This House Believes That We Are All Religious | Full Debate | Oxford Union Web Series
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 เม.ย. 2021
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
While many view religion as incompatible with enlightened democracy, it continues to define the fault lines of public life across the world. Must faith be private, then, or does it have a place in the modern polity?
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.
![โกหกเธอทั้งนั้น (Pinocchio) - SERIOUS BACON [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P1HhTYwrR5A/mqdefault.jpg)
The point of the topic was to suggest that we all consider some god, idea, people or relationships to be “higher” - what we value most. And we draw meaning from what we place higher. By that definition of religion (the only one that made the debate a debate) we are most definitely all religious. And our worldviews are all “faiths”.
So, what is YOUR definition of "religion", Mr. Benjamin?
@@TheWorldTeacher I think I covered that in my first post. Whatever we look to to fulfil our need to have meaning in our lives.
@@philipbenjamin4720, the English word “religion” originates from the Latin verb “religare”, meaning “to join or unite”. It is the precise equivalent of the Sanskrit noun “yoga”, from the verbal root “yuj” (to attach, harness, or yoke). Thus, religion/yoga implies union with the Supreme Self, or, to provide a more accurate and profound definition, the understanding and realization that there is nothing BUT the Supreme Self (“Paramātmāṇ”, in Sanskrit). Other definitions include “union of the body and the mind” and “union with God”, both of which are valid in the appropriate context.
Perhaps the best definition of yoga is “the UNION of the relative and absolute”, meaning one who has fully realized himself to be “Brahman”, but knows precisely how to integrate that understanding within temporal existence, just as, for example, Lord Jesus Christ so admirably demonstrated during His public ministry over two millennia ago, in the land of Palestine (now Israel).
Great debate. They best part is Shermer's swish right at the end once they heard the new poll numbers hahah!
Amazing conversation thank you for posting.
34:23 Gangster Krauss: "by the fact that we are having this debate is proof we are all religious".Thank you and goodnight!😎
Good evening 🌷
Wait... what? Lawrence Kraus and John Lennox on the same side of a debate over religion? What is going on? 🤔
Omnipitous
1 second ago
I miss Hitchens. He would have demolished this motion.
Not a sensible topic. I’m sure you can invent some definition of the word religious that encompasses everyone. Similarly if we define cans of Pepsi to mean people, we could say everyone is a can of Pepsi.
So, what is YOUR definition of "religion", Mr. Steady?
Yup
Postmodernism at it's finest.
Your thought process is myopic
Dr. Krauss was brilliant!!
John❤❤❤❤
No thinking person could argue men are not guided by a strong sense of purpose, something bigger than themselves. Aka the phrase ( being on the right side of history.) this phrase assumes an entire generation can be morally wrong, that there is an objective moral standard that when broken and revealed, future generations will divide past groups into hit or miss categories.
"Safetyism"?
The more mankind open their eyes n mind to evidences ..logic n critical analysis ..of the world around and beyond .....the more shall be the numbers of 'real' Humans that live their Life!, as it was meant to be!
You can sum up the vain and patronising arguments of the opposition debaters as merely a litany of self serving rationalisms - in order to assert that their devoutly (defiantly) faithful beliefs in their merely man made (false) religions are somehow superior to the True God made Christian religion. A very good (albeit one sided) debate that proves the notion.
Well said.
@@JoshuaHults nice to know I’m not the Lone Ranger - thank you.
Religion should be contrasted with negligence - it’s social opposite. Also what most people call, ‘religious’ is dogmatic.
Any regular practice may be called, “religious” if it is a willed habit undertaken to replace negative habitual behaviour.
🐟 16. YOGA/RELIGION:
According to some sources, YOGA (authentic religion) was introduced to human society approximately seventeen thousand years ago, via the Ādiyogī (first religionist), Mahādeva Śiva, in His form known as Dakṣiṇāmūrti, in the subcontinent named Bhārata (India). Lord Shiva is universally recognized to be the first Avatar, that is, the first person to be born without sin (in other words, a pure embodiment of the Divine; enlightened from birth). Whether or not these historical events really occurred is irrelevant to the purposes of this chapter and this scripture.
