Andrew Copson as Panellist on Sunday Morning Live (16/09/2012)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Andrew Copson, Francesca Stavrakopoulou and others appear on the Sunday Morning Live programme to discuss:
1. The right to defend yourself and your home
2. Science vs Religion, are they compatible?
3. The alleged persecution of Christians in the UK
Mr. Copson seems to be extremely good-humoured and provides great arguments, pretty much everything one would hope from a "figurehead" for secular humanism.
Copson: superb as always.
Thank you for the upload!
I LOVE Francesca's face at 24:25 as soon as someone starts talking shit about her subject - she knows she can annihilate him but she's being patient.......
+Nakadu I didn't see any annihilation
Andrew Copson is brilliant
I am an american and don't understand these people on the panel. If someone breaks into my home, it is a threat. I have no idea if this individual is going to kill me or my child. Of course I will use whatever force I have to protect my child. Period.
This is not question in the U.S. You invade someone's home, you leave it in a body bag.
+Great Helm
home space > trespassers' human life
l hadn't realised that being an atheist made me "new" or "aggressive." l'd always though the mutilation of children's genitals and condeming non believers to hell was aggressive.
"'we don't know" is the honest answer. The only honest answer.
Go Andrew! He argued brilliantly :D
As a student of Religious Studies, I understand why Dr. Francesca is correct that Dawkins and his ilk don't truly understand religion. It would be wonderful is these people, rather than becoming overly antagonistic and simplistic peoples, would study religion at universities and contribute academic, nuanced, and educated work there. That would be the truest form of fair discussion and inspection of religions.
There seemed to be a lot of stress between the participants of this discussion, which would have been lessened with the observation that religion and science (and crime) has one very big thing in common - people.
Hopefully in 100 years, this terrific television segment will seem like the modern day equivalent to watching an 80's action flick and thinking to ourselves "this whole plot would be rendered obsolete by the cell phone."
Evidence is involved in Christian faith?
I'm a bit annoyed that Francesca didn't respond specifically to the idea that "made in the image of God" is the main reason why we are able to come up with scientific explanations. That whole suggestion seemed highly tenuous and I very much doubt that the same theologian who doubts the historical existence of Moses will happily accept that science owes its existence to the book of Genesis. If that were the case, where did early forms of science in China come from?
" ... turning the other cheek ... got it in, got it in".
I've listend to F.S. before and I'm utterly baffled at her dislike of RD's views. The origins of religion may speak to our humanity but it was clearly just made up nonsense that served human social needs. Respect our ancestors yes, they kept trying, which eventually gave us the correct pragmatic way to understand the universe ; science. Then at 31:30 she agrees, "there;'s no evidence for the resurrection" then she says "she dosn't belive in science" at 26:30 ...I don't get her...
+Tom Ormiston You don't need to believe in science.
+Tom Ormiston she doesn't believe in god and she doesn't believe in science as the way to "know it all", she has explained that the scientific method may not always be the best way to understand some aspects of our lifes, human beings are very multidimensional and that's why she understands the importance and the impact of stablished religion.
Very well done Andrew. Francesca Stavrakopoulou doesn't seem to understand what Richard Dawkins is about.
Shame no one tlked about the impact that using force have on the victim. You could end up injuring someone or killing them, not be found guilty but you would have to live with that for the rest of your life.
I'm very fond of both Andrew and Francesca, but I can't help but feel Francesca's opinion that Richard Dawkins "doesn't understand" religion is misguided. As it happens, Dawkins makes the same secular, scientific points about religion that Andrew and she made during this discussion. Just because he chooses to focus on criticism of religion, while she harbours both fondness and criticism for it, does not mean he does not understand. It just means that his focus within the debate is different.
