David Mitchell Book Interview: Biography & Back Story of Peep Show
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 01. 2014
- Interview with David Mitchell, where he takes us on a hilarious journey through his life, insights and Peep Show anecdotes in his highly acclaimed book, "Back Story." In this interview, David Mitchell, renowned comedian, actor and writer, delves into the pages of his biography, offering a delightful blend of wit, candour and humour.
In "Back Story," David Mitchell fearlessly unveils the secrets behind his remarkable success as a comedian. With a comedic prowess that has captured audiences worldwide, he takes us behind the scenes of his craft, sharing invaluable tips and experiences on how to navigate the world of comedy. Through his witty narration, David Mitchell effortlessly demonstrates the art of making people laugh and provides a glimpse into the inner workings of his comedic mind.
But "Back Story" isn't just about comedy; it's a treasure trove of amusing reflections on life's peculiarities. From the mundane to the absurd, David Mitchell's book showcases his unique perspective on a range of topics. Ever wondered how to buy underpants? Look no further, as David Mitchell hilariously dissects this seemingly ordinary task with his trademark wit, leaving you in stitches.
Prepare yourself for unexpected twists as David Mitchell explores the unexpected dangers of lobsters. With his characteristic blend of intelligence and humour, he navigates through the treacherous waters of crustacean encounters, uncovering the hilarity that lies beneath the surface.
Throughout this interview, David Mitchell engages in a lively discussion, sharing delightful anecdotes and leaving no stone unturned. His keen observations and razor-sharp humor will captivate viewers as he effortlessly weaves together tales from his personal life, career highlights and the extraordinary experiences that shaped him into the comedic powerhouse he is today.
Join us for an unforgettable conversation as David Mitchell invites you to delve into his "Back Story." Whether you're an avid fan of his work or simply looking for a good laugh, this interview is a must-watch. Get ready to be entertained, inspired and thoroughly amused as David Mitchell shares his wisdom, wit and unparalleled comedic genius in this candid exploration of his life and book. Don't miss out on this captivating opportunity to see the world through David Mitchell's distinctive and comedic lens.
#davidmitchell - Komedie
Here's hoping Business Secrets of the Pharaohs is next.
Lllikkkuy4
Nice one!
Excellent reference 10/10
+Sledge Chesterfield Or Numberwang, The Book.
by Mark Crorigan
I'm not English, but I've lived amongst you and I've never considered David posh. For me, he's always seemed as the perfect embodiment of the English middle class (or middle class people's idealised image of themselves) - sensible, rational and moderate in all areas of life.
You've missed the classism associated with accents. Did you really live amongst us?
@@willieriley6043 Pretty sure that when you are foreign you don't notice the accents as much. I never have been in the UK, but after many years of listening in English I still can't differentiate some accents, no matter how hard I try to listen.
@@willieriley6043 I didn't mention the accents, but yes, obviously that's a big thing every non-native english speaker learns sooner or later.
Yes, I did, and the moment I opened my mouth anyone could peg me down as the East Eu immigrant.
@@bogi18 Hungarian or Transylvanian Romanian?
David is a living legend. From Ireland 🇮🇪
Brilliant interview. Very smart guy.
Absolutely love David Mitchell
He is just so adorable about Victoria!
WindInMyWings (
FFS Get a puppy!
WindInMyWings (m
I enjoyed this very pleasant book by this interesting man. I appreciate being able to see this interview! Thanks!
David is one of my favourite people. I so agree with him about’Lord of the Rings.’ ‘Back Story’ is a terrific book. I absolutely love it.
I love this guy! Such a humble, funny brainchild! And he even couldn't slog through The Trilogy either.
Haha yes. That made me feel better. I've tried to read it twice and have failed both times in the middle of the two towers as well.
