Prof. Richard Swinburne | Religion Debate | Proposition (5/6)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 мар 2018
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
Thursday 8th February 2018
The Motion: This House Believes We cannot Thrive Without Religion.
Prof. Richard Swinburne closes the case for the proposition, as the fifth speaker of six in the debate.
Motion Defeated.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
![Finesse2Tymes - Pretty Ricky [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xIoP_mhYRT0/mqdefault.jpg)
"Your parents may have chosen to have a child, but they didn't choose to have YOU" XD Brilliant.
Old timer did well
Richard has contributed a lot to the field of free will, and I found his work very valuable. A great theologian, whether I agree with him or not.
@DarkEternal6 "Christians follow a magical sky daddy" so say the atheist """"""""""intellectuals""""""""
@DarkEternal6 It's an exaggeration. I'm surprised you dont know because of how pretentious you are. And that's precisely the point. The exaggeration was because internet atheists act so pretentious.
He is not theologiana philosopher
Finally someone who answered the question for the proposition. Brilliant take 👌🏽
I would love to have one night to sit and talk to Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga!
Love it how he said the whole argument without looking at a script.
That's easy when there are no facts to remember.
@@johnbrown6189 7:40
@@johnbrown6189 7:30
This young man ruined that perfect speech at 5:58.
I got to know of Prof Swinburne's work thru The Coherence of Theism ... I was in my 20s then, and he was perhaps in his late 50s
I would like to see a debate of the our God vs your God type and watch it all unravel. Now that would be worth watching.
m.ruclips.net/video/0TjfNjBnjRY/видео.html&pp=ygUYQ2hyaXRvcGh3ciBoaXRlbmdvIGRlYnRl
Truth, Goodness, and Beauty should be treated as primitives that do not _necessarily_ correlate with a distinction between the religious and the non-religious. They are in some sense more fundamental - people resonate with these as Beings. That is to say, even if professor Swinburne is right that there has been a correlation between religious belief and quantifiable acts of (God-loving and God-fearing) goodness, its very basis can be questioned in this context. It is not to say that we should eliminate accounts according to which the source of goodness is transcendental.
In spite of the atemporal nature of his argument, its validity seems to depend on its position in time; he is right in so far as the current state of the world requires that there is this specific set of particularisations of the ‘resonance with goodness’ for society as a whole to thrive.
(Having said that, he is a truly philosophical orator, appearing to be as familiar with the major metaphysical arguments as I’m with the items in my local grocery shop ;)
I think he is kinda right about humans needed something to follow, the problem is that most of religions abuse this power of having people listening and following them to do all kind of things and that something that you can't take out of the equation when talking about something to guide you trough your life
If you look at the remarkable transformations of society after christianity entered the scene it is clear that it is more a force for good than the opposite at least.
I don't think humans have a need for "something to follow," rather, they feel a need to understand their world.
Humans created god(s) to explain the unexplainable.
For instance, ancient humans did not know why the earth shook during earthquakes - they knew nothing of plate tectonics - they attributed this to invisible beings. Now we have at least some understanding of earthquakes - ancient beliefs have been superseded by real information - we (humans) should act accordingly and toss out these ancient dogmas.
1) People forget about the wars which involved Christianity in the past and the damage it produced.
2) Swinburne represents the minority "high" version of a Christian, if the majority of Christians were like him, the world would be a much nicer place.
3) However in practice, the Christianity practiced by sophisticated theologians and academics is very different from what is practiced on the ground by the regular people.
Why do they ring the bell?
Arhum tariq butt count down ... time limits
Why is being "purposely created" superior to chance? Aren't they each miraculous and unlikely? Our chances of existing seem equally minuscule.
wow
Look what religions do with the money. Look what they build. How much do these buildings cost? Look how much Westminster Abbey cost and how many people worked to build it. Very likeley not many people were paid for their work though, just enough to eat.
Evangelicals supporting is the most bizarre things I never saw
Society's would be a lot better? Funny how The statistics show otherwise. All you have to do is watch the news
were u deaf?
@@Drigger95 If Brant WAS deaf and no longer is it must be a miracle! Praise the magic sky friend for curing Brant!
Stupid comment, it seems today the less educated a person the more he/she became atheist
Which is more moral?
