I saw the title of this video and had to stop by and say who gives a fuck! Why explain a four part video about it? I'm not a christian either. You think anyone cares why? No. There are going to be christians and non-christians in this world, always and forever. It seem a lot of christians and non-christians can't get over it. If you ask me, 90% of society is a bunch of fuck faces who say,"Believe as I do or else!" That goes for religious and non-religious people.
we are all born atheist, it just thzt where you are born and what your parents force upon as a belif makes you 'what' religion you follow... stupidity at its highest level. do you believe everything you are told??
There is definitely a slow, steady drift away from religion in the U.S. It's very difficult to continue to buy the bible as the perfect word of the creator when you read about the genocide, slavery, misogyny and myriad other horrible actions taken by the "prince of peace". If we as a society can survive fundamentalist terrorism from all sides, then hopefully Science and reason will prevail over superstition and irrational belief and lead humans to a "Golden age" of prosperity for all.
Yes it is quite laughable when you think of how determined the religious people are to hang on to thier falsely acuired superiority complexes and prejudices.
It seem odd to think science can prevail against overwhelming numbers of the ignorant, but we continue on because to NOT spread on knowledge and fight such ignorance would be for good men to do nothing and evil to prevail
@zencat999 Then the majority of the world says "ok.". After which his neighbor exclaims, "He was talking to me!" Finally, everyone kills each other. Fin.
Interesting so far, but I cant ignore the feeling that russell frequently ignores fundamental philosophical presuppositions when he lays out his arguments....just my opinion
"There are only two ways of living, one is as if nothing is a miracle. The second is that everything is a miracle, I believe in the latter. --- Albert Einstein
"I used to be a atheist, till I thought I was God." --- John Lennon
Being a christian is not deciding that you believe in god or jesus (how do you decide to do that? It as impossible as "deciding" to love or hate someone), bur rather to become part of an institution, a human structure called the church, which gives you rites and practices that materialise your belief. Being a christian is more an activity, what's more a social activity, than a definable and definitive "state" I think.
Atheists typically believe that "evidence" has to be physical, rather than implied logically. They choose not to believe based on this question-begging assumption -- Webster's Next ed. Dictionary, entry on "belief," p. 124
Atheist -- someone who believes they know more than others because they believe in less.
@namesameasu You started your argument with a generalization. You can't do that if you want to make a good point. And if it's implied "logically" (i'd like to see this implied evidence and the logic that led towards it) i'm not sure if it falls under the deffinition of evidence.
I was disitinguishing between "strong" and "weak" atheists. If you like, "strong" atheists by defintion believe "evidience" has to be physical, and "waak" atheists simply assume it, but prefer to de-prioritize the claim in order to present themselves as "open-minded."
"i'd like to see this implied evidence"
Reductio ad absurdum. 'Indirect Proof Of God' pts. 1 & 2 video here on YouTube.
@namesameasu First of all, you didn't make that distinction. You should have. Second, you're still generalizing. I don't see why your seeing atheists as a black and white group, clearly divided by a line. Furthermore, I don't see your point at all. What are you trying to say by telling me this? It seems like you're trying to say our deffinition of evidence is wrong(?).
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "By definition" is hardly a generalization. I just said "typically" because weak atheists don't realize they believe this claim of evidence, or at least not recognize its priority in their own belief. This limited meaning of "evidence" is at the core of atheism. The insistence that "evidence" has to be phyiscal or have necessary physically implications is the primary reason why people are atheists.
@SmokeWeedEveryHour God is necessary a metaphysical concept -- otherwise, God, too, would need a cause. I disagree that "cause" isn't what it used to be. Causality is necessary for the field of science itself.
If one's meaning of evidence by definition rules out metaphysical concepts, then that meaning begs the question when it comes to metaphysical concerns. A throough, consistent argument should just as well count as evidence.
@namesameasu A metaphysical thing is a supernatural thing, supernatural by deffinition is outside the laws of nature and outside the observable universe. There is no evidence, physical logical or otherwise ( based on my current knowledge, i still need that video ) that can prove a metaphysical concept. Though i'd love to see that video prove me wrong, still waiting on that link :)
If you're expecting observable evidence for a purely metaphysical concept, then you're begging the question -- especially if you exclude a logical argument as "observable."
I have to admit, these videos don't fully cover such an argument. For instance, they don't include the priority of the unity of opposites argument that transcendence is necessarily the same concept of imminence.
@namesameasu I watched the first part of the video, it doesn't seem very credible, but I shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. However, I feel I don't need to watch it all as I think one of the first assumptions it makes to base it's arguement on is flawed. "Also, any event woould have to take place in space-time, So events like "singularity" or the "big bang" cannot be their own cause." Any variety of string theory would answer that question, a multiverse would be a solution.
@namesameasu Is that first part referring to the causality of the actual multiverse itself? And i'm not sure what you're trying to say with the other ones. I'll go watch it again.
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "Is that first part referring to the causality of the actual multiverse itself?"
Multiverse is a non-answer for "first" cause. Just like Russell says in this video: If every other universe has a cause, so must the first universe. So what caused that? The only way to avoid this argument is with a metaphysical concept as a 1st cause. Such wouldn't require a cause due to its non-physicality.
@namesameasu Experimental evidence, but i'm assuming you mean that to fall under the catagory of observational, as opposed to the scientific meaning of observational evidence. But imagine you have two pieces of observational evidence which are connected but cannot be proven to be so with more observational evidence. If you could logically rule out all explanations but one, it would be permittable to use logic instead of observational evidence to make that leap and draw that conclusion.
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "If you could logically rule out all explanations but one, it would be permittable to use logic instead of observational evidence to make that leap and draw that conclusion"
Thanks. That's my whole point. I believe such an argument is possible.
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "as opposed to the scientific meaning of observational evidence"
I did lump experimental evidence with observable evidence, I admit. How would you describe then the purely scientific meaning of observable evidence? You're not the first one I discussed this with who brought this up.
@namesameasu I realize that didn't help my point at all, I was merely pointing out ( for some reason ) that a multiverse is by deffinition metaphysical. Sorry, i don't see why i did.
@namesameasu And I still don't see how by asserting that the universe cannot be created by the laws of physics (as we currently know them, this is extremely important) means that by default there has to have been a god to do so.
Well, if non-phyiscal, first cause would necessarily be God in order not to defy Ockham's Razor: multiplying concepts beyond necessity. Also, only One "entity" could subsist beyond space-time: otherwise subsistance would be quantifiable, which would require space-time, and thus be inconsistent. In other words, only God can properly be said to "subsist."
@namesameasu Exactly, IF non physical. You have not proven this is the case. Just because we don't know how the big bang was set in motion now, doesn't mean we won't later. This is very reminiscent of the god of the gaps thing, where wherever we have a gap in scientific understanding someone will come along and say it was god. Those gaps have been removed and removed, and I don't see a reason why this one wouldn't be removed at some point either.
If the so-called "gap" is well-defined, then it wouldn't be a gap, but a fact. "God of the facts" wouldn't have the same negative connotation. My point that is thorough, consistent argument is possible to fill in the facts, not the gaps.
@namesameasu This gap is not well defined though. We do not know how physics worked at the beginning of time, so we do not know if it is possible to have happened with or without a god.
@SmokeWeedEveryHour Physical evidence in general to show that first cause isn't necessary. I listed the problems already in the earlier comment on the inconsistencies of science.
Well, it was good talkikng to you. Time for me to go to church, as God has a personal meaning in my life, and I still side with theism in whatever agnostism I may have.
@namesameasu Who says first cause isn't nescesary? I'm not arguing that. Simply because we don't know how physics worked at the big bang does not mean there wasn't a cause for it, and it most certainly doesn't automatically mean god was the cause. I am not saying there wasn't a cause, nor am I saying there's any evidence for that. I'm saying we don't know the cause yet, and we therefore shouldn't say only god is a possible cause.