I love that he things Lord of the Rings is boring! I never read the books and was talked into watching the films...almost 11 hours later...I finished annoyed! Each film has no conclusion. A good example of this is the Harry Potter series. Each book/film has a conclusion to that book's story and leaves a thread to the next one. What's even better about David's story is that he's trying to read these tremendously long books at age 11! Wow! That was crazy! Lol
I get so many distasteful looks from 100% of my friends when I say I find the films boring and inconsequential. Actually enjoyed the books when I was 11, when the imagination is at its peak and we have time to indulge in a strange and incoherent sequence of events, but my adult brain fails to capture it. The same isn't true of Philip Pullman or even Harry Potter, which makes me think I'm not the problem xD
@@JohnDopping this entire culture suffers from prolonged adolescence of late.
i remember in 98' my dad was learning the word 'cool', he found it so stilted and ive never thought of this, but hes assimilated it rather neatly into his vocabulary.
I love David Mitchell
Kellen Mitchell So much you took his last name it seems...
I imagine we enjoy our congenital wit by virtue of a mutual great-great-grand person
It is pity that his book didn't sell too well. It should have, because he is brilliant and it would have encouraged him to write more.
he could probably sell out a book reading tour though
He hits the nail on the head there with the identity-threat stuff. Summarises a lot of thoughts on the topic.
bloody clever as always.
"LIES!!! LIES & CORRUPTION!!!"
(no.. I quite agree! ^^)
You could write a murder story called "The Prince's second chambermaid".
In it the prince's newer chambermaid is murdered. She had only been working at the castle for a few years compared to the old one, which had been working there for several years. The story takes place in a slightly fantastic version of the mid 1700's.
The story consists of gossip and accusations where the members of the court take turns accusing and questioning each other in private to get to the bottom of it. The prince was away when it happened, but people still accuse him, privately, assuming that he had the murder carried out whilst he was away to clear his name of the murder.
Eventually, someone says something that makes the prince remember that when she first started working there she stared at him in a peculiar way. His late mother, who died a few years ago, frequently meddled in his affairs and she found the letters that the chambermaid hid on his desk telling him of her love for him. The prince never actually saw the letters, but one of the cooks did recall that his mother asked them to burn some unopened letters not too long after the second chambermaid started working there. The characters in the story deduce that his mother must have had the chambermaid killed as her dying wish, and the person that did it forgot about the promise they made to her, then they eventually remembered and went through with it. They concluded that the matter was settled. But after everyone was convinced of this fact, the prince remembered that about a week before her murder, she was in his office, going through the drawers in his desk. He could barely remember what she was doing because he wasn't paying that much attention to her. He figured that she must have caught a mouse, or was cleaning out old waste papers, or something else that didn't concern him. Apparently, she must have asked him about the letters, though for the life of him he couldn't remember what she was saying because he didn't think that the two of them had any business so he wasn't paying attention to her when she spoke.
As far as he can figure out, she must have spent this whole time thinking that he was being coy with her, or spurning her love, or waiting for the right time to approach her about it, when in fact he knew nothing because he had never even seen the letters. All sorts of papers were all over his desk, some of it he read, but most of it were documents he was supposed to go over but it was so long and boring he didn't bother to read any of it. Someone else would see to those matters. He didn't have to. So he figured that she must have killed herself out of desperation, after spending some years waiting for his reply. Yes. That would do it. He believed that must be what happened. Though he never told a soul about it, because that could incriminate him if they thought that he would be accused of impropriety and he had her killed so no one would know about it.
At the end of the book we have a plain and simple chapter. Only a few words. A passing thief. She was sent out of the castle one night to buy eggs and pork so that the cook could get started on breakfast before any of the stalls in the town square had opened. She saw the thief coming out of a house, he was holding a dagger, drenched in blood. He ran away. A few days later the thief recognized her standing next to a window in the castle. She was carrying linen. He chased after her, she just set the linen down on an end-table and turned to open the closet. He pushed her out of the window in broad daylight, but no one saw who did it. The book ends with the final sentence. "And then she fell. It wasn't that far, but as she didn't expect to fall, it may have been the fright that killed her, if it wasn't the ground that did it."
