Oxford Union Society Debate: Religion Helps/Harms society

[AsburySkinsFan]

Non-belief in gods = denial of gods

[alexey]

Non-belief in gods = denial of gods

If non-belief is a default state (for example, your non-belief in every other god), then believing in a god requires evidence, and believing in the Bible god requires even more evidence.

A non-believer simply has to say "I'm not convinced"

An active denier has to add "and I can show that no gods exist"

[Morneblade]

It's more in how you are posting and the frequency. It would be less overt if it wasn't the only thing you posted about, but it's the only thing you show any interest in, including the Redskins. And to be honest there are better ways at trying to do something about it than they way you tend to go about it. You are kind of the Oldfan of religious debates.

 

I also cant get the quote function to work at all. Cant even copy and paste. Not sure what is going on with it on my end. Otherwise I would have quoted and responded in more detail.

[alexey]

It's more in how you are posting and the frequency. It would be less overt if it wasn't the only thing you posted about, but it's the only thing you show any interest in, including the Redskins. And to be honest there are better ways at trying to do something about it than they way you tend to go about it. You are kind of the Oldfan of religious debates.

...

I'm not trying to be less overt... It's what I want to talk about, I'm doing it the best way I can, and I am trying not to break any rules.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If non-belief is a default state (for example, your non-belief in every other god), then believing in a god requires evidence, and believing in the Bible god requires even more evidence.

A non-believer simply has to say "I'm not convinced"

An active denier has to add "and I can show that no gods exist"

According to the rules that you just made up,

An active denier simply has to say, "I deny that god exists."

But this goes even more to the point here, because your threads are not about non-belief...those would be short threads indeed because they would simply be about nothing. Instead what we see are threads about how awful religion is and about the absurdity of faith.

So, once again you claim to be doing one thing, all while doing just the opposite.

[nonniey]

According to the rules that you just made up,

An active denier simply has to say, "I deny that god exists."

But this goes even more to the point here, because your threads are not about non-belief...those would be short threads indeed because they would simply be about nothing. Instead what we see are threads about how awful religion is and about the absurdity of faith.

So, once again you claim to be doing one thing, all while doing just the opposite.

He's confusing atheism and agnosticism.  Ironically those two positions are are further apart than Atheism is to faith based religions. Atheists have faith, Agnostics do not.

[Morneblade]

Alexey, as someone that is a Atheist, I'm not sure what it is you are trying to accomplish. I suppose from my vantage point there isn't all that much to talk about. Are you trying to educate people that being an Atheist does not mean you are a devil worshiper (I've been asked that) or that we have no moral code (that get assumed a lot)? If so, great. But I don't really see that from your posts. What it usually comes across is that you are looking to pick a fight with people that believe in a god. And that's not going to get very far.

[MEANDWARF]

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...)

 From the "Book" of Usual Suspects- "The greatest trick that the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist".

Oh How True!

[Rudechain]

Alexey, as someone that is a Atheist, I'm not sure what it is you are trying to accomplish. I suppose from my vantage point there isn't all that much to talk about. Are you trying to educate people that being an Atheist does not mean you are a devil worshiper (I've been asked that) or that we have no moral code (that get assumed a lot)? If so, great. But I don't really see that from your posts. What it usually comes across is that you are looking to pick a fight with people that believe in a god. And that's not going to get very far.

This is the impression I get too Alexy.

[alexey]

From the "Book" of Usual Suspects- "The greatest trick that the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist".

Oh How True!

I am not sure how to figure out when this applies and when it does not.

I think teaching children about hell cause them harm and I think it is immoral to do it

[Fred Jones]

Just remebmer, when you die, and you are met by angels, souls assigned to greet those that have passed and perhaps some loved ones, accept that you are in Nirvana (Heaven if you will) and that you have returned to your natural state of being.

 

But, if you want to deny it, continue to live in your oblivion, that is ok as well for there is no judgement, just love.

 

As for the OP, this is a very tough question to answer as religion both helps and harms society as you well know. 

 

Moses gave us the ten commandments which are simply specific rules describing the universal law of Kharma the Creator instituted to govern free will.

Jesus came along and instead of repeating what Moses said simply stated "What would love do".  Well, Love would not break any of the commandments.

 

What I have learned is that everything is a translation that humans are not capable of understanding how everything works.  We are simply not smart enough.  Yet, we continue to try and put what cannot be explained or understood into human terms and then tell everyone about it or write it down as gospel.  For those that have happened to read the many books that talk about God is Love and spirituality and all that (another discussion), even those are a translation.

 

Now, Religion gets it right even if they get it wrong.  As long as you preach and apply the principle "what would love do?", for example, whether you actually think that way or are just a very good person, you are doing it right.  I saw wrong because you are held accountable for your actions or sins and cannot simply be forgiven as the law of Kharma dictates.  But, beliving that your sins can be forgiven because your religion says so doesn't change the fact that you lead a good and loving life.

 

On the flip side, you can belong to no religion and lead a loving life and believe in the Creator and the great Love.

[Zguy28]

I think teaching children atheism cause them harm and I think it is immoral to do it

Wait, what?