@namesameasu What you're seemingly trying to prove is that the universe could not have been created without a god, that it's impossible. And there is no reason to think that because we do not have all the relevant information to draw a conclusion on this subject.
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "there is no reason to think that because we do not have all the relevant information to draw a conclusion on this subject."
So, for you, agnostic atheism seems to be the most valid point-of view. But, even so, would you consider a thorough, logical argment may be included in possible relevant information just as much as yet undisclosed physical evidence? Then you should also allow the notion that theism may just as well be correct.
@namesameasu Granted those cannot be proven by physical evidence, but i'm sure there's somebody ( smarted than me) who could imply it happened logically.
@SmokeWeedEveryHour The point of the 1st video is whether an atheist would consider a thorough, consistent argument as observable "evidence." Every atheist who responded to the video said they would not. I consider this is a question-begging limitation on the meaning of "evidence." Do you disagree?
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "I would say it depends on the argument. Could yoou give me an example?"
For instance, there's the Cosmologial argument. In this video. Russell claims there's flaws with the argument, and another person may counterclaim what Russell disputes. Thus, to me anyway, and I hope to you, wouldn't both claimants need to observe the same argument in order to properly judge it? Thus an argument may be said to be "observable evidence" if hypothetically thorough and indisputable enuf
@namesameasu Having read the description of the video more thoroughly, it seems to be saying atheists only value observational evidence, which isn't true. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
@SmokeWeedEveryHour When people say God "exists," they really mean "subsists" -- as a foundation for existence. Even Russell accepted subsisting possibilities in his book "The Problems Of Philosophy" when he referred to universals, claiming they "exist" in a sense of nowhere and nowhen. Russell was a great logiican, but an inconsistent philosopher.
"link the video"
Utube doens't allow links. Just search for "indirect Proof Of God". Pt2 is called "special pleading" but should also show up
@namesameasu I have to admit we're going alittle deeper than my understanding will let me right now. Could you please expand on what you mean by subsists as a foundation for existence?
@SmokeWeedEveryHour In "Problems Of Philosophy" Russell speaks of universals such as "tableness." At the time Russell considered himself a Platonist. He opens the book by demonstrating that altho every one may have a different view of the same table, everyone would still have the same concept in mind. That concept lays out the foundation for the idea of that particular table. Altho the particulars may be disputed, its universality needs to be consistent in order to speak of it
@namesameasu - By definition, Evidence is only classed as such if it can be tested. Explain the 'logic' of faith please? Do you think that 'faith' is evidence I wonder? If so, you need to review the meaning of the word. Oh and by the way... a true athiest will gladly accept the evidence of any 'testable' fact.
What's 'the devi' got to do with athiests though, I wonder?! I'm intreagued to know - thanks.
@keeyk118b That is rediculously ignorant. Morality does not come from religion, atheists have it too. Saying that is saying that the only reason you're a good person is because you're afraid of the consequences if you're not, not because you're a genuinely good person. Which is a very backwards point of view to have.
True Answer is revealed! "He who has ear, let him hear."(Matthew 11:15) "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them shall fall to the ground without your Father."(Matthew 10:29) The same way God allowed thus mass fish, bird die-off, etc... to forewarn mankind about the "Three Days of Darkness, Chastisement and Deliverance" will come. "I tell you all, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:5) Le Nghia, ”unworthy servant…” (Luke 17:10) a Capuchin Franciscan
@le399 Silence, old fool. I grow weary of you and your kind's dying arguments and I must also state that many other people feel the same as I do about your kind. It would be nice to see you stop wallowing in your self-made pit of ignorance and actually fill that hollow bone of a skull you have with something useful. But it's up to you, I can't force you.
Listen! "God knows all things" (1 John 3:20) The reason He allowed such mass fish, bird and other animals die-offs everywhere... is to forewarn the hardened unbelievers and unrepentant sinners to convert, to repent while there is time. As Jesus warned: "I tell you all, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:5). Die to hell especially when the Three days of darkness, chastisement and deliverance take place. Le Nghia, ”unworthy servant…” (Luke 17:10) a Capuchin Franciscan
@TomFynn - How on earth is rape 'Love'?! Rape is Assult surely?! - the emotions involved with rape is probably either: power, anger, lust, selfishness, greed - but love?! Never!!
Norbert Wiener and Wittgenstein were students of Bertrand Russell. And I think they even need to read Poincare’ articles, they could just go to next room and talk to Russell. If they want something to read, Russell’ super power to-be-able-to-point-out-what-was-truly-important was at hand.
There was a time when philosophers (like Russell) talked about science and actually knew the math. Now, we have a bunch of MQ and math terminology being misuse in postmodern philosophy and pseudo science.
"God is Love." (1 John 4:8,16) However, No One can Save You Unless You Really Want To Be Saved! ! Read: "Three Days of Darkness" or "Three Days of Darkness, Chastisement and Deliverance..." in the Google.com, Yahoo.com, Bing.com, Etc... for more and be prepared to go to Heaven before foo late! Le Nghia, "unworthy servant..." (Luke 17,10) a Capuchin franciscan
Another thing about these old scientists - how much did they really know about the progress in genetics scientists are making today? Their concept of the origins of life without the aid of a designer seems rediculous when you look at the molecular structures of any living cell especially DNA. It's impossible to rule out a designer. You all should see the video - Intelligent Design - Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life on Google Videos. It's just common sense...
@gtowr When we reach questions that can't currently be answered like the mystery of abiogenesis...then we should just jump to the obvious and say "God did it"? That is just completely ridiculous. If you believe in the Bible then you must believe in Creation or the Bible is not true and accurate. If you believe in Creation then you can't believe in evolution because they are not compatible. Since evolution is a fact that cannot be disputed then it would appear the fallacies are elsewhere.
Common sense is notoriously unreliable, as science has demonstrated so many times:
Earth is the center of the universe, planets orbit in circles, light travels in a luminiferous ether, matter and energy are different, continents do not move, CFCs don't damage the ozone layer, anthroprogenic global warming is fake, quantum mechanics is rubbish, Darwinian evolution is impossible.
Religion is an obscurity yes, and people believe without adequite proof of fact. But I've been studying various religions and their holy books for the past decade - and the Bible seems the most compatible with reality and modern science. My point is... the people who discard the Genesis account didn't read it correctly and take it out of context, and those who believe in the Lake of Fire has taken symolic language literally. To me both atheists and christians are simply too narrow minded.
@gtowr I disagree. Compatibility between science and any theistic religion is laughable and actually quite naive. There's more to the Bible than just Genesis, and if you think you are able to find modern knowledge in any sort of scripture, then why has it taken humanity so long to "rediscover" this knowledge and use it? The Bible also makes numerous false claims as well like its flat Earth and water sky layer. But if you're just guessing, you're bound to get something right.
@CrazySatanicInfidel I respect your view, 'cos its I've shared for a long time. I'm not only referring to the Genesis account... your example that the Bible says the earth is flat is incorrect, because Isaiah referes to the earth as a sphere - that's centuries before people had a clue. My point is, Science and accurate Religion don't contradict but explain 2 sides of a coin. Science explains how things work, but if you ask why enough times you get stuck. Religion explains why...
@gtowr Eratosthenes of Cyrene knew the Earth was a sphere, and measured it to a high degree of accuracy. thousands of years ago. Religion explains nothing other than human gullability and imagination.
On the contrary, religion gives no reason why things work, only that God made them so. It is not reason, it is your (inadequate) explanation.
That "God" saw fit to create Earth as it is not good reason that explains WHY it exists. There is nothing other than superstition to suppose it is so created. God creating the earth does not justify its existence, nor give it reason for it.