A) doing a good deed because you will be rewarded with a pleasant eternity in Heaven
Or
B) doing a good deed because it's the right thing to do and your reward is knowing that you've done something good for someone outside of yourself
Ther can be a negative consequence for either the religious or non-religious.
The religious can choose not to do the deed and suffer, under torture, eternally in Hell.
The non-religious could do something good for an ungrateful person.
The degree of suffering seems outlandish from the religious perspective but more in line with the risk/reward from the non-theist POV.
I'm speaking for Christianity here, Doing good deeds in order to inherit eternity in Heaven is a works-based salvation. Jesus taught to love your enemies, not because by this you'll inherit eternity in Heaven, but because that shows you have faith in Him and therefore a faithful follower. So consider Christianity in this respect.
@@slade8863 But, isn't that the same thing? So let's say that I agree that I represented a "works-based salvation." Isn't that strikingly similar to "Jesus taught to love your enemies, not because by this you'll inherit eternity in Heaven, but because that shows you have faith in Him and therefore a faithful follower." Ergo, you will go to Heaven because you did something that pleases God just as a good deed should please God? Ergo you will go to Heaven rather than eternal suffering in Hell?
@@douggolden255 no, not at all. If a Christian goes to heaven it's because God chose to regenerate(cause them to be born again) them, not because they loved their enemies. When a human being is regenerated they will desire to obey the laws of God and thus will try to love their enemies. That's why I said we do good deeds because Jesus taught us to, not because by this we will inherit eternal life.
@@slade8863 Nothing more delusional than religion..but I have a feeling you're the type who would say something like "ITs NoT a RelIgIOn BuT a ReLaTiOnShiP"
@@FactStorm It’s a religion. I would also say there’s nothing more delusional than Atheism whether gnostic or agnostic
No.
American believers give for two major reasons: 1. I give and God will return tenfold, 2. Tithing is set in stone in the Bible. In America, approx 86% believe, so charitable contributions from the religious will be statistically skewed to their side strictly upon the sheer numbers. Broken argument on the part of Prof. R Swinburne.
Not if the statistical researchers properly did their research. One should look at what is given per capita in different groups. In such an analysis the religious still come out on top. Also, one cannot make presumptions about the motivations of individual Christians with regards to donations. They aren't one monolith.
Talking about GOOD examples, he claims that though an atheist society wouldn't be too bad in good times, a religious society would be a lot better. That needs a demonstration. So far, with the exception of Ireland and Poland (and perhaps in a way USA and Vatican City) I cannot find a really good religious society. Also, with the exception of Communist regimes or North Korea (all of which are religions of state) I cannot think of any BAD atheist society. Just look at the listing of best countries to live (best human development Index) and see how that correlates with highest secularism (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, the whole Scandinavia, Switzerland, UK...). And also look at the places where religions are strongest (Africa, Middle East, Latin America, SouthEast Asia...) and tell me if those societies could be "a lot better" than the others.
Claudia Di Gregorio They are called Third World countries. There are other more serious factors at play here than Religion.. Whilst your tummies are full and you're having a goodnights sleep at your own homes, these poor people are fighting for thier survival. They wonder where their next meal is going to come from and so forth .. Lest we forget, most of these countries problems originate from the greedy "highest secularism" deveped nations like you mentioned. And when people from the poor nations look to God for answers than Religion becomes a tool for the very view who manipulated a otherwise pure religion, so that they take control over the scarce resources. So I think your assumptions are NOT entirely true so stop blaming Religion.. Its the 'Human Nature' that is the problem..
It's been done several times actually, the influence on ancient Rome/Greece, it's influence on slavery, it's influence on suicides, it's influence on blue zones, it's influence on life expectancy, it's influence on warlike societies, it's influence on human travesties etc. even Japan is spiritualist, even Okinowa is spiritualist animist, and even sweden is held tight by Lutheran cultural practice, all of which are again a result of religion. Not to mention the inseparable benefits of spiritual prayer, human interaction, stop gap against nihilism, purpose etc.
even taken for granted as just something that may be better than not for it's materialistic values it's still stands head and shoulders above any demonstrated alternative. And in a vacuum, religions always emerges, isn't it far wiser to pick one that's been far better established as demonstrating the best mankind can offer?
I like that these theists have a sense of humor - it's refreshing and quite unlike most American theists (don't get me wrong, I like some Amercan theists as well - names escape me but they're generally Jewish).
