Bertrand Russell - Why I Am Not A Christian

An excellent point, UC. Thanks for making it.

I love the moniker "unclecharlie" too, by the way. One of my favorite characters from tv. William Demerest--great actor. Although Uncle Charlie is a Christian musician I notice from a quick web search.

Then you have not seen very many soup kitchens, food banks, social service agencies, or shelters.

Most of them are run by charities with no religious affiliation.

The book "Who really cares" is instructive for understanding the charity gap between religious/traditional folk and their more, let us say, liberal-minded counterparts.

Religion, like most things, is a tool. It can be used for good, or it can be used for evil, or you can find a different tool that provides essentially the same function. I dislike blind faith and willful ignorance, but religion isn't so bad.

true, we tend to block out all the good things that have been done in and from religion.
Red cross was started, pretty much 70 percent of all humanitarian aid is from some form of christianity, from feeding the homeless and building economic structure in Africa- they sure do a lot of good.

Religion is blind faith and willful ignorance.

haha I knew people would dislike facts about religious people doing good things.
Oh no! The irony!
Maybe some just don't want to hear it? Pretend human aid wasn't started by christians? Wouldn't that be nice.

Fortunately the gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with religion.

Nah, it's not that we don't like to hear good things about Religion, nearandforever. The bad simply outweighs the good. Although many great things have come from Religion & religious motivation, the idea of Religion has served its purpose, and it is time to move on.

You point out simple charities as being such a great accomplishment by Religion (do you REALLY need religion to perform good deeds anyway??), but what about all of the atrocities in the history of the world that have been committed because of, and in the name of, Religion?

Witch Hunts & burnings, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition (convert or die!), Slavery (once justified by the Bible), the centuries-long suppression of women, Proposition 8, ALL modern-day anti-gay sentiment & hate crimes, etc.

Religion needs to evaporate, and humanity will be better off.

What you say is true, near. In fact a book was recently written called "Who really cares" by Arthur Brooks which is the culmination of years of gathering facts about how the different social groups respond with respect to actual charitable giving and things like that. Well, it turns out that the so-called traditionalist and most religious people give more to charities--across the board not just church--than there liberal, non church going counterparts. It is supremely ironic to me that Dick Cheney, a man vilified for being all those bad things (white, republican, male, Christian) actually gives more than half of his income to charity whereas liberal counterparts like Joe Biden, John Kerry and Barack Obama gave appallingly little. Obama wasn't bad about 2 or 3 % or income (before becoming President and needing to appear magnanimous), but BIden and Kerry, two of the biggest blowhards in the senate, always crying about the disenfranchised, who in Kerry's case earn in the millions of dollars, would have annual charitable giving at like 1500 dollars.

You're wrong, Randall. Religion qua Christianity was most certainly not responsible for the Holocaust. If that had been the case then Hitler wouldn't have been imprisoning Priests and killing them. Also, Hitler was a pagan who believed that Christianity needed to be purified into some ur-religion that he imagined. If you read what he said privately about it he felt much like you, he wanted to wipe Christianity out and supplant with his own pseudo pagan religion, kind of like Druid boy up there.

And, while the church as an institution, had a spotty record it doesn't take anything away from the fact of Jesus Christ and what he said and did. It also doesn't wipe out the fact that in the 20th century alone, atheists and "intellectuals' acting on the conclusions taken from Darwinian evolution and Marxism perpetrated more misery and mayhem, killing and torturing more people than all the folly of the church in the previous 19 centuries combined. Comparing the pre-common Bible era crimes of the church to the the crimes against humanity by the various "humanist" political movements of the 20th century (Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao and let's not forget that oh so humanist cause Abortion "rights") would be like comparing a mote of dust to a mountain.

In reality, the hope of the world is still Jesus Christ and his church. They far, far out-give to charity than atheists and the non-church going liberals (that is a statistical fact; Read: Who really cares" by Arthur C Brooks) and there is no other way to account for objective morality save the precept concept that there is a God who says it is so. Other claims to objective morality are just that: claims. Darwin's world is at best amoral.

Hey Deophilus, you're responding to my draft. I initially mentioned the Holocaust because it intended to eradicate a Religious group (ethnic too of course), but I quickly realized it detracted from my argument.

However, it does not NEGATE my argument, as it was one example (which I removed within SECONDS).

So no, Deo, I am not wrong. MANY of the world's greatest crimes have been committed in the name of Religion.

Oh yeah -- I forgot Jihaad. Religion fucking sucks & it hurts people more than it helps.

Ok, fair enough. But your point does not countermand the historical facts laid out in the 20th century. Humanism, dressed in various cloaks, far outkilled the ancient and pre-biblical, Catholic church.

Jihad is the modus operandi of Islam and I'm glad you recognize it. That religion is a totalitarian system. And, if you have the time, I can point out any number of ways in which it is totally unlike Christianity and Judaism.

