The opposition explain their points with reliable evidence, logic and common sense, he's only attacking with zero arguments and the most important thing is that he forgot to explain how religion helps society
Rodrigo, he did explain when he said that religion helps you control your ego, teaches you to give and have generosity, and answers the question every body needs "why are we here, what are our goals and ends in this life" (what is the purpose of life) according to tarik Ramadan.
Same here. Unfortunately though, all of the points he brought up more heavily speak against religion than atheism. - Personal anecdotes are far too often used as deceptive emotonal device in favor of religion, and as opposed to those that talk in favor of a purely scientific approach, rarely backed by evidence. - The binary view he talks about is far more common among religious people, because a lot of things are deemed right or wrong by either the book or the religious leaders, leading to a simplistic set of morals that can't be argued against when they insist of the correctness of these representatives. - Arrogance is also a problem among hardcore atheists as seen in this video, yet it is a far bigger problem in religious circles that are that are that staunch. Even those that aren't practicing fundamentally can be guilting of this without realizing it, as he himself shows by saying that it is capable to answer the question »why are we here?«. Atheists openly admitting that we have no definite answer to that are actually far more humble in that regard. And the arrogance might even be the biggest danger of religion, especially among fundamental people, because as opposed to atheists, you can't rationally argue against religious dogma. Finally, I'd say he is wrong about his point at 5:33: Religion _is_ dangerous by definition, not just by action; because it has structures and a set of principles that leads to, and encourages, dangerous actions. Just like fire is dangerous by definition.
I'm an atheist and I have a problem with dogmatic minds. I am rejecting religions precisely because of that, but also because you need to have rational proofs that God exists, otherwise I have no reason to believe it. However, as a rational person who likes to understand the complexity of things, I will never essentialize religions. I am not saying that religions are good or wrong. I'm not a theologian and I know there are trends and multiple interpretations. I am rejecting dogmatic atheists as well who believe arrogantly that they are right and religious people are wrong. It is simplistic and, for that reason, I totally agree with Ramadan's speech.
>"History is long and complex and can be used to prove anything, but we have judge people by their actions, i.e. their history, not their qualities!" >"Let's not define ("essentialise", "globalise" ad nauseam) concepts!" >"Why are we even here, bro?" Wow, what a deep thinker Ramadan is.
Not a fan of David Silverman, he should know when to talk and when to listen. There is a reason Peter Milican presented the closing argument, brilliant, calm and rational.
He says that we are never dangerous by definition, only by action... but he said that being an atheist/doubting religion is dangerous! The religious always use circuitous logic...
wibblegorm Because doubting religion is an action. You seem incapable of any complex thought processes. It didn’t take me much to show you where you went wrong.
This is a disappointing debate with a disappointing title coming from oversimplification and over generalization which one wouldn't expect from Oxford union. I totally agree with Dr. Tariq Ramadan here. It is naive to think that religion harms society considering that it was lack of religion i.e communism that has done most harm to humanity than all religions combined. Religions teaches people countless good things and it is essentially a blessing to mankind, something which is beyond the understanding of a spiritually challenged individual.
We are all spiritually challenged if you are speaking literally, because there is ZERO evidence for a spirit. Communism has nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof. Communism on it's own is not as bad, the problem is corruption. Just like in Russia, it started one way and end another way due to Stalin and Lenin going nuts. But look at China, they are combining the best of all ideologies and are now who everyone is looking at, not the US. Their infrastructure is BETTER than ours, they are growing FASTER than us, they are taking MORE people OUT of poverty, while our poverty is increasing. So I think you are the challenged.
Lets distinguish the transcendental from the supernatural. Communism itself is not a bad ideology, but when followed as a dogma it is. This applies to anything from socialism to libertarianism. I define religion as anything practiced or believed as a dogma unquestionable, unchallenged despite all the evidence. I don't follow science and humanism as dogmas but reasonable practices that I am willing to change in order to be complicit with my fellow primates and surroundings. I never claim that these have the upper hand either but just that they have helped our species evolve more beautifully. To answer the question why are we here? Sentience only arises with a complex physical substrate like a brain or perhaps in the future a computer. So, we create our own purpose,i.e, to live in a cooperative society where we treat one another as equals. There is no one goal to life. We create our own goals and purposes based on our worldview and where we are born. Considering the plethora of cultures goals vary from society to society and species to species. Hope this suffices!!!!!!Cheers.......................................
Siddharth Sridharan It won't suffice, these religious people need someone to tell them what to do for everything. No matter how clearly you make the point, that we create our own purpose in life, they deny it and say that ONLY god can give you a purpose. That's what happens to brainwashed individuals, they have nothing left to create their own purpose. Instead of facing life for what it is, they create a fantasy land and loose their persona.
I totally agree with you. But it is debates like these which help our society evolve. Tariq was right in pointing out the mistakes made by most of the proposers and Peter Millican gave proper and sound arguments which is why no interjections were possible and those that were made were not sound and immediately put down. I hope you were satisfied with the arguments that prof. Millican made.
As an Atheist I think it's worth saying that this guy made a point. We usually have a binary image of what is religion. I think that we have humanist religions because we live in a humanist time, and if that were not the case, we wouldn't have that.
This, that, them, we,.. facial expressions, hand gestures, animation but says nothing.. A few years later, he faced multiple rape charges and disappeared from public life.
why are we all here? I will say to Tariq that it is rather humble to say that I DON'T KNOW than make up stories about without accepting any burden of proof! there are a lot of things we don't know and my reaction to that is not make up stories but study.. that's what has got us to where we are today and if it was for ONLY religion.. we'd never advance past the Bronze Age.
I agree with his point about false dichotomies, but that's about it. He is trying to win a formal debate by whining about being criticized or even considered as being detrimental. That's a very childish position to take. If you cannot defend your position and ideas, you lose.
For all of the points made in the entirety of this debate, those supporting the premise that religion helps society are basing their arguments on: 1. People feel good by being part of a religion. 2. Religions contribute money and effort to those in need and 3. Distilled, down, presenting enthusiastic testimony that their claims carry the weight of truth without actually linking their claims to actual facts. For the first two, there is no prerequisite that a person must be part of a religion to feel good about themselves and social interactions nor do people have to be part of a religion to do good deeds. Those brainwashed in religious mythology have been carefully taught to compartmentalize application of rational thought and native intelligence that they would otherwise use in any other aspect of their personal and professional lives. So long as the generational survival of any religion is based on inculcating children to believe fantasy is true, that religion is abjectly evil.
I shouldve known it would take more than 8 minutes to lend the simple notion of what good and bad mean in the ontological sense, doing "good"(whatever that means) for a non religious person is an obligation of means, as for the religious person, of results.
@@void7366 There is no prerequisite of being religious to do good. The illusion of doing good in a religious sense is the perception it has favor in the eyes of a supernatural unproven entity.
@@douglasrasmussen480 that is exactly what you had to say, and there was absolutely no need for the emotional outburst at the end, we are not asking wether or not the supernatural entity which all good deeds are attributed to exists, it is not a prerequisite to be religious to do good, it is however an obligation if you want to call it good in the first place, an atheist should simply not consider himself with such a predicament, of proving right from wrong, and there was a time not so long ago where atheist philosophers (like Nietzsche for example) openly explained the absurdity of trying to emerge value from moral judgement, if you persist however, you will always end up explaining your subjective world view, and your opinion would be instantly discarded, here's a homework for you, produce a line of logical productions starting from first principles that leads to the assertion "naz..is were evil"
Kinda hard to listen to this man talk about how religion imbues its believers with compassion after all the allegations from the very many women that have come forth...
Christianity condemned rape, assault and abuse, Satan has interfered with those people and clouded their minds, they did what he did in the desert, they’ve twisted Scripture, they’ve used it for evil purposes.
@@Lo-to7zh let us know if\when the allegations are proven true and Muslims will condemn him. If someone alleges that you have done wrong, I should not dislike you solely on that testimony
He's the 3rd speaker (for his team), he's supposed to refute the previous opposing points. He can come up with new arguments to support his side, but usually there's not enough time. It's clear most of whom commented below don't have any idea on how a debate works. I personally feel that he did a good job, considering the minutes that he had. Remember he's coming from an academic perspective, he's starting from a point of complexity, the others were not on par him.
Looking through the comments I get the feeling that many critics here on religion are as ignorant and maybe harmful as they claim religions are. Makes them look pretty hypocritical in my opinion.
***** You projecting all the bad things in human nature on religion. Religion doesn't do anything, humans do, they might take religion as an excuse, but they do the same things without religion too. So, blaming religion is not solving anything. And if you want to put an emphasis on being intelligent, start by yourself and understand that your are just doing what you accuse religion of, you sepatare and dismiss other people opinions with your own ignorance. So, you have the spark of being harmful in yourself without religion, but are you so hypocritical to be not aware of that? Maybe you should take your own advice and think harder!
***** give it time, and the non-religious will do the same to the religious. Heh. It doesn't take god to justify slapping the shit out of someone you don't like just because he says something you disagree with. Does it take 'god' for stalin and mao to do what they did? Not really. Is atheism to blame for those guys? No. Atheism has no power. Atheism just frees you from 'god'. 'god' is like a leash. if you get bit by a dog who broke free from its leash, you'd wish the leash was a little bit stronger. conversely, any 'god' who prevents a good person from helping others, must be eliminated.
Definition of secular: not connected with religious or spiritual matters. He says that there are secular religions and that secularity and religiosity is essentially the same thing. FACEPALM
secularism is a system in which all beliefs.. religious or not.. co exist.. that's what he says.. secularity refers to freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.. it should not be confused with atheism since secularism is not even part of that debate.. Tariq is right on that..
Seriousriz His rebuttal was pretty empty though. In the end all he said was "my opponents don't argue rationally!" - which is something he himself doesn't do in said rebuttal. This is one of the most disappointing speeches I have seen on this channel.
Ramadan here is out of his depth and you can see it. His point about secularism was nonsense, because although secularism is not atheism, it stops religion from doing the things that we know it will do and wants to do if it is in real power.
That and he spends the entire time not really making a case. No examples and no proof, no nothing. Its like he's just talking but not actually saying anything.
Exactly, its like why then Jefferson specifically say that America is not Christian but secularists, cause its not a religious nation. It merely allows religion to exist without getting in the way of government and other peoples lives as well as government not getting too much in the way of religion, hint hint what conservatism is really about which is why silverman is conservative.