Science requires no justification of proof greater than reproducable evidence. That is real truth.
I can give no reason why my car broke down. Yet my car remains broken. By hiding behind the means of not gaining enlightnment, most religions do not achieve what it sets out to do; to enlighten its people and bring them closer to 'God'.
If you must be a Christian then may I suggest: the Landover Baptist Church! The Landover Baptist Church takes the whole bible from Adam& Eve and the enchanted forest (talking snake and all) . It also believes in talking donkeys, unicorns, noahs arc etc. They don't do it cafeteria style they accept the bible as the true word of God.
I live in a Christian community house and I don't believe in it, but I'm faking it so that they don't kick me out or walk in a room when they are praying and have it become awkward. So anyway, I was at church and reading Genesis, not listening to the speaker, I began to read about 4 chapters. During the middle of my reading of Genesis, it really became obvious its all a bunch of rubbish. I think its hard for some people on the fence to reject it only because so many believe it.
@SuperJav1988 then stand up for it. i know it is hard but stop being a closet intellectual. If their love and acceptance is solely based upon your beliefs? Then is that true love and acceptance? Yes it is hard to walk away from family, friends. You may be surprised who else is hiding with you (there are an astounding number of atheist ministers going through the motions only for their congregation. How terrible for both the ministers and his flock.
"My "FATHER TAUGHT ME ...." BINGO! There's the key to the understanding behind all the false religions of the world, including the foolishness of atheism. The impact of what failed fatherhood has caused in societies, and their rank as the major culprit behind failed societies, is a Biblical Fact (Psalm 78 1-8).
Russel was asked what he would say to God if he met him on final trial after his death. He replied: "I'm sorry, but you gave me too little evidence to believe in your existence."
Writing from my memory so it could be a little bit inaccurate, but point is there.
@dinamitash1980: I think it was simply 'lack of evidence'. But yes, your point is there :) I can just imagine Bertie sitting back in his chair and looking the gods in their eyes and puffing patiently on his pipe, then slowly taking it out and exhaling some smoke, before saying it :D
Bertrand Russell was a loud advocate of One World Government and had a very malthusian way of thinking about the world. He is also responsable for the creation/schooling of the russian financial oligarchs, being a great friend of the hypocrit revisionist Krushchev.
The date of this essay is interesting in respect of the first cause argument, because it was in the same year (1927) that the Big Bang model of the universe was first articulated.
This is fascinating, but I wish he dwelt more on the social-psychological aspects of religion, like Durkheim or Weber. I think people seek order and truth and for some order is more important than truth; they'd rather have an elegant picture of the universe than a true one. Of course, the problem is that a religion's poetic image of the universe is often sustained by other believers. If 20 million people believed that Homer's Odyssey were true, then it would be considered a religion.
Then again, that might just be a divergence from the main point and topic of Russell's argument. But I still think any discussion of religion should place it more in the context of the social individual.
I cannot fault BR's definition of what it means to be a Christian, e.g. Belief in the existence of God, the divinity of Christ and immortality through salvation in Christ. What is fundamentally missing, however, is belief in personal relationship with a living God available through His Holy Spirit, who Christ asked God to send into the world once He ascended (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-10; 26-28; Acts 2:1-4). Respectively, alike all rationalist thinkers BR could not experience the truth of God.
@SOSADS " the truth of god "seems a pretty vague fuzzy phrase. you could add that to what it means to be a christian but it still doesnt validate in anyway the main three beliefs. also if you believe in an all loving god then why believe in silly hell and satan. and what arrogance to say that if you dont accept teh god that i accept as god then u will burn forever in hell. its borderline sociopathic.
lol. the internet, where someone can name themselves ZionistWorldOrder and expect that what they write will be taken somewhat seriously. hahaha, i love the internet
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You dimwits do not even know the darker side of this man, Russel hold some pretty "unique" views on eugenics, not of plants and animals but of humans. He has some pretty fascist and nasty ideals for the future of humanity. Don't let his pragmatic side get the best of you, this is one asshole who has no love for his own mother. Please research Russels work on population reduction & how he feels population can be maintained in a low of one billion. Genious perhaps but evil none the less.
@sulthus Agreed, However Bertrand Russell did not believe in Eugenics as generally understood (like the eugenics based on social darwinism and scientific racism) but he did believe in population control, but we have the remember that at the time Bertrand Russel's reason for believing in population control was based on moral reasons than something merely political. In his time, Bertrand Russell believed that the population would exceed resources, so it seems reasonable for him to believe this.
@sulthus Your right. There is negativity on the topic, but there has to be "some" control so that there isn't an "overpopulation" and so that genetic disorders are controlled. With the breakthroughs in genetics, we are probably close on the controlling bad genes part.
you disgust me to my very core, you test the limits of my tolerance in my research of famous thinkers and fucknuckles such as you. May your torment in hell include witnessing the happy posterity of the world you left behind and what finally came to be the opposite of your vision
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bertrand Russel you disgust me to my very core, you test the limits of my tolerance in my research of famous thinkers and fucknuckles such as you. May your torment in hell include witnessing the happy posterity of the world you left behind and what finally came to be the opposite of your vision.
wow, my pride went right down the drain when u said that. and btw, bertrand was one of the most renown modern day thinkers as well as an adept mathematician. u only hate him because he debunks ur arguments so elegantly. u go on believing he'll be punished later on, ull never know though because when you die, thats about it. no mystical, soul-accepting, eternal reward and/or punishment is going to exist. it's a pity ur waiting for that
What a fine example of a religous person you are. Wishing other people eternal torment in hell, how nice. If you really belive in an afterlife, should you not just feel sorry for Bertrand for not realizing it, and therefore condemning himself to hell? Why are you upset with him at all?
Yeah I never really understood why people do this, if you really believe your god is going to punish all the sinners, homosexuals and atheists, then why do you get so mad? why not worry about your life and enjoy it if god is going to take care of them. I also don't understand all this hatred just because of someone elses opinion or belief, are you not supposed to love your neighbor?
@ZionistWorldOrder This Zionist world order must be pretty new, right? You'd think if the Jews were running the world they would've done something about the Holocaust.
You might think he's demented and in hell, but a guy who contributed monumentally to mathematics and logic, by anyone in the field's admittance, religious or not, is hardly a moron. He did so before he even went on to subjects like religion, proving himself a genius before people even knew all his skepticism on divine beings and other fairy tales. Anyway, that'd be like me calling St. Thomas Aquinas a moron just because he was a crazy Catholic. ; )
@CynicalSolo23 yeah i agree and why would a loving god give bertrand russel the intellegence and skeptisim then send him to hell for employing those gifts from god? so many fallacies so little time....
Why is a well-accepted naturalist scientific "fact" that purports to explain the origin and development of man from mindless, single-celled, purposeless entities unable to account for the improbability that the cognitive faculties spawned from this mechanism have soundly developed and are properly functioning to the point where they reliably reason and rationalize such a complex process? So many fallacies, so little time...
@ThaShaper how does that in anyway support christain dogma?? i dont understand why that statement has anything to do with defending christain dogma and hell etc. i would love to retort but its so irrelevant that i dont know what to say. did i say that there was no creator? no im talking about the judeo-christain god. did i say that science has figured everything out exactley? no. sooooooo.....
There's nothing to refute. It's a question. If you felt obligated to refute it, it means you either don't understand evolution, or you didn't understand the question, not that the question itself was irrelevant. Its answer certainly does justify epistemic virtues of Christian ideology; namely, that naturalism isn't a sufficient presupposition to science. It's a good thing we don't have people like you interpreting arguments, huh? So many fallacies, so little time...
@ThaShaper Your argument seems to be this. " i dont understand how evolution and natural selection works, and once in a while even science doesnt have the answers every time. therfore i believe in a god and evolution is totally bunk".... so many fallacies, so little time....