After all, everyone came to their own conclusion, the prince knew more of what happened, or did he? In the end, no one really knew what happened. But the point of the story isn't the ending, it is the middle. The middle is the good part, everyone accusing everyone, keeping secrets, using other secret sins they know about each other to create motive where there actually was none. It would be a book of gossip. Prose would be very important. The lessen? Well now, I shouldn't have to tell you what the lessen of it all is. Don't jump to conclusions, the answer may just be forever out of reach.
16:36 DM "I didn't think this was shit" - definitely one for the cover or side of bus
His bit about Agnosticism being the most Rational worldview really speaks to me: "I don't WANT there to be nothing."
There is a creator to all this.. there has to be logically.. the secret is to study all the different religions and philosophies independent of bias and decide which one makes most sense..remember philosophies or ways of life are not bad.. people are.
Imran Ali you’ve solved it!
That's not logic. It's emotion. There's literally zero evidence of a "creator" in the supernatural sense
Top bloke
Really like Boyd Hilton's interviews
Brilliant interview. Been searching for ages for this ever since I saw clips of his opinions on Lord of the Rings and atheism. Thank you so much for uploading this
Mitchell regularly misstates the meaning of the term "atheist." It means the lack of belief in a god or gods. It does not necessarily mean the belief that there is no god. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god. But that doesn't mean I'm actively asserting that there is no god. I have no idea if there is or isn't. I just haven't yet seen any evidence for a god or gods
Wow, I've projected so much of myself onto David Mitchell. I realize now he's not as intellectual or cerebral as I thought he was, but he is a much nicer person....
Why, because he is not an atheist, he is suddenly not intelligent as you? I am sure that kills him.
No, because he isn't interested in considering the ideas himself and to their logical conclusions. For clarification as to what I mean, watch his video about 'what the hell is going on'. Not trying to be a douche, he's not dumber than I am, just with different interests.
It is fine to be more intelligent, but I see no reason to anonymously put him down for that. In any case, he is doing pretty well even if he is not smarter than everyone else in the world.
I have seen "What the hell is going on?" and it was fine. You do realize, it is an extreme caricature for laughs?
You're completely missing my point. You want to assume I'm belittling him, which I'm not. I referenced it because that's where you see where his priorities lie: not in constant thought and doubt, but in more down to earth things. He's not a philosopher and that's fine.
It's just easy to see David Mitchell as a genius who is an expert on any subject, when he's not.
I really want you to get what I mean, because I love him and his work and wouldn't want that misunderstood.
I too, read The Hobbit when I was 10 or 11 and enjoyed it. I too, tried to read TLOtR at that age and gave up. But, I tried again, when I was about 14. I devoured it! I have read it on an (almost) annual basis every year since.
I had a serious bout of a back back, and walking did not reduce it, at all, it made it worse.
But after Tramdol, Zapain, were less than useless, Gabapentin did......very quickly....:)
But I won't dare argue with David......as I would lose....:)
Someone should point out to David Mitchell how similar his autobiography format is to a Japanese film called 'Adrift in Tokyo' aka 転々, Tenten.
I wonder if there are more examples? It's a nice format.
Just finished the whole book on vacation (yes, vacation, I’m American lol). Pleasantly surprised to find it so compelling.
Not only are my thoughts on agnosticism basically exactly the same as David's, but my experience with the LOTR is the same too. I also read The Hobbit and got through about half of the second book of the trilogy before stopping. I think that was when he was banging on about all the lineages, which was so boring.
a copy of the " Beano " , a sugar sandwich , and alls right with the world , that was me in the 1950s .
what on earth is a 'suger sandwich' ?
a sugar sandwich is a sandwich with a plain sugar filling , given to kids in post war rationing times .
I think this is one of my favorite people. Sorry about that, David.