Part 2 A binary mind! As if his own way of thinking was not binary! See the speck in your brother's eye, but not to notice the log in your own eye… Note, by the way, that he accused his opponents to be "dangerous by definition" several times but does want to be treated the same way! "Don't do to others, what you don't want them to do to you"… ;-) Of course religion is dangerous by action (suggesting that his opponents are too stupid to know it!). This is why it is so harmful! If Religion didn't want to impose by force its wrong views of the world on others starting on children but kept it to the private sphere, then religion wouldn't be so dangerous! But this is not the case, unfortunately. Obviously, religion didn't work on dealing with Ramadan's ego. He wouldn't be so arrogent, presumptuous, condescending and patronizing. And he has the overconfidence to give moral lesson : "you never be a human being if you don't master your ego, master your arrogance, master your mind" (6:25). This remark is abject! It implies his opponents are not human to Ramadan's eyes because, to his deluded opinion, they don't master their ego, arrogance or mind. What an insult ! But it shows how he thinks and how he dehumanize people who disagree with him. Nazis and Islamists do exactly the same thing. And this is very very dangerous. "Religion is doing the job, as well". An assertion with no backups. Again! Not mentioning that it doesn't make any sens ! What job Ramadan is talking about? So, again, he stay vague with no backup to clarify what he means. This is of course on purpose. If on stays vague, then it becomes very difficult to contradict you. As you can say 'this is no what I meant"… "Religion teaching are helping us". Again he does say in what way. Another assertion with no backups. One can still exercise generosity or compassion without religion. No need for it. They are not the property of religion. Again religion still qualities that are not its product as David Silverman demonstrates: "Religion lies. It takes credit for doing things it didn't do." (1:34) Ramadan was about to say another quality, but he didn't. But apparently didn't find it… According to Ramadan, Religion should reconcile ourselves with the big questions of life we all meed. Asserting by the way that Ramadan, in his almighty, knows what we need!!! Sorry M. Ramadan, you don't know hat I need nor what I want, so I'd be grateful to not pretend you do, because you don't. It reminds my a quite on Faith by Dr. Peter Boghossian: "Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know" Martin Luther wrote: “All articles of our Christian [it could be applied to any religion] belief are, when considered rationally, impossible and mendacious and preposterous… Faith, however, is completely abreast of the situation: it grips reason by the throat and strangles the beast.” The big questions of life: why are we here, what are our goals and ends in this life. Again no need for religion to try to answer those questions. On the contrary, religion will mislead you by given you preconceived and preformated sudo answers based on an inappropriate and biased visions of the world and the univers. How can one make appropriate decisions if the analisis of his surrounding does not reflect the actuel state of it ? Almost impossible. "Almost" because if one does, then it is by chance, not by knowledge. There is nothing more fulfilling than to find for and by yourself the answers of those questions and to act so they become real. No need for religion for that. As I showed those questions should not remain to religion. So If I follow Ramadan, then we can get rid of it. For once I agree with you, M. Ramadan. ;-) And he ends with another patronizing comment pointing his opponents : "be humble". Another insult ! What a presumptuous person ! Conclusion: Ramadan use all his presentation to diminish his opponents to decredibilaze them but not once he was able to backup his arbitrary and biased judgements. He condemns his opponents to generalizing and globalizing when they demonstrate their arguments with backup exemples when he was artificially trying to complicate the situation without any backups at all!!! As if we should take his word for it ! I hope this text helped you to see the impostures of M. Tariq Ramadan. I'm glad to know to the motion ("Religion Harms Society Debate") was carried. :-)))
He only had 6 minutes, I don't know how you could cover what religion has done in 6 minutes. Can you tell me how religion is the problem? And if you think morality came with us as we evolved or whatever you believe, why are you allow to tell me what is right and what is wrong? Do you have something you can refer to tell me what I'm doing is wrong or right? You can answer the questions however you want, I don't want to set the conditions.
@@Said-zl2xc I can tell you in less than 5 minutes. Religion is poisonous to the mind since it condones superstitious thinking. The superstitious mind is a gullible one. Gullible people are easily manipulated-- take a look at the feeble minded trump supporters who used to be so quick to hate on any Wall Street fedora wearer, but now are literally begging to suckle that orange penis. I could go on, but that's one of my stronger arguments against religion and its divisive nature.
It's hard to say that religion harms society overall...I mean that it's net effect is negative, because it seems every great civilization has had some sort of religion. This is strong evidence that it serves some essential social function. As my handle would imply I'm not a fan of any of the organized religions, especially the revealed religions and I agree with what was said by some of the others with regard to harm caused by certain aspects of religion as it exists. However, again, its hard to look past the fact that every great civilization has had some sort of religion and that this indicates it serves an essential social function. I'd also tend to agree with those who have said that the real danger is dogmatism and intolerance and that this can come in religious, non religious and even anti religious forms.
@@riyazwani3915 do you think so?. I’d say this Prof is a very intelligent man with a lot of faith. But he’s still a man, an imperfect man, by some religious definition only God is perfect. And yet by law he committed adultery and he even admitted it himself later on, even though he still denies rape on other women. However, the latter, we will never know that!, only him and those women accusing him which he’s being charged for. Pity he didn’t admit his adultery though, for a man of such weight, he should’ve come clean at the beginning, this in itself would’ve given him more credibility for his honesty. I wouldn’t say he’s being charged purely on the basis of his faith. Just an impression. Many would also argue the opposite, like he’s being paid millions to promote his faith. There’s always two sides to a coin.
Religion does not protect the human quest for truth as this man finishes with. Religion demands you stop questioning and believe a story with no supporting evidence and usually with the threat of some horrible afterlife.
That is your opinion, I never experienced religion that way, so I don't think that demand for stopping to question is not intrisic in religion, but it might be what quite a view people are looking for, that they get some answers that they cannot get anywhere else.
Drudenfusz When religions where or are strong enough to create theocracies they are usually tyranny's where protest or opposition is punished to varying degrees. In Europe people where at on point killed for witchcraft, homosexuality, having different beliefs. Many Islamic nations still persecute these groups today although that looks to be changing. In Europe these attitudes changed because of the emphasis on science and reason during the enlightenment. However I agree that there are theists who are intelligent, questioning and compassionate human beings and that you have not been required to behave so either by your faith. I apologize for using such a broad stroke. My point originally was that in light of religious history and the behaviour of religious theocracy's the goals of religious authorities where never to protect the search of truth and individuality but to get people to conform. I agree with the statement "religion can help society" but not that there is something inherently guaranteed to protect society and it's people in religion. . .
Mark Macdonald But the opporession of different opinions is not only found in theocracies, the Nazis did it, the soviet communists did it, it still happens in china, the US government and their NSA do it. So, why just blaming religion for that harmful behaviour when it is not just religion doing it. Looks to me like you are barking at the wrong tree.
Drudenfusz Your absolutely right other ideologies are just as bad and if I only picked on religions I would be barking up the wrong tree. I would not make the statements that Fascism or Communism helped society but there are those that do. My point is when someone makes a statement that the ideology they believe in helps society and we can cite examples where it has not or had the opposite effect then their statement is false just as if a communist made the statement that communism helps society an we can site the actions of Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot etc their statement would be false. A more accurate statement is that religions and ideologies can help society because we can sight examples of both good theists and good people from other ideologies helping society. It just annoyed me that the speaker made an arrogant claim that religious ideologies have something inherent that guarantees them morally superior to other ideologies when like you've shown all ideologies are susceptible to doing society harm especially when in a position of authority.
Mark Macdonald Okay, I guess we are then more or less on the same page. Still that doesn't mean our opinions match perfectly. I see religions in itself as neutral, like other ideologies, they can be used for good or for bad things by those in authority, which doesn't make the religions or other worldviews good or bad, but the people using it for their agendas. The thing is, I think everybody has some kind of worldview, that there is no human being without that, and religion is just one form of a worldview. We all perceive the world through the lenses of our worldviews, we all make decisions based on the values in our worldviews. This is normal, so saying religion is harmful is pretty much like saying having an opinion is harmful. And I cannot agree with that. Atheists love to bring up that religion is just fiction as an argument why religion is worse than other worldviews, and I have to disagree. Some people take their values from non-religious fictions, like Shakespeare and plenty of other sources, but they never get criticised. It is always the religion that is seen in the bad light, and that makes me think that the attacks on religion are not very rational, but come from an irrational desire to prove them to be wrong, to destroy the a certain kind of worldview, which in my opinion would be just the first step and the next would be to dismiss any fiction and art.
Every religion is indoctrination = indoctrination harms = religion harms. Master your mind with logic, critical thinking, reasoning and how to , not what to think.
But is this not what a belief can do as well? The term, Indoctrination, in our modern language, means," the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." In the past, it would have been defined as merely teaching and instruction. There are a number of religious scientists, 1701 to today, that held and hold to a belief in God, but yet are critical and analytical thinkers (Just google a list of Christians in Science and Technology). It is not necessarily the belief that harms or helps, in itself, but it is in how it is accepted and used. This determines what the outcome by its use will be. Such as it is that in a strongly held view of Modern Science, which is involves critical thinking and reasoning, so it is with religion. It has its scholars, which evaluate writings and history.
Yes all the religions are aimed for guidance and we'll being of society but few intelligences use them to fullfil own narrative. So it's responsibility of followers of religions to make it benificial and perceptible to everyone.
He said it himself quite well - a child who is fool of dreams with angels around....couldn't have said it better myself.. a text book Freudian confession ....
We will keep repeating that religion helps society until it sees the situation fit for asserting its superiorty. What does he mean by 'help' when non-believers of respective religions are constantly demonized, misrepresented, made the 'other' and said to be going to hell? Does he think the best way to help society is to fragment it into people who are slaves of Allah or Jesus? Religion makes distinctions and divisions out of people that are unnecessary. People help society because of their religion. There is much to be said about this claim. Religious people do attribute it to their religion. However it isn't the case that without religious motivations people won't help society. Religious claims are not even demonstrated to be true in the first place. We have to look at why the terrorists who flew into the twin towers also claimed to be Muslim. It is not surprising because reason and evidence is given a pass. It is not surprising if the motivations for one's actions are based on something as arbritrary as which tradition or book your elders and clergymen fed you with. Our empathy, generosity, compassion and charity has little got to do with whether Jesus said we should help the poor or whether we believed in the story. What does it mean to be charitable when we give only because we are instructed to do so? When we feel the urge for justice, for encouragement do we at the instant moment think if Jesus was okay with it? When the old lady needs help with her groceries do we at the instance think: "What does the religion I pledge alliance to say about this?" and then go and look at the Qu'ran or Bible for inspiration? The claim 'religion helps society' is greatly linked to morality. It is always used in defence of religion. Specifically the goodness of religion. But like many have pointed out, religion does hurt humanity too. There is this accusation that anti-religionists only look at the bad that comes from religion. That is simply not true. I do acknowledge, that after reading some passage from the Bible one may get inspiration to help others but it is precisely this form of thinking that leads people to behave in extreme and harmful ways. When actions are guided by instructions some of them will turn out to be good but others will be bad. Look at some passage in the Bible and intepret it to mean that women are inferior or gays are evil. For those who already have this misconceptions and bias together with a culture that gives religion respect it gives them the justification to hold these views. But there are many people who won't have negative views about LGBTs and blacks if they weren't told their religion had such views. Another contention is with the word 'help'. Building beautiful and grand churches is not help. Indoctrinating children is not help. Evangelizing is not help. But in the moral universe of many religious people it is helping society even if society does not appreciate it. In this sense religious people have played up their contributions to society by assuming their contributions to be 'help' in the first place. Religions help society, whatever. We can do without it. Many countries have lost its religious culture but they are not practicing cannabalism. Many people will not seem and act so insane if not for religion. To add on it is not even true in the first place. So I will agree that religions help society. Religion also harms society. We won't be worse off without religion. Religion is not true. This motion can stand. But whatever it is used for won't work. Especially on the question if religion should be criticized or given a special status. Some even use it to defend the truth of religious claims or insinuate that Atheists are immoral and evil. When we want to help others we should look at the consequences of our actions.
p is not true if and only if not p. It is not the case that p is not true if and only if you are arrogant. Who cares about the emotional dispositions of the speakers, it is the truth we search for. A crowd pleasing argument....