Other sources claim that RELIGION began when Lord Brahmā spoke the four “Vedas” (books of knowledge) in ancient Sanskrit, the essential teachings of which are non-dual, that is to say, describe everything in existence having the same ground of being. In other words, “All is One” without a second. ‘Sarvam khalvidam brahma’ (Chandogya Upanishad 3.14) teaches that ‘All this is indeed Brahman’ (“Brahman” referring to the TOTALITY of existence/non-existence). Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H" to understand the concept of Universal Consciousness.
Since then, systems of religion have evolved or have been revealed by prophetic figures on the continent of ASIA.
Supernatural mythologies and superstitions developed in other locations too, most of which featured animistic narratives and primitive rituals, but not quite to the same philosophical level of the monotheistic and monistic religions of Middle East Asia, Bhārata, and China.
When we humans are born into this world, we fully depend on our parents, teachers, and society to raise and educate us. Those of us who were born into a religious family are taught to believe that our particular religion has all the answers to our most fundamental questions (who really are we? from where do we come? What is the right way to behave? what is the purpose/meaning of life?, et cetera) and that its holy scripture is the “rule book” for life. Everything we need to know about life and how to live a perfect life is to be found in that holy book.
UNFORTUNATELY, until this particular Holy Scripture, “F.I.S.H”, was composed, there had never been a single book (or single teaching/teacher) which logically explains existence, the meaning of life, and how we humans can live life in an ideal manner. The most popular holy books, such as the Buddhist canon, the Judeo-Christian “Holy Bible”, the Islamic “Quran”, and the Vedic texts such as “Bhagavad-gītā”, do not, sad to say, provide a complete teaching which applies to all peoples at all times and places, despite what some of their adherents may claim.
The English word “religion” originates from the Latin verb “religare”, meaning “to join or unite”. It is the precise equivalent of the Sanskrit noun “yoga”, from the verbal root “yuj” (to attach, harness, or yoke). Thus, religion/yoga implies union with the Supreme Self, or, to provide a more accurate and profound definition, the understanding and realization that there is nothing BUT the Supreme Self (“Paramātmāṇ”, in Sanskrit). Other definitions include “union of the body and the mind” and “union with God”, both of which are valid in the appropriate context.
Perhaps the best definition of yoga is “the UNION of the relative and absolute”, meaning one who has fully realized himself to be “Brahman”, but knows precisely how to integrate that understanding within temporal existence, just as, for example, Lord Jesus Christ so admirably demonstrated during His public ministry over two millennia ago, in the land of Palestine (now Israel).
Union with the Divine has no circumstantial prerequisites. It is NOT necessary to do anything in particular in order to wake-up from this cosmic illusion and to become self-realized (that is, to “make real” the true self). Spiritual awakening occurs according to the preordained “Story of Life”, as explained in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, although most (but not all) persons who experience awakening, liberation, and enlightenment do so after practicing some form of religion/yoga, just as most persons (but not all) who become wealthy perform wealth-creation activities such as operating a business enterprise or composing a popular song. Some become instantly wealthy by being born into an aristocratic family, winning a lottery, gambling in a casino, by being the recipient of a donation, or by being the beneficiary of a bequeathed fortune. Many religionists use the term “God's grace” for this process, although it is more accurate to attribute it to predestination (cf. Ch. 11).
The REAL corollary of religion/yoga is to improve the human being - to make one more gentle, loving, forgiving, self-controlled, moral, holy and righteous - none of which necessarily unites the self with the Self. Union with the Divine depends solely on Divine Grace (or, as mentioned above, predestination). Most religious teachings focus on this self-improvement aspect, rather than on the “goal” of attaining unalloyed peace.
Practically all religious precepts are prescriptive, that is, they instruct their followers to perform certain actions in order to achieve a particular objective. However, arguably the most beneficial teachings are DESCRIPTIVE, that is, they describe existence as it is, knowing that nothing can be done to alter the course of history. If a certain event is destined to take place, nothing or nobody can prevent that destined occurrence.
