BBC White series, White girl. Your thoughts.

[Paul Wagland]

This is a great discussion, and it's nice to see people from all sides getting on!

I'm an atheist, simply because religion doesn't stand up to reason or logic. If you're born in India you'll probably be a Hindu, which according to most of the Christian church means you will go to hell when you die. Why should it be that the fate of your eternal soul is dependant purely on an accident of birth? Not that I believe in the eternal soul!

About five of the ten commandments are variations of 'You must believe in me!' - no basis for a moral system at all. In my view, all the valuable bits of Christianity (like 'Do unto others') all come from earlier philosophies, such as the ancient Greeks.

I hate the word atheist by the way, as it implies there is a God in which I don't believe! It literally means 'without God'. Nobody knows what I mean when I say I'm a monist though...

[rustylady]

When you trace most of the established religions back to their roots, they all seem to derive from one source (whatever that is). There are many, many similarities between all of them. The names of the prophets, the stories etc.

[beefy]

I am that person

I am that person you see smiling at you on the tube/chatting to you in the supermarket queue/making conversation with my fela 'uman anywhere I can

Ask Snowdrop, he is oft quoted as saying 'I'm proud of Suzie in that she can and will talk to anyone anywhere about anything' ....and I'm pleased that I woz made that way

I'd heard that there was another nutter in my world .Now I know who.

[The Doctor]

Genesis maybe PW, Darwin was most definitely considered a heretic in his day, with cartoons lampooning him as a monkey etc.

He still is by creationists! This is a major issue since there is plenty of repeatable scientific evidence to back up Darwin, and nothing but faith to back up any religious text.

I'm an atheist, simply because religion doesn't stand up to reason or logic. ..

I describe myself as agnostic for the same reason.

In my view, all the valuable bits of Christianity (like 'Do unto others') all come from earlier philosophies, such as the ancient Greeks.
...

Absolutely. One of the most irritating things to me is the way the church has hijacked the concept of moral, good behaviour into 'christian' beaviour.

How dare anyone imply that I or anyone else is not moral and decent because I dispute the existence of any god? Do they think people only started behaving decently after christianity was established?

[mapcr77]

Funny thing this. The so called reason the BBC is doing this "White" season is to approach the issues of the British white working class. But in typical BBC style, as can be seen in this thread, that issue goes to the backburner and it turns into one about religion and ethnic minorities.

Andrew Billen from The Times put it as "the telling was so good I almost forgot what propagandist tosh White Girl actually was" (11th March, T2 section). And ended up saying: "The writer Abi Morgan says that White Girl was not about Islam, but about faith. Islam just happens to be the fastest growing religion at the moment. “Leah could just as easily have been drawn to Judaism,” she tells Broadcast. An interesting thought. But what about someone making a film about a girl from an intolerant fundamentalist Muslim family converting to the joys of enlightened atheism? Somehow I can't see it being made, can you?"

Religion aside, in the end, the white working class issue ended up being portrayed in a cliche: broken families, alcoholism, lack of morals, etc. And I don't think that truly contributes to the debate on the perils of modern white working class britons, or their social concerns.

[Paul Wagland]

I describe myself as agnostic for the same reason.

I would say most people are agnostic these days. I think I was until I really did my reading and thought about it. I think that's a key issue too - most people in the UK don't really care enough to say anything stronger than 'I'm not really sure'. It's important to realise though, that less than 7% of the population are 'actively' Christian, yet this vocal minority have a disproportionate influence on our culture, our education systems, even our politics. It's not always a negative influence I'm sure, but it is given an authority it has in no way earned.

But what about someone making a film about a girl from an intolerant fundamentalist Muslim family converting to the joys of enlightened atheism? Somehow I can't see it being made, can you?"

How about any serious mention, anywhere in the press, about the validity of atheism as a world view?! It's so annoying that people are afraid to criticise religion because they fear being viewed as 'disrespectful'. I have no respect for religion, though of course I do respect people's right to believe what they want.