To be more speccific, he got into sexual assault charges with the accusers having faulty statements. He was put into solitary confinement without even going through a trial. That too in France. Decide what you will about that.
This is part of what I wrote in a response to someone in the comments: Tariq Ramadan spends a lot of the first few minutes claiming that what the other side described as religion isn't religion and they're arrogant for doing that something which doesn't address the motion at all. He then says actually I don't like the motion, so I have to wonder why he even agreed to the debate. He lazily reduces the other side's arguments to trivial complaints around "myths and anecdotes" as though the profound examples Michael Nugent laid out can just be dismissed as him complaining about trival things. That's such bad faith arguing. I get the sense he didn't have a response to a lot of the more embarrassing points about religion and Islam (No Mohammed didn't ride a winged horse that's obviously just a story) so he essentially guilt tripped and behaved holier than thou as a distraction from the substance of the debate. He does that a lot in other debates.
Ok he spent 6 mins telling us that he didn't like the way the oppisition put forward their claims. When is he going to explain how religion helps society, which is the motion. He did however divulge his belief that religion is dangerous 5:39 "we are dangerous by action". I know some will say i'm quoting him out of context but he does mention "danger" several times. He brandishes this word like a rapier, like a threat, to quell those opposed into silence. Well I for one am sick of being threatened by everlasting torment for having the audacity to question.
Islam teaches to get rid of ego and be humble? In a way, but not in a way that the rest of the world would say. Muslims have different definitions than everyone else. When he speaks of humble, he means humble in terms of man vs God. But when it comes to man vs man, Muslims believe they are better than you and I because they have God on their side and we have to be made humble and subjugated in the eyes of Allah. These people are a bunch of politicians.
+### ### "an arab is not better then a non arab, and a non arab is not better then a non arab except with doing good and worshipping allah". - the prophet muhammed (peace be upon him).
how? im puzzled. of course us muslims have different definitions then anyone else, everyone has there own set of definitions, where not the only people out there who have different cultures... you think his definition of 'better' must necessitate arrogance, but this is something only the west does. when we say you are better, then me, we mean you have done better, you are in a better place than i, etc, etc,etc.
Terrible they only showed his debate and avoided the other side of his argument. Religion might be good for some, but to be kind you don’t need religion.
I can honestly say that I don't have faith, and for me, such a thing matters not. Is there a god, or is there none at all? I honestly don't care... what I'm worried about is what kind of effect religion has on society. In America, I believe religion has a positive effect on society, but in other parts of the world, religion can lead to serious, horrific events if not treated with care. But if people can be more responsible, they would to respect each others opinions, whether or not they believe it is right. Trying to answer a question like "is there a god, or is there not?" is a stupid debate that will NEVER END. Not in a hundred years will that argument ever lead to an answer. ... L E T P E O P L E B E L I E V E I N W H A T T H E Y W I S H T O ...
+Earl Minime you might want to watch 'Meaning of life' video on youtube, quite interesting.
8 ปีที่แล้ว
+aquascape101 You think there's only one Meaning of Life video on YT?! How about a link?
8 ปีที่แล้ว
+Ahmed Niaz Morshed Look, if there are 10,000 religions then that tells me there's a shit-load of people pulling religions out of the asses. And there's not just 10,000 religions. No two christians can agree on what christianity is, not two muslims can agree on what Islam is, no two... So life isn't fucking long enough... But don't tell me, NO, REALLY? YOU KNOW WHICH ONE IS TRUE!
religion does not just not help society, it literally harms society, it has been discussed here on this channel we know that fact and we don't need any argument from religious ignorants, time to be honest to talk clearly about religion, we are giving TOO much ground to it, and we are accepting ignorance as a virtue (religion spreads ignorance), we are literally forgetting all the atrocities done because and for religion, in the past, not so distant past and also today where priests are fanatics of child abuse in their churches, and the pope defending those actions, why are we forgetting the past and stay blinded in the very present? We have actual proofs that religion makes people more dumb than they should be and does not help them to get out of ignorance, in fact it keeps them ignorant, it's a system of terrorism that commands submission to be the basis of morality, how are we respecting that thought? how are respecting people who thing that way? I could even argue the very belief in god is IMMORAL thing to belief and that in fact is irrational, and especially the gods of the very known religions. Zero tolerance to ignorance and stupidy should be accepted, that's why we educate and get educated, religion spreads lies and manipulation, and actually evil too
He told the opposition were arrogent, unscientific, and that is not the way to live. Okay. So did he say a single point which says religion is not harmful to the society, which was the subject of the debate. This is next level of hippocracy lol. And I can't believe there is that many clapps for him without saying a single valid point. So many fools in Oxford union.
@prasanth ki I don't what all this is about and I can't be bothered to read it all, but snakes definitely did lose their legs through evolution and there's no other explanation for it.
I respect his point about the problem of oversimplification, and the need for a preliminary understanding that to discuss anything about the real world we must first accept that there are complexities involved. This is not a question of binary and mathematics, but of the beliefs and personal realities of billions of people worldwide, both religious and otherwise. But other than making that valid point, that we need to actually try to understand the nuances and subtleties involved, he doesn't actually elucidate what any of those are.
Creating a generational system for brainwashing children into a particular religious mythology is not an oversimplification of religion being abjectly bad for society. Repeating, or worse, ignoring the false histories, impossible physics, false science, failed prophecies and outright moral horrors of religion is clearly a deleterious foundation. So long as people like Mr. Ramadan create a smokescreen that legitimately attacking the premises of religion is a false dichotomy, he can avoid the actual facts.
@@franzliszt767 The speakers of the proposition were simply trying to define the core principles, which result in harmful actions. In a 6 minute speech you don’t really have the time to get into all the harmful things religion has done like the crusades or prohibition of condoms. But don’t be mistaken, they do exist and are numerous. But they are all based on some common shared principles which were outlined by the proposition.
So when Tariq Ramadan realizes that we evolved on this earth for NO purpose and that we have NO specific goals, then religion has NO place in the world. His logic, not mine.
IF we have NO purpose NO goals then NO religion and thats for insane people, its a sing of craziness for a human to be without goals and purposes, we are created for a reason in these life so indeed we have purposes and goals to accomplish and achieve and the role of religion in this case is to purify our hearts and our souls from following bad goals and doing bad action to realize bad purposes, i hope you get me mate
mourad oumouh Maybe you will go insane with your Muslim religion. I have self-assigned goals and purpose, and feel entirely free from the mantle of a religion, and there is no one in the world that I hate. Atheism freed me from the hate and biases, and mental distortion that I would get from any religion. Try it out and see how you feel, you may be surprised.
so what we are we doing on this earth ?? wht will be after dying ?? just darkness , that's means adolf hitler got away after killing millions of people ? who will get justice for those people ??!!! you for exemple ??
Andrew Lohbihler ,"I have self-assigned goals and purpose" tell us your goals in this life please ? they can be the same as fanatic terrorists goals "and there is no one in the world that I hate" false , fighting hate is a perpetual battle , according to what u are saying ,you are not a human bein anymore at the end believing or no is a question of choice and faith , if religions are bad , why not being a Deist instead of being atheist , how can u prove that a creator for the universe dont exist?
The debate was overall unsatisfactory to me. I had hoped that either side of the debate would've approached the topic more deeply, more rigorously. The "rationalists" on this debate, were overly authoritative, but not very convincing, nor scientific for that matter. In that I agree with Prof Ramadan.
LOL. I guess he was supposed to be talking about what religion has done which'd be falsifying the atheists 😅and he spoke crap about the the previous speaker😂.BTW he's no less arrogant than any other atheist
A few good points, but he is ignoring what religion actually does and just sees the good it could do. And this comparison of dogmatic atheism vs. dogmatic religious people is really laughable,I mean who are the ones that are killing people because of their believes, never heard of an atheist killing someone because he has different believe about god, to say a believe at all. So his argument that dogmatic atheist are arrogant just stops there, because more than arrogance and maybe a little self righteous no atheist is b cause he is a atheist. There are no defined moral rules or any rules at all that comes with atheism, so in this case he talks nosense.
+o2xb Is that really a serious question? I just ask, because first Adolf Hitler thought that he is acting as gods agent, just read his book!!! And Stalin didn't kill all this people because he was an atheist. Atheism does not imply any specific form of morality, it just says: "I don´t believe in God" there is really nothing else.
Well you should take this statement back 'never heard of an atheist killing someone because he has different believe about god',because Stalin was an atheist and killed anyone who had different beliefs to him such as people who believe in god thus millions of christians died at his command. I think you need to acknowledge the fact that just becomes someone may kill in the name of something (i.e religion) does not necessarily mean that religion or idea condones it.History will tell you that wars are not necessarily fought over religion but over power,land etc. Most religions such as Islam and Christianity actually teach that showing mercy is whats most beloved to God and to spill an innocent life is equal to the life of all mankind. Lastly if a person was to kill in your name does that mean that you condone it?
Sorry for the late respond but I had my head full of work, so to the topic: I have the feeling you misunderstand me on purpose, as I try to tell you Atheism doesn't include any moral system or specific goals that are to achieve, quite contrary to religious ideologies or political ideologies for that matter. Stalin doesn't tried to eradicate religion because of atheism but because of his ideology and atheism isn't an ideology. Second point: I'm well aware that not all wars are fought over religion at least not on the top, but you should know that on the actual battlefield religion play a major role, or do you seriously believe that the normal soldier fight in foreign countries for something like power or land? If someone was to kill someone else in my name or for that matter in the name of something i believe in, I would at least raise my voice against such atrocity and not, like the religious majority , stay silent or even blame the victim like some do. That is the sad hypocrisy of religious people we to often encounter.
Aeterus So the soviets when they went around killing religious people, that wasn’t due to their atheism and hatred for religion. Are you a 12 year old who has never opened a history book?
Later in April 2018, Ramadan admitted that he had been in a sexual relationship with the third rape complainant, who had presented to investigators a dress reportedly stained with his semen, but he insisted that it was always consensual.[122] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan
What a great debate. I love Ramadan, although I don't don't generally agree with him. It is unfortunate that his time was wasted refuting the ridiculous speech of Darwish. The best part of this was Silverman though. The balls on him... He's at Oxford and doesn't even care; he lays the Atheist hammer down like a man.