There are FOUR systems of religion/yoga:
1. The religion of ACTION/labour. This is the simplest method of union with God, known as “karma yoga” in Bhārata, and is recommended by some experts as the one with which to begin one's spiritual journey. It involves a worker or businessman (or even a monarch) performing his duties with the goal of using his excess funds to support his spiritual preceptor or church/temple/mosque. It may also include performing beneficial deeds for one's master, such as cleaning his house or temple. Karma yoga is the least discussed system of religion, possibly because it is, as mentioned, rather simplistic, and because it is extremely unlikely that a karma yogi can ever attain to full union via this path alone.
Even though the author of this Holy Scripture is the current World Teacher, he began his adult spiritual journey by diligently practicing karma yoga in the temple of a local religious organization. So, even though it may seem simplistic and inane, “Working for God” is truly a wonderful introduction to the spiritual path, even if it rarely results in a practitioner becoming a fully-awakened and enlightened sage.
Cont...
2. DEVOTIONAL religion/yoga: By far the most popular form of religion, but also the most perilous. This system of religion, known as “bhakti yoga” in Bhārata, comprises of reading (or hearing) about the personal conception of the Godhead (usually a Divine Incarnation), offering prayers, singing or chanting hymns, performing rituals, and serving the spiritual teacher, with the goal of totally surrendering one's will.
The peril lies in the fact that a large number of devotees become radicalized towards his or her own group or spiritual leader (“guru”, in Sanskrit), unwilling to accept the validity of other traditions or paths.
The essence of love is the desire for all living beings to find true happiness. When we want the best for all creatures, then we can honestly say that we love everybody equally. One who appears to love one person more than another, in fact, loves nobody. True, unconditional love revolves around sacrificing one’s selfish desires for those of his or her superiors, whether that be one's parents, husband, employer, or spiritual master, even if they are imperfect. Should a child disobey its mother just because the mother is flawed? Of course not! This paradigm is applicable to everyone, without exception.
3. INTELLECTUAL union: This Yoga of Knowledge is known as “jñāna yoga” in Bhārata and as “gnosticism” in European-based languages, and is founded on the investigation and contemplation of advanced metaphysical concepts, with the aim of self-realization, that is to realize that the Universal Self alone is real (“real” in the Vedic/Upanishadic sense of the word). It is conceivable that, in the future, the study of neuroscience and physics (especially quantum mechanics) will become a legitimate aspect of jñāna yoga, or possibly even entirely replace traditional jñāna yoga, if physics is able to conclusively demonstrate that the human being is an expression of Universal Consciousness ("Brahman", in Sanskrit). In the Western World, academic philosophy, coupled with theoretical physics, particularly since the late nineteenth century, has become the most widespread expression of gnosticism, since it endeavours to uncover the foundations of life and of existence (although, in general, secular philosophy lacks the “dharmic” aspect of yoga, that is, the moral obligations and societal duties incumbent on a religious practitioner).
No matter what system of religion one initially practices, it is virtually mandatory for an aspiring religionist (“sādhaka” or “yogi”, in Sanskrit) to have an inclination towards the systematic study of the King of Sciences (or “Royal Secret”), as Lord Krishna refers to this yoga in the “Bhagavad-gītā” portion of “Mahābhārata”, if he is to become truly enlightened (as defined in the next chapter). Despite its name, the Path of Knowledge can include acts of devotion towards one's teacher, thus integrating the heart and the mind, as well as periodic meditation.
Much of this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, could be classified under this system of religion, which explains why very few persons actually read this document - this yoga, by nature, attracts only highly-intelligent persons.
4. The EIGHT-LIMB yoga system: “Aṣṭāṅga yoga”, as it is known in the ancient language of Bhārata, has a defined series of eight steps or stages, beginning with moral dictums or injunctions, and culminating in a state of “steady mind (or unwavering intellect)”.
In his “Yoga Sutras”, the ancient Indian sage Patañjali defined the eight limbs as follows: yama (abstinences), niyama (observances), asana (posture), pranayama (breath control), pratyahara (withdrawal of the senses), dharana (concentration), dhyana (meditation) and samadhi (absorption). Samadhi is by far the most misunderstood concept in yoga. It refers to the state of true peace of mind, which is actually the natural state of being of the human mind, and not to some ecstatic or enstatic feeling of euphoric bliss, which is, by nature, temporary.