You can't try to not be a Christian because being one is predicated on belief. You can choose actions, but you can't choose beliefs. You either believe a belief because you think it's true or don't if you don't think it is true. There's no choice involved. If you're implying that you think God has a punishment in store for Russell, you can't very well say that you believe in an all benevolent God or even a just God. Are you just a troll or what?
Put the other way around: You can try to be a Christian, and appear as one to many observers; but will never actually be one unless GOD chooses you. GOD is in charge of His creation. Truth is what is: even though we don't know or understand all of Him. Truth = God. In His book, Bible, He says: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Corinthians 2:14)
Well, I guess I wrongly gave your beliefs too much credit in my first response. Easily one of the most unflattering characterizations of God I have read. You're trying to defend Christianity here, right? Sounds like your god loves human ignorance and neglects a great deal of his creations. A lot like a mother leaving her child in a dumpster.
It also doesn't sound like your faith allows individuals to have any free will. Christians love to have it both ways on so many points.
Yeah, you're right, it does seem just like that: He's leaving us in the dumpster. But, that's eactly why it's called "saving". He pulls some of us out. But, He's superior to us. We don't understand Him. He tells us not to try and understand Him; but, rather obey Him: "Preach the Gospel to all nations." We can only do that by reading His book for the directions. (Isaiah 55:8 "My ways are not your Ways...") No defense here, just why BR was not a Christian. (After-life seems cool too.)
If he has the ability to save us, everything we know about morality tells he shouldn't be picking and choosing who to save--at least, if we are to characterize this god as "good." It God's going to reward those who believe in him, you'd think he'd at least give thoughtful individuals like Russell solid moral (and other) reasons to considering how our brains are programmed to work. You still didn't address my concern that your view seems to directly contradict the idea of free will.
(According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,...) Ephesians 1:4-5 is one Bible answer to the "Free Will" question. Although I can see where a lot of people got the idea of it from the Bible, being chosen is accurate: Election. It is His will; never ours. No free will.
Not if the reason is logically irrefutable. Should we ignore the cogito because not enough absolute, and irrefutable proof was given? Your comment is absurd.
@STFUNOWlol - First you said my thinking was intellectually damaging...Then you attribute insincerity.....I belong to rich philosophical traditions in India, where religion and irreligion are just two sides of the coin.. I look for a spiritual vision which sees the cosmos as the manifestation of a single energy......the one warning on this path is that compassion will be the compass ...
Manifestation of a single energy? I'm not sure what you're talking about, the cosmos appears to be the manifestation of a single energy - the singularity that caused the big bang.
@STFUNOWlol -- respected sir..I spoke only on my behalf..and would be the last person to come in the way of the growth of your knowledge...it would be sacrilege for me to attempt to do so...I wish you the greatest growth in this regard...
This has been flagged as spam show
I saw the title of this video and had to stop by and say who gives a fuck! Why explain a four part video about it? I'm not a christian either. You think anyone cares why? No. There are going to be christians and non-christians in this world, always and forever. It seem a lot of christians and non-christians can't get over it. If you ask me, 90% of society is a bunch of fuck faces who say,"Believe as I do or else!" That goes for religious and non-religious people.
LedWilde 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LedWilde 2 weeks ago
if GOD wanted you to be a christian you would be.
psl127 2 weeks ago
We are all born knowing we are god.
pantheon777 2 weeks ago
we are all born atheist, it just thzt where you are born and what your parents force upon as a belif makes you 'what' religion you follow... stupidity at its highest level. do you believe everything you are told??
psycho3968 3 weeks ago
we are christians and we are proud of it
markos824 3 weeks ago
wow
josh1josh1josh1 1 month ago
There is definitely a slow, steady drift away from religion in the U.S. It's very difficult to continue to buy the bible as the perfect word of the creator when you read about the genocide, slavery, misogyny and myriad other horrible actions taken by the "prince of peace". If we as a society can survive fundamentalist terrorism from all sides, then hopefully Science and reason will prevail over superstition and irrational belief and lead humans to a "Golden age" of prosperity for all.
250garbear 2 months ago
@250garbear ''Science and reason will prevail over superstition and irrational belief and lead humans to a "Golden age" of prosperity for all.''
HA HA HA HA LOL
DerivedEnergy 1 month ago
@DerivedEnergy
Yes it is quite laughable when you think of how determined the religious people are to hang on to thier falsely acuired superiority complexes and prejudices.
It seem odd to think science can prevail against overwhelming numbers of the ignorant, but we continue on because to NOT spread on knowledge and fight such ignorance would be for good men to do nothing and evil to prevail
whiteowl1415 1 month ago
I AM GOD...YOU WILL BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP ME .....NOWWWWWWWWWWW
AND FOREVER!!!!!!!
zencat999 6 months ago
@zencat999 Then the majority of the world says "ok.". After which his neighbor exclaims, "He was talking to me!" Finally, everyone kills each other. Fin.
TheTapeSide 5 months ago
@TheTapeSide sounds like a great movie. when do we start making it?
zencat999 5 months ago
@zencat999 Couple thousand years ago.
TheTapeSide 5 months ago
@TheTapeSide very good! ;)
zencat999 5 months ago
@zencat999 :)
TheTapeSide 4 months ago
6 people are fans of Kirk Cameron.
jordaniac89 7 months ago 4
Interesting so far, but I cant ignore the feeling that russell frequently ignores fundamental philosophical presuppositions when he lays out his arguments....just my opinion
theta79 7 months ago
I may not agree with all his thoughts, but he has an awesome voice that i could listen to all day.
gafliglebidle 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There are only two ways of living, one is as if nothing is a miracle. The second is that everything is a miracle, I believe in the latter. --- Albert Einstein
"I used to be a atheist, till I thought I was God." --- John Lennon
jaqzzzz 8 months ago
Thank you so much VIPER VISOR for your GREAT work! Words are not enough to appreciate your work?
Khosro192 8 months ago
Being a christian is not deciding that you believe in god or jesus (how do you decide to do that? It as impossible as "deciding" to love or hate someone), bur rather to become part of an institution, a human structure called the church, which gives you rites and practices that materialise your belief. Being a christian is more an activity, what's more a social activity, than a definable and definitive "state" I think.
drydust999 8 months ago
Atheists typically believe that "evidence" has to be physical, rather than implied logically. They choose not to believe based on this question-begging assumption -- Webster's Next ed. Dictionary, entry on "belief," p. 124
Atheist -- someone who believes they know more than others because they believe in less.
Scribner's Devil's Dictionary, vol. 1B, p. 49
namesameasu 9 months ago
@namesameasu As long as we're posting platitudes:
Theist--Someone who believes they know more than others because they'll believe anything.
JimmyFaust 8 months ago
@namesameasu : Evidence that is not 'physical' (that is, made from matter or energy), does not exist. Fairly simple.
TheNewCrankyWorkshop 8 months ago
@TheNewCrankyWorkshop So how is it not question-begging to expect "evidence" of God?
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu You started your argument with a generalization. You can't do that if you want to make a good point. And if it's implied "logically" (i'd like to see this implied evidence and the logic that led towards it) i'm not sure if it falls under the deffinition of evidence.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "You started your argument with a generalization"
I was disitinguishing between "strong" and "weak" atheists. If you like, "strong" atheists by defintion believe "evidience" has to be physical, and "waak" atheists simply assume it, but prefer to de-prioritize the claim in order to present themselves as "open-minded."
"i'd like to see this implied evidence"
Reductio ad absurdum. 'Indirect Proof Of God' pts. 1 & 2 video here on YouTube.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu First of all, you didn't make that distinction. You should have. Second, you're still generalizing. I don't see why your seeing atheists as a black and white group, clearly divided by a line. Furthermore, I don't see your point at all. What are you trying to say by telling me this? It seems like you're trying to say our deffinition of evidence is wrong(?).