In this text, I'm going to demonstrate the emptiness of Ramadan speech. The way he was artificially trying to complexity the topic. The way he stays vague. The way he never backups his positions. The way he is patronizing, condescending, arrogant and insulting. Part 1: I though it was a serious debate too and I was surprised to see that Tariq Ramadan was invited ! We all can be surprised ;-) Ramadan use all his "speech" (was it prepared ?) to insult his opponents. I have heard as well the opposite of what is a rational debate but coming from his "group" and himself. The group in favor of the motion (except Nonie Darwish) were very rational. Giving exemples (that Ramadan calls "anecdotes") and facts to backup there testimony. Like a rigorous and rational speaker would do. He takes the posture of the teacher. "I know better than you, because I know. What you say is silly and I'n gonna teach you that you don't know what you are talking about" Nothing humble there. Quite pretentious on the contrary. You can note it in his posture, his tone and his way of speaking. Of course, one can say "religion is…"! No silly staff about it, if the analyze is correct. But by starting his speech with that, he implies: "You don't know and you are stupid". So condescending! He adresses an opponent and tells him he was wrong "as to the facts" (at least his opponents give facts), but doesn't say where he was wrong and with which facts! So easy to through accusations in the air and not back it up! As Euclid rightly says (325-265 BC): "What is claimed without proof, can be denied without proof." You don't give me proofs that your opponent is wrong, M. Ramadan! Sorry, but I don't take your words for it." "Emotional black mail"!!! What a stupid thing to say! Where does that come from? But it worked on a part of the audience! Comforting Ramadan in his patronizing posture. (one can note it in his attitude). Anecdotes!!! Is the death condemnation of Nonie Darkish an anecdote ? Are the crames described by Michael Nugent anecdotes? This shows how valuable human lives are to Ramadan. Again he says "anecdotes" but does not say which ones! Then says "facts", but don't say with ones, neither! This part of his speech is so vague that actually he demonstrates nothing. It is just a succession of accusations with no backup nor exemples. And this was supposed to be a serious debate indeed… No surprise he refused questions… He repeats this is not a rational debate but don't demonstrate why. So we have to take his word for it. Sorry, M. Ramadan. I don't. His speech is indeed the one that is superficial. No demonstration of his though process, no logic, no facts, no theories. Just accusations and assumptions both unbackuped. He didn't demonstrate that the proposition was the wrong start. He just said it was and repeats it. Assumptions only. All religions have commun characteristics (like they all ask to believe without evidence, without questioning the one or many gods. They all tend to control people. They all try to manipulated people. They all abuse of the weakness of children. And these are just a few exemples the the commun ground. Therefore a debate having a motion starting with "Religion is" is totally acceptable and relevant. I just proved Ramadan to be wrong. Religions are far more dangerous as history has shown us. The opponents gave multiple exemples. (cf. to the other videos). Pay attention to how his says: "dangerous minds" (2:12) So patronizing! So appalling ! "We don't know exactly what we have": another way to undermined this opposants. So condescending! Secular is a system where you have not only multiple religions but also no religious people too. Secular means also that the state does not take part of religion. The state and the religions are separated. Ramadan is not event accurate on that! "Don't confuse secularism which has all the benefits versus religion" If someone can explain me that sentence? For me it makes no sens! Funny because just after he says that his opponents make no sens!!! About essentialization (3:10): Again he stays totally vague. No exemples what so ever. "…Religion is that, you are that and we globalize and we essentialize". Sorry! Is that your best argument, M. Ramadam ? Empty! "There are trends": he does not says which ones. "There are positions": he doesn't say which ones. "There are interpretations": doesn't say which ones! etc, etc, etc… All said in a patronizing tone. "Dogmatic minds", and always on a condescending tone, "are not only on that [his] side". Implying that his opponents have dogma (knowing perfectly that Science is not a dogma. And knowing that he could hurt the feelings of his opponents). But he fails to describe what dogma! Again, an accusation without any backup. We just have a "you get me" to satisfy us. Poor! Very poor! Now, he accuses his opponents to be arrogant when I'm just demonstrating that the arrogant cones from him (cf. his patronizing, arrogant and condescending tone). When is insulting them! Except being a placebo, there are nothing more to religion than myths and "anecdotes" (in the sens Ramadan uses "anecdotes". It is to say: murders, rapes, genocides and other atrocities). No reduction here. It is all there is. We, human being, take our knowledge, our sens of value, of morality and of justice elsewhere as Christopher Hitchens demonstrated and as David Silverman so rightly said: "Religion was created with yesterdays knowledge" (2:08). Ramadan doesn't say what more is religion… Again: no demonstration, just assertion. Normal to be treated like a child when you behave like one!.. And still believe in fairytales. Grow up, M. ramadan! And you will be treated as an adult. ;-) Now I understand his patronizing, arrogant and condescending tone during all his speech: it is to mask probably an inferior complex… Wow! An opponent replied and bingo it was a trap ! Come on! Stop acting like a child, Tariq! There was no trap. You just figure it out. But he used this opportunity to insult again his opponent. Disgraceful and very inelegant. Knowledge can be taken for arrogance by the ignorant. But the ignorant can play the arrogant to disguise himself as wise or knowledgeable. Tariq Ramadan is a perfect demonstration of that. Tariq Ramadan is anything but humbly. Another lie! But it shows the big estime he has of himself. Not really the definition of "humble". Besides, there is nothing humble in declaring "I know the will of God". This is what believers say. And Ramadan, proudly, said he was a believer… Whats is humble about thinking you are the center of the universe and that is was created for you? This is egocentrism and egomaniac. Not humility. For humility, just watch a video by Carl Sagan on humility… (th-cam.com/video/wCxT27VlAKw/w-d-xo.html) He is wrong as his premises are wrong ("Allah exists" and "Islam is the right religion"). And as Michael Nugent pointed out: "Religion corrupt our sense of reality and it corrupts our sens of morality." As Christopher Hitchens said: "Religion poisons everything." Tariq Ramadan is a perfect exemple of that! I invite you to look at the debate between them two. Hitchens totally destroys intellectually Ramadan with such a great sens of humour. A delight to watch. (th-cam.com/video/_CGFMwtJTyE/w-d-xo.html) When one look at history and what religion brought to humanity, if you take away all the wars and arbitrary judgements, tortures and murders. Nothing left except buildings (for the other arts, artists are enough imaginative to invent their own myths. Religion used them for propaganda). As David Silverman pointed out : "Religion lies. It takes credit for doing things it didn't do." (1:34) All tremendous wealths intellectually, rationally, culturally, socially where done by individuals and religion stall it from them. And when religion didn't still it from them, it persecuted the guys who did the discoveries and tried to silence them (Giordano Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, closer to us, Darwin, etc, etc, etc…) As Islam tries to silence opponents now through blasphemes laws and describing opponents as "islamophobes"! Christopher Hitchens had a great sentence about it: “Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” Here again, Ramadan is wrong. Notice that once again he enumerates categories without giving any precise exemple to any of them. Not on! Just assumptions, again. As Ramadan wasn't able to bring any exemple in his speech and just delivers assertions after assertions, his conclusion, another assertion, is of course not only invalide but also false, as I demonstrated it. Why this opponents are dangerous according to Ramadan? We still don't know! After 5 min of speech, he wasn't able to say why. If Ramadan means his opponents are dangerous FOR religion. Then, he is right. But Ramadan being so vague in his speech, we don't know. I doubt this is what he ment. Sorry M. Ramadan, but your speech is far from giving a sens of complexity or even rigorous It gives a good sens of confusion, of approximation, of condescendence, but certainly not of complexity. This tactic (saying "the subject is complexe" and implying therefor "you don't understand it") is just there to try to shut up the opponents and diminish their credibility. But it, in any way, clarify the subject. On the contrary, this tactic tries to over complicate the subject. So it becomes so unintelligible that it artificially becomes impossible to discuss. And that's exactly what Ramadan wants to do. It would explain why Ramadan puts God everywhere, where he is not needed… But unfortunately for him, todays science does not need any god to explain the phenomenons it observes. Too bad! /...
Humble? Tariq? Arrogance, bias and misleading rehtoric are an understatement for describing Tariq's underhand strategy, not to mention his visible contempt for any form of disagreement with him or his belief. The only guest who disrespectfully attacked his oponents. In any case, Tariq's behavior was a good illustration of what mankind can expect if religious regains a major momento on worldwide politics as it used to a few centturies ago. Tariq is an excuse for a human being! Absolutely disgusting.
8 minutes and he is still to provide an argument. Hes just talked nonsense and arrogantly accused the other side of arrogance. What a pointless booking to this debate.
@MonkeyBusiness learn some facts. Theodore Beale notes concerning atheism and mass murder: “Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao … The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand. Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
He complains about anecdotes from the other side; religion is based on anecdotes.
And the other guy complains about religion but relied totally on anecdotes.
The opposition explain their points with reliable evidence, logic and common sense, he's only attacking with zero arguments and the most important thing is that he forgot to explain how religion helps society
Morality. If you only listened.
Humans are build with the inate tendency to believe in God...
@@Said-zl2xc You don’t need religion for that. You need a certain philosophy, and that philosophy can be atheistic in nature.
Rodrigo, he did explain when he said that religion helps you control your ego, teaches you to give and have generosity, and answers the question every body needs "why are we here, what are our goals and ends in this life" (what is the purpose of life) according to tarik Ramadan.
you proved what he was saying
Some of the audience clapping mindlessly.
They are mindlessly politically correct, testimony to the effective brainwashing in our universities.
I'm an agnostic Atheist but this guy is a joy to listen to.. I have to agree with him on majority what he said..
Same here.
Unfortunately though, all of the points he brought up more heavily speak against religion than atheism.
- Personal anecdotes are far too often used as deceptive emotonal device in favor of religion, and as opposed to those that talk in favor of a purely scientific approach, rarely backed by evidence.
- The binary view he talks about is far more common among religious people, because a lot of things are deemed right or wrong by either the book or the religious leaders, leading to a simplistic set of morals that can't be argued against when they insist of the correctness of these representatives.
- Arrogance is also a problem among hardcore atheists as seen in this video, yet it is a far bigger problem in religious circles that are that are that staunch.
Even those that aren't practicing fundamentally can be guilting of this without realizing it, as he himself shows by saying that it is capable to answer the question »why are we here?«. Atheists openly admitting that we have no definite answer to that are actually far more humble in that regard.
And the arrogance might even be the biggest danger of religion, especially among fundamental people, because as opposed to atheists, you can't rationally argue against religious dogma.
Finally, I'd say he is wrong about his point at 5:33:
Religion _is_ dangerous by definition, not just by action; because it has structures and a set of principles that leads to, and encourages, dangerous actions.
Just like fire is dangerous by definition.
Read my comment...
I'm an atheist and I have a problem with dogmatic minds. I am rejecting religions precisely because of that, but also because you need to have rational proofs that God exists, otherwise I have no reason to believe it. However, as a rational person who likes to understand the complexity of things, I will never essentialize religions. I am not saying that religions are good or wrong. I'm not a theologian and I know there are trends and multiple interpretations. I am rejecting dogmatic atheists as well who believe arrogantly that they are right and religious people are wrong. It is simplistic and, for that reason, I totally agree with Ramadan's speech.
Maybe you did, but I was carefully listening out for reasons why religion is good for society. Didn’t hear any.
Multiple rape cases against this piece of shit
>"History is long and complex and can be used to prove anything, but we have judge people by their actions, i.e. their history, not their qualities!"
>"Let's not define ("essentialise", "globalise" ad nauseam) concepts!"
>"Why are we even here, bro?"
Wow, what a deep thinker Ramadan is.
Not a fan of David Silverman, he should know when to talk and when to listen. There is a reason Peter Milican presented the closing argument, brilliant, calm and rational.
He says that we are never dangerous by definition, only by action... but he said that being an atheist/doubting religion is dangerous! The religious always use circuitous logic...
wibblegorm
Because doubting religion is an action. You seem incapable of any complex thought processes. It didn’t take me much to show you where you went wrong.
@@joelfisher2433
I was about to post the same, but you beat me to it.
@@joelfisher2433 Doubt occurs if their is faith to begin with, maybe doubting belief is action, but lack of belief is still non-action
This is a disappointing debate with a disappointing title coming from oversimplification and over generalization which one wouldn't expect from Oxford union.
I totally agree with Dr. Tariq Ramadan here. It is naive to think that religion harms society considering that it was lack of religion i.e communism that has done most harm to humanity than all religions combined.