I'll let you in on a secret (obviously not so secret I'm here publishing it): I agree that "religion" sucks. Jesus felt exactly the same way, which is why he gave us a relationship and not a religion. If you study the gospels as I have and let him really get in your heart you will come to realize, I believe, that Jesus did not come to install a religion. He came to complete religion. "I did not come to abolish the Law, I came to complete the Law". And so I tend to agree with many that the religiosity that humans made out of Jesus is wrongheaded in most respects. That is why people who know him know that they have relationship with him. And that is the thing that saves them.

Here's something of an observation and a joke of sorts meant to illustrate. Christianity is a lot like The Grateful Dead. Not many people who really like music can listen to the Dead and not understand (whether they like them as a style or not) that those guys were very talented songwriters and what they created was truly unique and powerful together. But the dead head scene around them was often heavy laden with misfits, druggies and crimes and that sort of thing. So, it's like that with Christianity. I agree with the Christians I know that Jesus is the Messiah and his message is power to those who are being saved, but at the same time I look at the scene which surrounds this powerful and wonderful man and think that it is pretty icky. :)

Cheers.

I said, its amusing that people don't like talking about the good things religious people do.
Its almost like a taboo. Don't talk about the good, only talk about the bad so we can keep our prejudices and closed minds to ourselves.
Could it be that those so against closed-mindedness and prejudices of religious folk are basically carbon-copies of those things they hate?
soooo funny.

People don't exactly *omit* discussion of positive happenings by the Religious; it's just that Religion, by definition & self description, equals goodness. So pointing out good deeds is a bit, well, boring. Here, in this forum, we are in the business of pointing out the NEGATIVES of Religion, and those negatives happen to be quite detrimental to the very existence of Religion. Religion is more foul than sacred.

amen.

ah. I understand your logic, but a certain bias seems to filter through.
Being in many religious and non-religious groups of people, through all their asshole-ish qualities they have one thing in common-
charity.
While my friends from work, bands, and partying just experience a day to day squandering of opportunities to bring hope and love to people, my ex-religious "friends" (who kicked me out of their churches) actually look for ways to do good.
Maybe its just because I haven't found the right atheists or agnostics, but everywhere I look at churches, they are helping the poor and needy.
They may kick me out in three months but they still do their thing.
Weird.

The bad far outweighs the good.

Mussolini made the trains run on time- that does not mean he was good for Italy.

And BTW- the Red Cross is in no way, shape or form a religious institution. Christians make that mistake because of the cross symbol, which is also a medical symbol. It is based on the swiss flag, NOT Christianity.

and that 70 percent number is, simply, imaginary. Most of the larger aid organizations, like the Red Cross, are secular. When Christian organizations engage in charity, it is usually to disguise missionaries.

If you want this food or you want this medicine, you have to take this book and hear this sermon.

No one dislikes any occurrance of human beings doing good things.

The problem is when Christians claim it is in any way indicative or typical of Christianity; or even worse exclusive to it

For example, you falsely claim Human Aid was started by Christians. This is a repugnant statement- it pretends that all of the pagan world, all of the eastern hemisphere, and all of the pre-columbian world was filled with selfish bastards who never lent a helping hand.

It ignores that Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism ALL hold charitable acts as cornerstones of their faiths.

It ignores that humans since the dawn of time have aided one another when in need, and even built whole institutions for that aid, LONG before Christianity.

That sir, is ignorant and insulting to every single non-Christian.

Except for the Christian religion, of course.

You say:
"You're wrong, Randall. Religion qua Christianity was most certainly not responsible for the Holocaust. If that had been the case then Hitler wouldn't have been imprisoning Priests and killing them. Also, Hitler was a pagan who believed that Christianity needed to be purified into some ur-religion that he imagined. If you read what he said privately about it he felt much like you, he wanted to wipe Christianity out and supplant with his own pseudo pagan religion, kind of like Druid boy up there.You're wrong, Randall. Religion qua Christianity was most certainly not responsible for the Holocaust. If that had been the case then Hitler wouldn't have been imprisoning Priests and killing them. Also, Hitler was a pagan who believed that Christianity needed to be purified into some ur-religion that he imagined. If you read what he said privately about it he felt much like you, he wanted to wipe Christianity out and supplant with his own pseudo pagan religion, kind of like Druid boy up there."

...yet, Hitler himself said, rather clearly:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

Hitler WAS a Christian.

He was against the Church as a power that rivals his.
He persecuted priests and closed churches- but never renounced his love and devotion to Jesus.

Such is the nature of numerous incidents of Christian-on-Christian violence.

If Christianity is not a religion, it's a Relationship with Jesus, then there are no religions at all on this planet.

Islam is not a religion, it's a relationship with Allah.
Buddhism is not a religion, it's a relationship with your Buddha self.
Hinduism is not a religion, it's a relationship with your Dharma.
Paganism is not a religion, it's a relationship with Nature.