But many theists act as though their alleged "morals," which are questionable at best, are somehow superior to those of non-theists. There's nothing inherently moral or immoral about worshipping a god, for instance. Yet the first four Commandments are just about that. It sounds awfully similar to how one should treat royalty, yet they are petty humans just like us. And these four Commandments are strikingly, very human, down to earth ideas about how a god would wish to be treated - according to a human's perspective.
The Bible, for instance, is profoundly bad as a moral guide with a few exceptions. The Koran - even worse. Existing religions have degrees of bad and good in comparison to these two.
Secular humanism will not always have the right or best answers but the goal is to find the best answers in a particular time. The waters are muddied when religion gets involved - it distracts from looking for solutions because of what was written by men in ancient times where their knowledge of the world was quite limited in comparison to today's third grader.
Perfection is unattainable, there is no Heaven or Hell and we urgently need to get to a sensible, irreligious place - because ancient fairy tales don't help humankind reach its goals.
Of course, worshipping God is moral. It is the expression of morality. Yet what is God? God is Good, Love, Beauty, Truth and so on. What is worship? It is the recognition of the superiority of those ideals. What is morality then? The recognition of those ideals in act. I am moral when I align myself with the good, when I am loving, beautiful and truthful. Conversely, it is immoral to lie(to fail to worship Truth), to hate(to fail to worship Love), to do evil(to fail to worship Good), to do monstrous acts(to fail to worship Beauty), and so on.
Secular humanism is a contradiction. True secularity recognizes no ideals to worship and therefore cannot be made coherent into a movement of ideals, much less one that binds the individual to the worship of an ideal, like -isms do. The -isms erode the individual in favour of their nuclear definition. Marxism erodes the individual in favour of the Marxian ideal; feminism erodes the individual in favour of the feminist ideal, and so on. Precisely because those ideals are seen as superior to the individual is it that they demand action from the individual and commitment. But why should a non-worshipper care for ideals? Why should a non-religious act religiously in favour of any conjured up ideal? It is nonsensical.
As for the rest, it shows an unclear understanding of the nature of religion and myths. Myths illustrate and capture values in a transcendental way as shared by changing stories. Myths are fundamental to any culture and to the human experience. Even contemporary culture is an expression of the current ideals expressed in their myths. The myth is not the narrative, the narrative is a mere bridge into the meaning of the myth. It is true there are more or less helpful myths, but older myths can be more useful and contemporary myths can be destructive.
@@natanaellizama6559 See, I kind of see this god as a dictator. And we are to bow and scrape to curry his favor lest we end up in the eternal suffering of Hell (the new normal). I don't see "Good, Love, Beauty, Truth and so on" in this god. And I certainly don't see those qualities in a large portion of his followers (I'm sorry - worshipers - not too North Korean).
And what makes you think that secularists don't value, or are incapable of valuing "Good, Love, Beauty, Truth and so on?" We are human after all. Is morality dictated by some invisible being in the universe or, do we, as humans, interact with those around us and come up with moral principles as a result of those interactions? I mean, if you view the few "moral" commandments in the Ten, there is nothing extraordinary about them, they are natural conclusions that would be reached through normal social interaction.
"Don't Murder" - Murder is disruptive - people are sad or angry or sad and angry - that can lead to more murders through blood vendettas and reprisals. Let's nip this in the bud - no murder . . . unless we're in a war. In a war, its okay to murder the enemy. If we arrested every murdering solider of ours, we would soon have no army. Or in self-defense. A man who's trying to save his own life can murder the guy who is trying to murder and/or rob him. But not cops. If a cop tries to rob you, you can't murder him. And so on. . .
Again, as human beings we are able to value "Good, Love, Beauty, Truth and so on" because those capabilities are innate in us. The aberrations are, in fact, a very small percentage of people. In other words, we don't need a dictator god to tell us right and wrong - human experience does that for us, if nothing else.
It appears to me that you have a problem with "cooperation." You act as though the individual must be submerged beneath the cooperative. Why can't they coexist? Why can't one or the other be a little more dominant in one person versus another? What is your objection? You know what? It sounds a little dictatorial to me. And I think you're mirroring wMhat you believe your God is saying to you.
Why do non=theists care about ideals? Because many of us are moralists. We believe in fundamental morality, human rights, the right for you to believe in this god nonsense even though we find it ridiculous.
