Oxford Union Society Debate: Religion Helps/Harms society

[Elessar78]

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? Funny you should mention that. After post-Thanksgiving dinner prayers, I took the kids and all the males in the family and slaughtered the family of infidels down the street. 

 

But I digress. In my life, probably all the people I know that don't believe in the existence of God do no demonstrable good for society. They use this weltanschauung to justify a depressingly self-centered lifestyle. It's a cop out on being held accountable to ease suffering in the world and to live by a moral code. 

 

Christopher Hitchens used to write for a magazine I art directed and met him several times in a work setting and at work functions. He had great, grandiose ideas and great with words but what a failure as a human being. As I've found in life, ideas and people with ideas are a dime a dozen. Execution matters. 

[Koolblue13]

Personally, Atheism to me is just a lack of believing in religions. It's not a non belief. I do have some beliefs, but I certainly wouldn't call them gods and it's definitely not a religion. From having a lot of exposure to religion my entire life (schools, holidays, discussions), I occasionally feel a need to push it (religion) away.

 

I think that came out right.

 

As far as the impact religion has on society, I've always felt the negative has outweighed the good.

[alexey]

...

But I digress. In my life, probably all the people I know that don't believe in the existence of God do no demonstrable good for society. They use this weltanschauung to justify a depressingly self-centered lifestyle. It's a cop out on being held accountable to ease suffering in the world and to live by a moral code.

Christopher Hitchens used to write for a magazine I art directed and met him several times in a work setting and at work functions. He had great, grandiose ideas and great with words but what a failure as a human being. As I've found in life, ideas and people with ideas are a dime a dozen. Execution matters.

I will focus on your larger point and not get into discussions of Christopher Hitchens, for whom i have great respect.

Sense of community and ability to mobilize charitable activities are benefits of religion that I acknowledge and respect. I think there is much to say about secular charities, but I will acknowledge that secular frameworks for building communities and mobilizing individuals should continue improving.

[Zguy28]

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)

Please show me where it says that people will be "tortured", most especially in an active manner as you imply?

 

 

Revelation 20:10, 14-15

¹⁰ and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

¹⁴ Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. ¹⁵ And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

 

 

Luke 16

The Rich Man and Lazarus

¹⁹ “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. ²⁰ And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, ²¹ who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. ²² The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, ²³ and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. ²⁴ And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ ²⁵ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. ²⁶ And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ ²⁷ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— ²⁸ for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ ²⁹ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ ³⁰ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ ³¹ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

 

 

Matthew 25:41-46

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ ⁴⁴ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ ⁴⁵ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ ⁴⁶ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

 

[grhqofb5]

For the atheists,what sort of evidence would you require to come to a belief in god?

Same question for the Christians. What type of evidence would you need to convince you that your belief on Jesus is incorrect (I.e. he never existed or was not the son of god?)

[alexey]

For the atheists,what sort of evidence would you require to come to a belief in god?

...

I thought about this and I can honestly say I do not know what it will take.

If something unexplainable happens, I am not sure how we could go from not knowing why it happens to knowing that god does it.

There are some things, however, that would radically change my views. For example, communication with the dead, or something that shows peoples' minds persisting without brains. Obviously alternatives such as trickery or hallucinations would have to be rigorously ruled out.

Another powerful type of evidence, at least for me, would be relative effectiveness of one god over another, let's say if praying to one god cured cancer but praying to another god did not. Although I would still be curious why god gave us cancer in the first place.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There are many assumptions in your post alexey, so many that it would appear that they are there to intentionally prevent an authentic experience or knowledge of the divine.

That said, if you found that there was a god that was all powerful that "gave cancer" to people, might it not seem a bit naïve to question the authority of such a god that seems to strike humans with a deadly disease for no apparent reason? LoL!

[alexey]

There are many assumptions in your post alexey, so many that it would appear that they are there to intentionally prevent an authentic experience or knowledge of the divine.

That said, if you found that there was a god that was all powerful that "gave cancer" to people, might it not seem a bit naïve to question the authority of such a god that seems to strike humans with a deadly disease for no apparent reason? LoL!

ASF i care about what is true and so I apply critical thinking. In light of available evidence, it indeed prevents me from claiming knowledge of the divine, but it does not prevent me from having divine experiences.

As for respecting authority of a cancer giving god - thanks but no thanks. I will not change my mind based on authority. I refuse to accept that immoral things become moral if god says so. I need to understand reasons.

[twa]

what do you blame cancer on now Alexy?

 

Does blame only become important if you recognize gods?

[alexey]

what do you blame cancer on now Alexy?

Does blame only become important if you recognize gods?

I don't want to use the word "blame". Let's just say if a god exists, it is not acting according to my understanding of morality... And I refuse to change my understanding of morality based on somebody's or something's authority.

[twa]

I don't want to use the word "blame". .

 

> responsibility< instead then......or is it's existence the issue to you in the case of gods?

[alexey]

> responsibility< instead then......or is it's existence the issue to you in the case of gods?

Yes with power comes responsibility and with infinite power comes infinite responsibility

[twa]

so for gods to exist there must be no suffering,disease or death?