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "By definition" is hardly a generalization. I just said "typically" because weak atheists don't realize they believe this claim of evidence, or at least not recognize its priority in their own belief. This limited meaning of "evidence" is at the core of atheism. The insistence that "evidence" has to be phyiscal or have necessary physically implications is the primary reason why people are atheists.
"deffinition of evidence is wrong"
Not wrong, but limited.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour God is necessary a metaphysical concept -- otherwise, God, too, would need a cause. I disagree that "cause" isn't what it used to be. Causality is necessary for the field of science itself.
If one's meaning of evidence by definition rules out metaphysical concepts, then that meaning begs the question when it comes to metaphysical concerns. A throough, consistent argument should just as well count as evidence.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu A metaphysical thing is a supernatural thing, supernatural by deffinition is outside the laws of nature and outside the observable universe. There is no evidence, physical logical or otherwise ( based on my current knowledge, i still need that video ) that can prove a metaphysical concept. Though i'd love to see that video prove me wrong, still waiting on that link :)
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "outside the observable universe"
If you're expecting observable evidence for a purely metaphysical concept, then you're begging the question -- especially if you exclude a logical argument as "observable."
I have to admit, these videos don't fully cover such an argument. For instance, they don't include the priority of the unity of opposites argument that transcendence is necessarily the same concept of imminence.
The full argument would require a book.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu I watched the first part of the video, it doesn't seem very credible, but I shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. However, I feel I don't need to watch it all as I think one of the first assumptions it makes to base it's arguement on is flawed. "Also, any event woould have to take place in space-time, So events like "singularity" or the "big bang" cannot be their own cause." Any variety of string theory would answer that question, a multiverse would be a solution.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour This is covered in the next video, and my comment from it which would be the 3rd video of the inconsisencies of science:
- a non-caused universe, yet everything else has a cause
- claiming that thoughts are merely physical yet the mental image of this is immaterial
- believing that our senses can accurately interpret reality despite the brain not having been?
made to do so
- energy-mass cannot exist without space-time, yet it was somehow prior to it
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu Is that first part referring to the causality of the actual multiverse itself? And i'm not sure what you're trying to say with the other ones. I'll go watch it again.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "Is that first part referring to the causality of the actual multiverse itself?"
Multiverse is a non-answer for "first" cause. Just like Russell says in this video: If every other universe has a cause, so must the first universe. So what caused that? The only way to avoid this argument is with a metaphysical concept as a 1st cause. Such wouldn't require a cause due to its non-physicality.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu But if the multiverse is outside of the universe, it would by deffinition be metaphysical.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour Multiverse are universes beyond our own universe -- so still physical.
It's not true that atheists only value observational evidence? It's interesting that you disagree with this. What other evidence do you value?
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu Experimental evidence, but i'm assuming you mean that to fall under the catagory of observational, as opposed to the scientific meaning of observational evidence. But imagine you have two pieces of observational evidence which are connected but cannot be proven to be so with more observational evidence. If you could logically rule out all explanations but one, it would be permittable to use logic instead of observational evidence to make that leap and draw that conclusion.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "If you could logically rule out all explanations but one, it would be permittable to use logic instead of observational evidence to make that leap and draw that conclusion"
Thanks. That's my whole point. I believe such an argument is possible.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "as opposed to the scientific meaning of observational evidence"
I did lump experimental evidence with observable evidence, I admit. How would you describe then the purely scientific meaning of observable evidence? You're not the first one I discussed this with who brought this up.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu I don't think that's relevant, I accept your deffinition of observational evidence for the sake of this arguement.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@namesameasu I realize that didn't help my point at all, I was merely pointing out ( for some reason ) that a multiverse is by deffinition metaphysical. Sorry, i don't see why i did.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@namesameasu And I still don't see how by asserting that the universe cannot be created by the laws of physics (as we currently know them, this is extremely important) means that by default there has to have been a god to do so.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "by default there has to have been a god to do so"
Well, if non-phyiscal, first cause would necessarily be God in order not to defy Ockham's Razor: multiplying concepts beyond necessity. Also, only One "entity" could subsist beyond space-time: otherwise subsistance would be quantifiable, which would require space-time, and thus be inconsistent. In other words, only God can properly be said to "subsist."
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu Exactly, IF non physical. You have not proven this is the case. Just because we don't know how the big bang was set in motion now, doesn't mean we won't later. This is very reminiscent of the god of the gaps thing, where wherever we have a gap in scientific understanding someone will come along and say it was god. Those gaps have been removed and removed, and I don't see a reason why this one wouldn't be removed at some point either.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "god of the gaps"
If the so-called "gap" is well-defined, then it wouldn't be a gap, but a fact. "God of the facts" wouldn't have the same negative connotation. My point that is thorough, consistent argument is possible to fill in the facts, not the gaps.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu This gap is not well defined though. We do not know how physics worked at the beginning of time, so we do not know if it is possible to have happened with or without a god.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "This gap is not well defined though"
Neither is the physical evidence, though.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu I don't see how that is relevant. What physical evidence?
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour Physical evidence in general to show that first cause isn't necessary. I listed the problems already in the earlier comment on the inconsistencies of science.
Well, it was good talkikng to you. Time for me to go to church, as God has a personal meaning in my life, and I still side with theism in whatever agnostism I may have.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu Who says first cause isn't nescesary? I'm not arguing that. Simply because we don't know how physics worked at the big bang does not mean there wasn't a cause for it, and it most certainly doesn't automatically mean god was the cause. I am not saying there wasn't a cause, nor am I saying there's any evidence for that. I'm saying we don't know the cause yet, and we therefore shouldn't say only god is a possible cause.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@namesameasu And have fun. Far be it from me to tell you not to go to church, if that's what youre hinting at hehe.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@namesameasu I hope we can continue this later.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour Sure, I'll be around later some time today or tomorrow. Have a good day.
More metaphysics is covered in my third video: "god, free will, and eternity".
Thanks for your interesting comments.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu You too, and thank you for this argument. I'm very glad we were able to keep it in good taste.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@namesameasu But you seem to be skipping that and going right to saying it's impossible.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "But you seem to be skipping that and going right to saying it's impossible."
At this point, either way is possible. I was playing devil's advocate, in part, if you would excuse the term.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu What you're seemingly trying to prove is that the universe could not have been created without a god, that it's impossible. And there is no reason to think that because we do not have all the relevant information to draw a conclusion on this subject.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "there is no reason to think that because we do not have all the relevant information to draw a conclusion on this subject."
So, for you, agnostic atheism seems to be the most valid point-of view. But, even so, would you consider a thorough, logical argment may be included in possible relevant information just as much as yet undisclosed physical evidence? Then you should also allow the notion that theism may just as well be correct.
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu Granted those cannot be proven by physical evidence, but i'm sure there's somebody ( smarted than me) who could imply it happened logically.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour The point of the 1st video is whether an atheist would consider a thorough, consistent argument as observable "evidence." Every atheist who responded to the video said they would not. I consider this is a question-begging limitation on the meaning of "evidence." Do you disagree?
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu I would say it depends on the argument. Could yoou give me an example?
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SmokeWeedEveryHour "I would say it depends on the argument. Could yoou give me an example?"
For instance, there's the Cosmologial argument. In this video. Russell claims there's flaws with the argument, and another person may counterclaim what Russell disputes. Thus, to me anyway, and I hope to you, wouldn't both claimants need to observe the same argument in order to properly judge it? Thus an argument may be said to be "observable evidence" if hypothetically thorough and indisputable enuf
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu Having read the description of the video more thoroughly, it seems to be saying atheists only value observational evidence, which isn't true. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour When people say God "exists," they really mean "subsists" -- as a foundation for existence. Even Russell accepted subsisting possibilities in his book "The Problems Of Philosophy" when he referred to universals, claiming they "exist" in a sense of nowhere and nowhen. Russell was a great logiican, but an inconsistent philosopher.