We have a word for these type of "relationships"- Religion.

I realize that religion is so awful that you want to distance yourself from it, but face facts; Since Jesus is not emailing you back or returning your phone calls, that is not much of a relationship.

Either he does not exist, or he is just not into you.

Instead, you have FAITH that you have a relationship with someone you read about in a book who died 2,000 years ago.

If that's a relationship, then I'm married to Leonardo Da Vinci.

Since you've admitted that there is no objective bad or good, the most we can say about Mussolini is that he wasn't successful. Moral statements about him are nothing more than opinions. If he had succeeded then ipso facto he would've been a Darwinian success story. The world of nature, as you have admitted, is amoral, and so notions such as someone or something being good or bad have no meaning. Moreover, statements made by atheists/believers in evolutionary exclusivity about how terrible Christianity is for not pro-actively opposing slavery from the start, are simply self-contradicting.

Interestingly enough I was speaking to a woman who considers herself a Christian but has basically followed the teaching of Buddhist teacher in Canada for sometime. He died in recent years. But in a conversation with her about him--we were having because she was astonished at how many tidbits of wisdom from my own life as a Christian were exactly the things that this elderly Rinpoche had said as well--she said at one point a student/disciple had asked Rinpoche about Jesus and "all that" and "was it true", to which the Sage simply glanced in earnest at the group of disciples and said "of course it was".

You can put down the church, but Christians of experience know that the church is made up of flawed, ordinary people who can't get it right. If we could get it right (and here I am speaking of everyone in the world) then there would've been no reason for Jesus to have come. That's the whole point.

Your first sentence is not logical. And so the rest of the post is simply a recounting of what you know little of.

Jesus is alive. That is the difference between Christianity and all the other things you listed. No other religion has a relationship with a person as the foundation. The reason why Christianity is not a religion per se is because it is not a list of precepts that require practicing. At least not according to Jesus. The problem with most Christians is they follow a religion where none is required, again, not by Jesus or his disciples. You can't become more saved by trying to be more religious.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

The Rinpoche that I was speaking of was the name of a contemporary Buddhist Monk who lived in Canada. The woman I who knew him was my mother-in-law. Rinpoche is what he was called.

Re: Karma: How did the Karma that mankind is supposedly "working out" through multiple lifetimes get started? I understand God's law of reciprocity but what force would have created all the "bad karma" to begin with? And why should a universe have any invisible non-corporeal law or principle like Karma?

I assume that should not have been addressed to me.

Wrong ,again.

Again- just because there is no ABSOLUTE morality does not mean there is no morality.

I judge people by my morality, just as you judge people by your morality.

To me, Mussolini, Hitler, and the Pope are all bad men.

Yes, moral statements are opinions.
That does not mean they do not exist.

Again, your whole concept of darwin and evolution is based on your total ignorance of Darwin and evolution, and your obsession in looking to Evolution for answers to moral questions.

That is all you, and all your projection of your false dilemmas onto non-religious people.

Again- you need to spend more time asking questions instead of making assertions about what other people think or believe.

No, it's a religion.
It is based on faith-based concepts like reincarnation and karma.

Again, you don't know what logic even IS.

My point was your statement that Christianity is a relationship is false, and I showed exactly why it's false.

No, Jesus is not alive. The word "Alive" has a definition. It's a scientific definition, actually. And by no possible interpretation of the definition of the word "Alive" is Jesus, or Elvis, alive.

You have FAITH that Jesus exists in some spiritual way. That is your BELIEF based on your RELIGION. It is not a statement of objective truth.

The definition of religion is not "list of precepts that require practicing". If that were true, than cooking is a religion. Computer programming is a religion. Playing the piano is a religion. Chess is a religion.

In reality, a religion is a set of beliefs that are held without proof or evidence to suport those beliefs.

Most every major religion, except Hinduism, has an individual human being who was the founder of the faith.

The concept of a "Relationship with Jesus" is a brand new concept within American Evangelical Christianity. If you asked any Christian 100 years ago if they had a relationship with Jesus they would say you were nuts. Jesus was their lord and savior not their buddy.

We have a word for these type of "relationships"- Religion.

I realize that religion is so awful that you want to distance yourself from it, but face facts; Since Jesus is not emailing you back or returning your phone calls, that is not much of a relationship.

Either he does not exist, or he is just not into you.

Instead, you have FAITH that you have a relationship with someone you read about in a book who died 2,000 years ago.

If that's a relationship, then I'm married to Leonardo Da Vinci.

You say:
"You can't become more saved by trying to be more religious."

You only think "salvation" is even necessary BECAUSE of your religion.

AGAIN- you have religious beliefs that you hold to so strongly you falsely think they are scientific facts; you even use those religious beliefs to reject actual scientific facts.