My two cents: Please don't confuse Christianity with religion. I can only speak for myself but my personal love for Jesus has nothing to do with power, politics or dogma.. I don't impose my beliefs on others. I just try to love God and love my fellow humans. God has saved my life- if it seems ridiculous or deluded to others, I don't care. People in a civilized society should be free to believe what they like, as long as it harms and oppresses no one else, without being ridiculed for it.
And the poll was worded poorly, "any force" could be read in different ways.
I too am baffled by FS and her dislike of Dawkins. It's either something personal which she doesn't disclose or maybe she is accusing him of 'scientism', the belief that science is the only truth.
To be fair, the more accurate claim is that the scientific method (evidence and reason) is the best way so far to obtain objective truth about the natural world. The scientific method is used, not only by the natural sciences, but also by the social sciences (anthropology, archeology, psychology, etc), history, law, even biblical scholarship, etc. This position does not, in any way, diminish the value of the arts, music, literature and humanities and their contribution to the life experience of human beings.
Yeah I was a bit puzzled by this remark too, as she seems to value evidence-based arguments very highly in her own discipline. I think she probably does believe in Science but just meant something different when she used the word in that context.
I do feel that shooting someone in the back when they're already fleeing is over the top. As a Roman proverb goes; "Build a golden bridge for a fleeing enemy".
On the other hand if a burglar is discovered and continues to try to advance their position or otherwise escalate the incident showing continuing willingness on their part then all bets are off and any subsequent injury to themselves is down to them.
They shouldn't presume to impose and take advantage of a duty of care by their victim.
Francesca "I don't believe in science."
I realise that archaeology doesn't lead to the same rigid conclusions as, say, astrophysics, but Francesca actually uses a highly evidential methodology in her work on a regular basis, so the idea that she doesn't "believe in science" just strikes me as bizarre. Whenever she is working out the era and purpose of an archaeological site is, scientific processes can sometimes be the clinching factor in an argument. She knows this, surely?
42:40 - For a while I quite literally thought this video was a spoof, for the sheer disregard of reality it conveys.
Andrew Copson kicks that Christian social apologists metaphorical ass like a boss. But then he does have reality on his side.
By definition a "Christian" is a "Christ Follower" or "Follower of Jesus's teachings as stated by the Bible". Therefore, by definition, a "Real Christian" would be any person who completely and accurately follows the teachings of Jesus and expresses the attributes taught in said teachings. By definition they would be people who only express these attributes and do not express attributes counter to the ones in Jesus's teachings.
"Science does not provide the answers to questions that religion answers."
That's because in science falsehoods aren't maintained, whereas in religion they do. Science is getting accused of not lying, here.
@44:30
Andy - I cannot take any of the claims in that video seriously. It was the complete opposite of reality....
Interviewer - "Andy Marsh, take that"
Indeed.
Andy Copson is awesome. :)
Therefore, a "Real Christian" would not have delusions of power and would not desire power over people as that would be counter to Jesus's teachings. While there is a subjective nature to the definition of any title, there is also an objective one and ignoring the fact that there is always an objective one would be a logical fallacy. While there may be a subjective nature in what a "True Scotsman" is, there is also an objective one.
Maybe it's where I'm at in my life but the science vs religion and other religious questions in general are so easy compared to the defending yourself in your home question.I probably side with Andrew and Frencesca, but if someone invades your home in the middle of the night and you shoot them I would be outraged by that... and yet what if it was your adult son needing a place to sleep at night and he snuck in? Tough issues to figure out in my eyes.
The Host Samira Ahmed talks and interrupts far too much. I think she's on speed...
My view on if some one breaks into my house: Enter my house and you can kiss your balls goodbye. You left you rights outside your door not outside mine. I am in no way responsible for your arse.
Professor Stavrakopoulou made me laugh when Dr. David Wilkinson made his deluded points about "evidence" in favor of the superstitious claims of Christianity. It was just perfect the way she cut him down. These professional liars often get away with their claims that the New Testament constitutes factual evidence for their ridiculous beliefs.