I had always imagined he was raised by wolves
"I can't fuckin' read"
-David Mitchell
I love what he has to say about being an agnostic. I myself am truly annoyed by any and all evangelists, and I am definitely also annoyed by evangelical atheists. (Minute 13:00) " I don't accept the argument that atheism is the most rational response to the world as we see it........ I WANT there to be an all-powerful, benevolent God....I was originally brought up with it, and now I am not sure..... I am suspicious of the disdain for people who find that a comfort in their lives, and the desperation felt by some atheists to tear that comfort away from them."
Of course, then he goes on to say he doesn't like "The Lord of the Rings," and I decide, right, he's quite mad, LOL. (Though much of The Two Towers is....well, not my favourite part of the trilogy....especially slogging through The Dead Marches and the way to Mordor with Sam and Frodo with Gollum along, Gollum being so much like itching powder.)
Love DM, don't particularly care for the interviewer.
My school had the exact same fascist food rules!
Also, why would you read Lord of the Rings at the age of 11? It's not a children's book! :P
I'm a massive Tolkien fan, but where I agree with Mitchell on that subject is that so many of my fellow fans take the work and themselves far too seriously. But his comment about it being "boring and meaningless" is just a matter of taste, really. Not everyone likes everything. Someone should've explained that to 11-year-old David Mitchell and saved him the "self-loathing" of not liking Lord of the Rings.
On the atheist/agnostic question, it simply has to be said that they are two sides of the same coin. Belief is an active thing. If he were a believer then he would identify as a believer, but as he says, "I'm not convinced there's something." We're all agnostic because none of us know whether or not there's a god or afterlife, but if you aren't convinced then you aren't a believer. He may not be a Richard Dawkins type hardline atheist (and I agree with Mitchell that its pointless and perhaps even cruel to try to rip away the comfort people get from faith), but he is, at least technically speaking, an atheist.
***** No, Agnosticism is not Atheism because Atheists believe that there definitely isn't a God, and Agnostics believe that their may or may not be a God.
Two very different things.
***** Nope. The term 'atheism' is built from two separate parts: the privative prefix 'a' and 'theism.' It literally means "without theism" or "not theism." Atheism is not the conviction that "there definitely isn't a god." There may be atheists who assert this, but it isn't the philosophical definition of the term. Atheism simply means a lack of belief in a god; therefore, an atheist is someone who is "without theism" or "not a theist."
If a person identifies as an agnostic then he/she is, in all probability, also without theism. In other words, he/she is an atheist. To put it another way: 'Agnostic' answers the question, "Is there a god?" 'Atheist' answers the question, "Do you believe in a god?"
***** Well, I suppose it could be a form of Atheism... but there is still a very significant distinction regardless of the etymology. An Agnostic will look at evidence that supports Atheism and Theism, where-as Atheists look only at evidence that supports Atheism. This would be the distinction from a Theists perspective anyhow, which also happens to be, for the most part true.
Even Theists can be Agnostic sometimes, and so Agnostics in my view, are as much Theist as they are Atheist.
***** You write: "An Agnostic will look at evidence that supports Atheism and Theism, where-as Atheists look only at evidence that supports Atheism." This is absolutely false. Skeptical, free-thinking people will always look at and follow the evidence regardless of the direction in which it points. There is no evidence for theism. There are arguments for it, but no evidence or proof for the existence of a god has ever been offered, let alone examined and studied. You believe on the basis of faith--period.
Should some evidence for the existence of a god be discovered then any atheist who refused to consider it would show himself to be irrational.
And again, I think you're misunderstanding agnosticism. It isn't some halfway point between theism and atheism. Agnosticism has to do with what we know and can know, whereas theism and atheism have to do with what we believe. All human beings are agnostics--every last one of us! None of us knows whether or not there is a god. Some of us believe in one. Others do not. But theists do not identify as agnostics--they typically identify according to their religious tradition: Christian or Muslim or Jewish, etc. Those who self-identify as agnostics (i.e., those acknowledge that we don't know) implicitly confess that they have no belief. And if you lack a specific belief in a god then you are, by definition, an atheist.