Now let's point out a few things- I provided quotes that showed Hitler's love for God and Jesus, and his statements that he is a Christian.

You showed quotes that he condemned Christianity.

Now notice what you yourself wrote in an earlier post:

"And so I tend to agree with many that the religiosity that humans made out of Jesus is wrongheaded in most respects. That is why people who know him know that they have relationship with him. And that is the thing that saves them."

In other words, Hitler and you had similar concepts about Christianity.

Imagine that, you have something in common- a "personal relationship" with Jesus, not a "religion".

It's kind of like six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
Just one step between you and Hitler- Jesus!

As I already said:

Hitler WAS a Christian.

He was against the Church as a power that rivals his.
He persecuted priests and closed churches- but never renounced his love and devotion to Jesus.

Such is the nature of numerous incidents of Christian-on-Christian violence.

My belief in Jesus was at least corroborated by witnesses. Your belief in evolution is just a blind faith in 100% unprovable, untestable hypothesis.

You know, I didn't think you could make a comment so stupid that I could lose all faith in humanity in an instant, but you have proved me wrong.

hey dude, instead of sitting around on your computer arguing about religion all day (which doesn't change anything)
why don't u get off your ass and do the stuff Jesus did? Nobody argues that Jesus wasn't a good guy, but you're not doing any favors by trying to passive-aggresively "save" people online.

No, your belief in Jesus is based on imaginary witnesses all in one old storybook.

It's like saying Harry Potter is real because all the kids at Hogwarts saw him.

My knowledge of evolution is because unlike you, I have actually studied biology. I know that evolution is an observed and documented phenomena, just as concrete as the fact that the earth goes around the sun.

I know that evolution is a key fundimental principle of biology- a cornerstone. It is the basis of everything we know about biology, and everything we have ever learned about biology.

Also, I know that the discovery of DNA- long after Darwin- proved evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And, I know the only objections you have about evolution all come from the 1970's, and have all been debunked long, long, ago.

Well, that fig tree he condemned to death for not have a fruit for him to eat might not think he was so pleasant. Just saying!

Ann Coulter is outrageous--because she loves pissing people like you off. It's what we used to call "tools", Arch. You know when you say something a certain way the tool will always react a certain way.

Too bad for the moderator. I admire Ann for expressing the deepest wishes of the Jewish founders of Christianity including those of Jesus. Yes, Jesus came to seek the lost children of Israel and so did his disciples. And, by the way, so did the Jew John the Baptist.

Since nature has no morality what is wrong with her statement? Also, what is the Iraq liberation act?

The argument from the majority is a logical fallacy, Archie.

Russell's quaint old faith in science to figure everything else has been disproved by science itself. The Big Bang shows that there was a beginning, for example, so the old atheist canard that the universe itself was eternal has been shown to be incorrect. Something that has a beginning and also contains information and is fine tuned for the existence of human life effectively destroys forever the notion that all we are is matter in motion.

And another thing science cannot account for reason. As Einstein said: The only thing that is incomprehensible about the universe is that it is comprehensible.

Your reply proves Russell's quote- you, as a religious person, do not understand science, and you twist it to match your faith. All of your beliefs about science are based on your religious beliefs, and both are wrong.

There is no "old atheist canard" about the universe. Atheism is not a religion, and holds no positions on any topic other than the lack of existence of God(s).

Scientists have in the past debated different theories of the universe- steady-state, oscillating, and big bang. Big bang has won, but oscillating might be true.

What HAS been shown to be incorrect is Biblical accounts of creation, and the whole concept of the universe being "fine tuned for the existence of human life".

That is like saying the muffin pan was created in just the right size for the muffins. The reality is the muffins form inside the pan.

Your entire position is based on putting the cart before the horse.

The reality is that humans evolved here, on earth, so we evolved according to the environment OF earth. Also, life durring the process of evolution changed the Earth to make it more inhabitable.

Our atmosphere was not filled with oxygen until microbes evolved that created oxygen as a byproduct. As the atmosphere filled with oxygen, those microbes died off because it was poisonous to them. Then, microbes that process oxygen and create carbon dioxide evolved, in partnership with microbes that process carbon dioxide and create oxygen, creating the delicate balance that our atmosphere now requires.

No primitive myths of magical designers needed.

Science CAN account for the structure and functioning of the human brain.
Scientists are coming very close to creating artificial intelligence, and creating human-computer interfaces. In the future we just may have the ability to "back up" the human mind to digital media, and then "restore" it to a cloned body.

There are some things you need to be aware of:
1.) Just because YOU cannot explain something doesn't mean NO ONE can.
2.) Just because no one can explain something NOW that does not mean it is impossible to explain.
3.) Just because something is unexplained that does not mean it's magical.

Good job. I could not have said it any better. I don't know why so many people think that atheist have any specific doctrine (canard) besides, "There is insufficient evidence to live life as if there is a god." That is all atheist have in common, and even that is debatable.