But at about 30:50 onwards, when it does come down to it, she does in sweet and demure fashion put the boot in.
What are you suppossed to do if confronted by a burgler, help him load your belongings in a sack?Smile at him and say "Have a nice day".
On the last issue regarding persecution of christians. In the case of the sex therapists being unwilling to counsell gays.
I notice that they seem to be far more interested in keeping their jobs than in fulfilling the letter of their scripture by dragging the clients out and stoning them to death.
That religious integrity thing is a bitch ain't it?
No, a Real Christian is someone who doesn't take Bible passages out of context and twist their meaning to suit the ideals of the individual; ignoring the culture and time period in which it was written. The "Law" talked about in (Matt5:18-19) refers to the 10 commandments, not the entire book of the Torah.
@56:19
'"Make a change from Christians being persecuted by...." okay not sure I can read that one.'
Looks like a Daily Mail reader wrote in. :P
Richard Dawkins does not understand what Richard Dawkins is about either!
The Torah has to do with the Jewish faith. Christian "Christ Follower" "Jesus's teachings" Those are in the New Testament. Amputating limbs and gouging out their eyes is seen as an extreme action in the Bible; only to be taken when there is no other way for you to stop sinning than to get rid of that which makes you sin. Buying a sword has nothing to do with Jesus's teachings. Hating their families simply means loving God so much that It seems like hate in comparison. Not "hating" them.
takes one "Dumbo" to recognize another...
Wow, you don't hold back, do you?
Am I the only one who's noticed that Dr Stavrakapolou looks less beautiful than usual.
Yes, you are. I'm not seeing this at all.
You definitely would!
VanLightning900 only towards the end because her face becomes more and more disgusted as mine did, lol. to me, she is still hot and smart as hell.
So a Real Christian™ is someone who sells everything they have and give it to the poor, hates and leaves their families, amputates their limbs and/or gouge out their eyes if they sin, keeps the Torah (Matt5:18-19), has bought a sword, and performs greater miracles than Jesus allegedly did?
That chick seems to go against common sense in any argument she makes
Skip to 42:40 for the most ignorant, sutpid and populist drivel ever uttered. I laughed tears.
26:32
"-and I think the image of religion is being short sold here in terms of its cognitive aspirations."
[Dr. Pepper sprays onto the screen] BWAHAHAAAAHAAA !!!!
Christians under attack!
lol
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm......Francesca
BTW I read the whole damn thing, front to back. From the fantastic genesis, through the grusome crimes god committed, the very unreasonable rules he left the jews, and then wrestled my way through the begats and the flame chariots and the gospels, which turns out it's just one but badly copied and went all the way to the delusional Revelations.... And soon after, I became a nonbeliever... best way to become one.
Richard Dawkins does not have an understanding of religion but he has the right to criticise religion.At times I just wish people would think for themselves and not just blindly follow Dawkins words on religion.
People can talk about our "backward" American gun laws as much as they like, but at least here citizens have a right to defend themselves during an active home invasion. The home invader is the one who initiates force and is the initial cause of the threat, and we don't put the onus on homeowners to make absolutely sure the intruder means to kill them before initiating their defence. You can't hunt a fleeing suspect and gun them down, but if someone breaks into your home while you are there, no one will prosecute you if you respond with force, up to and including deadly force. To put the onus on the law abiding citizen to wait until he or she discovers whether the invader means to kill, assault, rape, or merely steal a television is an absurd and unjust burden to impose on someone facing the jarring shock of some malicious stranger breaking into their most intimate space. By the time one figures out what the invader means to do, it could very well be too late to mount a counterattack.
Please define "Real Christian™" then look up the "No true Scotsman" informal logical fallacy.
Minor crime my arse.
Ahhhh... So a Real Christian™ is someone who cherry picks, interprets and ignores Bible passages in just the way *you* say. Now's a good time to look up the "No true Scotsman" informal logical fallacy.