compiled all the studies and all the wars recorded in history into one book. The introduction to the Encyclopaedia of Wars makes it clear that it’s very difficult to categorise wars as religious or otherwise as the causes of wars are often political and are very complex. Nevertheless, the fact is that when you refer to the index in the (Encyclopaedia of Wars) out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts only 121, approximately 6% are listed in the index as having religion as their primary cause. It speaks volumes regarding the power of propaganda and myths about religious wars when (The Encyclopaedia of Wars), a secular history book by the way, in the index clearly lists only 121 religious wars which works out at approximately 6% of 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts as being caused for religious reasons. Equally a survey for the think tank Theos suggests seven out of ten people actually believe that most wars in world history were caused by religions despite the enormous amount of evidence from secular experts to the contrary. Your triggered response was comedy gold!! No religion ever created a weapon with the potential to destroy our children and grandchildren’s future at the press of a button (nuclear weapons) for this kind of monstrosity you need secular twentieth century science/secular technology and physicists and scientists who believe that morality is arbitrary and nothing more than subjective preference. “Nothing could have been more obvious to the people of the early twentieth century than the rapidity with which war was becoming impossible. And as certainly they did not see it. They did not see it until the atomic bombs burst in their fumbling hands.” (H.G. Wells). Furthermore, according to Johnathan Sacks the prominent public intellectual, philosopher, author and head of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth…. “Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life - on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state - must be cast in the language of human rights.”(Rabbi Johnathan Sacks). “The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of these lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world! Such explosives in men's hands, while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope 'this will ensure peace.” (J.R. Tolkien 1945). “When a man realises how small his thinking is, his genius can appear” (G. Doyle). “If your sick of a broken world, instead of complaining try fixing the part of the world you can fix. (G. Doyle). “It’s better to have left the world a better place at the end of your death than to have left the world a better place because of the end of your life” (G. Doyle).
Some people think atheism means you’re angry all the time. But as an atheist myself, I’m happier without religion. I think life is a wonderful thing and I don’t think I would ever be happy if I wasted my time trying to please a god who’s going to judge me for everything I do who might not even exist.
I liked it in House where he states he chooses to believe what he finds most comforting and for him it's comforting to believe there is no God or afterlife and that life isn't 'Just a test.'
I have admired Frankie boyle for a very long time. He has the ability to hold the opposite view when many may feel the opposite view is not the best idea. I mean first you had the atheists come in, in the shape of the Monty python crew, who held the opposite view. Push forward 20 years, that opposite view became the ONLY view, and now it is high time that these celeb atheists faced the opposite view to their views! Just the condescending nature of these celebs really has got old and worn out.
Funny, because atheist celebrities *do* face the opposite view all the time. Dawkins, Fry, Harris, Hitchens, to name but a few have all debated those who disagree with their views whether it be representatives of religious organisations or theistic scientists and scholars. I fail to see where you have got this idea that they think their view is the ONLY one.
Gotta keep working the ideas down until they become decent. Mocking ideas is a good way of outlining the logical fallacies and issues. So the back and fourth although for comedic effect has this push back meme
He's missing the point, as he often does. There are several countries - and regions within otherwise liberal countries (USA) - where, at best, you'll be shunned for coming out as an atheist, or worst, killed. That's why 'celebrity' atheists tend to discuss atheism; a lot of people trapped in religious cultures need to know there are ways out and that they have support. Most atheists don't have issues with your average church-going Joe, but rather their irrational beliefs and misplaced respect for 'faith', from religions that continue to cause so much misery in the world. It's also somewhat ironic that he's complaining about celebrity atheists being so vocal when religions stick their noses in just about everything.
Ricky Gervais is like an edgy online teenager that thinks making fun of religion and political correctness is the highest form of rebellion. Give it another couple years and he’ll probably start tweeting that he ‘sexually identifies as an attack helicopter’
AS Christopher Hitchens put it, "By all means, play with whatever toys you want, play to your hearts content, just don't force Me to play with your toys, don't force my children to play with your toys. Keep your toys to yourself."