The thing that really bothers me about Deophilus's argument, is that it is from ignorance. "Science can not explain why the universe exist, therefore a magical creature did it." What the hell is that?

now you're showing your ignorance of history and unwillingness to think objectively.

No. I am not a Pastor. Just a Christian who has taken the time to understand that coming to Christ didn't mean checking your intellect at the door. In fact it meant just the opposite. It meant actually getting an intellect.

naw, he's a troll. They're simular, but there are some key diffrences.

Tell me, Archie, what was the Iraq Liberation Act?

I guess you know very little about any of it.

Compared to what, Arch? Compared to Rome? Greece? The Mongols? Where human life was so cheap that fathers had absolute dominion and life/death authority over their families. What is your point? The notion universal egalitarianism came from Christianity! Not in spite of it.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.". --Apostle Paul, his letter to the Galatians 3:28

Are you really trying to make the claim that people who actually practice the Christianity of Jesus (as opposed to folks who call/ed themselves Christians) pro-slavery? The Pilgrims? I think not. Anabaptists? I think not. Menonites? I think not. Methodists? I think not. Lutherans? I think not.

It is a very typical of the day in which we live to look at the church and ascribe all the evils of history to it.

Let's see how the shoe fits on the so-called humanist side. Would you also admit that the greatest genocides and crimes against humanity--all of which took place in the 20th century--are indicative of what men do when they are making up their own religions qua political systems and philosophies as they did in the wake of Darwin and Nietzsche? Socialism. Fascism. Communism. Planned Parent and the new "science" of Eugenics-- the direct intellectual child of the notion of survival of the fittest--proudly espoused by many "intellectual" "naturalist" thinkers of the early 20th century. The failures of the church don't even make a dent in the side of misery and killing inflicted at the hands of pagan (Nazi) atheist (Lenin, Stalin) political systems. If you added up every stupid crime committed by the church over the entirety of its history and compared with just the one "humanist" century (20th) it would be like comparing a mote of dust to a mountain.

Simply waiving a pseudo-historical and pseudo-"rationalist" wand over the church and declaring it evil does not make it so. The failures of the church while detracting, do not erase the church's triumphs. From the creation of most of the original hospitals of the world, advances in science (propelled by the Christian "belief" that because God existed the world made sense--turns out it does) to the establishment of the great universities all count on the plus side of the churches' accomplishments. I would also point out that much of the wrong done by the church was done pre-reformation that is before the Bible was actually commonly available. As the higher church government began to lose its power to be the sole interpreter of the faith (that is as people read the Bible, which I recommend by the way) it became less and less easy to manipulate people for the church government's gain.

I would recommend that you look into a book called "Christianity on trial". It may improve your view if not your vision.

Who is that, Hitchens? I really admire the guy. He got Iraq and the threat of Islam right. But he is unhinged when it comes to philosophy. He just makes emotional arguments.

Can you give me an example of one of his emotional arguments. I am daft and slow sometimes.

Emotional arguments are the stock in trade of atheists in my experience. Like Hitchens, they make illogical and emotional arguments like: Religion is so awful, it makes us feel guilty about sex, it is responsible for the Crusades and Inquisition, it stands in the way of science. All of these statements are short versions of the illogical and emotional *claims* of atheists. Tell you what, I recently listened to a video of a debate btw Hitchens and W.L. Craig, so I could use that as a constant stream of emotionally charged arguments of Hitchens but I'll listen to the one you presented and pull a couple off that. If its an atheist it is sure to be loaded with strawman arguments, ad hominen and emotionally charged anti-church vitriol.

Hitchens makes a famously emotional argument that circumcision is a cruel thing and an example of the many cruel things that "religion" makes people do. The argument he is not able to make is why, given an atheistic and material view of the world, that it matters what you do at all? He can't help to exclaim "My God!" because there is nothing for an atheist to make reference to to try and support the moral disgust at "genital mutilation". It is interesting to note that almost 2000 years ago, the Apostle Paul was saying much the same thing but in a slightly different way. It would surprise most to learn that circumcision is NOT a requirement of Christians. Paul told the early Christians not to to do it. But back to my main point: Hitchens here is playing to the emotions but not really making an argument. most clergy, like the two seated there, are actually not able to make the point that needs to be made, that without Theism in the Judeo-Christian sense and tradition there is no reference point for moral outrage. Hitchens is doing nothing more than obfuscating, which he does not get away with in his debate with William Lane Craig.

Again- all you can do is proclaim how you don't know anything whatsoever about Atheism, secular Humanism, Natural Law, Human Rights, Ethics, or any of the topics you are hinting at.

You claim Christianity is the only moral compass simply because YOU don't know about any other.

As with all of religion, you take ignorance and raise it to a virtue.