Religions teaches people countless good things and it is essentially a blessing to mankind, something which is beyond the understanding of a spiritually challenged individual.
We are all spiritually challenged if you are speaking literally, because there is ZERO evidence for a spirit.
Communism has nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof. Communism on it's own is not as bad, the problem is corruption. Just like in Russia, it started one way and end another way due to Stalin and Lenin going nuts.
But look at China, they are combining the best of all ideologies and are now who everyone is looking at, not the US.
Their infrastructure is BETTER than ours, they are growing FASTER than us, they are taking MORE people OUT of poverty, while our poverty is increasing.
So I think you are the challenged.
Lets distinguish the transcendental from the supernatural. Communism itself is not a bad ideology, but when followed as a dogma it is. This applies to anything from socialism to libertarianism. I define religion as anything practiced or believed as a dogma unquestionable, unchallenged despite all the evidence. I don't follow science and humanism as dogmas but reasonable practices that I am willing to change in order to be complicit with my fellow primates and surroundings. I never claim that these have the upper hand either but just that they have helped our species evolve more beautifully.
To answer the question why are we here?
Sentience only arises with a complex physical substrate like a brain or perhaps in the future a computer. So, we create our own purpose,i.e, to live in a cooperative society where we treat one another as equals.
There is no one goal to life. We create our own goals and purposes based on our worldview and where we are born. Considering the plethora of cultures goals vary from society to society and species to species.
Hope this suffices!!!!!!Cheers.......................................
Siddharth Sridharan It won't suffice, these religious people need someone to tell them what to do for everything. No matter how clearly you make the point, that we create our own purpose in life, they deny it and say that ONLY god can give you a purpose.
That's what happens to brainwashed individuals, they have nothing left to create their own purpose.
Instead of facing life for what it is, they create a fantasy land and loose their persona.
I totally agree with you. But it is debates like these which help our society evolve. Tariq was right in pointing out the mistakes made by most of the proposers and Peter Millican gave proper and sound arguments which is why no interjections were possible and those that were made were not sound and immediately put down. I hope you were satisfied with the arguments that prof. Millican made.
Siddharth Sridharan Yes Millican did an excellent job and so did Atkins.
As an Atheist I think it's worth saying that this guy made a point. We usually have a binary image of what is religion. I think that we have humanist religions because we live in a humanist time, and if that were not the case, we wouldn't have that.
great performance little to no substance
This, that, them, we,.. facial expressions, hand gestures, animation but says nothing..
A few years later, he faced multiple rape charges and disappeared from public life.
why are we all here?
I will say to Tariq that it is rather humble to say that I DON'T KNOW than make up stories about without accepting any burden of proof!
there are a lot of things we don't know and my reaction to that is not make up stories but study.. that's what has got us to where we are today and if it was for ONLY religion.. we'd never advance past the Bronze Age.
Dr tariq was the best one in the debate
He’s a master of making noise that means nothing.
I disagree. William Lane Craig is the master of that. This guy is an amateur. Lol
I agree with his point about false dichotomies, but that's about it. He is trying to win a formal debate by whining about being criticized or even considered as being detrimental. That's a very childish position to take. If you cannot defend your position and ideas, you lose.
Tariq is a good man. And that has absolutely nothing to do with his religion!
For all of the points made in the entirety of this debate, those supporting the premise that religion helps society are basing their arguments on: 1. People feel good by being part of a religion. 2. Religions contribute money and effort to those in need and 3. Distilled, down, presenting enthusiastic testimony that their claims carry the weight of truth without actually linking their claims to actual facts. For the first two, there is no prerequisite that a person must be part of a religion to feel good about themselves and social interactions nor do people have to be part of a religion to do good deeds. Those brainwashed in religious mythology have been carefully taught to compartmentalize application of rational thought and native intelligence that they would otherwise use in any other aspect of their personal and professional lives. So long as the generational survival of any religion is based on inculcating children to believe fantasy is true, that religion is abjectly evil.
I shouldve known it would take more than 8 minutes to lend the simple notion of what good and bad mean in the ontological sense, doing "good"(whatever that means) for a non religious person is an obligation of means, as for the religious person, of results.
@@void7366 There is no prerequisite of being religious to do good. The illusion of doing good in a religious sense is the perception it has favor in the eyes of a supernatural unproven entity.
@@douglasrasmussen480 that is exactly what you had to say, and there was absolutely no need for the emotional outburst at the end, we are not asking wether or not the supernatural entity which all good deeds are attributed to exists, it is not a prerequisite to be religious to do good, it is however an obligation if you want to call it good in the first place, an atheist should simply not consider himself with such a predicament, of proving right from wrong, and there was a time not so long ago where atheist philosophers (like Nietzsche for example) openly explained the absurdity of trying to emerge value from moral judgement, if you persist however, you will always end up explaining your subjective world view, and your opinion would be instantly discarded, here's a homework for you, produce a line of logical productions starting from first principles that leads to the assertion "naz..is were evil"
Kinda hard to listen to this man talk about how religion imbues its believers with compassion after all the allegations from the very many women that have come forth...
Allegations, right?
It’s an imposter lol
@@sohailanjum8043 Always the Muslim defending him that’s quite intriguing 🤨
Christianity condemned rape, assault and abuse, Satan has interfered with those people and clouded their minds, they did what he did in the desert, they’ve twisted Scripture, they’ve used it for evil purposes.
@@Lo-to7zh let us know if\when the allegations are proven true and Muslims will condemn him. If someone alleges that you have done wrong, I should not dislike you solely on that testimony
He's the 3rd speaker (for his team), he's supposed to refute the previous opposing points. He can come up with new arguments to support his side, but usually there's not enough time.
It's clear most of whom commented below don't have any idea on how a debate works.
I personally feel that he did a good job, considering the minutes that he had. Remember he's coming from an academic perspective, he's starting from a point of complexity, the others were not on par him.
I love how the guy with the book of miracles suddenly has a problem with anecdote.
I agree. Surprised by the comments and how aggressive they are.
this man is a professor at oxford university? the oxford university? really?
I like how this Muslim thinks
Despite disagreeing with him I think he is really smart
Looking through the comments I get the feeling that many critics here on religion are as ignorant and maybe harmful as they claim religions are. Makes them look pretty hypocritical in my opinion.
*****
You projecting all the bad things in human nature on religion. Religion doesn't do anything, humans do, they might take religion as an excuse, but they do the same things without religion too. So, blaming religion is not solving anything. And if you want to put an emphasis on being intelligent, start by yourself and understand that your are just doing what you accuse religion of, you sepatare and dismiss other people opinions with your own ignorance. So, you have the spark of being harmful in yourself without religion, but are you so hypocritical to be not aware of that? Maybe you should take your own advice and think harder!
*****
give it time, and the non-religious will do the same to the religious.
Heh.
It doesn't take god to justify slapping the shit out of someone you don't like just because he says something you disagree with.
Does it take 'god' for stalin and mao to do what they did? Not really. Is atheism to blame for those guys? No.
Atheism has no power. Atheism just frees you from 'god'.
'god' is like a leash. if you get bit by a dog who broke free from its leash, you'd wish the leash was a little bit stronger.
conversely, any 'god' who prevents a good person from helping others, must be eliminated.
For someone that complains about emotional presentations it’s too bad his argument was entirely emotional and offered absolutely no evidence
Definition of secular: not connected with religious or spiritual matters.
He says that there are secular religions and that secularity and religiosity is essentially the same thing. FACEPALM
secularism is a system in which all beliefs.. religious or not.. co exist.. that's what he says..
secularity refers to freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.. it should not be confused with atheism since secularism is not even part of that debate..
Tariq is right on that..
Varun Dewan That's a secular government or secular politics. Secularity itself means detached from religion.
Tushar Mishra in what dictionary?
Varun Dewan Oxford, Merriam-Webster. All of them. Just fucking Google it before replying.
Tushar Mishra so you don't know.. fine..
My word. This man said nothing. A lot.
navajas rs freetariqramadan.com
www.change.org/p/lib%C3%A9reztariq-ramadan-free-tariq-ramadan
m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/FreeTariqRamadanCampaign/
mobile.twitter.com/freetariqram?lang=en
If you cannot understand anything doesn't mean that he explain nothing... Just listen to his lecture again with the intention to understand.
@@syedimran1052 If you have a solid point, it doesn't need to be overcomplicated....but then again that's religion, smoke and mirrors.
talk about facts all he is doing is insulting the opponent
Islam as a rule brooks no criticism of itself. Attempting to debate someone like TR, you won't encounter a single iota of give and take.
“I am humbly wrong” - Tariq Ramadan 2018
4minutes in, no argument made yet.. this is terrible.
Please. A debate is not only arguments made. It has arguments and rebuttals. Educate yourself on how group debate structure works.
Seriousriz
His rebuttal was pretty empty though. In the end all he said was "my opponents don't argue rationally!" - which is something he himself doesn't do in said rebuttal. This is one of the most disappointing speeches I have seen on this channel.
You've clearly never been a part of a debate team/club
It has only rebuttals without any backups. Appalling!
Ramadan here is out of his depth and you can see it. His point about secularism was nonsense, because although secularism is not atheism, it stops religion from doing the things that we know it will do and wants to do if it is in real power.
That and he spends the entire time not really making a case. No examples and no proof, no nothing. Its like he's just talking but not actually saying anything.
Hi! I'd like to know what u think of my comment...
Exactly, its like why then Jefferson specifically say that America is not Christian but secularists, cause its not a religious nation. It merely allows religion to exist without getting in the way of government and other peoples lives as well as government not getting too much in the way of religion, hint hint what conservatism is really about which is why silverman is conservative.
Holy shit! It's a Middle Eastern Matthew McConoughhey xD
Part 2
A binary mind! As if his own way of thinking was not binary! See the speck in your brother's eye, but not to notice the log in your own eye…
Note, by the way, that he accused his opponents to be "dangerous by definition" several times but does want to be treated the same way! "Don't do to others, what you don't want them to do to you"… ;-)
Of course religion is dangerous by action (suggesting that his opponents are too stupid to know it!). This is why it is so harmful! If Religion didn't want to impose by force its wrong views of the world on others starting on children but kept it to the private sphere, then religion wouldn't be so dangerous! But this is not the case, unfortunately.
Obviously, religion didn't work on dealing with Ramadan's ego. He wouldn't be so arrogent, presumptuous, condescending and patronizing.
And he has the overconfidence to give moral lesson : "you never be a human being if you don't master your ego, master your arrogance, master your mind" (6:25). This remark is abject! It implies his opponents are not human to Ramadan's eyes because, to his deluded opinion, they don't master their ego, arrogance or mind. What an insult ! But it shows how he thinks and how he dehumanize people who disagree with him. Nazis and Islamists do exactly the same thing. And this is very very dangerous.
"Religion is doing the job, as well". An assertion with no backups. Again! Not mentioning that it doesn't make any sens ! What job Ramadan is talking about? So, again, he stay vague with no backup to clarify what he means. This is of course on purpose. If on stays vague, then it becomes very difficult to contradict you. As you can say 'this is no what I meant"…
"Religion teaching are helping us". Again he does say in what way. Another assertion with no backups.
