I think the opposition is asking religious people to not do something that they themselves are already doing. They are asking religious people to not attempt to publicly realize their vision for society because that vision is predicated on believing certain things about the spiritual. But secular people believe that the public sector should be secular as a result of their own beliefs about the spiritual, namely that it does not exist. This is *not* an attempt to be fair to all religious parties, all of which are exclusive when it comes to certain outcomes, by favoring none of them. Secularism is also an exclusive party which cannot agree with religions as to those same outcomes - it is just another faction of belief. Secularism has no more right to being the de facto arbiter of public order than any other worldview.
I think this is a false equivalency. Secularism just means the public sphere remains neutral ground. A “referee” of sorts, protecting innocent bystanders from the various gangs by keeping their (holy) turf wars off the streets. One results in non-believers having to pretend something is actually real that isn’t there, and accepting that they can’t participate in certain institutions like marriage because they’ll spend eternity being tortured in screaming agony (which is going to happen for them anyway.) The other results in religious people having to potentially see a gay couple in real life one day, walking across the street. On the extremely rare occasion, you may be forced to actually engage in commerce with them if they patron your business. If having a single, basic, societal interaction with a homosexual person, such as purchasing an item from a store, would end up causing you to have a complete crisis of faith, then you need to acknowledge that the problem lies with you, and to seek professional help. Look, I will always defend (and actually welcome gladly) your right to worship and practice the rituals of your faith as you see them to be. You can pray in school before and after every single class. You can avoid sitting beside boys/girls. You can wait until you get married before you realize that you wasted your youth not having sex. Why the fuck can’t you all just read your books, go to your churches, sing your songs, do your rituals, AND JUST ENJOY DOING YOUR RELIGION WITHOUT TRYING TO MAKE THE LAWS OF THE ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY MATCH IT.
@@michaellapalme1198 I understand your sarcasm. But if it were a serious question, I would like to say that religious people are manipulated and manipulating. If they love Pope, and you are rather neutral and inclined to disgust some his political (not theological) statements, you're 'offending' them, for he is supposed to be a reincarnation of Saint Peter (which is strange) and Saint Peter is supposed to be the founder of the Church (which is rather dubious). So you can't not to offend them. If you are a gay, you offend them. If you are straight, you offend them, if you are not married to your partner. If you a practitioner of other religion, you offend them. If you are not, you also offend them.
From Swinburnes' most popular book 'Is There A God', 2010: "Argument and counter-argument, qualification and amplification, can go on forever. But religion is not exceptional in this respect. With respect to any subject whatever, the discussion can go on forever. New experiments can always be done to test Quantum Theory, new interpretations can be proposed for old experiments, forever. And the same goes for interpretations ofhistory or theories of politics. BUT LIFE IS SHORT AND WE HAVE TO ACT on the basis of what such evidence as we have had time to investigate shows on balance to be probably true. We have to vote in elections without having had time to consider the merits of the political programmes of even the main candidates with respect to one or two planks of their programmes. And we have to build bridges and send rockets into space before we can look at all the arguments for and against whether our construction is safe-let alone be absolutely certain that it is. And in religion too we have to act (while allowing that, later in life, we may look again at the arguments). The conclusion of this book was that, on significant balance of probability, there is a God. If you accept it, it follows that you have certain duties. God has given us life and all the good things it contains, including above all the opportunities to mould our characters and help others. Great gratitude to God is abundantly appropriate. We should express it in worship and in helping to forward his purposes-which involves, as a preliminary step, making some effort to find out what they are. But duties are of limited extent (as we saw in Chapter 1); a moderate amount of worship and obedience might satisfy them. We could leave it at that. Yet, if we have any sense and any idealism, we cannot leave it at that. God in his perfect goodness will want to make the best of us: make saints of us and use us to make saints of others (not, of course, for his sake, but for ours and for theirs), give us deep understanding of himself (the all-good source of all being), and help us to interact with him. All that involves an unlimited commitment. But God respects us; he will not force these things on us-we can choose whether to seek them or not. If we do seek them, there are obvious obstacles in this world to achieving them (some of which I discussed in Chapter 6). The obstacles are necessary, partly in order to ensure that our commitment is genuine. But God has every reason in due course to remove those obstacles-to allow us to become the good people we seek to be, to give us the vision of himself-forever."
Awesome. I am loving this. I hope to visit both countries. So research at Lund University and cross over to Switzerland to do a comparative study. Thank you ❤
Swinburn makes an interesting argument by pointing out that banning arguments because one party doesn't understand them is a recipe for disaster. However, I believe this may have been better served by applying it in a reverse of the current conversation. The af would not accept that because Swinburn doesn't understand their "scientific" reasoning for x they can't use that reasoning. All in all, there isn't much to say, it was a pretty well thought out argument for the neg.