Intelligent Design is nothing but Bible thumping creationism dressed up in pseudo science. You insult the memory of Russell with your specious claims.

You don't know a freaking thing about it either.

Your post reflects ignorance in both science and the history of science. No scientist that was a contemporary of Russell believed that biological components were "blobs of plasma." The atom had been discovered, quantum mechanics was already blossoming and the complexity of the cell was known (though not understood as fully as it is today) when he gave this speech. Evolution was then and still is the best unifying theory of biology, based wholly on observations and has so far not been falsified. If you are privileged to some information contrary to this, please provide it.

Also not being mathematically plausible does not equal impossible. If it were a fact that the universe were infinite (which it may very well be, and is more plausible than god) than it would be mathematically implausible for biological evolution not to occur. If you are a Christian then you most likely already accept the notion of infinity so mathematical implausibility has no room in your arguments.

That post, along with your other posts, simply shows you have absolutely no knowledge of science whatsoever.

You have invented some imaginary concept of science that is just as irrational as religion, because the irrationality of religion is the only mindset you can conceive of.

You need to, first, study ACTUAL science. Biology and genetics. Evolution is not some notion tacked onto biology- it is a fundamental concept in biology, and is an undisputed fact of biology.

Next, you need to study Chaos Theory and Fractal mathematics. Those show how simple repetitive processes end up producing complex structures, with no magical designers required.

Honestly, you need to get out of the Dark Ages before you can even attempt to understand modern scientific discoveries.

Now THAT is an extreme example of pot/kettle syndrome.

This must be frustrating for you. I understand why you would get angry.

In reality, exi, I did not mean to imply that Russell or those of the naturalist orthodoxy believe in 1925 that biological organs were "blobs of protoplasm". You have to go back a little farther for that to Darwin's day. Darwin himself admitted that if evidence were not forthcoming from the fossil record corroborating his theory that he would be proved wrong. And in fact the evidence was not forthcoming--but the pride and arrogance of so called naturalists refused to admit that the theory could be wrong. So, some of them began to invent evidence. Lying and fabricating evidence is not unusual for such people. This is why in my judgment men like Stalin embraced Darwinism so fervently. It helped them to rationalize genocide.

Evolution is not mathematically implausible. It is a statistical zero chance of having occurred. So, no evidence plus faking evidence plus statistical zero = false theory of origins. I think Russell and Darwin would admit what Flew has admitted if they were alive today.

In reality, utop, I have merely stated the facts. Science is neither moral nor immoral; it is amoral. So science's "rationality" has lead many to conclude that human life, for example, is not so precious as was thought by Christians. This idea lead directly to the mass murders and wars of the 20th century which were created in the minds of people who bought science's conclusions hook line and sinker. Stalin comes to mind but there were many more. They thought it was their duty to hurry the naturalistic and inevitable processes. The same is true of Planned Parenthoods origins in the eugenics movement. This has lead to perhaps the greatest genocide in history--a little thing we call abortion.

Not really. If you knew anything about Islam and Christianity then you'd know the differences.

Don't worry I am not angry at you. I just want to help you.

Anyway, the fossil record is corroborating. Other evidence for evolution are homology, vestigial organs, the biogeography of organisms, non-coding DNA, the natural selection of bugs, viruses and bacteria when exposed to pesticides or drugs, documented natural selection of finches on the Galapagos Islands and hundreds of more specific examples, such as chromosome 2 in humans.

The fossil record shows most all the phyla coming into existence with no predecessors in the early Cambrian. One of the Chinese paleontologists who study the best representation of the Cambrian noted that "Darwinian evolution does not explain what it is we found". So, sorry, the fossil record shows nothing like what Darwin predicted. Like Anthony Flew and so many others who were adamant atheists and Darwinists, Darwin would've been compelled by the evidence to accept the fact that natural processes don't account for the "arrival of the fittest". Homology, "vestigial organs" can also be looked at as just-so stories which pro-evolutionists tell themselves. Evolution theory is full of story telling as opposed to repeatable, reproducible science. That's why intelligent people have been for a long time saying that evolution basically amounts to a philosophical research program for atheists. It passes none of the scientific criteria.

And your examples of adaptation are cute but they really don't add any more evidence to the notion that all of life arose from lifeless matter and then speciated into unimaginable complexity and order. That, young man, is just another story that atheists like to tell themselves.

Science is a very useful methodology for understanding the universe which is why Christians and other theists have always been interested in it. What is not plausible is the notion that the study of science should somehow preclude the design hypothesis. This is intellectual bigotry and nothing less.

Since I DO know about Islam and Christianity with an objectivity one can only obtain by not being a Muslim or a Christian, oh and actual research instead of what they tell you in Church, I know that they are two sides of the same coin.

Both are equally irrational, and both result in extreme violence when allowed to take power over government. When they have no claws and no teeth, both can be harmless. Stupid, but harmless.