"link the video"
Utube doens't allow links. Just search for "indirect Proof Of God". Pt2 is called "special pleading" but should also show up
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu I have to admit we're going alittle deeper than my understanding will let me right now. Could you please expand on what you mean by subsists as a foundation for existence?
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour In "Problems Of Philosophy" Russell speaks of universals such as "tableness." At the time Russell considered himself a Platonist. He opens the book by demonstrating that altho every one may have a different view of the same table, everyone would still have the same concept in mind. That concept lays out the foundation for the idea of that particular table. Altho the particulars may be disputed, its universality needs to be consistent in order to speak of it
namesameasu 8 months ago
@namesameasu Please link the video you mean, Im having trouble finding it.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
@namesameasu - By definition, Evidence is only classed as such if it can be tested. Explain the 'logic' of faith please? Do you think that 'faith' is evidence I wonder? If so, you need to review the meaning of the word. Oh and by the way... a true athiest will gladly accept the evidence of any 'testable' fact.
What's 'the devi' got to do with athiests though, I wonder?! I'm intreagued to know - thanks.
ianww8 3 months ago
We'll tell you what to believe and if you don't like it,,you're not going to heaven and won't get andy Xmas presents!!!
Great Vid..am learning so much!
1955JAFO 10 months ago
Hell.....ceased to be an essential item because of a decision by the Privy Council. LOL!
erasmus420 10 months ago
he rejected christ becos he wanted to live his life as he saw fit and be accountable to no one but himself. he is dead and not in heaven.
keeyk118b 10 months ago
@keeyk118b That is rediculously ignorant. Morality does not come from religion, atheists have it too. Saying that is saying that the only reason you're a good person is because you're afraid of the consequences if you're not, not because you're a genuinely good person. Which is a very backwards point of view to have.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 8 months ago
True Answer is revealed! "He who has ear, let him hear."(Matthew 11:15) "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them shall fall to the ground without your Father."(Matthew 10:29) The same way God allowed thus mass fish, bird die-off, etc... to forewarn mankind about the "Three Days of Darkness, Chastisement and Deliverance" will come. "I tell you all, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:5) Le Nghia, ”unworthy servant…” (Luke 17:10) a Capuchin Franciscan
le399 11 months ago
@le399 Silence, old fool. I grow weary of you and your kind's dying arguments and I must also state that many other people feel the same as I do about your kind. It would be nice to see you stop wallowing in your self-made pit of ignorance and actually fill that hollow bone of a skull you have with something useful. But it's up to you, I can't force you.
Gurgleschlortz 7 months ago
Listen! "God knows all things" (1 John 3:20) The reason He allowed such mass fish, bird and other animals die-offs everywhere... is to forewarn the hardened unbelievers and unrepentant sinners to convert, to repent while there is time. As Jesus warned: "I tell you all, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:5). Die to hell especially when the Three days of darkness, chastisement and deliverance take place. Le Nghia, ”unworthy servant…” (Luke 17:10) a Capuchin Franciscan
le399 11 months ago
@JESUStheATHEIST1 all must accept God's Love, otherwise, one lives just like is already dead with eternal punishment... and it will be too late!!!
le399 11 months ago
@le399 god is a human invention, so you are merely venerating yourself... pretty arrogant.
fatmeteor 11 months ago 21
@le399
A love one *must* accept is not love.
A "love" one *must* accept is called rape.
TomFynn 11 months ago 48
@TomFynn Exactly. Love is spontaneous, if it is forced, then it's for sure that it is not love.
mx574992 7 months ago 4
@TomFynn - How on earth is rape 'Love'?! Rape is Assult surely?! - the emotions involved with rape is probably either: power, anger, lust, selfishness, greed - but love?! Never!!
ianww8 3 months ago
@ianww8 The original post I was referring to read "all must accept God's Love". It is the "must" part that makes it rape.
TomFynn 3 months ago
Norbert Wiener and Wittgenstein were students of Bertrand Russell. And I think they even need to read Poincare’ articles, they could just go to next room and talk to Russell. If they want something to read, Russell’ super power to-be-able-to-point-out-what-was-truly-important was at hand.
There was a time when philosophers (like Russell) talked about science and actually knew the math. Now, we have a bunch of MQ and math terminology being misuse in postmodern philosophy and pseudo science.
German1184 11 months ago
this book changed my life
treehugger625 11 months ago
"God is Love."
le399 11 months ago
@le399 god is fiction ...love is fact
JESUStheATHEIST1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"God is Love." (1 John 4:8,16) However, No One can Save You Unless You Really Want To Be Saved! ! Read: "Three Days of Darkness" or "Three Days of Darkness, Chastisement and Deliverance..." in the Google.com, Yahoo.com, Bing.com, Etc... for more and be prepared to go to Heaven before foo late! Le Nghia, "unworthy servant..." (Luke 17,10) a Capuchin franciscan
le399 11 months ago
science has proven that the universe has a beginning. so there.
piouspilgrim 1 year ago
@piouspilgrim a beginning doesn't mean God. There could be a natural beginning, we just haven't figured it out yet.
idreamtofflight 1 year ago
Another thing about these old scientists - how much did they really know about the progress in genetics scientists are making today? Their concept of the origins of life without the aid of a designer seems rediculous when you look at the molecular structures of any living cell especially DNA. It's impossible to rule out a designer. You all should see the video - Intelligent Design - Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life on Google Videos. It's just common sense...
gtowr 1 year ago
@gtowr When we reach questions that can't currently be answered like the mystery of abiogenesis...then we should just jump to the obvious and say "God did it"? That is just completely ridiculous. If you believe in the Bible then you must believe in Creation or the Bible is not true and accurate. If you believe in Creation then you can't believe in evolution because they are not compatible. Since evolution is a fact that cannot be disputed then it would appear the fallacies are elsewhere.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago 3
@gtowr "It's just common sense..."
Common sense is notoriously unreliable, as science has demonstrated so many times:
Earth is the center of the universe, planets orbit in circles, light travels in a luminiferous ether, matter and energy are different, continents do not move, CFCs don't damage the ozone layer, anthroprogenic global warming is fake, quantum mechanics is rubbish, Darwinian evolution is impossible.
terrymorse 1 year ago
@terrymorse LOL epic troll.
TimMegrelidze 1 year ago
Religion is an obscurity yes, and people believe without adequite proof of fact. But I've been studying various religions and their holy books for the past decade - and the Bible seems the most compatible with reality and modern science. My point is... the people who discard the Genesis account didn't read it correctly and take it out of context, and those who believe in the Lake of Fire has taken symolic language literally. To me both atheists and christians are simply too narrow minded.
gtowr 1 year ago
@gtowr I disagree. Compatibility between science and any theistic religion is laughable and actually quite naive. There's more to the Bible than just Genesis, and if you think you are able to find modern knowledge in any sort of scripture, then why has it taken humanity so long to "rediscover" this knowledge and use it? The Bible also makes numerous false claims as well like its flat Earth and water sky layer. But if you're just guessing, you're bound to get something right.
CrazySatanicInfidel 1 year ago
@CrazySatanicInfidel I respect your view, 'cos its I've shared for a long time. I'm not only referring to the Genesis account... your example that the Bible says the earth is flat is incorrect, because Isaiah referes to the earth as a sphere - that's centuries before people had a clue. My point is, Science and accurate Religion don't contradict but explain 2 sides of a coin. Science explains how things work, but if you ask why enough times you get stuck. Religion explains why...
gtowr 1 year ago
@gtowr Eratosthenes of Cyrene knew the Earth was a sphere, and measured it to a high degree of accuracy. thousands of years ago. Religion explains nothing other than human gullability and imagination.