Despite what most believe, the third stage of this yoga system does not involve a multitude of complex physical poses, but simply sitting with one's legs crossed and locked, with one's arms fully extended and resting on the knees. The purpose of sitting in this “lotus position” (“padmāsana”, in Sanskrit), or at least simple sitting positions, was in order to execute meditation and concentration in the higher steps. The myriad stretching exercises were devised in later centuries, presumably for those persons who were too inflexible to sit immediately in “padmāsana”. Having stated that, modern yoga poses are highly-recommended for anyone and everyone, whether theistic or irreligious, because they bestow enormous benefits to one's health, particularly as one advances in age. That's something I learnt the hard way, unfortunately. Aṣṭāṅga yoga is ideal for persons who are averse to devotional religions because there is no requirement of belief in God.
There is no reason why one cannot practice MORE than one yoga system simultaneously, but the typical person is usually attracted to devotional religion, because it is the most instinctive one. A child is innately attached to his or her parents, in a strong familial bond, and the attachment between a devotee and his teacher (or to an Avatar/God) is a natural extension of this bond.
However, the MOST beneficial spiritual practice is to “rest imperturbably as Flawless Awareness”, that is, to regress into one’s inner self (the sense of the unqualified “I am”), or return attention to its Source, without the affliction of any belief system, thus transcending all mundane concepts. This can occur during virtually any daily activity, and if practiced for short periods throughout the day, it eventually becomes one’s normal way of being. This is sometimes referred to as the “direct path”, or somewhat less accurately, the “pathless path”. In this practice there is no separation of what is aware and of what appears - no presumption of a perceiver and a perceived, or of a doer and what is done. Other contemplative techniques are focused on an object, such as a person (usually God) or a specially-formulated prayer (“mantra”, in Sanskrit), whereas this form of meditation is the simple recognition of the eternal Self by the eternal Self.
When coupled with a conscious avoidance of the five forms of suffering, due to the abandonment of the notion of personal authorship mentioned in Chapter 15, this self-abidance brings about pure peace, a peace which surpasses anything previously imagined - truly beyond human understanding. That perfect peace is the fundamental nature of our existence. This is genuine yoga/religion - union of the self with the Self - for there is but ONE existence-consciousness-peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit).
Any other practice merely reinforces the notion of a separate, independent agent, which is the very root of material bondage (“saṃsāra”, in Sanskrit), or to be more precise, the cause of all actual, psychological, suffering (“duḥkha”, in Sanskrit).
“Insofar as you keep watching the mind and discover yourself as its witness, nothing else can project itself on the screen of consciousness.
This is so, because two things cannot occupy the attention, at the same moment.
Therefore, delve within and find out where thoughts arise.
Seek the source of all thought and acquire the Self-knowledge, which is the awakening of Truth.”
************
“The way to the realization of Truth, is neither through attachment nor renunciation.
There is, in fact, no way.
No means of any kind, can either indicate or grasp the Ultimate.”
Ramesh Balsekar,
Indian Spiritual Teacher.
“The mind that seeks happiness (or enlightenment) is like a character in a movie in search for the screen. It will NEVER find the screen in the movie, although everything it finds is made of the screen.
The mind that longs for enlightenment or happiness will never find what it is longing-for. And yet it is made out of what it is longing-for.”
*************
“The question 'Am I aware?' is a thought.
The answer ‘Yes’ is a thought.
What takes place between those two thoughts?
The experience of being aware that I am aware.”
Rupert Spira,
English Spiritual Teacher.
Arbeit macht frei. Yes, I agree. Do the work shall be the whole of the law.
Religion glue of civilized society also makes easier for believers to tolerate self glorified .stunning how arrogance & egos ,can make you come across so poorly.
What is this "EGO" of which you speak, Roy?
@@TheWorldTeacher ego was probably bad choice of words . I forgot what I realized long ago people who let's say wiser than some can unintentionally come across arrogant & egotistic when on truth they come across in excellent detail & clarity . looking back (20/20) Sorry honestly I was venting I had a bad day I apologias.