[alexey]

Wait, what?

I consider it immoral to teach children the doctrine of eternal torture of people's immortal souls. Is this controversial?

Our society already decided that torture is immoral, our doctrines about god should catch up, at a minimum to a stance already adopted by some sects of Christianity (e.g. "separate from god" view of hell rather then actual torture)

[AsburySkinsFan]

I consider it immoral to teach children the doctrine of eternal torture of people's immortal souls.

I consider it immoral to teach children that there is no God, and to have them separated from God by death forever.

[alexey]

I consider it immoral to teach children that there is no God, and to have them separated from God by death forever.

Fair enough. You have your view and I have mine.

I do not think it is moral to cause demonstrable harm to people while they are alive in order to secure some not demonstrable benefits for them after they die.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Fair enough. You have your view and I have mine.

I do not think it is moral to cause demonstrable harm to people while they are alive in order to secure some not demonstrable benefits for them after they die.

Demonstrable harm while they are alive? How does teaching about consequences cause demonstrable harm?

Does teaching a child that there will be harmful and permanent consequence, including death, for a lifestyle of illicit drugs cause demonstrable harm, even if the parent is unable to prove the consequences of said lifestyle?

That said, I do not believe that Ghenna/Hell/Eternal Death should be the focus of any Christian teaching/evangelism as it tends to focus on self preservation rather than faithful discipleship. I think it also stunts the spiritual growth of the disciple.

[MEANDWARF]

Alexey, if your children chose to believe that there is a God and follow a religion that enhances their relationship with God, would you attempt to sway their believes?

As a Christian and a father, if one of my kids came to me and said that they no longer believe, I would be broken hearted but still love them. And at the same time I would pray for them and attempt to convince them through the teachings of the Bible.

As for teaching your children about Hell, my opinion runs about the same as Asbury's post #64..

[alexey]

Demonstrable harm while they are alive? How does teaching about consequences cause demonstrable harm?

Does teaching a child that there will be harmful and permanent consequence, including death, for a lifestyle of illicit drugs cause demonstrable harm, even if the parent is unable to prove the consequences of said lifestyle?

That said, I do not believe that Ghenna/Hell/Eternal Death should be the focus of any Christian teaching/evangelism as it tends to focus on self preservation rather than faithful discipleship. I think it also stunts the spiritual growth of the disciple.

Looks like we are mostly on the same page. I definitely agree on importance of teaching consequences. As far as teaching about hell, I am saying it causes harm, you are saying it stunts the spiritual growth. Close enough

[alexey]

Alexey, if your children chose to believe that there is a God and follow a religion that enhances their relationship with God, would you attempt to sway their believes?

As a Christian and a father, if one of my kids came to me and said that they no longer believe, I would be broken hearted but still love them. And at the same time I would pray for them and attempt to convince them through the teachings of the Bible.

As for teaching your children about Hell, my opinion runs about the same as Asbury's post #64..

I think being raised religious and losing faith is easier than being raised without a religion and then gaining it. Having said that, yes my love for my children does not hinge on them agreeing with me on this matter. Obviously I would be very very sad if they became fundamentalist to the point of literally sacrificing their lives for their faith or something like that.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Looks like we are mostly on the same page. I definitely agree on importance of teaching consequences. As far as teaching about hell, I am saying it causes harm, you are saying it stunts the spiritual growth. Close enough

You'll note that I never said that it isn't a part of teaching in Christian discipleship, just not the focus.

[alexey]

You'll note that I never said that it isn't a part of teaching in Christian discipleship, just not the focus.

One would think unpopular teachings get de-emphasized before being dropped altogether. I doubt you'd claim that everything in the Bible should be a part of teaching - stoning people, forcibly marring rape victims, etc. You probably view it as a process of religion figuring out the true meaning of its text, and I view it as religions adopting to modern moral norms.

[AsburySkinsFan]

One would think unpopular teachings get de-emphasized before being dropped altogether. I doubt you'd claim that everything in the Bible should be a part of teaching - stoning people, forcibly marring rape victims, etc. You probably view it as a process of religion figuring out the true meaning of its text, and I view it as religions adopting to modern moral norms.

I understand it as the progressive revelation of God to His people culminating in Jesus Christ, the provlem with your theory is that the teachngs of the church have endured beyond 2,000 years of "modern moral norms". The degree of change during that time period is much slighter than you'd imagine.

[grego]

I think being raised religious and losing faith is easier than being raised without a religion and then gaining it.

I wasnt raised in a religious household. (Kind of why I understand some "religions" can be less than helpful to people. I don't actually consider myself "religious" anyway)

I came to where I am thru lots if skepticism and questioning. Just like you, maybe. We just came to different conclusions.

[twa]

I wasnt raised in a religious household. (Kind of why I understand some "religions" can be less than helpful to people. I don't actually consider myself "religious" anyway)

I came to where I am thru lots if skepticism and questioning. Just like you, maybe. We just came to different conclusions.

For many being exposed to the religious induces more skepticism and questioning than blind acceptance unfortunately.

 

value is where ya assign it 

[Elessar78]

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.

I amused myself and coined a new term reading your post: Devangelist