I tire of the agnostic/atheist argument. The beauty of science is the acceptance of the fact that new data presents the possibility that an established theory can be challenged and improved on. Ergo, as an atheist, I don't deride agnostics. Some call me smart ... most call me a smart-arse ... I'm here to serve. Over.
But it still doesn't answer a lot of it's own questions. I'm not speaking as someone of any particular religion, and do believe a lot in science. But that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge flaws in it's arguement, or find the idea that people will point and laugh at religious people for following a book of morals on blind faith, before they follow their own science books on blind faith. And it is still faith because science proves a lot of things that we continue to believe, but it also proves a lot of things that it then changes it's mind about due to new evidence.
Science is excellent but it's not a be-all end-all arguement. People just believe what they feel helps them lead a better life.
Chromosoner "People just believe what they feel helps them lead a better life." - I like that. What I don't like is "they follow their own science books on blind faith." That is a silly statement because as you point out "science ... changes its mind due to new evidence." No offence but you've just contradicted yourself. We've gone from Newton's Gravity to Einstein's Relativity and now Quantom ... that doesn't suggest "blind faith." Come to think of it, "Blind Faith" was a pretty good band band in its day ... have a listen because you might be too young to remember them. Cheers.
I don't see how I've contradicted myself there sorry. My point is that no matter what, if you're a member of any organised religion, or base beliefs on science, there is still a leap of faith because NONE of them answer all the questions you can have. There will always be leaps of logic, and information that changes down the line (easy go-to example for each would be how often you will hear scientific evidence of something being good for the body and then years later it's seen as cancerous, and religion being eye-for-an-eye becoming turn the other cheek.) Apologies if explained poorly - was trying to balance condensing it whilst not looking like was getting aggressive with the original commenter.
And as for Blind Faith being a good band.. 'Well Alright" ;)
Chromosoner "Well Alright" ... you got me with that one ... nice. In the main, religion is static, whereas science is dynamic ... I'll get m' coat.Cheers from Oz.
You can never truly know anything mate, we're just slowly answering our own questions. Stuff comes along and then all of a sudden an answer we had prior doesn't fit with this new question we have. We'll only ever have a rough idea of how things work, and even then. It could just be a massive coincidence that it all works and we're just completely wrong about it all. That's unlikely of course, but we base our knowledge on the likelihood that we're right.
but...but...but...DAVID! I'm disappointed. . . . . .but I'm over it now.XXXX
I love David but the way that this interview was conducted made me uneasy. When he was talking about his point of view on God/Atheism/Agnosticism it got a bit profound but he WAS asked about it, so he gave an answer - and then the guy kind of flew from the conversation saying "on a lighter note -" and changed the subject. Later, David spent some good 10 minutes reading attentively a chapter from his book out loud, trying his best to make the most of it (I believe he was a bit nervous) and then the interviewer couldn't even ask something or have a minor reflection on the whole France-lobster-encounter story he'd just told - instead he just went on about apple products and asked about advertising. Sighs. It's like those times when you're talking to someone but they just don't connect to you.
agnostics never cease to disappoint
Lets all play the Atheist's game. For 2 to 4 players (this will be important later) Roll a dice, whoever guesses the number correctly gets to go first. On their turn they say that either there is someone standing behind the other player, or there isn't. Take turns asking and answering questions, any question can be asked, but at no point can either player turn around and the person or people standing behind them can't make a sound. Then it is the next person's turn. Play continues until someone calls the game, both players have to guess if there is someone standing behind them or not. To win you just have to guess correctly.