Think about the premise: There is an invisible man in the sky who knows every tiny detail about you - down to the way your cells are working (or at least to the hairs on your head which I've been, unfortunately, making easier for god) - even further. You can pray for anything you want and you can get it - if you have enough faith. But if you don't have enough faith it's your own goddamned fault - you didn't have enough faith. Face it, this guy sounds a little like your dad.
Your last paragraph seems to agree with me that there is no god - you talk a lot about myths. I like to say, today's gods are tomorrow's myth. Maybe you should look into Scientology.
@@douggolden255
I do not know which god you are referring to for I do not validate those concepts of God. Hell is a contradiction, illogical, irrational, immoral and monstruous. The contradiction of God. I have also not mentioned Hell, I do not believe in the image of God many Christians have. This is not a rebuttal of God but of a God-image many have.
> And what makes you think that secularists don't value, or are incapable of valuing "Good, Love, Beauty, Truth and so on?
Well, the very fact of secularism implies a lack of worship or recognition of the sacred. That is, no ideals for ideals would already imply a religiosity. If a secularist has those ideals then they are not a secularist. They would have ideals that they worship. I also think you are contradiction yourself. If you come up with the moral principles, then you are the source of values and therefore cannot make a value an ideal for that is the alienation of your own creative faculty. It would be similar to the Marxian analysis of the fetichism of money. Men create money, men worship money, men kill and die and sacrifice for worship. Which is why Marx, very perceptively, thought of money as a deity and gave it the name of Moloch. If you are the creator of values, why worhsipping and sacrificing yourself for such values you are no longer being secular but also irrational. As such, the values created can never be above the one tha creates them(the individual) and holds them as such.
> You act as though the individual must be submerged beneath the cooperative.
Yes, of course. But I go beyond that, the individual must comply and be subservient to the ideal that they are serving, otherwise they are not being activists of their own cause. To be an activist of one's cause is to place the cause above you. To commit to a cause implies, logically, to value the cause above yourself(which is wh you commit). You serve the cause not the cause serves you. As such, how honest can a secular activist be either with their secularism(lack of ideals that are above him) or their activism(placing a cause above him). It is a contradiction.
> Why do non=theists care about ideals? Because many of us are moralists. We believe in fundamental morality, human rights
That seems a contradiction. By having an ideal and serving that ideal through action(morality) you are already being religious. You are not serving Yahweh or Allah or an antropomorphized deity, but you ARE being religious and the object of worship rather than being such a deity is instead the ideal. Which from a secular perspective makes no rational sense. To change the material object of worship but persist in the formal act of worship(through morality) is nonsensical and still a religious act. Instead of an immanent deity you have a transcendental value that you worship. How is that secular?
> Your last paragraph seems to agree with me that there is no god - you talk a lot about myths. I like to say, today's gods are tomorrow's myth. Maybe you should look into Scientology.
I don't think myths are false. In fact, myths are the highest forms of truth of a given culture. It is what makes the culture that culture and keeps it alive. It is a very common misunderstanding to think myth implies falsehood. That only arose from the cultural colonialism that makes the narratives literal. The myth and its narrative are distinct. For example, so you understand, human rights are a myth. They are a construct of a base symbolic value that is upheld by a culture. What sustains that larger myth of human dignity(the basis of human rights) are other smaller myths; namely, and historically, religious myths(see the history of human rights, the philosophies and exponents are mainly theistic arguing from theistic grounds and then shifted into a common agreement that can be held without them) of seeing humans as divine. That is, basically the myth of human rights: human beings are divine(which implies they are inhernetly valuable), and to not recognize that divinity of human beings(by, say, failing to reognize their freedom, or their lives, or their diginity) is sinful. Formally that is the same and quite a religious act, which even when I was an atheist I found very bizarre.
The notion that you can’t have gratitude for life without the exisitance of god is ridiculous
That was not the notion made, only that to believe in God is to invoke gratitude. It is a source of Gratitude the Atheist does not have, he did not say it was the only source of gratitude. Your take is an emotional response to a sound argument.
The proposition is; the Theist will have more to invoke gratitude than the Atheist.. if you disagree, can you provide something the Atheist can access to generate gratitude by his world view that the Theist cannot? (Preferably something that is backed by statistics and observable action. Like the charity contributions Richard cited.)