One can still exercise generosity or compassion without religion. No need for it. They are not the property of religion. Again religion still qualities that are not its product as David Silverman demonstrates: "Religion lies. It takes credit for doing things it didn't do." (1:34) Ramadan was about to say another quality, but he didn't. But apparently didn't find it…
According to Ramadan, Religion should reconcile ourselves with the big questions of life we all meed. Asserting by the way that Ramadan, in his almighty, knows what we need!!! Sorry M. Ramadan, you don't know hat I need nor what I want, so I'd be grateful to not pretend you do, because you don't.
It reminds my a quite on Faith by Dr. Peter Boghossian: "Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know"
Martin Luther wrote: “All articles of our Christian [it could be applied to any religion] belief are, when considered rationally, impossible and mendacious and preposterous… Faith, however, is completely abreast of the situation: it grips reason by the throat and strangles the beast.”
The big questions of life: why are we here, what are our goals and ends in this life.
Again no need for religion to try to answer those questions. On the contrary, religion will mislead you by given you preconceived and preformated sudo answers based on an inappropriate and biased visions of the world and the univers. How can one make appropriate decisions if the analisis of his surrounding does not reflect the actuel state of it ? Almost impossible. "Almost" because if one does, then it is by chance, not by knowledge.
There is nothing more fulfilling than to find for and by yourself the answers of those questions and to act so they become real. No need for religion for that.
As I showed those questions should not remain to religion. So If I follow Ramadan, then we can get rid of it. For once I agree with you, M. Ramadan. ;-)
And he ends with another patronizing comment pointing his opponents : "be humble". Another insult ! What a presumptuous person !
Conclusion:
Ramadan use all his presentation to diminish his opponents to decredibilaze them but not once he was able to backup his arbitrary and biased judgements.
He condemns his opponents to generalizing and globalizing when they demonstrate their arguments with backup exemples when he was artificially trying to complicate the situation without any backups at all!!! As if we should take his word for it !
I hope this text helped you to see the impostures of M. Tariq Ramadan.
I'm glad to know to the motion ("Religion Harms Society Debate") was carried. :-)))
He only had 6 minutes, I don't know how you could cover what religion has done in 6 minutes. Can you tell me how religion is the problem? And if you think morality came with us as we evolved or whatever you believe, why are you allow to tell me what is right and what is wrong? Do you have something you can refer to tell me what I'm doing is wrong or right? You can answer the questions however you want, I don't want to set the conditions.
@@Said-zl2xc I can tell you in less than 5 minutes. Religion is poisonous to the mind since it condones superstitious thinking. The superstitious mind is a gullible one. Gullible people are easily manipulated-- take a look at the feeble minded trump supporters who used to be so quick to hate on any Wall Street fedora wearer, but now are literally begging to suckle that orange penis. I could go on, but that's one of my stronger arguments against religion and its divisive nature.
It's hard to say that religion harms society overall...I mean that it's net effect is negative, because it seems every great civilization has had some sort of religion. This is strong evidence that it serves some essential social function. As my handle would imply I'm not a fan of any of the organized religions, especially the revealed religions and I agree with what was said by some of the others with regard to harm caused by certain aspects of religion as it exists. However, again, its hard to look past the fact that every great civilization has had some sort of religion and that this indicates it serves an essential social function. I'd also tend to agree with those who have said that the real danger is dogmatism and intolerance and that this can come in religious, non religious and even anti religious forms.
what did he say exactly?
Am I reading it right this guy is charged in February 2020???
Yes because they couldn't beat him in reason and logic so they came down to dirty tricks.
Riyaz Wani who are they?. Maybe you would care to expand on this comment. Very curious to know.
@@m.f.b7144 French State and people who feel threatened by Islam.
@@riyazwani3915 do you think so?. I’d say this Prof is a very intelligent man with a lot of faith. But he’s still a man, an imperfect man, by some religious definition only God is perfect. And yet by law he committed adultery and he even admitted it himself later on, even though he still denies rape on other women. However, the latter, we will never know that!, only him and those women accusing him which he’s being charged for. Pity he didn’t admit his adultery though, for a man of such weight, he should’ve come clean at the beginning, this in itself would’ve given him more credibility for his honesty. I wouldn’t say he’s being charged purely on the basis of his faith. Just an impression. Many would also argue the opposite, like he’s being paid millions to promote his faith. There’s always two sides to a coin.
What's he saying at all😩
The person who set the thumbnail for this video has ulterior motives
Religion does not protect the human quest for truth as this man finishes with. Religion demands you stop questioning and believe a story with no supporting evidence and usually with the threat of some horrible afterlife.
That is your opinion, I never experienced religion that way, so I don't think that demand for stopping to question is not intrisic in religion, but it might be what quite a view people are looking for, that they get some answers that they cannot get anywhere else.
Drudenfusz
When religions where or are strong enough to create theocracies they are usually tyranny's where protest or opposition is punished to varying degrees. In Europe people where at on point killed for witchcraft, homosexuality, having different beliefs. Many Islamic nations still persecute these groups today although that looks to be changing.
In Europe these attitudes changed because of the emphasis on science and reason during the enlightenment.
However I agree that there are theists who are intelligent, questioning and compassionate human beings and that you have not been required to behave so either by your faith. I apologize for using such a broad stroke.
My point originally was that in light of religious history and the behaviour of religious theocracy's the goals of religious authorities where never to protect the search of truth and individuality but to get people to conform.
I agree with the statement "religion can help society" but not that there is something inherently guaranteed to protect society and it's people in religion. . .
Mark Macdonald
But the opporession of different opinions is not only found in theocracies, the Nazis did it, the soviet communists did it, it still happens in china, the US government and their NSA do it. So, why just blaming religion for that harmful behaviour when it is not just religion doing it. Looks to me like you are barking at the wrong tree.
Drudenfusz Your absolutely right other ideologies are just as bad and if I only picked on religions I would be barking up the wrong tree. I would not make the statements that Fascism or Communism helped society but there are those that do. My point is when someone makes a statement that the ideology they believe in helps society and we can cite examples where it has not or had the opposite effect then their statement is false just as if a communist made the statement that communism helps society an we can site the actions of Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot etc their statement would be false. A more accurate statement is that religions and ideologies can help society because we can sight examples of both good theists and good people from other ideologies helping society. It just annoyed me that the speaker made an arrogant claim that religious ideologies have something inherent that guarantees them morally superior to other ideologies when like you've shown all ideologies are susceptible to doing society harm especially when in a position of authority.
Mark Macdonald
Okay, I guess we are then more or less on the same page. Still that doesn't mean our opinions match perfectly. I see religions in itself as neutral, like other ideologies, they can be used for good or for bad things by those in authority, which doesn't make the religions or other worldviews good or bad, but the people using it for their agendas. The thing is, I think everybody has some kind of worldview, that there is no human being without that, and religion is just one form of a worldview. We all perceive the world through the lenses of our worldviews, we all make decisions based on the values in our worldviews. This is normal, so saying religion is harmful is pretty much like saying having an opinion is harmful. And I cannot agree with that. Atheists love to bring up that religion is just fiction as an argument why religion is worse than other worldviews, and I have to disagree. Some people take their values from non-religious fictions, like Shakespeare and plenty of other sources, but they never get criticised. It is always the religion that is seen in the bad light, and that makes me think that the attacks on religion are not very rational, but come from an irrational desire to prove them to be wrong, to destroy the a certain kind of worldview, which in my opinion would be just the first step and the next would be to dismiss any fiction and art.
I love how the guy with the book of miracles has something against anecdotes.
Every religion is indoctrination = indoctrination harms = religion harms.
Master your mind with logic, critical thinking, reasoning and how to , not what to think.
But is this not what a belief can do as well? The term, Indoctrination, in our modern language, means," the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." In the past, it would have been defined as merely teaching and instruction. There are a number of religious scientists, 1701 to today, that held and hold to a belief in God, but yet are critical and analytical thinkers (Just google a list of Christians in Science and Technology). It is not necessarily the belief that harms or helps, in itself, but it is in how it is accepted and used. This determines what the outcome by its use will be. Such as it is that in a strongly held view of Modern Science, which is involves critical thinking and reasoning, so it is with religion. It has its scholars, which evaluate writings and history.
Yes all the religions are aimed for guidance and we'll being of society but few intelligences use them to fullfil own narrative. So it's responsibility of followers of religions to make it benificial and perceptible to everyone.
Religion answers most important question of human that "What is the purpose of life" so keep religion and live a purposeful life.
How confident he is..
This person says that being gay is a choice like being violent, so how is that helping society?
I just checked Al-qaradawi on TH-cam and he does support death for apostasy. You should check your facts Mr. Tariq.
+Tsering Panjor i guess it won't be the first time the scholar referenced youtube in his articles....
That scholar is highly ridiculed in Egypt. No one takes him seriously except a group of dumb people and yourself!
He knows what the facts are. He just lies. All the time.
He said it himself quite well - a child who is fool of dreams with angels around....couldn't have said it better myself.. a text book Freudian confession ....
We will keep repeating that religion helps society until it sees the situation fit for asserting its superiorty. What does he mean by 'help' when non-believers of respective religions are constantly demonized, misrepresented, made the 'other' and said to be going to hell? Does he think the best way to help society is to fragment it into people who are slaves of Allah or Jesus? Religion makes distinctions and divisions out of people that are unnecessary.
People help society because of their religion. There is much to be said about this claim. Religious people do attribute it to their religion. However it isn't the case that without religious motivations people won't help society. Religious claims are not even demonstrated to be true in the first place. We have to look at why the terrorists who flew into the twin towers also claimed to be Muslim. It is not surprising because reason and evidence is given a pass. It is not surprising if the motivations for one's actions are based on something as arbritrary as which tradition or book your elders and clergymen fed you with. Our empathy, generosity, compassion and charity has little got to do with whether Jesus said we should help the poor or whether we believed in the story. What does it mean to be charitable when we give only because we are instructed to do so? When we feel the urge for justice, for encouragement do we at the instant moment think if Jesus was okay with it? When the old lady needs help with her groceries do we at the instance think: "What does the religion I pledge alliance to say about this?" and then go and look at the Qu'ran or Bible for inspiration?
The claim 'religion helps society' is greatly linked to morality. It is always used in defence of religion. Specifically the goodness of religion. But like many have pointed out, religion does hurt humanity too. There is this accusation that anti-religionists only look at the bad that comes from religion. That is simply not true. I do acknowledge, that after reading some passage from the Bible one may get inspiration to help others but it is precisely this form of thinking that leads people to behave in extreme and harmful ways. When actions are guided by instructions some of them will turn out to be good but others will be bad. Look at some passage in the Bible and intepret it to mean that women are inferior or gays are evil. For those who already have this misconceptions and bias together with a culture that gives religion respect it gives them the justification to hold these views. But there are many people who won't have negative views about LGBTs and blacks if they weren't told their religion had such views.
Another contention is with the word 'help'. Building beautiful and grand churches is not help. Indoctrinating children is not help. Evangelizing is not help. But in the moral universe of many religious people it is helping society even if society does not appreciate it. In this sense religious people have played up their contributions to society by assuming their contributions to be 'help' in the first place.