Even if i still like Swinburne, though i must say that he considers real proved the resurrection of Jesus, not considering that resurrection and other religions happenings in Christianity are mere copies of previous religious myths
I'm pretty sure he has, like many intellectual Christians, considered the possibility of Jesus' actions being copied from prior religions myths, but it's unlikely.
What is the word religion here refers to? Because 80 % Indians don't have any religion label........we Hindu don't believe in any religion but instead of religion we strongly follow spiritualism......we are not believers but seeker........and yes spiritualism is important aspect of Indian public life.........
Hinduism is the greatest... wiser than the religions of the rest of the world. Isn't that you mean. But this is not spirituality. Spirituality means not worrying about inferiority.. because only the self feels the pain of inferiority. For a spiritual mind, the self doesn't exist and so there is no desire to be great or superior than others. Nor is there any fear or pain of being inferior, ugly or worthless.
@@hitachi9778 sir namaskar........you assume this all which was not mention by me actually........you can think anything you want......in spiritualism,there is no superior or inferior.........all are equal.......we are the part of divine and therefore divinity exist in all of us....... I say namaskar to you mean not I am saying this to ramesh Ji but I fold my hand and saying namaskar to the god....the god who is exist inside you.......CHIDANAND RUPAH SHIVOHAM SHIVOHAM
@@jaredmccann6508 nice suggestion sir,thanks ....... In spiritualism,we believe that god exists inside all the particles of this cosmos.......he exist inside you, inside me and so on.........therefore we are the part of divine......seeking this aspect of truth that you are equally divine as god is spiritual seeking of our side......jesus is a great divine man......he himself had found this truth.......we all are in a que.....when you himself find this truth,you will be as divine as jesus.....all the best
If you refer to Jesus moral teachings I don't think you are right to cherry pick those you agree with and ignore those that are obviously immoral. If your proposition is, Jesus told us what god wants then you have to accept stoning a women for adultery is an adequate punishment.
@@RecordsLotus_ Not at all. Dunbar's Number pal, look it up. Your pretend caring and compassion could probably be more accurately described as a disease - virtue signalling. It's intellectual masturbation and a public show; in reality it amounts to nothing. You cannot care about a large amount of people because you don't know them. You cannot know them. Again, Dunbar's Number. Stop trying to put illnesses, phobes, isms and all other manner of nonsense onto people you disagree with. You can't swing a cat these days without hitting a 2 penny Freud. By the way: It's your, not 'you're'.
'cause there are no such thing as your values or someone's values. Values are totally social, common. If you mean your prejudices, well, you wouldn't of course. And you aren't supposed to do it.
Professor Swinburne stands atop a scaffolding of twigs with no ability to hold or carry any weight. Simply put alot of this is true with nothing to back it lol.
You don't have to totally ban religion from public life, only the there Abrahamic religions. That would solve every problem not only in England but globally! The Devine always should be a part of social life but not represented by the abominations that are the monotheistic, misogynistic, divisive religions
@@rtwfreak2012 Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the three Abrahamic religions the conquered the world and spread like a virus. Before the Islamic invasions the Rohingya were not Muslims as were not the Muslims in India and every other non Arabic country, they were converted by force. What is your point in mentioning the Rohingya?
@@rtwfreak2012 Ow now i see, because Hinduism is not an Abrahamic religion, right? Since when Myanmar is a Hindu country? They are Buddhists, so on this you are mistaken. Imagine what kind of religion is Islam that would make even the most peaceful people defend their country in this way. I don't agree with what was done to the Rohingya but i certainly can understand why. What about the Chinese, have you seen what they do to Muslims? They put them in concentration camps untill they renounce their faith. If these countries don't take these yes cruel measures, they will in time be totally Islamisised. Perhaps Europe should take drastic measures before we all are forced to start praying to Allah.
Watch the full debate here > ruclips.net/video/SlD8nKayMzU/видео.html
It is amazing that Swinburne is still alive.
I think the opposition is asking religious people to not do something that they themselves are already doing. They are asking religious people to not attempt to publicly realize their vision for society because that vision is predicated on believing certain things about the spiritual. But secular people believe that the public sector should be secular as a result of their own beliefs about the spiritual, namely that it does not exist. This is *not* an attempt to be fair to all religious parties, all of which are exclusive when it comes to certain outcomes, by favoring none of them. Secularism is also an exclusive party which cannot agree with religions as to those same outcomes - it is just another faction of belief. Secularism has no more right to being the de facto arbiter of public order than any other worldview.