[The Doctor]

I would say most people are agnostic these days. I think I was until I really did my reading and thought about it. I think that's a key issue too - most people in the UK don't really care enough to say anything stronger than 'I'm not really sure'.

I'm sure you didn't mean this to sound condescending, but it did, a little.
I have read the bible, all of it, twice, even thought about it a bit too () and this is why I feel perfectly vindicated in my choice.

I prefer to think of atheism and being agnostic (is agnostism a word!?) in a slightly different way.
In my opinion, the atheist basically says "There is no God, period."
On the other hand, the agnostic person says "On balance of probabilities, I do not believe. Show me some hard evidence and I might take you seriously."

It's so annoying that people are afraid to criticise religion because they fear being viewed as 'disrespectful'. I have no respect for religion, though of course I do respect people's right to believe what they want.

Agreed. And believe me, I have no issue with criticising anything I do not feel is right!

[Paul Wagland]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound condescending! What I was trying to say was that most people don't think about it enough to really make a decision. Not because they aren't capable of taking their reasoning any further, but because it's not sufficiently important to them. I've read a bit about it because it interests me - not because I'm particularly bright! (As an aside, did you know atheists in America are calling themselves 'brights', in an effort to mimic the success of the homosexual community calling itself 'gay'. Now that's condescending! )

I have always thought being agnostic meant 'not really knowing' (I think it's agnosticism btw - spellcheck seems to like it!). In fact, looking it up now it actually means you believe it's not possible to prove the existence of a god (or lack thereof), which is slightly different.

I recommend The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins if you have a spare few hours Doc, or Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris if you've only got 20 mins! Both really well written, even if you don't like their arguments. I'd love to know what you think of them.

[pigletwillie]

He still is by creationists! This is a major issue since there is plenty of repeatable scientific evidence to back up Darwin, and nothing but faith to back up any religious text.

.

The vast majority of Christians would totally agree with Darwins theory of evolution. Dont take literally that the bible says God took 7 days to make the earth, time is abstact as it says further on that a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day. Whatever life was present has quite obiously evolved into what we have today. Please dont count right wing American creationists into the mix, they are a bit off the wall for most of us.

Now the thread was about the BBC White girl programme, not about disproving or is it disaproving of Christianity.

[The Doctor]

...I have always thought being agnostic meant 'not really knowing' (I think it's agnosticism btw - spellcheck seems to like it!). In fact, looking it up now it actually means you believe it's not possible to prove the existence of a god (or lack thereof), which is slightly different.
...

Paul, based on the definition you've come up with here, I think agnosticism fits me even more!

Personally, I have no time for religion (I have read some of the Dawkins book), though I think if others want to use it as a kind of 'crutch' for their own lives, so be it.

The vast majority of Christians would totally agree with Darwins theory of evolution. Dont take literally that the bible says God took 7 days to make the earth, time is abstact as it says further on that a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day. Whatever life was present has quite obiously evolved into what we have today. Please dont count right wing American creationists into the mix, they are a bit off the wall for most of us.

PGW, I think this is one of the issues I have with religion as a whole. Many Christians who wouldn't describe themselves as extremists of any sort do take many other parts of the bible literally. (My wife has some good friends who are religious).
In my mind, they can't pick and choose and have it both ways. They can't say at one point "oh, the bible didn't really mean that..." and then at other times quote a chapter and verse saying "..the bible says that..." and expect everyone to take it at it's word.

Not being shy of discussing religion with people means I have encountered this many times.

There are many other contradictions that I can't accept. For example, many, many, many good deeds are done throughout the world by people in the name of religion. Why do those decent people feel a need not to take the credit for themselves?

And why, when bad things are done does it then conveniently revert back to people at fault, not the religion it is done in the name of?

Now the thread was about the BBC White girl programme, not about disproving or is it disaproving of Christianity.

Surely you didn't expect a discussion about this programme to take place without religion coming into it?
Also, isn't that the whole point? That they have strength in belief regardless of others lack of faith and disbelief, and regardless of the actual form of religion chosen?