@@shaunallred3176 I just think that thanking the ‘eye in the sky’ for life itself kind of undermines the necessity of thanking all of the life down here for existing. My point is, have gratitude for all of the great things that the planet provides and that great people do for others. You shouldn’t need anything else to find gratitude in that. I guess many people people would describe what I just mentioned AS god. That’s one reason I struggle with the idea of god, so many people define it slightly differently. If the god you have gratitude for entails all of the good the people do, then okay I think I get it. But it pisses me off when people thank god for miracles that are actually at the hands of incredibly virtuous people. Have gratitude for the person. Same goes for repentance. Go apologise and show remorse to somebody’s face rather than praying to the sky about it.
I’m sure I’m not providing the response you want, but hopefully you can see some of my issues with the concept as a whole.
@@herbiewalkermusic I believe I do see your frustrations. Albeit, they are emotional not rational. I can sympathize with the frustration that people would attribute their gratitude to an invisible being and disregard the human heros we see day to day. Or attribute their heroism to a God they can't see.
I had no presuppositions of what information you might provide. I appreciate your perspective.
If you are willing to be challenged on the emotional state of your argument I'm happy to raise some questions if you are open to answering them.
@@shaunallred3176 Sure, please explain how you know my points are emotional rather than rational. I don’t think my initial comment is really deep enough to discern any obvious level of emotion nor rational, it’s just an opinion. I would also add that an emotional perspective doesn’t have to be a bad thing as long as it’s also backed up by rational.
@@herbiewalkermusic I agree an emotional opinion isn't necessarily a bad thing. Only when it obscures the truth.
Your comment revealed your emotional response to his argument because you construed his argument to claim, "you can't have gratitude for life without a belief in god".
I knew it was emotional and subjective because it did not represent the objective material of his argument.
fREE WILL IS AN illusion, we have been told that we as humans are also SPIRIT and that the voice inside of us is our Spirit yet the truth is that the mind "brain" creates this voice inside the one we call thoughts and hold a conversation some times. This is just the brain creating this thought this I NOTHING ELSE.
Though I agree with your point you really are making a fool of yourself by phrasing it like this, also with the capitalization of your words like you wrote this in a rage. If you want people to listen to what you have to say, try to say it more politely and in a less obnoxious manner.
@@faxyeagle1573 Read and move on stop being a BABY.
Is the Professor wearing lipstick 👄 💄
,HES ON THE WRONG SIDE
I have a feeling that Swinburne is on the asperger's syndrome spectrum.
That's irrelevant though..
@@faxyeagle1573 Sorry, I seem to have commented on the wrong video. There's another video of Swinburne at Oxford Union where he departed from the main topic "Does religion benefit society " , and instead started to explain his proofs for the existence of God.
That could be because he doesn't understand what people want to hear- and has a fairly egocentric personality. His eye contact is poor as well. All symptoms of Aspergers.
@@ammaranwer867 I see
@@ammaranwer867 wtf! You are stupid
Isn’t he the one who tried to justify the holocaust
Although I agree with his premises that human beings might fare better in a religious society than in an atheist society, he has no logical arguement of the existence of god.
He never presented an explicit argument for God's existence. Also, depending on what you mean by "logical", he has many arguments that he has used to prove the existence of God. These arguments are logical, regardless of whether or not we agree with their conclusions.
That wasn't the topic of this debate. This debate is regarding the benefits of religion to society. If you want to research more about his arguments for existence, he has been one of, if not the most influential christian philosopher, comparable to aquinas, plantinga etc. Swinburne's works on the cosmological argument, ontological arguments, rebuttals against the arguments for evil provide the foundation of christian philosophy today..
Yet secular societies like Sweden, the US, New Zealand, Japan fare better than religious ones like Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen.
Nothing good comes out of superstition, no matter how much it consoles the feeble mind of a theist.
Times wouldent get hard if the resourses, time and faith poured into religion was used to educate. And then religious peapole could stop killing eachother.
Laughable and uniformed. In the entire encyclopedia of wars, only 5% have been for 'religious purposes'. So yes religions have caused wars and conflict but so have so many other things. In fact we kill each other in the name of anything . Maybe we should all, including myself look internally at our own conflicts and see that whilst we might have not killed anyone, we might have similar conflicts day to day that maybe could be adjusted.