@@royhowell386:
🐟 10. EGO (THE SENSE OF SELF):
The Latin first-person singular pronoun, “EGO” (“I”, in English) has been incorporated into the English language, yet with a rather unorthodox import, particularly in spiritual circles, where it is used as a noun, although it is a poor translation of the Sanskrit “ahaṃkāra”, which is more accurately a verb. Most persons misuse the word for “an exaggerated sense of self-importance”, “arrogance”, “conceit” or “haughtiness”, etc.
Compare the concepts of egoity in this chapter with the Freudian concept of “The I” (“Das Ich”, in German).
“Ahaṃ” simply means “I/Ego”, and “ahaṃkāra” means “Creating the I/self”, or “Activating the sense of self”, or “Constructing one's identity”.
As an aside, some Sanskrit scholars have noticed that the word “ahaṃ” is formed of a+ha+ṃ, a triad of Śiva (a), Śakti (ha) and bindu (ṃ). The whole Sanskrit alphabet is enclosed by those two syllables, just as the Greek tongue begins and ends with “alpha” and “omega”, respectively. “I am the Alpha and the Omega!”, said God in the book of “Revelations”. Incidentally, the palindrome of “ahaṃ” is “mahā”, meaning “GREAT”.
The most accurate definition of “Ego/I” is: “the self, which is a conscious PERSON”. A human person is the Stainless Consciousness of Source, acting through a particular body-mind complex, which in turn, is an ever-morphing biological organism. As explained elsewhere in this Holy Scripture, the body-mind complex is more accurately described as a process (a verb) rather than a fixed object (a noun), which is why the sages of ancient India (properly called “Bhārata”) preferred to categorize all transient phenomena as “unreal/non-existent” (“asat”, in Sanskrit), rather than “real/existent” (“sat”, in Sanskrit). So how do “you” feel now that it has been demonstrated that “you” are non-existent? :-)
Therefore, whenever the word “ego” is heard in practically any spiritual/religious context, it is not to be taken LITERALLY (“I”) but in the sense of “ahaṃkāra” (a mistaken sense of self-identity, or sometimes as a synonym for superciliousness). Inept Sanskrit-to-English translators are probably guilty for this misunderstanding.
False egoity (“ahaṃkāra”) is an errant conception of oneself. In other words, it is the idea that “I am an independent agent, with the volition to freely think, feel and behave as I choose”, instead of simply an unqualified “I AM” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit) or at the very least, “I am all-encompassing existence” (“ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit). Simply put, it is identification with anything not of the actual self/Self. In practical terms, it is any noun or adjective placed after the expression “I am”. For example, “I am a woman” or “I am rich”.
So, when the true self (which is Brahman, the TOTALITY of existence) misidentifies itself with a particular body-mind organism, it is “pseudo-ego” (ahaṃkāra) but when the self/Self identifies with Conscious Awareness (Brahman), acting through the body-mind organism, it is the “authentic ego” (“ātman/Paramātmāṇ”, in Sanskrit). Obviously, this misidentification with one's mind and body, or name and form (“nāma-rūpa”, in Sanskrit) is not a flaw of the Flawless Absolute, but merely a play of the divine comedy (“līlā”, in Sanskrit).
Alternatively, one could claim that it is, rather, the PSEUDO-EGO which confuses and conflates the body-mind to be the real self/Self. In that case, when the pseudo-ego identifies as the Universal Self, it is the true ego. This may occur during or following a peak experience of cosmic awakening, or it may ensue after a period of yogic practice (see Chapter 16 for a description of the four systems of yoga/religion).
In my particular case, following decades of earnest religious practice, I rarely lose sight of the realization that I am, essentially, the All. Yet, even that understanding and realization was destined from all eternity (see the next chapter).
Humans usually believe that they are the body-mind organism. Those who have awakened (or at least spiritually aware) consider themselves to NOT be their body-mind. One who is truly enlightened knows for certain that he is both a human being on the relative level, but quintessentially the very ground of being in the Absolute sense. That which can perceive any impermanent phenomenon is the real self/ego/I.
When properly analysed, the phrase “I am Spirit” or “I am All” (“ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit) means “I, the ego (the relative persona) am Nothing/Everything/Brahman/Tao/Spirit (the Absolute Ground of Being)”. Chapter 06 explores further the nature of the Supreme Self.
