"Deborah (13): Servant of God" on tonight 22.30 BBC3

[Rusthall Seagull]

These mates..can anyone else see them? or are they a matter of faith as well?

almost hilarious - nah, I made them up, one is called Kylie and the other Danni. They think I am really clever, funny, talented and good looking. You want to meet them too ?

 

[Silent Bob]

Exactly, whilst all the deniers were creaming themselves over some random program about 0.0000000000001 % of christians being 'extreme' - I was out with my god bothering mates getting smashed

Hang on, "getting smashed" isn't allowed is it?

 

[clapham_gull]

oh dear what ? you think that is crass ?

Yes, smug, uncaring and extremely un-Christian.

Do you think HIV is all part of God's great plan, because that is what you are implying.

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

Hang on, "getting smashed" isn't allowed is it?

 

[Trufflehound]

You haven't got a picture of one dressed up in a Sally Army outfit have you? A dog, rather than a lesbian office administrator.

Rather a poor effort I'm afraid, but the best I could manage.

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

Yes, smug, uncaring and extremely un-Christian.

Do you think HIV is all part of God's great plan, because that is what you are implying.

I am not implying that at all. It was meant to be crass mate. A bit like saying that one man is responsible for the spread of aids.

 

[mr sheen]

Rather a poor effort I'm afraid, but the best I could manage.

{QUOTE]

There is such a fine line between poor effort and genius at times

 

[Albion Rob]

If you argue that Dawkins,has no right to comment on religion because he is not a christian then do you similarly resist Christians having a poweful voice in matters of science and medicine? stem cell research? IVF? euthenasia?, after all they're not scientists so why should we listen to them...but we have to, mores the pity.

.

How about Christian Scientists or scientists who happen to be Christians?

Should their input be welcomed or discarded?

 

[beorhthelm]

It's taught them a zoologist isn't a Christian. That's about it.

Have a read of it, his assumptions on how a regular Christian thinks and behaves are laughable.

you must have mis-read it then, because he doesnt have much problem with "regular" Christians but the fundementalists of all religions. It is a philisophical discusion about what is wrong with religions in general. His tone can be very evangelical* at times but when you cut through he makes so many valid points its hard to say he is wrong. unless of coarse you simply reject anything anti-religious. to highlight his original training as a zoologist is a very hollow arguement, suggesting that noone can have expertise in more than one domain. if you follow this logic, we should not allow theologians to have any input into anything outside their field.

* very deliberate use.

 

[zeemeeuw]

Tell you what, I bet in 5 years time that Debbie is going to be a right dirty little sexpot!

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

How about Christian Scientists or scientists who happen to be Christians?

Should their input be welcomed or discarded?

If their input is confined to science, rather than mumbo jumbo and bankrupt theology, yes, welcomed, although I have to say that I am on the side of Dawkins when he accuses religious scientists of being cowards, too worried about losing their grants from academic institutions who still entertain clerics and theologians on their bursary boards, to renounce the fantasy and superstition of religion.

If someone is trained to study science, understands physics, biology and chemistry and yet still believes in the Judeo Christian concept of God then he/she must be suspect as serious measurers of physical fact.

 

[Albion Rob]

If their input is confined to science, rather than mumbo jumbo and bankrupt theology, yes, welcomed, although I have to say that I am on the side of Dawkins when he accuses religious scientists of being cowards, too worried about losing their grants from academic institutions who still entertain clerics and theologians on their bursary boards, to renounce the fantasy and superstition of religion.

If someone is trained to study science, understands physics, biology and chemistry and yet still believes in the Judeo Christian concept of God then he/she must be suspect as serious measurers of physical fact.

Interesting that those who have scientific knowledge but still choose to believe in God/Jesus should just be dismissed as cowards. I would have thought it would be quite brave to be in possession of a lot of scientific knowledge and yet still choose to believe something that a lot of people are quite scpetical of and that will see many members of the scientific community treat them with derision.

Anyway, I'm going to bow out here - I always think that when NSC gets on to religion what comes out is not dissimilar to the football hooligan threads - although possibly with less of the wanking over Henri Lloyd jackets.

