Oxford Union Society Debate: Religion Helps/Harms society

[alexey]

This isn't live and let live....this is live and if you believe in God then you're a **** head just like all the other "theists are morons" threads alexy posts.

I think that religion is a bad idea. I am passionate about this, and I do not hide it. However, I am also very clear that I am talking about ideas and not people.

I understand that this is a sensitive topic but you seem to insist on misunderstending my points and my motivations.

In our previous discussions I learned that we have a lot of common ground when it comes to actions. I think we are both interested in participating in the marketplace of ideas, and promoting ideas that we think will lead to actions that we value. Let best ideas win out. I encourage you to remain civil.

...

As for religion being bad for society....tell me alexey, what religion was Stalin when he killed 12 million people? Twice the number as Hitler BTW.

The reality is that there are evil ****s who lie, murder, cheat and steal and sometimes they use the guise of religion to do it other times they announce to the world that they are atheists as they kill 12 million people. So maybe atheism is to blame.

I blame dogmas. Religions do not have a monopoly on dogmas, and secular dogmas can be just as harmful.

From the argument by Michael Nugent

Because religion encourages us to believe not only implausible claims, but literally untestable claims. And then it insists that we live our lives on the basis of these untestable claims.

Compare this with secular faiths that cause harm, such as faith in fascism, communism or the unregulated free market. Eventually these faiths bump into reality, and we realize they are not working. But religious faith hides its testability in an imaginary afterlife.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think that religion is a bad idea. I am passionate about this, and I do not hide it. However, I am also very clear that I am talking about ideas and not people. I understand that this is a sensitive topic but you seem to insist on misunderstending my points and my motivations.

You know, my step father used to say to me after a mistake, "How could someone do something that stupid." Sure, he was talking about the mistake, but it sure did sound like he was calling me stupid by association.

In our previous discussions I learned that we have a lot of common ground when it comes to actions. I think we are both interested in participating in the marketplace of ideas, and promoting ideas that we think will lead to actions that we value. Let best ideas win out. I encourage you to remain civil.

Oh I'm civilno worries there, but let's just remember who said, "love your neighbor as yourself", and "love your enemy" first, because from where I sit there are no better ideas than those, but I'm sure the guy who said that was just a superstitious moron.

I blame dogmas. Religions do not have a monopoly on dogmas, and secular dogmas can be just as harmful.From the argument by Michael Nugent

You do understand of course that your own personal atheism is just as dogmatic, right?

You want to object because the claims are untestable against what you believe are implausible claims. If you believe that the claims are implausible then don't follow the teachings of religion's great leaders lest you simply be seen as a grave robbing opportunist with commitment issues. LoL!

[Elessar78]

However, I am also very clear that I am talking about ideas and not people.

You use a variant of this line frequently, is this from the Atheist's Cookbook?

 

"Religion is a bad idea." Therefore, it's adherents are/have bad ideas? Don't answer that. I know what your thinly veiled answer will be. 

[alexey]

You know, my step father used to say to me after a mistake, "How could someone do something that stupid." Sure, he was talking about the mistake, but it sure did sound like he was calling me stupid by association.

I do my best to teach my children that everybody makes mistakes, to help them understand how it happens, to help them face mistakes and not rationalize them, as well as to to help them disassociate their mistakes from their identity.

Everybody says: make mistakes, mistakes are great, it's about how many times you get up, etc.... but yes still it feels bad to make mistakes and it can be very difficult to face them.

Oh I'm civilno worries there, but let's just remember who said, "love your neighbor as yourself", and "love your enemy" first, because from where I sit there are no better ideas than those, but I'm sure the guy who said that was just a superstitious moron.

I try to judge ideas on their merit, not their source.

I think you should stop calling people names and pretending I'm the one doing it.

You do understand of course that your own personal atheism is just as dogmatic, right?

You want to object because the claims are untestable against what you believe are implausible claims. If you believe that the claims are implausible then don't follow the teachings of religion's great leaders lest you simply be seen as a grave robbing opportunist with commitment issues. LoL!

You may be talking about "strong" atheism, or whatever its called, the one where you actively deny existence of gods... I am fine with the simpler atheism of looking at claims that gods exist and saying I'm not convinced.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I do my best to teach my children that everybody makes mistakes, to help them understand how it happens, to help them face mistakes and not rationalize them, as well as to to help them disassociate their mistakes from their identity.

Yet you have not proved a mistake, you're using your dogmatic beliefs to insist that those of faith are making a mistake. I'm content with the knowledge that my belief in God is just as dogmatic as your assertions in the opposition.

I try to judge ideas on their merit, not their source.

So, what are the merits of those two teachings? What atheistic philosophy supports those two notions?

You may be talking about "strong" atheism, or whatever its called, the one where you actively deny existence of gods... I am fine with the simpler atheism of looking at claims that gods exist and saying I'm not convinced.