Finally, it could be argued, with some degree of merit, that since the English language already has a word for oneself (“I”), that we ought to keep using the English dictionary definition of “ego” (as the false sense of oneself). However, because the great majority of advanced religionists and spiritual practitioners outside Bhārata (India) who speak of these concepts, base their language on Sanskrit and/or Pali, it is far more accurate to separate “ego” (ahaṃ) from “false egoity” (ahaṃkāra). The LITERAL translation should predominate, to avoid ambiguity.
“The first and foremost of all thoughts, the primeval thought in the mind of every man, is the thought ‘I’. It is only after the birth of this thought that any other thoughts can arise at all. It is only after the first personal pronoun, ‘I’, has arisen in the mind that the second personal pronoun, ‘you’, can make its appearance. If you could mentally follow the ‘I’ thread until it led you back to its source you would discover that, just as it is the first thought to appear, so it is the last to disappear. This is a matter which can be experienced.”
Venkataraman Iyer (AKA Śri Ramana Maharshi),
South Indian Sage.
“Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Even in the pathological cases of split consciousness or double personality the two persons alternate, they are never manifest simultaneously. In a dream we do perform several characters at the same time, but not indiscriminately: we are one of them; in him we act and speak directly, while we often eagerly await the answer or response of another person, unaware of the fact that it is we who control his movements and his speech just as much as our own. ...
Each of us has the indisputable impression that the sum total of his own experience and memory forms a unit, quite distinct from that of any other person. He refers to it as 'I'. What is this 'I'?
If you analyse it closely, you will, I think, find that it is just a little bit more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by 'I' is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected.”
From the epilogue to “What is Life?”,
Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger,
Austrian Physicist
No all religions do not propose a “two world” concept
I haven't heard an Indian speaking with a posh English accent since Jiddu Krishnamurti. ;)
And yes, I did detect a hint of South African accent in there, just in case anyone comments in that regards.
You can ignore the comments of those who believe in a purely material world. Their views aren’t opinions (according to them) - they are chemical inevitabilities.
It seems that you BELIEVE in freedom of volition, Mr. Benjamin?
They can’t see they self refute themselves, and a lot.
@Zombie Hi Zombie. I don't believe in ignoring people's opinions. But that's because I don't believe that we are only material. I should have limited my comment to pointing out that those who believe in a material world should logically not consider any of their own views to be views. Your correction is taken. I don't wish to encourage not listening to people at any time - I acknowledge that this is what I have done here. It's difficult to engage with those whose world view prevents you from existing but engage we must. The video made me angry at the complete nonsense which has taken over our universities - however I should not have taken the approach I did to make my point. Thank you for speaking up.
Union
Everybody is religious to Some extent about some thing what is the difference in what you believe a Hindu and a Muslim are two different beliefs Systems and for you trying to make them the same it’s Disrespectful what each one actually Stands people who say they’re Christians there’s a standard that Christianity is actually based on you have a Code by christianity is not based on feelings based on belief which most people don’t understand you’re not a Christian because you acknowledge there’s a god you’re a Christian because you Believe in God that means he becomes the Lord of your life he rules and reigning he is the supreme person who dictates spiritually how you live your behavior does not dictate whether you live by these principles it’s your character that determines your behavior not your behavior that determines your character if what you believe in is not worth dying for it’s not worth believing.
Yet Hindu saints and Muslim saints report the same experience-an the same experience which is also reported by the great Christian saints.* So I would assert that Islam and Hinduism (as well as Chritsinity) are different religious practices, and while those practices have beliefs which are incompatible with one another, they both equally capable of leading one to a singular experience beyond those beliefs. The experience of reality is more potent than any belief, or rather than our mere beliefs. Yet, its religious practices-and so secondarily religious beliefs-lead us to this experience. There is, however, a caveat here. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people make those beliefs more primary than the actual practice of religion itself. For those people, it would be better if there were no religion.
*For example, the great Christian Saint John of Damascus made the observation that God is never spoken of the in the Bible since God is unknowable in His essence. Rather, what the term God refers to when used in the Scriptures are the energies or attributes of God operative in Creation. It is coming into experiential contact with these energies and manifesting in ourselves these attributes that is the function of all religious practice. You can die for a belief lots of people have, but when you come into experiential contact with these energies, you will never die. Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead. But those who are resurrected through Christ will never taste death.