I think Christopher Hitchens was a very likeable character and a master of rhetoric and a great self publicist but he was an hypocrite as he supported the Iraq war, a war that lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent men women and children and turned out to be unjustified and was just about controlling the worlds oil. He also tried to destroy the charity set up by mother Teresa and singled out mother Teresa when there were people like Mau and Pol Pot in the world using her as a stick to bash Catholicism with because he had an axe to grind against religious expression and then he shamelessly later admitted he sensationalised the whole attack on mother Teresa to sell his books after permanent damage was done to the charity. The charity suffered in the form of less aid and volunteers. Why should the sick and dying pay for Hitchens books, virtue signalling and six figure salary. He made a six figure sum selling certainty to atheists and had the gall to criticise an elderly frail politically naive nun for being charitable enough to accept money from people with chequered pasts because she wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt and also save the sick and dying. Hitchens also lied and cherry picked half truths to make it look like patients were refused strong pain killers but conveniently failed to mention in his book and documentary that India had really tight restrictions on opioid use during this period of time and even the main hospitals were ill equipped and poorly trained to manage severe pain. He even failed to mention that his main witness Dr Fox who’s responses he cherry picked said pain killers were given in the hospice and that patients wounds were well dressed and the hospices were clean and patients looked after well. After I found this out I couldn’t trust anything Hitchens said on any subject.
Strict religious types and Pro atheist are different sides of the same coin to me. They both believe they are always right in what they believe without any significant proof and refuse to listen to anyone with a difference of opinion.
@@robertmcelwaine7024 “Atheists do listen” Ho the irony!! Sorry but this is the (No True Scots Man Fallacy). “There are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” (Albert Einstein). Everyone has the right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have the right to find it ridiculous!! I rest my case!!
You mean like when he sneers at people who voted for Brexit ? or when he sneered about Jordans disabled kid / Why dont he just shut the fuck up tired of these so called celebs Find Gervais much funner than him, and his right to take the piss out of people who believe in something that their is no proof of existing All they have is the Bible which is a book like Janet and John in reality
@Kevin L Whereabouts in America are you? Because I know people who live in various “Bible Belt” States and they often describe people’s attitude towards Atheism to be misunderstood and how they’re often subject to a lot of preaching and proselytising.
Well to be fair, Atheists don't blame anything on god. They blame things on the people who commit violence in the name of their god. Some Theists will say; "Why do Atheists hate god?" To which the answer is of course; "We don't hate god, we don't think he exists!"
So much love to Frankie for this. It's ironic a small group of radical atheists (acolytes of Dawkins usually) get so partisan about their beliefs they end up turning it into a type of religion in itself. Sad irony.
Mate i've had people on Twitter claim they;re gonna 'convert Christians to atheism' like all of that ideology and language matches radical religion. If you're someone who says 'ban all religion' you're close to extremists in philosophy
Had people on Twitter talk about 'converting christians to atheism'. You see people say ban all religion, legit just as intolerant as extremists albeit without the same level of physical violence
Tim Senna Really ironic, dawkins is a smart bloke who uses science and knowledge to give hes arguments substance, but because of this he believes hes automatically intellectually superior to anyone who has faith, same with gervais, they cant fathom the idea that some people have faith to enrich their lives, theyre arrogant snobs really
Spot on mate couldn't agree more. Dawkins is a brilliant scientist but is let down by this arrogance that he is an expert in philosophy and theism despite having a looser grip on the arguments than the average undergraduate student
Considering the stupidity and cruelty of religion people like Dawkins are very soft spoken. What we are witnessing is the breaking of a societal taboo and the conversational consequences around it.
I love Frankie's pops at Ricky because it winds Ricky up so much. Ricky is/was a terrific comedy actor but from his interviews you can tell he has an inferiority complex about his place in stand up comedy. And Ricky knows Frankie would eat him alive if they went at it with words.
I'm surprised at Frankie Boyle's reasoning for disliking celebrity atheists. Because the fact that atheists don't believe in God, means they couldn't possibly be blaming a being they don't think exists. I'm an atheist, and I blame the people who believe this being exists, and use that belief to discriminate and judge other's.
@@danteshydratshirt2360 Firstly, I don't think I'm wasting my time. Because I believe if you challenge people's beliefs, good often come from it (that includes me). Normally I don't care what people believe. The problem occurs when they want me to believe it too. Or lobby to keep or implement laws that discriminates against others who don't want to live as they do. And all this is done under the cowardly defence that it's their God who says so, not them.
There is no denying religious texts blatantly endorse violence. We have a tendency to outlaw anything that specifically endorses violence: gangs, hate groups, cults ect.. So why does religion based on texts which not only endorse violence but - demand it on the punishment of eternal torture - get a free pass?