Based on your evangelical efforts of late it seems quite difficult to distinguish between the two. I also don't buy your claim that you're simply unconvinced, unless all of this is just over compensation.

[Special K]

Let's just start an "Athiests Are Us" thread and merge all 5000 of Alexey's anti-religion threads into it.

[Kosher Ham]

Alexey, they are not supposed to judge. Seems like a common trait however.

 

Me, I don't care about the religious aspect.

Good people are good people regardless, or sometimes...even in spite of it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Alexey, they are not supposed to judge. Seems like a common trait however.

Not judging is about passing judgment upon someone, i.e. condemnation. This should not be confused with evaluation which Jesus himself said "by their fruit you will recognize them." Matthew 7:16

Now, I will grant that there are too many who call themselves Christian who practice condemnation (something I myself have been guilty of) and that's a pity, for by the measure they use they will be judged. Matthew 7:12

[PeterMP]

Thanks for the link alexey. I'll watch it when I have time.

I don't understand the complaining in here. If you don't like it or have a problem with the OP, don't click it. Alexey isn't forcing you to participate.

It's helpful when you don't have time to find stuff like this yourself. That's why I find the tailgate useful for most things. I get to catch up on misc. stuff that I otherwise would have missed.

 

I'm not saying it isn't useful, but compare this to other threads like the pope thread where it has become a general thread on the new pope.  Right, he recently released a new document regarding his vision and a re-direction of the Catholic Church, but I didn't start a new thread.

 

I put it in the existing thread.  I've informed people that are interested without making a new thread that if a conversation is going to really start is going to repeat many of the same points of a thread already on the first page.

[MEANDWARF]

Jesus Lives. It is not a religion, it's a relationship.

[alexey]

Yet you have not proved a mistake, you're using your dogmatic beliefs to insist that those of faith are making a mistake. I'm content with the knowledge that my belief in God is just as dogmatic as your assertions in the opposition.

I would not use the word "dogmatic" to describe my views because they are not based on any authoritative assertions or revealed knowledge.

So, what are the merits of those two teachings? What atheistic philosophy supports those two notions?

Many very different philosophies can include not believing in gods.

On the secular side, our shared values are reflected in Secular Humanism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Secular_humanism

Secular humanism is a comprehensive life stance or world view which embraces human reason, metaphysical naturalism, altruistic morality and distributive justice, and consciously rejects supernatural claims, theistic faith and religiosity, pseudoscience, and superstition.[54][55][56] It is sometimes referred to as Humanism (with a capital H and no qualifying adjective).

Based on your evangelical efforts of late it seems quite difficult to distinguish between the two. I also don't buy your claim that you're simply unconvinced, unless all of this is just over compensation.

My actions reflect my passions and interests. They do not indicate a dogmatic strength of conviction.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I would not use the word "dogmatic" to describe my views because they are not based on any authoritative assertions or revealed knowledge.

Oh of course not...how convienient that you are allowed to deny dogmatism but are able to so readily slap it on anyone else.

Many very different philosophies can include not believing in gods.

In other news...the sun came up, so what?

I do find it convienient though that these philosophies get the luxury of being able to sit back and cherry pick from religious teachings while mocking the source of those teachings.

On the secular side, our shared values are reflected in Secular Humanism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Secular_humanismSecular humanism is a comprehensive life stance or world view which embraces human reason, metaphysical naturalism, altruistic morality and distributive justice, and consciously rejects supernatural claims, theistic faith and religiosity, pseudoscience, and superstition.[54][55][56] It is sometimes referred to as Humanism (with a capital H and no qualifying adjective).My actions reflect my passions and interests. They do not indicate a dogmatic strength of conviction.

[Yeah no Secular Humanist has ever been accused of being dogmatic.

What is your ethical system then, since Humanism allows you to pick from several?

And what does indicate the dogmatic strength of your convictions are your repeated threads and disdain for that which you cannot disprove, at the expense of the personal experience and relationship of others.

[Zguy28]

I would not use the word "dogmatic" to describe my views because they are not based on any authoritative assertions or revealed knowledge.Many very different philosophies can include not believing in gods.On the secular side, our shared values are reflected in Secular Humanism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Secular_humanismSecular humanism is a comprehensive life stance or world view which embraces human reason, metaphysical naturalism, altruistic morality and distributive justice, and consciously rejects supernatural claims, theistic faith and religiosity, pseudoscience, and superstition.[54][55][56] It is sometimes referred to as Humanism (with a capital H and no qualifying adjective).My actions reflect my passions and interests. They do not indicate a dogmatic strength of conviction.

you are more like a fundie theist than you think. And I don't believe your last statement.

For the mouth speaks from what fills the heart. (Matthew 12:34 NET)

[AsburySkinsFan]

you are more like a fundie theist than you think. And I don't believe your last statement.

No room for disagreement, everyone who doesn't believe as he does is wrong, certain of his own rightness....nahhh nuthin like a Fundie.