Religions help society, whatever. We can do without it. Many countries have lost its religious culture but they are not practicing cannabalism. Many people will not seem and act so insane if not for religion. To add on it is not even true in the first place. So I will agree that religions help society. Religion also harms society. We won't be worse off without religion. Religion is not true. This motion can stand. But whatever it is used for won't work. Especially on the question if religion should be criticized or given a special status. Some even use it to defend the truth of religious claims or insinuate that Atheists are immoral and evil. When we want to help others we should look at the consequences of our actions.
p is not true if and only if not p. It is not the case that p is not true if and only if you are arrogant. Who cares about the emotional dispositions of the speakers, it is the truth we search for. A crowd pleasing argument....
He was great
Religion is so great and helpful and humble! Yet how did he get into rape charges in Sweden and France.
To be more speccific, he got into sexual assault charges with the accusers having faulty statements. He was put into solitary confinement without even going through a trial. That too in France. Decide what you will about that.
This is part of what I wrote in a response to someone in the comments:
Tariq Ramadan spends a lot of the first few minutes claiming that what the other side described as religion isn't religion and they're arrogant for doing that something which doesn't address the motion at all. He then says actually I don't like the motion, so I have to wonder why he even agreed to the debate. He lazily reduces the other side's arguments to trivial complaints around "myths and anecdotes" as though the profound examples Michael Nugent laid out can just be dismissed as him complaining about trival things. That's such bad faith arguing. I get the sense he didn't have a response to a lot of the more embarrassing points about religion and Islam (No Mohammed didn't ride a winged horse that's obviously just a story) so he essentially guilt tripped and behaved holier than thou as a distraction from the substance of the debate. He does that a lot in other debates.
He say im arrogant you are wrong he doesnt know how much that is a terrible confession its better to be wrong and humble than arrogant
Ramadan: 'if you do like this, I can do same'. fuckin hell so funny.'you are DANGEROUS'
Why is your God so concerned with humility when he doesn't practice it himself?
This man knows how do destroy opposition
He Is in prison XD
@@1984magu Still, Won this Debate
@@saadmalik8076 HAHAHA i don't think so, look the full debate, you idiot XD
6:34 his religion generalization, after saying you should not make generalizations
Ok he spent 6 mins telling us that he didn't like the way the oppisition put forward their claims. When is he going to explain how religion helps society, which is the motion.
He did however divulge his belief that religion is dangerous 5:39 "we are dangerous by action". I know some will say i'm quoting him out of context but he does mention "danger" several times. He brandishes this word like a rapier, like a threat, to quell those opposed into silence.
Well I for one am sick of being threatened by everlasting torment for having the audacity to question.
Islam teaches to get rid of ego and be humble? In a way, but not in a way that the rest of the world would say. Muslims have different definitions than everyone else. When he speaks of humble, he means humble in terms of man vs God. But when it comes to man vs man, Muslims believe they are better than you and I because they have God on their side and we have to be made humble and subjugated in the eyes of Allah. These people are a bunch of politicians.
+### ### "an arab is not better then a non arab, and a non arab is not better then a non arab except with doing good and worshipping allah". - the prophet muhammed (peace be upon him).
Wow - you proved my point.
how?
im puzzled. of course us muslims have different definitions then anyone else, everyone has there own set of definitions, where not the only people out there who have different cultures...
you think his definition of 'better' must necessitate arrogance, but this is something only the west does.
when we say you are better, then me, we mean you have done better, you are in a better place than i, etc, etc,etc.
@@omars1982 read @The muslim historian comment, taking in mind setting ur pride aside. U will understand
Peter Hitchens should have been involved with this one as it is more up his alley, instead of the God debate as he is admittedly not an apologist
This guy IS dangerous !!
Terrible they only showed his debate and avoided the other side of his argument. Religion might be good for some, but to be kind you don’t need religion.
Sorry you are the way you act, actions speak, the mouth Lies about all things your heart is decietful above all mans thoughts,*¤*!Amen*¤*!
Shut up, nothing is above anything, we can say whatever we want.
I can honestly say that I don't have faith, and for me, such a thing matters not. Is there a god, or is there none at all? I honestly don't care... what I'm worried about is what kind of effect religion has on society. In America, I believe religion has a positive effect on society, but in other parts of the world, religion can lead to serious, horrific events if not treated with care. But if people can be more responsible, they would to respect each others opinions, whether or not they believe it is right. Trying to answer a question like "is there a god, or is there not?" is a stupid debate that will NEVER END. Not in a hundred years will that argument ever lead to an answer.
... L E T P E O P L E B E L I E V E I N W H A T T H E Y W I S H T O ...
Good speech. It brings the discussion back on track.
hahahaha, yeah sure, they were raped.
"Religion is answering the question: Why are we here?" - really? Where's the fucking answer then after 10,000 religions and 200,000 years
+Earl Minime you are here for atest
42?
+Earl Minime you might want to watch 'Meaning of life' video on youtube, quite interesting.
+aquascape101 You think there's only one Meaning of Life video on YT?! How about a link?
+Ahmed Niaz Morshed Look, if there are 10,000 religions then that tells me there's a shit-load of people pulling religions out of the asses. And there's not just 10,000 religions. No two christians can agree on what christianity is, not two muslims can agree on what Islam is, no two... So life isn't fucking long enough... But don't tell me, NO, REALLY? YOU KNOW WHICH ONE IS TRUE!
4:07 The Devil Spoke!
"You Fall Into My Trap!" Round of Applause My Sheep! HA HA HA HA...
religion does not just not help society, it literally harms society, it has been discussed here on this channel we know that fact and we don't need any argument from religious ignorants, time to be honest to talk clearly about religion, we are giving TOO much ground to it, and we are accepting ignorance as a virtue (religion spreads ignorance), we are literally forgetting all the atrocities done because and for religion, in the past, not so distant past and also today where priests are fanatics of child abuse in their churches, and the pope defending those actions, why are we forgetting the past and stay blinded in the very present? We have actual proofs that religion makes people more dumb than they should be and does not help them to get out of ignorance, in fact it keeps them ignorant, it's a system of terrorism that commands submission to be the basis of morality, how are we respecting that thought? how are respecting people who thing that way?
I could even argue the very belief in god is IMMORAL thing to belief and that in fact is irrational, and especially the gods of the very known religions.
Zero tolerance to ignorance and stupidy should be accepted, that's why we educate and get educated, religion spreads lies and manipulation, and actually evil too
He told the opposition were arrogent, unscientific, and that is not the way to live. Okay.
So did he say a single point which says religion is not harmful to the society, which was the subject of the debate. This is next level of hippocracy lol. And I can't believe there is that many clapps for him without saying a single valid point. So many fools in Oxford union.
Or maybe You're not educated enough to understand why all the "fools" in oxford union clapping on his discussion lol
Excellent
@prasanth ki I don't what all this is about and I can't be bothered to read it all, but snakes definitely did lose their legs through evolution and there's no other explanation for it.
I respect his point about the problem of oversimplification, and the need for a preliminary understanding that to discuss anything about the real world we must first accept that there are complexities involved. This is not a question of binary and mathematics, but of the beliefs and personal realities of billions of people worldwide, both religious and otherwise.
But other than making that valid point, that we need to actually try to understand the nuances and subtleties involved, he doesn't actually elucidate what any of those are.
I think that was his point though. His point is that ‘harming’ is by actions not by definition i.e that there are loads of nuances
Creating a generational system for brainwashing children into a particular religious mythology is not an oversimplification of religion being abjectly bad for society. Repeating, or worse, ignoring the false histories, impossible physics, false science, failed prophecies and outright moral horrors of religion is clearly a deleterious foundation. So long as people like Mr. Ramadan create a smokescreen that legitimately attacking the premises of religion is a false dichotomy, he can avoid the actual facts.
@@franzliszt767 The speakers of the proposition were simply trying to define the core principles, which result in harmful actions. In a 6 minute speech you don’t really have the time to get into all the harmful things religion has done like the crusades or prohibition of condoms. But don’t be mistaken, they do exist and are numerous. But they are all based on some common shared principles which were outlined by the proposition.
Well his point is that the debate is dangerously stupid. Fair enough I guess.
So when Tariq Ramadan realizes that we evolved on this earth for NO purpose and that we have NO specific goals, then religion has NO place in the world. His logic, not mine.
IF we have NO purpose NO goals then NO religion and thats for insane people, its a sing of craziness for a human to be without goals and purposes, we are created for a reason in these life so indeed we have purposes and goals to accomplish and achieve and the role of religion in this case is to purify our hearts and our souls from following bad goals and doing bad action to realize bad purposes, i hope you get me mate
mourad oumouh Maybe you will go insane with your Muslim religion. I have self-assigned goals and purpose, and feel entirely free from the mantle of a religion, and there is no one in the world that I hate. Atheism freed me from the hate and biases, and mental distortion that I would get from any religion. Try it out and see how you feel, you may be surprised.
so what we are we doing on this earth ?? wht will be after dying ?? just darkness , that's means adolf hitler got away after killing millions of people ? who will get justice for those people ??!!! you for exemple ??
Andrew Lohbihler ,"I have self-assigned goals and purpose"
tell us your goals in this life please ? they can be the same as fanatic terrorists goals
"and there is no one in the world that I hate"
false , fighting hate is a perpetual battle , according to what u are saying ,you are not a human bein anymore
at the end believing or no is a question of choice and faith , if religions are bad , why not being a Deist instead of being atheist , how can u prove that a creator for the universe dont exist?
Kamal Bouchahma they are humanist and moral goals, not Quran or Bible defined. Too bad you can't see the difference.
Woah nice response
The debate was overall unsatisfactory to me. I had hoped that either side of the debate would've approached the topic more deeply, more rigorously. The "rationalists" on this debate, were overly authoritative, but not very convincing, nor scientific for that matter. In that I agree with Prof Ramadan.
Prof Tariq is *sawage* ❤
sewage
@@Minarchiste I feel your pain lol
Tariq wouldn't condemn stoning and admitted to cheating on his wife multiple times.
He is the one that is arrogant.
If only Mr Ramadan spoke before the Pope in the dark age....
Why does the thumbnail make him look insane?
Love him... always brings a nuanced take whereas his opponents resort to arrogance and rash surface level argumentation.
You love a rapist?
@@Whippetiggy he was acquitted today. So much for the atheist lynchmob smearing him throughout this ordeal...
LOL. I guess he was supposed to be talking about what religion has done which'd be falsifying the atheists 😅and he spoke crap about the the previous speaker😂.BTW he's no less arrogant than any other atheist
Tariq is so logic and clear...smart muslim mind that y can't hide..real muslim
A few good points, but he is ignoring what religion actually does and just sees the good it could do. And this comparison of dogmatic atheism vs. dogmatic religious people is really laughable,I mean who are the ones that are killing people because of their believes, never heard of an atheist killing someone because he has different believe about god, to say a believe at all. So his argument that dogmatic atheist are arrogant just stops there, because more than arrogance and maybe a little self righteous no atheist is b cause he is a atheist. There are no defined moral rules or any rules at all that comes with atheism, so in this case he talks nosense.
+Aeterus Ever heard of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin?
+o2xb Is that really a serious question? I just ask, because first Adolf Hitler thought that he is acting as gods agent, just read his book!!! And Stalin didn't kill all this people because he was an atheist. Atheism does not imply any specific form of morality, it just says: "I don´t believe in God" there is really nothing else.
Well you should take this statement back 'never heard of an atheist killing someone because he has different believe about god',because Stalin was an atheist and killed anyone who had different beliefs to him such as people who believe in god thus millions of christians died at his command.