Frankie became woke while Ricky continues the same dark humour that everyone loves. That's why those two are in very different places. One has a deal with Netflix the other has some shit SJW show on the BBC.
It’s not always about fame or money. The context in what he spoke about shows the levels Of understanding this man has. Will piss on Ricky any day of the week!
@Clippy “He’s not right about Richard Dawkins” Even prominent Humanists had to speak out and condemn this very suspect tweet by Richard Dawkins promoting eugenics... “It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds, It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.” (Richard Dawkins). Prominent Humanists were left with no option but to publicly condemn Dawkins statement due to his slow response and inability to explicitly condemn something that according to empirical evidence doesn’t even work on dogs and cattle as it is extremely harmful. Not to mention the ethical issues and warnings from history. I think the bereaved families of the holocaust victims would beg to differ that eugenics would work on humans. “As an evolutionary biologist, it’s my responsibility to denounce this clown” one doctor tweeted. “Richard Dawkins is now supporting eugenics, which is obviously indefensible.” (Dr Blommaert). The prominent humanist Greg Hepstein from Harvard who thankfully condemned this statement for obvious reasons responded..... “So unacceptable for Richard Dawkins to tweet about eugenics without clearly condemning it. Dawkins is *supposedly* one of our exemplars of humanism & science outreach. Yet today he's given every manner of passive and active bigot an opening to "consider" persecution on steroids” (Greg Hepstein).
Frankie is so blatantly envious of what Ricky Gervais has achieved in his career while his has faltered to appearing on his own watered down BBC series and has now even reached the point where “the most offensive comedian” has to mute replies on Twitter as he’s so insecure about his own position 😂😂😂😂😂😂
It's funny how people in this comment field are getting really upset with Frankie for expressing his dislike of celebrity atheism and mentioning people like Dawkins and Gervais. Granted some of the commenters have argued against it in a rational way, so cudos to them, but many simply rage over the fact that people who's stance they approve of gets criticized, and resorting to personal attacks like calling Frankie a Muslim lover and all kind of nonsensical things. What's even more absurd is people attacking Frank Skinner for making what is clearly a joke and a bad pun about Stephen Fry "frying" in hell. It should be obvious to anyone with more than half a brain cell that he is joking (he's a damn comedian on a comedy show). Now, let's think for a moment. What other groups do we know of who often can't seem to accept any form of criticism of their beliefs and the people speaking for them? What other group is incapable of accepting a joke as a joke, when it is made about them? Oh that's right, hard-line conservative religious people.
*It's funny how people in this comment field are getting really upset with Frankie for expressing his dislike of celebrity atheism and mentioning people like Dawkins and Gervais. Granted some of the commenters have argued against it in a rational way, so cudos to them, but many simply rage over the fact that people who's stance they approve of gets criticized, and resorting to personal attacks like calling Frankie a Muslim lover and all kind of nonsensical things.* Unfortunately that does happen, and ad hominem attacks don't get people anywhere. I don't know too much about Frankie, and have barely watched his act so I don't know where the Muslim lover attacks are coming from, but I assume it's because he's at some point defended moderate Muslims against criticism. Am I right? *What's even more absurd is people attacking Frank Skinner for making what is clearly a joke and a bad pun about Stephen Fry "frying" in hell. It should be obvious to anyone with more than half a brain cell that he is joking (he's a damn comedian on a comedy show). Now, let's think for a moment. What other groups do we know of who often can't seem to accept any form of criticism of their beliefs and the people speaking for them? What other group is incapable of accepting a joke as a joke, when it is made about them?* *Oh that's right, hard-line conservative religious people.* I know, I don't think there was any real malice in intent there. For all we know, he may have met and know Stephen Fry personally. Just because two people can have opposing believes in terms of religion or lack thereof doesn't necessarily mean there's any animosity towards each other. I'm an Atheist and a lot of my family are Catholic, and I have friends who are as well as Protestant. Live and let live as the old saying goes. That doesn't mean you can't disagree with their beliefs, it's just there's a time and place for it of course. Anyway, everyone needs to learn to chill out and not take themselves too seriously.