[alexey]

so for gods to exist there must be no suffering,disease or death?

i just don't accept arguments from authority that these things are consistent with a moral omnipotent god

(And the "free will" argument does not work for me either)

[twa]

i just don't accept arguments from authority that these things are consistent with a moral omnipotent god

(And the "free will" argument does not work for me either)

So Gods must be consistent with your defined morals to exist but the universe not?

[alexey]

So Gods must be consistent with your defined morals to exist but the universe not?

i don't define morals, I just do my best to reason about what's moral and what's not.

I do not see how concepts of morality can be applied to forces of nature.

[twa]

i don't define morals, I just do my best to reason about what's moral and what's not.

I do not see how concepts of morality can be applied to forces of nature.

 

I don't see how they can be applied to gods...seems presumptuous to apply your morals to a force beyond your reasoning.

 

but then we are a presumptuous lot aren't we

[alexey]

I don't see how they can be applied to gods...seems presumptuous to apply your morals to a force beyond your reasoning.

but then we are a presumptuous lot aren't we

you either exempt things from moral evaluation or you do not. If you say something is exempt from moral evaluation, how can you say if it's good or bad?

Just be consistent... Don't say god is good when he gives you a baby and god is mysterious when he sends an earthquake.

[twa]

you either exempt things from moral evaluation or you do not. If you say something is exempt from moral evaluation, how can you say if it's good or bad?

Just be consistent... Don't say you judge god to be good when he gives you a pretty baby and you cannot judge a mysterious god when he sends an earthquake.

 

 

Isn't there a major difference between judging what we perceive as good occurring and whether a god itself is good(or moral) ?

 

can't say as I have ever judged god, though I have assigned good things occurring to one....and bad things.

 

I though He did well giving me a ugly baby 

[alexey]

Isn't there a major difference between judging what we perceive as good occurring and whether a god itself is good(or moral) ?

can't say as I have ever judged god, though I have assigned good things occurring to one....and bad things.

I though He did well giving me a ugly baby

I just think it's strange when people say all the good stuff is good and all the bad stuff is a mystery.

[twa]

I just think it's strange when people say all the good stuff is good and all the bad stuff is a mystery.

 

Bad is part of life to me,just like good.....ying/yang or whatever.

 

people ARE strange 

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF i care about what is true and so I apply critical thinking.

The problem is that the rules you have created to guide what you call critical thinking specifically excludes that evidence which might guide you to faith.

In light of available evidence, it indeed prevents me from claiming knowledge of the divine, but it does not prevent me from having divine experiences.

More accurately stated would be "In light of evidence that I accept".

As for respecting authority of a cancer giving god - thanks but no thanks. I will not change my mind based on authority. I refuse to accept that immoral things become moral if god says so. I need to understand reasons.

No one asked you to respect that authority, I just thought that if you understood such an almighty god to be so capricious as to intentionally strike innocent people down with cancer, that questioning such a god might be detrimental to your health,

[alexey]

The problem is that the rules you have created to guide what you call critical thinking specifically excludes that evidence which might guide you to faith.

More accurately stated would be "In light of evidence that I accept".

I am merely doing the best that I can to determine what's true... yes critical thinking makes it difficult to get to faith.

No one asked you to respect that authority, I just thought that if you understood such an almighty god to be so capricious as to intentionally strike innocent people down with cancer, that questioning such a god might be detrimental to your health,

I see capriciousness and cruelty in nature. I think you're right, my view on the "problem of evil" is very difficult to reconcile with an almighty god.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I am merely doing the best that I can to determine what's true... yes critical thinking makes it difficult to get to faith.

Nice jab, but you avoided the point, which is that your self imposed rules of Modernity intentionally excludes any evidence toward faith. What's interesting is that Postmodernity is showing that personal experience is a legitimate source of knowledge, and the Hitchens clan is all about the arguments against faith based in Modernity...meanwhile the world has moved on,

I see capriciousness and cruelty in nature. I think you're right, my view on the "problem of evil" is very difficult to reconcile with an almighty god.

That's because the version of the almighty god you are using is a cruel and capricious god, who absolutely determines everything including evil. Interestingly, that's not the God of the Bible.

[alexey]

Nice jab, but you avoided the point, which is that your self imposed rules of Modernity intentionally excludes any evidence toward faith. What's interesting is that Postmodernity is showing that personal experience is a legitimate source of knowledge, and the Hitchens clan is all about the arguments against faith based in Modernity...meanwhile the world has moved on,

I think the world is moving in the opposite direction. I value personal experiences, but I think it will become increasingly difficult to interpret them the way they have been interpreted in the past, especially in light of ever-accumulating scientific knowledge about the brain.

That's because the version of the almighty god you are using is a cruel and capricious god, who absolutely determines everything including evil. Interestingly, that's not the God of the Bible.

You are certainly much better equipped to discuss intricacies of theology... but I have explored it enough to learn the arguments. I would enjoy hearing a new one. I understand that my objections are typically addressed by (in my view) unimpressive arguments about "free will" and "mysterious ways".