I think you need to acknowledge the fact that just becomes someone may kill in the name of something (i.e religion) does not necessarily mean that religion or idea condones it.History will tell you that wars are not necessarily fought over religion but over power,land etc. Most religions such as Islam and Christianity actually teach that showing mercy is whats most beloved to God and to spill an innocent life is equal to the life of all mankind.
Lastly if a person was to kill in your name does that mean that you condone it?
Sorry for the late respond but I had my head full of work, so to the topic: I have the feeling you misunderstand me on purpose, as I try to tell you Atheism doesn't include any moral system or specific goals that are to achieve, quite contrary to religious ideologies or political ideologies for that matter. Stalin doesn't tried to eradicate religion because of atheism but because of his ideology and atheism isn't an ideology.
Second point: I'm well aware that not all wars are fought over religion at least not on the top, but you should know that on the actual battlefield religion play a major role, or do you seriously believe that the normal soldier fight in foreign countries for something like power or land?
If someone was to kill someone else in my name or for that matter in the name of something i believe in, I would at least raise my voice against such atrocity and not, like the religious majority , stay silent or even blame the victim like some do. That is the sad hypocrisy of religious people we to often encounter.
Aeterus
So the soviets when they went around killing religious people, that wasn’t due to their atheism and hatred for religion. Are you a 12 year old who has never opened a history book?
Later in April 2018, Ramadan admitted that he had been in a sexual relationship with the third rape complainant, who had presented to investigators a dress reportedly stained with his semen, but he insisted that it was always consensual.[122]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan
Ramandan is a sophist
Lmaof. Ramadan does it again.
Certainly Islam with its glorious History! hahahahahhahah
What a great debate. I love Ramadan, although I don't don't generally agree with him. It is unfortunate that his time was wasted refuting the ridiculous speech of Darwish. The best part of this was Silverman though. The balls on him... He's at Oxford and doesn't even care; he lays the Atheist hammer down like a man.
LOL, Ramadan DESTROYED that arrogant smug. LOL, loved seeing his pudgy face turn red from embarassment.
freetariqramadan.com
www.change.org/p/lib%C3%A9reztariq-ramadan-free-tariq-ramadan
m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/FreeTariqRamadanCampaign/
mobile.twitter.com/freetariqram?lang=en
Trying to tell a human that is pointless they hate the truth because there evil.
In this text, I'm going to demonstrate the emptiness of Ramadan speech. The way he was artificially trying to complexity the topic. The way he stays vague. The way he never backups his positions. The way he is patronizing, condescending, arrogant and insulting.
Part 1:
I though it was a serious debate too and I was surprised to see that Tariq Ramadan was invited ! We all can be surprised ;-)
Ramadan use all his "speech" (was it prepared ?) to insult his opponents.
I have heard as well the opposite of what is a rational debate but coming from his "group" and himself. The group in favor of the motion (except Nonie Darwish) were very rational. Giving exemples (that Ramadan calls "anecdotes") and facts to backup there testimony. Like a rigorous and rational speaker would do.
He takes the posture of the teacher. "I know better than you, because I know. What you say is silly and I'n gonna teach you that you don't know what you are talking about" Nothing humble there. Quite pretentious on the contrary. You can note it in his posture, his tone and his way of speaking.
Of course, one can say "religion is…"! No silly staff about it, if the analyze is correct. But by starting his speech with that, he implies: "You don't know and you are stupid". So condescending!
He adresses an opponent and tells him he was wrong "as to the facts" (at least his opponents give facts), but doesn't say where he was wrong and with which facts! So easy to through accusations in the air and not back it up! As Euclid rightly says (325-265 BC): "What is claimed without proof, can be denied without proof." You don't give me proofs that your opponent is wrong, M. Ramadan! Sorry, but I don't take your words for it."
"Emotional black mail"!!! What a stupid thing to say! Where does that come from? But it worked on a part of the audience! Comforting Ramadan in his patronizing posture. (one can note it in his attitude).
Anecdotes!!! Is the death condemnation of Nonie Darkish an anecdote ? Are the crames described by Michael Nugent anecdotes? This shows how valuable human lives are to Ramadan.
Again he says "anecdotes" but does not say which ones! Then says "facts", but don't say with ones, neither!
This part of his speech is so vague that actually he demonstrates nothing. It is just a succession of accusations with no backup nor exemples. And this was supposed to be a serious debate indeed…
No surprise he refused questions…
He repeats this is not a rational debate but don't demonstrate why. So we have to take his word for it. Sorry, M. Ramadan. I don't.
His speech is indeed the one that is superficial. No demonstration of his though process, no logic, no facts, no theories. Just accusations and assumptions both unbackuped.
He didn't demonstrate that the proposition was the wrong start. He just said it was and repeats it. Assumptions only.
All religions have commun characteristics (like they all ask to believe without evidence, without questioning the one or many gods. They all tend to control people. They all try to manipulated people. They all abuse of the weakness of children. And these are just a few exemples the the commun ground. Therefore a debate having a motion starting with "Religion is" is totally acceptable and relevant.
I just proved Ramadan to be wrong.
Religions are far more dangerous as history has shown us. The opponents gave multiple exemples. (cf. to the other videos).
Pay attention to how his says: "dangerous minds" (2:12) So patronizing! So appalling !
"We don't know exactly what we have": another way to undermined this opposants. So condescending!
Secular is a system where you have not only multiple religions but also no religious people too. Secular means also that the state does not take part of religion. The state and the religions are separated. Ramadan is not event accurate on that!
"Don't confuse secularism which has all the benefits versus religion" If someone can explain me that sentence? For me it makes no sens! Funny because just after he says that his opponents make no sens!!!
About essentialization (3:10): Again he stays totally vague. No exemples what so ever. "…Religion is that, you are that and we globalize and we essentialize". Sorry! Is that your best argument, M. Ramadam ? Empty!
"There are trends": he does not says which ones. "There are positions": he doesn't say which ones. "There are interpretations": doesn't say which ones! etc, etc, etc… All said in a patronizing tone.
"Dogmatic minds", and always on a condescending tone, "are not only on that [his] side". Implying that his opponents have dogma (knowing perfectly that Science is not a dogma. And knowing that he could hurt the feelings of his opponents). But he fails to describe what dogma! Again, an accusation without any backup. We just have a "you get me" to satisfy us. Poor! Very poor!
Now, he accuses his opponents to be arrogant when I'm just demonstrating that the arrogant cones from him (cf. his patronizing, arrogant and condescending tone). When is insulting them!
Except being a placebo, there are nothing more to religion than myths and "anecdotes" (in the sens Ramadan uses "anecdotes". It is to say: murders, rapes, genocides and other atrocities). No reduction here. It is all there is. We, human being, take our knowledge, our sens of value, of morality and of justice elsewhere as Christopher Hitchens demonstrated and as David Silverman so rightly said: "Religion was created with yesterdays knowledge" (2:08).
Ramadan doesn't say what more is religion… Again: no demonstration, just assertion.
Normal to be treated like a child when you behave like one!.. And still believe in fairytales. Grow up, M. ramadan! And you will be treated as an adult. ;-)
Now I understand his patronizing, arrogant and condescending tone during all his speech: it is to mask probably an inferior complex… Wow!
An opponent replied and bingo it was a trap ! Come on! Stop acting like a child, Tariq! There was no trap. You just figure it out. But he used this opportunity to insult again his opponent. Disgraceful and very inelegant.
Knowledge can be taken for arrogance by the ignorant. But the ignorant can play the arrogant to disguise himself as wise or knowledgeable. Tariq Ramadan is a perfect demonstration of that.
Tariq Ramadan is anything but humbly. Another lie! But it shows the big estime he has of himself. Not really the definition of "humble". Besides, there is nothing humble in declaring "I know the will of God". This is what believers say. And Ramadan, proudly, said he was a believer…
Whats is humble about thinking you are the center of the universe and that is was created for you? This is egocentrism and egomaniac. Not humility.
For humility, just watch a video by Carl Sagan on humility… (th-cam.com/video/wCxT27VlAKw/w-d-xo.html)
He is wrong as his premises are wrong ("Allah exists" and "Islam is the right religion"). And as Michael Nugent pointed out: "Religion corrupt our sense of reality and it corrupts our sens of morality." As Christopher Hitchens said: "Religion poisons everything." Tariq Ramadan is a perfect exemple of that! I invite you to look at the debate between them two. Hitchens totally destroys intellectually Ramadan with such a great sens of humour. A delight to watch. (th-cam.com/video/_CGFMwtJTyE/w-d-xo.html)
When one look at history and what religion brought to humanity, if you take away all the wars and arbitrary judgements, tortures and murders. Nothing left except buildings (for the other arts, artists are enough imaginative to invent their own myths. Religion used them for propaganda). As David Silverman pointed out : "Religion lies. It takes credit for doing things it didn't do." (1:34) All tremendous wealths intellectually, rationally, culturally, socially where done by individuals and religion stall it from them. And when religion didn't still it from them, it persecuted the guys who did the discoveries and tried to silence them (Giordano Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, closer to us, Darwin, etc, etc, etc…) As Islam tries to silence opponents now through blasphemes laws and describing opponents as "islamophobes"! Christopher Hitchens had a great sentence about it: “Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”
Here again, Ramadan is wrong. Notice that once again he enumerates categories without giving any precise exemple to any of them. Not on! Just assumptions, again.
As Ramadan wasn't able to bring any exemple in his speech and just delivers assertions after assertions, his conclusion, another assertion, is of course not only invalide but also false, as I demonstrated it. Why this opponents are dangerous according to Ramadan? We still don't know! After 5 min of speech, he wasn't able to say why.
If Ramadan means his opponents are dangerous FOR religion. Then, he is right. But Ramadan being so vague in his speech, we don't know. I doubt this is what he ment.
Sorry M. Ramadan, but your speech is far from giving a sens of complexity or even rigorous It gives a good sens of confusion, of approximation, of condescendence, but certainly not of complexity. This tactic (saying "the subject is complexe" and implying therefor "you don't understand it") is just there to try to shut up the opponents and diminish their credibility. But it, in any way, clarify the subject. On the contrary, this tactic tries to over complicate the subject. So it becomes so unintelligible that it artificially becomes impossible to discuss. And that's exactly what Ramadan wants to do.
It would explain why Ramadan puts God everywhere, where he is not needed… But unfortunately for him, todays science does not need any god to explain the phenomenons it observes. Too bad!
/...
An atheist in a room full of "believers" and a splendid demonstration of double talk.
Humble? Tariq? Arrogance, bias and misleading rehtoric are an understatement for describing Tariq's underhand strategy, not to mention his visible contempt for any form of disagreement with him or his belief. The only guest who disrespectfully attacked his oponents. In any case, Tariq's behavior was a good illustration of what mankind can expect if religious regains a major momento on worldwide politics as it used to a few centturies ago. Tariq is an excuse for a human being! Absolutely disgusting.
Yes religion brought us the Dark Ages, the Inquisitions the list goes on and on...
yes he was referring to pagan mohammadanism⚔️🌙🧕🧕👳🏾♂️🧕🧕🌙⚔️☪️🌚🕋
8 minutes and he is still to provide an argument. Hes just talked nonsense and arrogantly accused the other side of arrogance. What a pointless booking to this debate.
A very humble and intellectual talk
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
@MonkeyBusiness learn some facts. Theodore Beale notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!
💓💓
Who is watching in 2020?