I think this is a false equivalency.
Secularism just means the public sphere remains neutral ground. A “referee” of sorts, protecting innocent bystanders from the various gangs by keeping their (holy) turf wars off the streets.
One results in non-believers having to pretend something is actually real that isn’t there, and accepting that they can’t participate in certain institutions like marriage because they’ll spend eternity being tortured in screaming agony (which is going to happen for them anyway.)
The other results in religious people having to potentially see a gay couple in real life one day, walking across the street. On the extremely rare occasion, you may be forced to actually engage in commerce with them if they patron your business.
If having a single, basic, societal interaction with a homosexual person, such as purchasing an item from a store, would end up causing you to have a complete crisis of faith, then you need to acknowledge that the problem lies with you, and to seek professional help.
Look, I will always defend (and actually welcome gladly) your right to worship and practice the rituals of your faith as you see them to be. You can pray in school before and after every single class. You can avoid sitting beside boys/girls. You can wait until you get married before you realize that you wasted your youth not having sex.
Why the fuck can’t you all just read your books, go to your churches, sing your songs, do your rituals, AND JUST ENJOY DOING YOUR RELIGION WITHOUT TRYING TO MAKE THE LAWS OF THE ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY MATCH IT.
@@michaellapalme1198 I understand your sarcasm. But if it were a serious question, I would like to say that religious people are manipulated and manipulating. If they love Pope, and you are rather neutral and inclined to disgust some his political (not theological) statements, you're 'offending' them, for he is supposed to be a reincarnation of Saint Peter (which is strange) and Saint Peter is supposed to be the founder of the Church (which is rather dubious). So you can't not to offend them. If you are a gay, you offend them. If you are straight, you offend them, if you are not married to your partner. If you a practitioner of other religion, you offend them. If you are not, you also offend them.
amazing speaker, hope i meet him someday before he goes
Excellent. Thank you for refusing to put down the torch sir. And at 85 years old none the less.
From Swinburnes' most popular book 'Is There A God', 2010:
"Argument and counter-argument, qualification and amplification, can go on forever. But religion is not exceptional in this respect. With respect to any subject whatever, the discussion can go on forever. New experiments can always be done to test Quantum Theory, new interpretations can be proposed for old experiments, forever. And the same goes for interpretations ofhistory or theories of politics. BUT LIFE IS SHORT AND WE HAVE TO ACT on the basis of what such evidence as we have had time to investigate shows on balance to be probably true. We have to vote in elections without having had time to consider the merits of the political programmes of even the main candidates with respect to one or two planks of their programmes. And we have to build bridges and send rockets into space before we can look at all the arguments for and against whether our construction is safe-let alone be absolutely certain that it is. And in religion too we have to act (while allowing that, later in life, we may look again at the arguments). The conclusion of this book was that, on significant balance of probability, there is a God. If you accept it, it follows that you have certain duties. God has given us life and all the good things it contains, including above all the opportunities to mould our characters and help others. Great gratitude to God is abundantly appropriate. We should express it in worship and in helping to forward his purposes-which involves, as a preliminary step, making some effort to find out what they are. But duties are of limited extent (as we saw in Chapter 1); a moderate amount of worship and obedience might satisfy them. We could leave it at that. Yet, if we have any sense and any idealism, we cannot leave it at that. God in his perfect goodness will want to make the best of us: make saints of us and use us to make saints of others (not, of course, for his sake, but for ours and for theirs), give us deep understanding of himself (the all-good source of all being), and help us to interact with him. All that involves an unlimited commitment. But God respects us; he will not force these things on us-we can choose whether to seek them or not. If we do seek them, there are obvious obstacles in this world to achieving them (some of which I discussed in Chapter 6). The obstacles are necessary, partly in order to ensure that our commitment is genuine. But God has every reason in due course to remove those obstacles-to allow us to become the good people we seek to be, to give us the vision of himself-forever."
Awesome. I am loving this. I hope to visit both countries. So research at Lund University and cross over to Switzerland to do a comparative study. Thank you ❤
Swinburn makes an interesting argument by pointing out that banning arguments because one party doesn't understand them is a recipe for disaster.
However, I believe this may have been better served by applying it in a reverse of the current conversation.
The af would not accept that because Swinburn doesn't understand their "scientific" reasoning for x they can't use that reasoning.
All in all, there isn't much to say, it was a pretty well thought out argument for the neg.
Even if i still like Swinburne, though i must say that he considers real proved the resurrection of Jesus, not considering that resurrection and other religions happenings in Christianity are mere copies of previous religious myths
I'm pretty sure he has, like many intellectual Christians, considered the possibility of Jesus' actions being copied from prior religions myths, but it's unlikely.