Totally agree you have hit the nail on the head. Frankie Boyles stirred up a wasps nest. It needed to be said though. Equally, it's great that an atheist and a great comedian has pointed this out. Most of the Christian theists iv come across are actually elderly and quite vulnerable and don't have the energy or capacity to debate with someone like Dawkins or Gervaise. Most are busy looking after grandkids, doing voluntary work or running tea and cake stalls in the local church for the homeless or for children's charities. Not exactly the most intimidating people in the world. Dawkins and Gervaise seem to think we should all feel threatened by these people.. I think Dawkins and Gervaise perhaps interpret ancient texts such as the bible more literally than theists do. It's a curious phenomenon.
@@georgedoyle2487 The problem is that as a fairly strident Atheist, I don't necessarily have a problem with people believing in God, if it gives them comfort then fine. However, when it comes to religion, and worst of all institutionalized religion well that's a different matter. When people or governments allow religion to influence their decision-making when it comes to policy, and rationality and logic do take a backstep it does become something of a problem. Not all Christian theists are elderly or vulnerable, and I've never bought this, well their religion encourages them to do good malarky because quite frankly, you can do good without appeals from a supposed higher power. It's a fairly patronizing outlook if you have to be influenced by religion, and just not basic common sense humanity. It's not a matter of being intimidated to call B.S. if you belong to a faith that, while it may do some good, also does some harm. We're not children who should look to a higher power for guidance. If it were the case there wouldn't be a good number of secular charitable organizations. The fact that there are people who need to look toward God, rather than plain simple human empathy is in itself a curious phenomenon.
Guarantee it, because Ricky Gervais has to be the most unfunny comedian ever committed to camera. Jim Jeffries is an atheist on principle, though, because he's as atheist as they come and he's hilarious.
Control religion, control the people. That's how wars start. Not caused by religion itself. Even if there was no religion, everybody still wants to fuck each other up.
thank you Frankie. the problem with religions is that we don't tolerate other people's. if athiests and all religions could accept others beliefs, even if they know they're wrong, the world would be a better place. lead by example.
Wrong! Atheists do not have a 'belief' that should be tolerated by others, atheists *lack belief in god(s) *. Why is this so hard for theists to understand?
The problem is the "need" to convert "non-believers" is a core part of many religions and religious dogma and text. Because they are not about making you a better person, they are about controlling you and telling you how to live your life based off of someone, who believes they are superior to everyone else, else's morals, values and beliefs.
It’s not a matter of being and Athiest or a Religious person, it’s a matter if you kill or condone killing based on your beliefs, or if you don’t kill and condemn it. Some things are more important than your beliefs.
Nope. Gervais is an incredibly overrated comedian. Frankie is among the best stand ups in the UK whereas Ricky wouldn't even make the top 1000. I give credit to Gervais for his early TV work, but his output has been mediocre at best for the last 15 years.
@@jackriver1999 ...and now Boyle's become a massive hypocrite, getting butt hurt about Gervais' trans jokes. Despite him repeatedly mocking a specific severely disabled child
Ricky just likes to say things to piss people off. He doesn't have a wider understanding outside of "I don't like 'X'. How can I broadcast this in language and a tone that pisses as many people off as possible" His movie 'the invention of lying' was all about how religion is just a conspiracy to hide the grim reality of death. Nothing else. And that this inherently leads to worse behaviors and justifications for bad things. gervais and Dawkins are blind in their push to label everything religious as fundamentally wrong and divisive. Like it's an arrogant smugness that ignore she fact that whilst religion has been used to explain aspects of life that we didn't know before science, it has also been a way of connecting people to a life philosophy, a group identity and a shared culture. I'm not religious myself, but I know how much it means to people. That's why many people who question the existence of god still stay within their religious identity, because it's a way of life
I think it depends where you are, atheist celebrities become less relevant when society becomes more secular. But loads of places in the world are still dangerously religious, and could do with some atheism
Why can’t people just be left to what they need ? They can have their delusion just don’t ask me to go along with it. If we’re forced to pretend delusions are real to make people having the delusions feel more comfortable....no I won’t do it.
I like Frankie, and see what he means but I think there’s a difference between a holy text that explicitly point out who you are allowed to harm and why, and who you are allowed to judge and why, and just every day pricks being Judge mental. That’s the difference, at least to me anyway. Anyone can be a prick, but usually we don’t organise a little corner of protected society where there preciousness is protected by the law just because they deeply believe it. Religion has had thousands of years of a head start, and done much worse than say a few edgy things on stage with a microphone, but maybe 10 years of celebrity atheists and everyone’s up in arms.