I suggest you study this yourself instead of throwing out references to some unnamed Chinese paleontologist and the non-scientist Anthony Flew. Why do these peoples views hold so much weight to you over the thousands of scientists who realize that evolution is currently the best unifying theory of biology.

My theory makes sense of flightless birds, the human appendix, hind leg bones in snakes and whales, and non-seeing eyes in moles and some fish. Why would your god create these flaws?

The evidence of evolution can be repeatably observed and outcomes reproduced.

Atheists always resort to insults of people when those people are famous converts from atheism. Atheist eat their apostates to be sure. The Chinese paleontologist is the preeminent one in the world studying the Cambrian strata. He famously quipped that "In China you can't criticize government, but you can criticize Darwin; while in America you can criticize the government but you can't criticize Darwin". He was right. Darwin is the state run religion of human secularism.

Who did I insult? Why not address my questions and statements? And who is this Chinese scientist?

I am critical of all types of religion. I can't buy into your example, because as I understand it you're saying that the presence of morals is proof of God. I would say that it is the presence of humans developing common order within our societies and then creating a basis for those morals. I don't think we're inclined to have morals; its learned.

First off, if you have been on this site long enough, you would know that Islam is not immune from smear or attack.

Just because a person thinks that there should be an existence of objective moral values preceding the existence of man, doesn't mean there is. First, you need to prove that objective, a priori moral values do exist, before you can say that they are proof of god. Though, I would argue that in a pragmatic sense objective moral values do exist as a result of thousands of years of traditions, beliefs, social contract, and humanity's general drive to reduce pain and increase pleasure. I would point out that just because a moral value is drawn from a belief, does not give that belief any more weight. Furthermore, though I disagree with your assessment that "people who like to think of themselves as "rational" must borrow the Christian worldview to be coherent when discussing moral values." It is only true in-so-far as there is a large population of people who hold a Christian worldview and that it is they who cannot make sense out of competing worldviews. In addition, from a historical perspective the moral values of Christianity are borrowed from older beliefs and traditions.

"Common order" is not the same thing as *knowing* that torturing kittens is wrong. You can say torturing kittens is wrong but there is not reason in nature why that should be so. It is the same thing with human social groups. According to naturalism there is absolutely no objective reason why I should not--if I could get away with it--kill my neighbor, take his money, his wife as my own. Then I would be proving out nature's maxim to survive. The only thing immoral in nature is failure to procreate. Everything else is objectively up for grabs.

It increases the pleasure of some to torture animals. Why would that be morally wrong?

First off, I think you are under the false impression that I believe that things that bring pleasure are moral. While I am sure there are some actions that I would believe are moral solely because they bring pleasure, rarely is pleasure the only thing that makes an act moral and sometimes pleasurable actions are immoral, in my view. I think torturing kittens is morally wrong first because it brings pain to the kittens. It also brings pain to those who empathize with the kittens. Pain is unpleasant. I do not want to promote a world where unpleasantness is commonplace. By saying it is okay for a person to bring pain to kittens is, in essence, I am saying it is alright for them to bring pain to other living things, including me.

Also one must recognize that there are individuals not capable of self-government and creating their own moral code and values. In that way, I would say that the person torturing cats was deficient. In the same way most Christians would not hold a person who was mentally retarded to the same moral standards as an average person.

Exi, what you *think* has nothing to do with what objectively *is*. Whether you believe that some experience is "unpleasant" or not has nothing to do with what we can truly know is an objectively immoral or moral act. Objective morality is not a matter of what someone thinks, because if it were then it would only take one person thinking differently to make it not so. It is not a majority rule proposition. It has nothing to do with how you *feel*.

now, go back and reread my post and see if you can understand what I'm talking about.

There are absolutely no human beings that are even remotely like what you describe.

That's like saying that if a Vegetarian is speaking out against slaughtering cows for meat, that they somehow suport eating pork or poultry.

When people speak out against Christianity (almost always people like myself who know more about Christianity than most Christians) it is because they are speaking to a Christian audience.

This is an English-language website, and most of the English-speaking world is Christian.

Yes, people in Islamic countries get killed for criticizing Islam, and people in Christian-majority countries are no longer killed as often for criticizing Christianity. You falsely suggest that is because of superiority of Christianity.

It is simply because Christianity no longer controls the government the way Islam controls their governments. When Christianity DID control the government, we called that the Dark Ages.

The middle east is currently in the Dark Ages of Islam.

And as someone who has studied ethics extensively, I can tell you that not only is your conclusion false, it is the exact OPOSITE of the truth.

By ascribing morals to a mythical figure you do NOT end up with "objective moral values", you get arbitrary moral codes.

Shaving your beard? Imoral. Why? God says so.
Not wearing a hat in public? Imoral. Why? God says so.
Slavery? Fine and dandy! Why? God says so.