Why is religion not discouraged in societies allegedly guided by secular humanism and science, everyone should have an access to a basic scientific/factual and moral (according to what we generally consider moral today) education and not what was deemed wise centuries or millennia ago which we know now was somewhat based on ignorance
Truths the same now as it is no matter how far back or forward you go. Ignorance or knowledge with either if you're happy bet these people live there lives fundamentally doing the RIGHT thing how many times we see people with WAY more than most yet miserable & there life's history riddled with obvious bad choices. Other than relationship's I think knowledge is best thing go in . Makes sense to live like you now where yo going sorry if riffled any feathers.grow your faith keep commandments pray everyday .God bless you.
Jesus said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven". (Matthew 16 v 15 to 17)
I Am Not “Religious”. Religion is Organized and becoming more and more opaque, very Ritualistic, with several levels of hierarchy.
I am a Spiritualist. I believe simply, with my heart and soul. I believe in the The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.
(That is not to say, someone who is “religious” cannot believe with their heart and soul.)
We're all spiritual by default. Didn't you listen to the debate? Unfortunately, you can't develop that spirituality without the actual practice of a religion.
@@JudeMalachi Reading mythology, which does not require practicing of a religion, can develop one's spirituality.
Honestly, what convinced me to side with the all people are religious side was the inability for all the unreligous side to accurately portray the other's points. Additionally, the point that many religious do not have a divine, or even a supernatural aspect to them undermines the point of what what can be called a religion. Atheism is a religion.
You have more debates to watch. Let you soul fly through the wind into the waiting arms of atheism's deity; the absence of belief in all religion and their deities.
@@colins7771 lol, while I agree i have many more debates to watch, I will never be an atheist. It has nothing to do with the logic, either. I have made the conscience decision to keep a spiritual side, even though science and reason are my dominate processes.
@@colins7771 Show me what you value more than anything else and I will know your god. Show me how you get it and I will know your religion.
People believes, that is the nature of humanity, and materialism will be taught on purpose of slave
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Slave. :/
I define toastism as a religion of making toast in a toaster. Therefore everyone that makes toast is religious
Low quality debaters. SMH
Makes the classic intellectual howler of pretending that anyone acting morally is automatically religious, which is laughably false. That zombie idea never dies, out of sheer religious panic and desperation, despite how blatant a fallacy it is. It’s been disproved thoroughly over and over.
Makes the second intellectual howler that anything habitual is religious, which is just nonsensical. It’s almost a shame the speaker doesn’t try to claim that breathing is a habit, and therefore everyone who breaths must insi facto be religious. He comes very close however.
These arguments aren’t even adolescent level. They’re just laughably bad.
Howlers like these in the opening statement indicate the debate organizers couldn’t find good debaters.
All animals are fish, if you redefine the atmosphere to count as an ocean. That’s about the quality of the argument here.
Even Professor Krauss?
@Prince Talleyrand Not only is morality derived from the material, but all abstract concepts are so derived. Relationships are based upon material things, even though relationships are abstract. If we put half a dozen chairs together and point to their arrangement as being close, closeness is abstract, but it depends upon a material basis, and it goes away if we delete the chairs. This is equal true of any abstract concept: near, far, neighborhood, justice, morality... They are abstract but entirely materialistic. There’s no need to smuggle jesus into things to make the abstract exist on a magical basis.
Vitamin b12 is a more complex molecule than water and a city is more complex than a piece of chalk. So too, neighborhood is more complex than close, and requires more relational setup to define it. Justice and morality and some of the higher end abstract concept require the most setup and relational complexity, unlike the ease of a few chairs to help define close or a matchstick to help define hot. But they’re just more complex setups. They’re not magically different in kind.
This is why the material world isn’t dry and depressing and soulless. On the contrary, the materialist soul of you, so to speak, isn’t glowing intangible blue soul stuff, blessed by Jesus. It’s an infinite billion billion pieces of causality, with you at the nexus center point, one of the most complex abstractions that exists. Materialism isn’t bumbling atoms, it’s everything in relationship to everything else, infinite in all directions. It’s already sufficiently magical.