I find it interesting that most people of faith that I know exercise more doubt in their faith than most atheists exercise in their certainty.

Certainty breeds dogmatism and Fundamentalism, which is an odd mentality to develop in a group of people who trust in science and reason which must at the end of the day begin with doubt and question even regarding their own system of belief.

[alexey]

Oh of course not...how convienient that you are allowed to deny dogmatism but are able to so readily slap it on anyone else.

I see religions make claims of authoritative revealed knowledge.

I would be happy to discuss why I think religion qualifies as dogmatism but agnostic atheism does not.

 

In other news...the sun came up, so what?

I do find it convienient though that these philosophies get the luxury of being able to sit back and cherry pick from religious teachings while mocking the source of those teachings.

Feeling mocked is different from being mocked.

 

[Yeah no Secular Humanist has ever been accused of being dogmatic.

What is your ethical system then, since Humanism allows you to pick from several?

And what does indicate the dogmatic strength of your convictions are your repeated threads and disdain for that which you cannot disprove, at the expense of the personal experience and relationship of others.

You insist on pressing the "how dare you question my beliefs!!" angle.

you are more like a fundie theist than you think. And I don't believe your last statement.

Would you care to substantiate your claims? Are you saying this because I decided to be a vocal voice for atheism in the Tailgate?

[zoony]

I don't trust anyone who has all the answers. Whether it be a pundit (Bill Oreilly), a politician (Rand or Ron Paul), an atheist, or a religious zealot

As a matter of fact, it is a litmus test for dumb. The litmus test for dumber is those who follow them

[alexey]

It is strange that you included "an atheist" in the list of people who fail the litmus test for dumb.

Not having a belief in god is pretty far from claiming to have all the answers.

[Morneblade]

Alexey, what do you hope to accomplish with all this? I don't see you post about anything else here, so you come off as being a zealot on this topic.

[alexey]

Alexey, what do you hope to accomplish with all this? I don't see you post about anything else here, so you come off as being a zealot on this topic.

I hope that I am coming off as a zealot because I like taking about these things and not because of the way I talk about them.

I hope to learn something new, to share things I find interesting, to show that it is okay to talk about these things and to question beliefs, to help other non-believers feel they are not alone, to help form communities, and to remove stigma from the word "atheist".

Non-believers are everywhere, all around you, in your communities, in your churches. For many of them, coming out as non-believers would cause problems. I want to get it out there that they are not alone, plenty of other people are good without god. It's okay not to believe.

(also hell is not real - I understand many people have been traumatized by being taught about hell when they were kids. Many deconversion stories describe people retaining the fear of hell for a long time after they stopped believing everything else..."what if I'm wrong" kind of fear...)

[AsburySkinsFan]

As if anyone here in ExtremeSkins thought for a moment that it weren't allowed to question beliefs, or even that atheist's have a stigma.

If your desire is to form an atheist community then may I suggest starting a blog.

Heck some of our most prominent members and prolific posters here are vocal atheists.

So go on with your atheistic mission work, but really these threads probably need to be included in a single ongoing "Alexey hates religion" thread.

[chipwhich]

I don't trust anyone who has all the answers. Whether it be a pundit (Bill Oreilly), a politician (Rand or Ron Paul), an atheist, or a religious zealot

As a matter of fact, it is a litmus test for dumb. The litmus test for dumber is those who follow them

 

Amen.  Best post of the thread.

[alexey]

As if anyone here in ExtremeSkins thought for a moment that it weren't allowed to question beliefs, or even that atheist's have a stigma.

If your desire is to form an atheist community then may I suggest starting a blog.

Heck some of our most prominent members and prolific posters here are vocal atheists.

So go on with your atheistic mission work, but really these threads probably need to be included in a single ongoing "Alexey hates religion" thread.

I while back I started a thread about atheism, and discovered that plenty of people still thought atheism involves an active denial of gods rather than a mere non-belief.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I while back I started a thread about atheism, and discovered that plenty of people still thought atheism involves an active denial of gods rather than a mere non-belief.

LoL! Active denial of gods is all but indistinguishable from non-belief, in that non-belief is an active denial of gods. What's more is that your threads are about the former rather than the latter.

Because they are instead antagonistic toward matters of faith.

This thread itself is about the question of whether or not religion is good or bad for society, and since you're on your atheistic crusade I can only imagine which side you take on that debate.

So to be quite blunt, I think that some self reflection or honesty might be useful on your part regarding your real purpose.

[alexey]

Active denial of gods, as well as faith in gods, involve believing things you do not know. Non-belief does not. This is a significant difference in my view.

I will be happy to discuss any points made in those videos.

[nonniey]

I while back I started a thread about atheism, and discovered that plenty of people still thought atheism involves an active denial of gods rather than a mere non-belief.

Odd it seems you believe Atheism involves an active denial as you're are pretty active on this.