Swinburne speaks well and has some subtle humor. He does, however, make a LOT of unsupported assumptions/claims in attempting to support his position. For example, that atheists are less charitable (contradicted by many studies) or less willing to risk their lives in a "just war" (also unsupported). In this format no one challenges him directly on these and other points.
So... well-spoken... and yet fallacious.
Not sure which studies you are referring to for the charitably claim. For example, in 2009, Statistics Canada found that churchgoers donated appx. 5x more to charity than the rest of the population. Professor Robert Putnam, a political scientist at Harvard University published a comprehensive study which came to the same conclusion. This isn't to say that ALL atheists are bad people (I myself know many great guys who are atheists), but rather that the general trend seems to suggest less charitably amoung the cohort, which does indeed back up the speakers claims.
@@iijonzedii9510
I'm short on time but I'll give a quick response.
Myth-believers have been organized for a long time, both for good (e.g. charity) and for bad (oppression, abuse). So credit where credit is due, if you measure individual participation in charitable giving, myth-believers of the Christian flavor give more than many other religious groups and atheists.
If you look at the largest benefactors among wealthy people, Buffet/Gates/Soros (all atheist... and no, Soros is a secular jew not an observant jew) are billions of dollars ahead of other players... overall and annually.
It's harder to put an amount on it (especially now... I can't go looking it up), but one should also divide "charity in support of the institution" vs "charity that aids people directly".
For example the Catholic church records several billion annually (most recent I read were north o $15B) but protestants give about 40% more. And... a HUGE amount of that goes to maintaining the buildings, staff, and outreach (advertising/indoctrination) of the institution, not to end-point care.
Non-believer charitable giving tends to go straight to end-point aid and not to maintaining any part of an institution.
Anyway... gotta run. It's all moot. If people and their imaginary Adult-Santa security blankets want to help, that's great. You just have to separate the "help" from the "hurt" and "waste" that gets mixed in.
@@parkjammer Hey man, thanks for the reply! Just wanted to add though that the studies were not based upon charities that only go towards the church or any of that, but rather a comprehensive study of charities that religious and secular people alike donate to (e.g. Red Cross, Children's Hospital Fund, etc.). They both go straight to end-point aid. Either way, the speakers point is still valid regarding the donation habits of believers vs. non-believers. Cheers!
@De Alvarado In that poorly worded sentence, what are you saying? That charity towards others wouldn't exist without your particular mythological belief?
People of all stripes have helped others since the dawn of humanity, which predates your particular mythology by millennia.
@De Alvarado
Utter bullshit.
Altruism has been studied in primates and exists there... let alone in humans.
There have been 5000+ religions (mythologies) since the advent of agriculture (the basis for urbanization and elements of structured civilization). Do you think that hunter-gatherers didn't do good things for one another? Or that those cooperating to form an agrarian environment didn't do good things for one another? The Talmud and the Torah, which predated the Christian (bullshit) era speak of charity.
Stop drinking the kool-aid of single mythology (full of errors, contradictions, and assembled by committee). Join fact and reality.
Hitler's Germany was anti-religious? Holy hell, that level of nonsense delegitimizes everything else that comes thereafter.
"Gott mit uns!"
Spam Meister shut up
Somebody can't do a proper argument and has to resort to yelling, huh?
Spam Meister There is a difference between Nazi Germany and the werchmant (which is the only organisation that carried on with Prussian military tradition and had Got Mit Uns inscribed on their belt buckles. )
Several times Hitler said, and wrote, that he was fulfilling God's plan. That he was a Catholic, and so on.
If you think Hitler was religious let alone a genuine catholic you are woefully ignorant of actual history. Hitler USED the church to help himself gain power and when he did have enough power he MURDERED the churches top leaders and anyone within the church who refused to sign on to his plan. He was a “catholic” in NAME ONLY in order to advance his agenda. It would be analogous to a person who claims to be a vegan who’s against killing animals and then goes to a steakhouse for lunch everyday. Hitler was a wolf in sheep’s clothing at that time. No legit historian or informed person believes Hitler was an genuine catholic, he murdered them precisely b/c they were genuine Catholics.
God bring good and bad things to us! God does not give us dualities, it’s ours consciousness created dualities. Good and bad, right and wrong, God and demon, heaven and hell and ying and yang. In the beginning, everything pleasant or unpleasant stem from yours mind.