(I don't think any science experiment has been invented that can prove conclusively if there is, or isn't, something supernatural out there in the universe. Maybe it is impossible, or maybe if we take each religious text one by one and look for experiments that can be done, questions that can be asked, maybe we could actually perform science instead of just being dogmatically opposed to someone standing behind us. When we haven't even found a way to turn around yet.)
He's a bearded concubine.
Wow! I also think Lord of the Rings is boring and meaningless!
erm...erm...erm...erm...erm..
Emm...Emm...Emmm...Emmm
I'd disagree with David on religion in one way, yes people would still kill each other without religion, they'd find other reasons, but religion makes it much easier.
When you remove ALL logic, as religion does, the gloves are off. If you base your terrible actions in reality it makes it harder to justify. Also religion leads to people rejecting science and logic in other aspects of life. Whether the balance of that and the good a belief in God has with some people balance each other out, is a good and unanswered question.
I suspect that his stated desire to/want to believe, because it's comforting to believe, cloud his judgment a little in this subject. But even as an atheist myself I'm well aware that some atheists are brutal to the extent of being unpleasant and counterproductive.
Perhaps we should focus on destroying organised religion, not the faith in God. It's _people_ telling other _people_ what "God wants" that are the problem, not the 1 in a million people who really actually think God told them to do something terrible.
I'm open to debate on this though so feel free :-)
+niemanickurwa Yes, religion allows otherwise good people to commit horrible atrocities while feeling righteous about it.
+Count Penta They do that just fine without religion. They just tell themselves it's 'justice' or 'defending their country' or some other grand-sounding idea.
Indeed. We already have enough information and knowledge about the Enlightenment to know that the dissolution of state and organised religion and replacing it with reasonable principles creates a far more progressive and prosperous society. The facts are against David, I'm afraid.
Yes, as a society, we aren't perfect. We never will be, I don't think. I think some of the main causes of macro violence in the world is religion, ethno-nationalism, and political dogma. The more of it you remove and replace with the principles of the 18th century philosophical movement (basically religious freedom, secularisation, individualism, human rights, etc) the less violence there will be. It's not just coincidence that the most pious or politically dogmatic or most nationalistic are those that are more likely to have inferior ethics, or fewer human rights and freedoms, etc... And it is true that the more secular we get and the more we learn about morality the fewer horrors we create. The world, although it's sometimes hard to discern, is better than it used to be.
As Christopher Hitchens often quipped:
"You find me a state or a society that threw off theocracy, and threw off religion. And said: ‘we adopt the teachings of Lucretius, and Democritus, and Galileo, and Spinoza, and Darwin, and Russell, and Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and we make those what we teach our children. And we make that, scientific and rational humanism, our teaching.’ And you find me that state that did that and fell into tyranny, and slavery, and famine, and torture, and then we’ll be on a level playing field.”
I would also say that religion, as it's interpreted and evaluated and assessed and internalised by the individual, can also be harmful. It's a good way for you to dissect yourself from reality. You may say it's a '1 in a million who really actually think God told them to do something terrible', but we already know, through many, many reputable polls and surveys that a large portion of religious people believe very ignorant and potentially harmful things. Think of the amount of creationists in America or issues on abortion or stem cell research or views towards sexuality or misogyny. The worst offenders for those are usually both Christian and Muslim nations. The polls show us this isn't fringe.
A lot of them may not be out there actively seeking to physically harm people. But that doesn't mean they don't have harmful and ignorant beliefs. Those beliefs are seeds for violence, and make it far more likely. What about those who estrange their family members because they came out as gay? Or those who think their wives deserve fewer human rights? Religious belief is a spectrum, and the harm it causes is almost ubiquitous, even if it isn't always suicide bombs and annihilation.
It has occurred to you that many of the people who begin or have begun wars, in the name of religion, are not really religious at all? A quick study of many ages: Ancient, classical, and so on to the present day, reveal leaders and people who do not act very religious. It is difficult to surmise simply because these fiends might be from say, a Christian country, that they are Christians. Simple inference or even if they said it or were baptized, etc. really means very little.