What is the word religion here refers to?
Because 80 % Indians don't have any religion label........we Hindu don't believe in any religion but instead of religion we strongly follow spiritualism......we are not believers but seeker........and yes spiritualism is important aspect of Indian public life.........
Hinduism is the greatest... wiser than the religions of the rest of the world. Isn't that you mean. But this is not spirituality. Spirituality means not worrying about inferiority.. because only the self feels the pain of inferiority. For a spiritual mind, the self doesn't exist and so there is no desire to be great or superior than others. Nor is there any fear or pain of being inferior, ugly or worthless.
Jesus is key read his words
You will find all the things you seek
Jesus said :
Knock and the door will be open for you
Seek and you will find
Oh please. Ask 12 people what spiritualism even means and you will get 12 different answers. Spiritualism is a useless term.
@@hitachi9778 sir namaskar........you assume this all which was not mention by me actually........you can think anything you want......in spiritualism,there is no superior or inferior.........all are equal.......we are the part of divine and therefore divinity exist in all of us.......
I say namaskar to you mean not I am saying this to ramesh Ji but I fold my hand and saying namaskar to the god....the god who is exist inside you.......CHIDANAND RUPAH SHIVOHAM SHIVOHAM
@@jaredmccann6508 nice suggestion sir,thanks .......
In spiritualism,we believe that god exists inside all the particles of this cosmos.......he exist inside you, inside me and so on.........therefore we are the part of divine......seeking this aspect of truth that you are equally divine as god is spiritual seeking of our side......jesus is a great divine man......he himself had found this truth.......we all are in a que.....when you himself find this truth,you will be as divine as jesus.....all the best
AMAZING! CONGRATULATIONS PROFESSOR! GOD BLESS US...
Bit of a ramble
If you refer to Jesus moral teachings I don't think you are right to cherry pick those you agree with and ignore those that are obviously immoral.
If your proposition is, Jesus told us what god wants then you have to accept stoning a women for adultery is an adequate punishment.
In the symbol of western Christianity why would we debate our values with non believers
@@RecordsLotus_ Nah. We're not. It's entirely illusory. You're responsible to those you care about, that's it.
@@RecordsLotus_ Not at all. Dunbar's Number pal, look it up. Your pretend caring and compassion could probably be more accurately described as a disease - virtue signalling. It's intellectual masturbation and a public show; in reality it amounts to nothing. You cannot care about a large amount of people because you don't know them. You cannot know them. Again, Dunbar's Number.
Stop trying to put illnesses, phobes, isms and all other manner of nonsense onto people you disagree with. You can't swing a cat these days without hitting a 2 penny Freud.
By the way: It's your, not 'you're'.
@Tenac 300 Me or someone else?
@Tenac 300 Okay, you weren't talking to me.
'cause there are no such thing as your values or someone's values. Values are totally social, common. If you mean your prejudices, well, you wouldn't of course. And you aren't supposed to do it.
Professor Swinburne stands atop a scaffolding of twigs with no ability to hold or carry any weight. Simply put alot of this is true with nothing to back it lol.
I'm first here tq
I am the first I am lucky
Professor Richard Swinburne: You're not entiltled.
SJW: WHAT?!?
Great point.
It’s unfortunate that we have to be reminded about the true oppressors of the 20th century with the rise of socialism/communism
You don't have to totally ban religion from public life, only the there Abrahamic religions.
That would solve every problem not only in England but globally!
The Devine always should be a part of social life but not represented by the abominations that are the monotheistic, misogynistic, divisive religions
Laughs in Rohingya
@@rtwfreak2012 Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the three Abrahamic religions the conquered the world and spread like a virus.
Before the Islamic invasions the Rohingya were not Muslims as were not the Muslims in India and every other non Arabic country, they were converted by force.
What is your point in mentioning the Rohingya?
@@maria369 my point is that they are currently being genocided by hindu extremists
@@rtwfreak2012 Ow now i see, because Hinduism is not an Abrahamic religion, right?
Since when Myanmar is a Hindu country? They are Buddhists, so on this you are mistaken. Imagine what kind of religion is Islam that would make even the most peaceful people defend their country in this way. I don't agree with what was done to the Rohingya but i certainly can understand why.
What about the Chinese, have you seen what they do to Muslims? They put them in concentration camps untill they renounce their faith. If these countries don't take these yes cruel measures, they will in time be totally Islamisised.
Perhaps Europe should take drastic measures before we all are forced to start praying to Allah.
Are you literally condoning the genocide of theists?