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." In Genesis 1:27 it is stated that man was made in god's image. In Genesis chapters 6 through 9 your magic sky friend is credited with committing the first genocide. So the Young Turks, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and other genocidal maniacs could indeed be credited with manifesting god's mass murdering nature.
@@g26s239 Incorrect translation.
@@alifarley8766 One excuse after another why the Bible has such horrible content. Are you also going to claim that the Abraham story doesn't show Abraham driving his firstborn into the desert with his mother to appease his wife? Not to mention Abraham being willing to murder his second born son. That's real father of the year conduct there.
Concept of multi gods is baseless there is only one God who controls the system of univarse.
Provide verifiable evidence here. Collect your Nobel Prize in Physics and the millions that go with it as a result.
I think you're being silly!!!
As if yours is any better - its just a claim. Silly theist..
Using religious belif for charity... Is like using idea of ghosts to terrify children to go to bed early
So... being moved by gratitude to give = being moved by fear to obey? Those are completely different contexts... You're not too good at similes.
Let me help you out, using religious belief for charity is like one person being forgiven a debt and offering to pay it forward.
Yet another empty and baseless argument for the existence of god. Just absolutely no substance to any of his arguments. Not too smart if you ask me.
pretty sure its a religion debate not a God debate.
Umm... This is not a debate about the existence of God. This a debate on religion in general and its effects on humanity and society.
So god doesn't exist just religion for the sake of religion? K
@@brianburdett3463 it's two different categories, educate yourself first
Theists not being smart? You don't say!
Religious people are not moved by gratitude but desire to enjoy things in heaven
Religious people are motivated by whatever is convenient for me to say they’re motivated by. Yes, all religious people.
the atheist does good for its own sake NOT for a reward in some there world
Merry Bolton wrong.
Daniel Lee you are one wrong, Mr brainwashed kid
Atheism provides no good explanation for morality though.
Oliver Zanier Athiests would say our morality is an extension of social beliefs which have been selected for. All social animals may have some sort of morality, but these generally defined rules of our primitive ancestors which helped us to form groups and work together is now a sophisticated abstraction called morality. In short, why morality? Because a sense of morality allows for social groups to thrive. There is no objective good or bad. Goodness are things that allow our society (or in a broad sense genes) to propagate. Wrongness are those that don’t.
@@oliverzanier8202 You are such an amateur with that retarded and long debunked line of reasoning. You are either a kid, or a really dumb adult.
he's on the wrong side.... HE'S ON THE WRONG SIDE!!
Max Shatford shut up
Daniel Lee fair point, just interpreting the expressions of the chairs
Science is man made thing and not heavenly but religion especially Islam is a heavenly code of conduct sent by God for guidance of humanity.
There is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, much less a good, and much much less for the whinings of an illiterate, war-mongering, child-raping numbnut like Moh-scam-med. Stop being so stunningly gullible.
So, beating women and beheading people because you don't agree with them is a heavenly code of conduct? Idiot.
On your bike...
Everyone got brain, but not logic..
LOL, typical indoctrinated Muslim
Dude needs a nap
ThePrimaFacie shut up
you need a face & brain surgery
What an ageist thing to say.
Oh boy, equating communism with atheism and claiming Hitler's Germany wasn't religious. You can't recover from that nonsense.
You clearly don't undestand the underpinning philosphy of communism, Marxism and its materialism. Solženitsyn did as he lived through the Soviet union years.
Listen to what he’s saying. He said the Soviet Union was anti-religion. Which is true. That’s not the same as equating communism and atheism, although communism is atheist. Chairman Mao was violently anti-religion. He said Nazi Germany was anti-religion. It was, sort of. Most leading Nazis hated Christianity. Some were occult pagans, others admired Islam. Hitler, who publicly self-identified as Catholic, aimed to destroy the church’s influence & replace the Bible with Mein Kampf. He threw priests & pastors in jail & replaced them with puppets. Hitler hated the racial harmony of the gospel & pretended Jesus was an Aryan fighter against the Jews, when in fact Jesus was Jewish & died to save his people. All that could be termed anti-religion, wouldn’t you say?
Shut up
he wasn’t equating atheism with communism, he was using to as an example to explain a religious society is no more barbaric or unordered than an atheistic one and the religion doesn’t incite the violence, humans will find a way to wave war over any disagreement.
@Lucas Davenport "It’s not that atheism gives rise to communism" - I'm not so sure about that..