[pigletwillie]

Oh I expect religion to come into it, in context to the thread which was about a tv programme, some however have chosen to just slag off religion because its not their cup of tea.

I dont preach my religion to you so please dont use your choice of having no belief to just constantly rip my beliefs apart.

Please keep the thread respectul of ALL peoples beliefs.

[The Doctor]

I dont preach my religion to you so please dont use your choice of having no belief to just constantly rip my beliefs apart.

Please keep the thread respectul of ALL peoples beliefs.

Not how I see it I'm afraid. Explaining my reasons for non-belief is neither being disrespectful to other religions ( I do not think I have been in any way disrespectful so it seems you were right, Paul!), or so easily ripping yours apart. Surely your not telling me your beliefs are so easily ripped apart by my ramblings? Maybe reasoned arguments to my questions might change my mind?

Anyway, you have your wish. I will accept your censorship and refrain from discussing it further.

[pigletwillie]

No censorship at all, just be respectfull of others beliefs, everybody has free will to believe or worship as they please. Feel free to discuss.

[Paulottie]

Apologies as I wrote this last night and fell asleep before posting so I think you have already made this point but hey, i'll post it anyway.

He still is by creationists! This is a major issue since there is plenty of repeatable scientific evidence to back up Darwin, and nothing but faith to back up any religious text.

Yes, but creationists are probably a minority extremist bunch even in the church. whereas Darwin at the time was swimming against the mainstream Victorian morality. I think the way the faithful justify it is by saying that it is in the translation of Genesis (eg. I believe dias meant a period of time rather than a day-I'm no classics scholar tho). anyhow it is chronologically correct and was possibly a way of explaining to tribal people where they came from.

Do they think people only started behaving decently after Christianity was established?

Well nailing some fella to a tree because he went around telling people they should try loving each is fairly barbaric. (as is publically flogging rape victims for instance) But the thrust of this thread was really about tolerance and acceptance of others, and whether it varies between the major religions in this country.

I didn't think we were seeking to attack others faiths here, but question whether the religious in general are more concerned with their own validity at the expense of their common tennet of kindness to one's fellow human regardless of that persons background.

On balance I think they probably don't. It is less a case of good samaritans than groups assimillating a vulnarable soul to their beliefs. Unpredjudiced charity does not, and should not, depend on faith.

And come on people, I know it is almost imposible to discuss religion or politics without someone being insulted but this is just a (very interesting) philisophical debate, so indeed, let's remain respectful of others and keep it on track.....ultimately there are no rights or absolutes here.

[Paul Wagland]

Some however have chosen to just slag off religion because its not their cup of tea.
I dont preach my religion to you so please dont use your choice of having no belief to just constantly rip my beliefs apart.

Easy PLW, it's an emotive subject but I don't think anyone has slagged-off religion so far. In my view faith is not a subject that we should be afraid of discussing, criticising or objecting too - although many religious people might say it is unacceptable to do so (not you, I know). Also, atheism and agnosticism are not a lack of belief - they are simply different beliefs to those you hold. The atheist believes there is no god, the agnostic that the existence of god can't be proved.

No censorship at all, just be respectfull of others beliefs, everybody has free will to believe or worship as they please. Feel free to discuss.

This is a crucial, and very subtle, point. I think we all agree that everyone has the right to believe what they want. We respect the individual's right to believe. However, we do not have to respect what they believe in. Does that make sense? As an example, I respect the right of a person to think their horoscope is a true prediction of their future, but I do not respect the actual belief at all, because it's scientifically unsound. The same goes, in my mind, for religion. I'm sure PLW respects my right to be an atheist, but doesn't agree with many aspects of my atheism and is therefore free to criticise it.

But the thrust of this thread was really about tolerance and acceptance of others, and whether it varies between the major religions in this country.
It is less a case of good samaritans than groups assimillating a vulnarable soul to their beliefs. Unpredjudiced charity does not, and should not, depend on faith.

I wish I'd watched the program. The important issue to me would be whether the neighbours were primarily interested in the girl's well-being, or in bagging another convert. Interesting that you point out she was vulnerable too. That's another issue though.