Religion makes it no easier to kill than if I am starving and you have food and I kill you for it. Religion may actually stop me from killing you despite my desperation.
And when does religion remove ALL logic? How can one be logical about something that cannot be proven or disproven? Can you logically fix your car if you do not have the slightest idea how it functions? Can you logically determine when a crazed homicidal lunatic who indiscriminately kills will strike?
When dealing with peoples hearts and minds, logic is not of much use. You also say something about difficulties in justifying one's action if one's actions are based in reality. A difficult sentence to entirely understand, but, if I understand you correctly, then what you are saying is balderdash. Hitler's reality and many of his cohorts, and many people in other countries were convinced that getting rid of the Jews was a good thing for society. Communist reality is do what we say or die (and communist thinking switches quickly but often times rationally from a bolshevist point of view). Of course you could argue that communism is a type of religion, but all communists would refute any such accusation.
All that is real to you is NOT all that is real to others. The tools of the enlightenment as Alex S brought up are fine tools, but reality is what many people make of it, particularly in people to people dealings.All of your assumptions seem to rest on the premise that everyone thinks as you do.
But regardless of the above, we would need to define "religion" first before any meaningful discussion about it could be had.
I guess I'm in old fogey mode, but a tee shirt and sweatpants seems inappropriate attire to interview someone in a venue other than a picnic or an outdoor concert.
Heat magazine is just awful. I hope they all get smallpox.
David *is* an atheist, he jus thas a misunderstanding of what the term means. It doesn't (necessarily) mean "anti-theist". It doesn't mean you are *convinced* there is no god. All it means is that you are not someone who says "I DO believe in god". Being an atheist is like being a non-smoker. It doesn't mean anything other than you don't smoke - no conclusions about why you don't smoke, or whether you've smoked before. If you do not currently smoke, you are a non-smoker. If you do not currently believe in god, you are an atheist.
A car is either red, or not red. Something is either A or "not A".
In short - if you don't positively believe in a god, if you don't pray, then you are an atheist. You don't have a god in your life. That's all it means. You're not saying there couldn't possibly be a god, just that you don't currently have a belief in one.
Could that interviewer look and more scruffy with that horrible t-shirt. It's an interview mate!
Wo gives a shit what he's wearing? All the tech companies do casual dress all the time for work, so it's completely natural for events like this to also be casual dress.
If I was interviewing a comedy genius, I'd feel privilege. Therefor I'd wear something smart! Not a t-shirt that you can find in the Primark clear out section!
Uk Master333 who cares.
I care at least in as far as to defend a persons right to wear what they want. If anyone thinks they have the right to me how to dress I'll tell them just how fervently I believe them to be a shallow minded turd who should fuck off.
Really? :(
David Mitchell doesn't understand atheism and agnosticism... That is disappointing :/
If you could explain the points you think he got wrong? I thought he put it very well. I doubt he really misrepresented or misunderstood much, it's not like he was defining the concepts, only talking about the cultures and influences that go along with it.
I SO hate when smart people say stupid things. Theist, or Atheist is about BELIEF. Gnostic, or agnostic is about knowledge. Almost every Christian is an agnostic. as is almost every atheist. I don't claim to KNOW there's no god, only that I haven't been given reason to BELIEVE in him or her or it... I wish he'd bloody learn what he's talking about before he insults people for no bloody reason! It's below him. He's too damned smart to say things that are so bloody stupid
Nooo, he wants a benevolent big camera in the sky! Disappointed... Oh well, at least he's funny, well not now in this interview, but in other shows you know.
***** The disappointing portion is his actual argument.
***** Of course they do, it's a large part of the point of most religions. Not being alone in your mind, someone who knows and understands you like another separate human being can't.
Angry atheist is angry. What the fuck else is new...
dirtpipedan
Angry Christian is angry and ready to kill, what else is new?
***** solipsism.