@@lllevokelll, so, consciousness is MATTER? 🤔
@@TheWorldTeacher Consciousness is a pattern. Complex and dynamic and full of feedback loops, and taking inputs from the chaos of causality, but still, in its essential character a pattern. Patterns aren’t just floating in imaginary space untethered to anything, they’re patterns made out of actual matter. You don’t have to add anything that isn’t water to water to make a wave, the water is just in the right dynamic pattern. You don’t have to add anything that isn’t matter to matter to get consciousness. Some phenomena are emergent phenomena. That is a marvel, but it doesn’t require external magic or religion.
@@lllevokelll, are patterns MATERIAL? 🤔
So sorry if’s it’s the religious and outsider reasons why we don’t leave yourself for the society for trusting instead of faith innate personal beliefs in different cultures. How’s your focused your supposed hope for the same as you 😟that your rights attitude only 😊. I could not get your purposes with self justifying .
How’s my philosophical is feeling better without pronunciation of anything else outside, isn’t it for warriors attacking 👻cause for imagination seeking in the air ? 🙏🏻
This tells you how important it is to give glory to god.
To WHICH god are you referring, Mr. Howell?
Origin of life by unguided, natural processes is frankly faith based. Human consciousness, precisely setup by the physics and initial contents/conditions of the big-bang, is nothing short of miraculous. Perhaps it's somehow possible, in a fully sterile and purified lab, to create life, though, it's never been done before (and we are nowhere near understanding first formation of single-celled life.) Molecular life is akin to a self-functioning machine. Life itself has never come from non-life. These are all serious problems for the non-theist. Men in the public sphere like James Tour, Stephen Meyer, and John Lennox are major contenders for the necessity of a creator.
Who's this poundland Dinesh D'Souza?
CHRIST is the only way to heaven 💔🙏❤️🙏.
via Hell!!
37:50
فَأَقْبَلَ بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ يَتَسَآءَلُونَ
Then they will turn to one another inquisitively.[1]
[1] It is assumed that they will ask each other about their lives in the world and what led them to Paradise.
37:51
قَالَ قَآئِلٌ مِّنْهُمْ إِنِّى كَانَ لِى قَرِينٌ
One of them will say, “I once had a companion ˹in the world˺
37:52
يَقُولُ أَءِنَّكَ لَمِنَ ٱلْمُصَدِّقِينَ
who used to ask ˹me˺, ‘Do you actually believe ˹in resurrection˺?
37:53
أَءِذَا مِتْنَا وَكُنَّا تُرَابًا وَعِظَـٰمًا أَءِنَّا لَمَدِينُونَ
When we are dead and reduced to dust and bones, will we really be brought to judgment?’”
37:54
قَالَ هَلْ أَنتُم مُّطَّلِعُونَ
He will ˹then˺ ask, “Would you care to see ˹his fate˺?”
37:55
فَٱطَّلَعَ فَرَءَاهُ فِى سَوَآءِ ٱلْجَحِيمِ
Then he ˹and the others˺ will look and spot him in the midst of the Hellfire.
37:56
قَالَ تَٱللَّهِ إِن كِدتَّ لَتُرْدِينِ
He will ˹then˺ say, “By Allah! You nearly ruined me.
37:57
وَلَوْلَا نِعْمَةُ رَبِّى لَكُنتُ مِنَ ٱلْمُحْضَرِينَ
Had it not been for the grace of my Lord, I ˹too˺ would have certainly been among those brought ˹to Hell˺.”
37:58
أَفَمَا نَحْنُ بِمَيِّتِينَ
˹Then he will ask his fellow believers,˺ “Can you imagine that we will never die,
37:59
إِلَّا مَوْتَتَنَا ٱلْأُولَىٰ وَمَا نَحْنُ بِمُعَذَّبِينَ
except our first death, nor be punished ˹like the others˺?”
37:60
إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَهُوَ ٱلْفَوْزُ ٱلْعَظِيمُ
This is truly the ultimate triumph.
37:61
لِمِثْلِ هَـٰذَا فَلْيَعْمَلِ ٱلْعَـٰمِلُونَ
For such ˹honour˺ all should strive.
- Dr. Mustafa Khattab, the Clear Quran