You end up with moral codes that vary from culture to culture, era to era, and person to person.

Do you base YOUR morals on the Bible? I certainly hope not. Have you Read the Bible? To construct a moral code from it you need to ignore most of it. To ignore most of it, you need to base your moral beliefs on something other than it.

And that is what you do without even realizing it.

Consistant morals come from Secular reason, NEVER from religion.

First come initial assertions- Human rights.
Then, come ethics based on those Human rights.

Is Murder OK? No, because that is one human being taking the life of another.
Is theft OK? No, because that is one human being stealing from another.

Is shaving OK? No one is hurt by it, so it's fine!

See, each rule is based on REASON, which is based on the initial assertion- Human RIghts.

Not arbitrary magical rules in ancient books.

Oh, I know you will not understand any of this, but I would encourage you to think before you blast off into knee-jerk reply mode and ask yourself: How do I know that moral reprehensibility exists from a divine being, when concepts of who that divine being is and what they consider imoral varies from culture to culture, era to era, and person to person?

Get ten Christians in a room, and ask them their views on contraceptives, same-sex marriage, abortion, capital punishment, pre-marital sex, smoking pot, or any of a number of modern moral issues.

You will get ten different sets of views, and all will clame their views are the views of God.

If you were a logical, rational person, that would be enough to disprove your concept of morality.

I never said that morality could be defined objectively. In fact, I tasked you to prove that such a thing as objective moral value exists.

You say:
"You can say torturing kittens is wrong but there is not reason in nature why that should be so."

What you are saying is that you do not understand nature.

Among our many natural instincts are Alturism and Empathy.

Empathy allows us to realize when others experience pain or pleasure from our previous experiences of pain and pleasure.

Alturism is our desire to help others in need.

Both are purely instinctual behavior.

But, in your example there is a cultural component- we place cats and dogs on a pedestal, and treat cows and chickens as food. Other cultures will have different animals they emotionally bond with, and different ones they emotionally distance themselves from.

You say:
"Then I would be proving out nature's maxim to survive. The only thing immoral in nature is failure to procreate. Everything else is objectively up for grabs"

Again- all you are doing is continually demonstrating your lack of understanding of science. You need to read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It explains clearly why it is NOT about individuals procreating, it is about genomes replicating.

That means the more similar another organism is to us genetically, the more invested we are in it's survival. Our children and immediate family are first- we would die for them, especially if they are younger then we are.

Then comes our tribe or village. a cohesive unit, like a pack, aids in the survival of all of the members of the group. That is why is is NOT in your best intrest to kill your neighbor.

Then comes our race or species. Humans will unite together against non-human agressors; many tribes will join together to kil a group of lions that are threatening them. That is because al humans share similar genetic traits that lions do not.

It is always "us against them" at various levels of "us" and "them". Those levels allow for alturism and empathy to factor in.

Yes, I know none of this will sink in, and you will continue to repeat your pseudo-scientific notions of nature breeding sociopaths, because you need to cling to that to suport your faith.

It's not like a religious person is capable of learning new things, are you?
Let's find out!

In some cultures, it is not.

It varies from culture to culture, era to era, and person to person.

Have you ever been to a fancy seafood restaurant, with a live lobster tank? You pick one, and it will be dropped alive into a vat of boiling water. In our culture, that's OK. In others, it is not.

Have you ever seen a dog fight? In some parts of the US, that's OK. In others, and in the law, it is not.

Now, show me where in the Bible it says humans should not torture animals.

What you *feel* or what people in general *think* has nothing to do with an objectively valid moral proposition. You can think that you are more-moral than Christians but you have no way of knowing that unless you borrow the morality of Christians (beginning with Jesus). If slavery is immoral its not because someone wrote it in a book, its because it is objectively wrong. The dilemma for the so called "rationalist" is that the nature (of science) presents no such thing. Your morality is arbitrary and is no basis for criticism of Christianity. In fact "your" morality was used to rationalize the most horrific crimes in history.

To clarify, by "in a pragmatic sense objective moral values do exist." I simply meant that there are many moral values that people merely accept, due to the things I mentioned, without truly understanding the underlying reason for why other people see that concept or action as morally valuable. It seems to these unquestioning individuals that certain acts or things have moral value in themselves, but they do not. Also, if every person on earth, after rational pondering, came to the conclusion that life held moral value to them. It would still be a subjective value. That being the case, it may be more accurate to say that universal moral values can exist, but objective moral values cannot. Though, a person could argue that once something has became a universal moral value it becomes morally valuable in-itself. This objective moral value would then come from humans and not a god.

All values are based on the culture to which they are relevant. I guess we can stick with the 'killing kittens' argument and I'll posit that the belief that their torture is wrong is informed socially and internally constructed by the individual. Is the argument here really that morals exist in the ethereal because they were created by a superior being and because we were made in his image we latch onto them in a way that say other animals cannot?