JimbleBass 1 year ago
@gtowr
On the contrary, religion gives no reason why things work, only that God made them so. It is not reason, it is your (inadequate) explanation.
That "God" saw fit to create Earth as it is not good reason that explains WHY it exists. There is nothing other than superstition to suppose it is so created. God creating the earth does not justify its existence, nor give it reason for it.
Science requires no justification of proof greater than reproducable evidence. That is real truth.
dontcallmebrian 1 year ago
@dontcallmebrian
I can give no reason why my car broke down. Yet my car remains broken. By hiding behind the means of not gaining enlightnment, most religions do not achieve what it sets out to do; to enlighten its people and bring them closer to 'God'.
riveness 1 year ago
If you must be a Christian then may I suggest: the Landover Baptist Church! The Landover Baptist Church takes the whole bible from Adam& Eve and the enchanted forest (talking snake and all) . It also believes in talking donkeys, unicorns, noahs arc etc. They don't do it cafeteria style they accept the bible as the true word of God.
somethingdiffereable 1 year ago
I live in a Christian community house and I don't believe in it, but I'm faking it so that they don't kick me out or walk in a room when they are praying and have it become awkward. So anyway, I was at church and reading Genesis, not listening to the speaker, I began to read about 4 chapters. During the middle of my reading of Genesis, it really became obvious its all a bunch of rubbish. I think its hard for some people on the fence to reject it only because so many believe it.
SuperJav1988 1 year ago
@SuperJav1988 then stand up for it. i know it is hard but stop being a closet intellectual. If their love and acceptance is solely based upon your beliefs? Then is that true love and acceptance? Yes it is hard to walk away from family, friends. You may be surprised who else is hiding with you (there are an astounding number of atheist ministers going through the motions only for their congregation. How terrible for both the ministers and his flock.
There is no place for truth in the pulpit
eahazell 1 year ago
"My "FATHER TAUGHT ME ...." BINGO! There's the key to the understanding behind all the false religions of the world, including the foolishness of atheism. The impact of what failed fatherhood has caused in societies, and their rank as the major culprit behind failed societies, is a Biblical Fact (Psalm 78 1-8).
Galloingoyland 1 year ago
@Galloingoyland Christianity is as provably false as every other deistic religion.
TheHigherVoltage 1 year ago
I think it’s reasonably safe to assume that this guy is currently swimming in a lake of fire with no life guard on duty.
dmh497 1 year ago
@dmh497
If your deity created a lake of fire to punish people who displease him then it would also be safe to assume that your god sucks!!
adamrosemead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmh497 "I think it’s reasonably safe to assume that this guy is currently swimming in a lake of fire with no life guard on duty."
He's where we all go...back whence we came.
TheHigherVoltage 1 year ago
Russel was asked what he would say to God if he met him on final trial after his death. He replied: "I'm sorry, but you gave me too little evidence to believe in your existence."
Writing from my memory so it could be a little bit inaccurate, but point is there.
dinamitash1980 1 year ago
@dinamitash1980: I think it was simply 'lack of evidence'. But yes, your point is there :) I can just imagine Bertie sitting back in his chair and looking the gods in their eyes and puffing patiently on his pipe, then slowly taking it out and exhaling some smoke, before saying it :D
mixali 1 year ago
how about some fucking visuals?
smilingasteroid 1 year ago
Bertrand Russell was a loud advocate of One World Government and had a very malthusian way of thinking about the world. He is also responsable for the creation/schooling of the russian financial oligarchs, being a great friend of the hypocrit revisionist Krushchev.
Sorry for the off topic comment.
Zamolxx 1 year ago
@Zamolxx
Yes, he wanted a one-world government, because he thought that nationalism was dangerous. Every other accusation you put there is false.
brightsuperstition 1 year ago
Catch up a little on the roots and activities of IIASA
Zamolxx 1 year ago
The date of this essay is interesting in respect of the first cause argument, because it was in the same year (1927) that the Big Bang model of the universe was first articulated.
Gazzar 1 year ago
This is fascinating, but I wish he dwelt more on the social-psychological aspects of religion, like Durkheim or Weber. I think people seek order and truth and for some order is more important than truth; they'd rather have an elegant picture of the universe than a true one. Of course, the problem is that a religion's poetic image of the universe is often sustained by other believers. If 20 million people believed that Homer's Odyssey were true, then it would be considered a religion.
matoushka 1 year ago
@matoushka
Then again, that might just be a divergence from the main point and topic of Russell's argument. But I still think any discussion of religion should place it more in the context of the social individual.
matoushka 1 year ago
I cannot fault BR's definition of what it means to be a Christian, e.g. Belief in the existence of God, the divinity of Christ and immortality through salvation in Christ. What is fundamentally missing, however, is belief in personal relationship with a living God available through His Holy Spirit, who Christ asked God to send into the world once He ascended (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-10; 26-28; Acts 2:1-4). Respectively, alike all rationalist thinkers BR could not experience the truth of God.
SOSADS 1 year ago
@SOSADS " the truth of god "seems a pretty vague fuzzy phrase. you could add that to what it means to be a christian but it still doesnt validate in anyway the main three beliefs. also if you believe in an all loving god then why believe in silly hell and satan. and what arrogance to say that if you dont accept teh god that i accept as god then u will burn forever in hell. its borderline sociopathic.
SelfAware1 1 year ago
He makes Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris look like elderly snails with emphysema dragging lead anchors.
jacksawild 1 year ago
@jacksawild i disagree but intense imagery!
SelfAware1 1 year ago
why doesnt one put titles on the vid? it´ll help foreigners like me
sofista86 1 year ago
brilliant
thanks for the uploads
five stars
moskablzit 1 year ago 5
lol. the internet, where someone can name themselves ZionistWorldOrder and expect that what they write will be taken somewhat seriously. hahaha, i love the internet
wjesse 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You dimwits do not even know the darker side of this man, Russel hold some pretty "unique" views on eugenics, not of plants and animals but of humans. He has some pretty fascist and nasty ideals for the future of humanity. Don't let his pragmatic side get the best of you, this is one asshole who has no love for his own mother. Please research Russels work on population reduction & how he feels population can be maintained in a low of one billion. Genious perhaps but evil none the less.
ZionistWorldOrder 1 year ago
Just because he belives in eugenics and population control alone dosent make him evil.
sulthus 1 year ago 17
@sulthus Agree, this people nonsense is limitless.
menonfire12 1 year ago
@sulthus Agreed, However Bertrand Russell did not believe in Eugenics as generally understood (like the eugenics based on social darwinism and scientific racism) but he did believe in population control, but we have the remember that at the time Bertrand Russel's reason for believing in population control was based on moral reasons than something merely political. In his time, Bertrand Russell believed that the population would exceed resources, so it seems reasonable for him to believe this.
philonous09 11 months ago
@sulthus Your right. There is negativity on the topic, but there has to be "some" control so that there isn't an "overpopulation" and so that genetic disorders are controlled. With the breakthroughs in genetics, we are probably close on the controlling bad genes part.
senor47 10 months ago
@sulthus Even if it did, being evil doesnt make one wrong on ever point ever. One should argue on thoughts, not thinkers.
Lazerisous 10 months ago 2
@ZionistWorldOrder Evil? Like religious levels of evil?
2003SCT 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear illuminati pawn Bertrand Russel,
you disgust me to my very core, you test the limits of my tolerance in my research of famous thinkers and fucknuckles such as you. May your torment in hell include witnessing the happy posterity of the world you left behind and what finally came to be the opposite of your vision
ZionistWorldOrder 1 year ago
@ZionistWorldOrder If it is OK to Wish the eternal damnation and torture of others and be a Christian, than I don't want to be one either.
pantheon777 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bertrand Russel you disgust me to my very core, you test the limits of my tolerance in my research of famous thinkers and fucknuckles such as you. May your torment in hell include witnessing the happy posterity of the world you left behind and what finally came to be the opposite of your vision.