 

[Crawley 'Gull]

you must have mis-read it then, because he doesnt have much problem with "regular" Christians but the fundementalists of all religions. It is a philisophical discusion about what is wrong with religions in general. His tone can be very evangelical* at times but when you cut through he makes so many valid points its hard to say he is wrong. unless of coarse you simply reject anything anti-religious. to highlight his original training as a zoologist is a very hollow arguement, suggesting that noone can have expertise in more than one domain. if you follow this logic, we should not allow theologians to have any input into anything outside their field.

* very deliberate use.

Thing is, Dawkins portrayal of Christianity is so far removed from my experience of what it means to be a Christian that I find it hard to take any good points that he may have had seriously! I've been taught values such as to love your enemies, to care for the poor and needy, to bless/pray for those who persecute you etc. Mother Teresa is someone who gave everything she had to helping the poor - as a direct result of her faith - and all Dawkins had to say about her was that she was a 'sanctimonious hypocrite' - because she happened to have a view on abortion which he doesn't agree with. It's hard to reason with someone like that! (And it appeared to me that he did have a problem with all forms of religion - not just the fundamentalists)

Also, in regards to blaming the pope for the spread of aids in Africa, doesn't the catholic church also teach not to have sex before marriage??

(Sorry for joining in late on this. Haven't watched the programme yet so can't comment)

 

[Mellotron]

Thing is, Dawkins portrayal of Christianity is so far removed from my experience of what it means to be a Christian that I find it hard to take any good points that he may have had seriously! I've been taught values such as to love your enemies, to care for the poor and needy, to bless/pray for those who persecute you etc.

Said it much better than I could've.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

If someone is trained to study science, understands physics, biology and chemistry and yet still believes in the Judeo Christian concept of God then he/she must be suspect as serious measurers of physical fact.

Ah physics, the science of countless theories.

Considering how little of that which is hypothesised in physics can be seen or touched it does seem rather hypocritical to be slagging off religion as a fantasy when there's nothing to say alot of physics isnt pure human fantasy.

After all it was a Catholic Priest who put forth the Big Bang theory.

Which leads to the question no scientist and least of all the twat Dawkins can answer, what set it off.

 

[Mellotron]

I do find it ironic when any Atheist calls anyone religious "close minded", as by it's definition Atheism is the ultimate close minded-ness, shutting possibilities of literally everything out.

 

[Lokki 7]

Which leads to the question no scientist and least of all the twat Dawkins can answer, what set it off.

Oh right, but religon can though? It was all down to a bloke with a beard putting in a hard weeks work. Let there be light, and there was light! Well that explains it! Let's go down the pub, sorted.

At least physics is attempting to find the real answers by a process of trial and error. And contrary to what you say much of this can be tested in one way or another. More importantly, all theories are subject to rigourous debate and criticism. When theories are proved to be wrong they are instantly discarded, a far cry from religous doctrine.

 

[Lokki 7]

I do find it ironic when any Atheist calls anyone religious "close minded", as by it's definition Atheism is the ultimate close minded-ness, shutting possibilities of literally everything out.

Rubbish. Like the recent bus adverts, "God PROBABLY doesn't exist". Can you imagine a religion being open minded enough to be quoted as say god PROBABLY exists. How is that less blinkered?

I would also add that most athiests were brought up with some sort of religious leaning but via a process of independent thought choose to discard those theories. How is this thought process blinkered? Most religous people are religious because their parents brought them up to be, where is the choice there? How is that not blinkered?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Telling millions of Africans (amongst others) that they should not wear condoms or they will burn in hell.

Uganda has the highest amount of Roman Catholics in Africa.

It also has been one of the more successful African nations in regards to reducing incidence of AIDS.

The Pope never said anyone will burn in hell for wearing a condom.

So I think you might be talking a bit of shit there.

 

[Mellotron]

When theories are proved to be wrong they are instantly discarded, a far cry from religous doctrine.

What theories have proved to be wrong?