ZionistWorldOrder 1 year ago
hahahaha, ur retarded!
alahossain 1 year ago
you are a phony hossain
ZionistWorldOrder 1 year ago
wow, my pride went right down the drain when u said that. and btw, bertrand was one of the most renown modern day thinkers as well as an adept mathematician. u only hate him because he debunks ur arguments so elegantly. u go on believing he'll be punished later on, ull never know though because when you die, thats about it. no mystical, soul-accepting, eternal reward and/or punishment is going to exist. it's a pity ur waiting for that
alahossain 1 year ago
What a fine example of a religous person you are. Wishing other people eternal torment in hell, how nice. If you really belive in an afterlife, should you not just feel sorry for Bertrand for not realizing it, and therefore condemning himself to hell? Why are you upset with him at all?
garemannen 1 year ago 2
Yeah I never really understood why people do this, if you really believe your god is going to punish all the sinners, homosexuals and atheists, then why do you get so mad? why not worry about your life and enjoy it if god is going to take care of them. I also don't understand all this hatred just because of someone elses opinion or belief, are you not supposed to love your neighbor?
shishymcgee 1 year ago 7
@ZionistWorldOrder This Zionist world order must be pretty new, right? You'd think if the Jews were running the world they would've done something about the Holocaust.
Oh, wait... the must've made that up, right?
hymnofashes 1 year ago
@ZionistWorldOrder idiot...
Jaipaii 1 year ago
You gotta love ad-hominem.
IVIaggotx 1 year ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He was truly a demented moron who will rot in the burning pits of hell.
MrGeorgios2020 1 year ago
@MrGeorgios2020
You might think he's demented and in hell, but a guy who contributed monumentally to mathematics and logic, by anyone in the field's admittance, religious or not, is hardly a moron. He did so before he even went on to subjects like religion, proving himself a genius before people even knew all his skepticism on divine beings and other fairy tales. Anyway, that'd be like me calling St. Thomas Aquinas a moron just because he was a crazy Catholic. ; )
CynicalSolo23 1 year ago 5
@CynicalSolo23 yeah i agree and why would a loving god give bertrand russel the intellegence and skeptisim then send him to hell for employing those gifts from god? so many fallacies so little time....
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@SelfAware1
Re: "so many fallacies, so little time..."
--
Why is a well-accepted naturalist scientific "fact" that purports to explain the origin and development of man from mindless, single-celled, purposeless entities unable to account for the improbability that the cognitive faculties spawned from this mechanism have soundly developed and are properly functioning to the point where they reliably reason and rationalize such a complex process? So many fallacies, so little time...
ThaShaper 1 year ago
@ThaShaper how does that in anyway support christain dogma?? i dont understand why that statement has anything to do with defending christain dogma and hell etc. i would love to retort but its so irrelevant that i dont know what to say. did i say that there was no creator? no im talking about the judeo-christain god. did i say that science has figured everything out exactley? no. sooooooo.....
SelfAware1 1 year ago
@SelfAware1
There's nothing to refute. It's a question. If you felt obligated to refute it, it means you either don't understand evolution, or you didn't understand the question, not that the question itself was irrelevant. Its answer certainly does justify epistemic virtues of Christian ideology; namely, that naturalism isn't a sufficient presupposition to science. It's a good thing we don't have people like you interpreting arguments, huh? So many fallacies, so little time...
ThaShaper 1 year ago
@ThaShaper Your argument seems to be this. " i dont understand how evolution and natural selection works, and once in a while even science doesnt have the answers every time. therfore i believe in a god and evolution is totally bunk".... so many fallacies, so little time....
SelfAware1 1 year ago
is this his voice?
MrQuasar22 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If BR was not a Christian, it was because God did not choose to save him.
This sounds harsh; but, it's from the Bible; ergo: true.
The Bible defines Christianity; not BR.
John 3:3 "You must be born again".
You have to get your information from the "real" Bible: KJV is a really good translation of the "real" Bible.
To find out if you're chosen, read "it" and follow "its" instructions: obey GOD.
Bible=Word=God
Paul tried to not be a Christian; look what happens when God chooses otherwise.
bfaulder1 1 year ago
@bfaulder1
You can't try to not be a Christian because being one is predicated on belief. You can choose actions, but you can't choose beliefs. You either believe a belief because you think it's true or don't if you don't think it is true. There's no choice involved. If you're implying that you think God has a punishment in store for Russell, you can't very well say that you believe in an all benevolent God or even a just God. Are you just a troll or what?
Debaser11 1 year ago
Hey Debaser:
Put the other way around: You can try to be a Christian, and appear as one to many observers; but will never actually be one unless GOD chooses you. GOD is in charge of His creation. Truth is what is: even though we don't know or understand all of Him. Truth = God. In His book, Bible, He says: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Corinthians 2:14)
bfaulder1 1 year ago
@bfaulder1
Well, I guess I wrongly gave your beliefs too much credit in my first response. Easily one of the most unflattering characterizations of God I have read. You're trying to defend Christianity here, right? Sounds like your god loves human ignorance and neglects a great deal of his creations. A lot like a mother leaving her child in a dumpster.
It also doesn't sound like your faith allows individuals to have any free will. Christians love to have it both ways on so many points.
Debaser11 1 year ago 2
Debaser:
Yeah, you're right, it does seem just like that: He's leaving us in the dumpster. But, that's eactly why it's called "saving". He pulls some of us out. But, He's superior to us. We don't understand Him. He tells us not to try and understand Him; but, rather obey Him: "Preach the Gospel to all nations." We can only do that by reading His book for the directions. (Isaiah 55:8 "My ways are not your Ways...") No defense here, just why BR was not a Christian. (After-life seems cool too.)
bfaulder1 1 year ago
@bfaulder1
If he has the ability to save us, everything we know about morality tells he shouldn't be picking and choosing who to save--at least, if we are to characterize this god as "good." It God's going to reward those who believe in him, you'd think he'd at least give thoughtful individuals like Russell solid moral (and other) reasons to considering how our brains are programmed to work. You still didn't address my concern that your view seems to directly contradict the idea of free will.
Debaser11 1 year ago 4
good comment
daizee106 1 year ago
Hey Debaser11:
(According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,...) Ephesians 1:4-5 is one Bible answer to the "Free Will" question. Although I can see where a lot of people got the idea of it from the Bible, being chosen is accurate: Election. It is His will; never ours. No free will.
bfaulder1 1 year ago
Comment removed
bfaulder1 1 year ago
Comment removed
bfaulder1 1 year ago
"Suppose we change the subject." Brilliant!
cablepanos 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I believe in God because of Russell's debate with Copleston.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
If you believe in anything for just one reason, that's a pretty poor foundation.
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago 36
Comment removed
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Not if the reason is logically irrefutable. Should we ignore the cogito because not enough absolute, and irrefutable proof was given? Your comment is absurd.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
@STFUNOWlol - First you said my thinking was intellectually damaging...Then you attribute insincerity.....I belong to rich philosophical traditions in India, where religion and irreligion are just two sides of the coin.. I look for a spiritual vision which sees the cosmos as the manifestation of a single energy......the one warning on this path is that compassion will be the compass ...
mayanma 2 years ago 2
Manifestation of a single energy? I'm not sure what you're talking about, the cosmos appears to be the manifestation of a single energy - the singularity that caused the big bang.
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
@STFUNOWlol -- respected sir..I spoke only on my behalf..and would be the last person to come in the way of the growth of your knowledge...it would be sacrilege for me to attempt to do so...I wish you the greatest growth in this regard...
mayanma 2 years ago