Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Objection - hearsay.
This is not the witness's direct testimony.
Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus
- Thread starter Nouveau
- Start date
This is not the witness's direct testimony.
I don't get it.
You said God was guilty of contributory fault.
Yet you don't act like He is.
If I honestly thought that tiger I'm in the vicinity of is a man-eater, I wouldn't stand around discussing it with those standing around.
I'd skedaddle.
I'm amazed at how people can talk all day about what a tyrant God is, then go to bed and sleep like a baby.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Do you not know that I'm an atheist? I do not believe God exists. I am talking about the narrative as described in the bible, although I do not believe it to be true.
It's akin to having a discussion on what Sauron did and what he's responsible for...except some people actually believe Sauron exists.
John wrote by the Holy Spirit, from Christ. And John was himself a witness to all that was said. So direct testimony.
You haven't explained why. Do you think one can be a Christian without believing in God? Without believing in an afterlife? Or without believing that Jesus was at least the best and wisest of men?
That's not his argument. He is rather pointing out that if God can be an exception to all things needing a cause, then so can the universe. The first cause argument is unsupported on both premises.
But you don't say how. Mere disagreement is not a refutation.
Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in science, and claiming it is 'only' a theory betrays a lack of understanding of what 'theory' means in science. You've also only addressed a small part of what Russell was saying about the design argument.
This doesn't address Euthyphro's dilemma at all. You might as well be stamping your foot and insisting "He just doesn't understand!". This doesn't amount to a rebuttal.
He doesn't. That's Russell's point. The rational person sees such things and concludes that the world is lacking in justice. The religious wishful thinker sees this and assumes there must be justice somewhere else to make up for the lack we see.
Which of course does not address Russell's points of criticism in the slightest, unless you're trying to show that Christ also lacked humility.
Yet you don't show how, once again presenting nothing that amounts to a rebuttal. What fallacious assumption? You haven't addressed the quotes from scripture he gave in support of his point.
Which again does not address Russell's criticism.
Okay.
Russell's point is that many things labelled as sin have nothing to do with immorality.
Christianity is a religion, and Russell's point is that all religions, but specifically Christianity, are founded on fear of death and fear of the unknown.
Morality does not require a law-giver any more than the laws of nature do. You are merely repeating an argument here that Russell directly refutes in the essay with Euthyphro's Dilemma: "The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that He made them."
I appreciate you being one of the very few to attempt a full rebuttal, and thank you for your post. But I'm saddened to see yet another poster compelled to resort to a blatant ad hominem against Russell. It seems he really gets under the skin of some people, making them want to attack him instead of his arguments.
RCM
Active member
We are talking about what defines a person as a true Christian and the primary qualification is that a person admits they are a lost sinner, separated from God and without hope in the world. And death is evidence of mankind's sinful and condemned state. Russell completely misses it entirely.
As for believing in God, the afterlife, and Jesus..........the demons are not Christian and they believe and shudder (James 2:19) and so should Russell and anyone else who refuses to repent of their sin
RCM
RCM
Active member
Russell is grasping at strawmen, because scientists know that the universe was not always there and that DNA was not always there (reference Dr. John Lennox)
As for God of the Bible, He is primary, and what we know about God can only be known by what He has revealed about Himself
RCM
RCM
Active member
Romans 1:18-22, states, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools."
God's word in Romans 1 emphatically states that Russell is wrong
RCM
22 October 4004 BC et prior.
Unsupported that the universe began then, or that there was any time before the universe.
Science is myopic.
Take a hike.
RCM
Active member
Don't make me laugh, theory is theory and fact is fact
Provide just one example of progeny that doesn't follow the law of heredity, there isn't one
Russell nor you have no answer for the existence of language, reason, conscience, and personality apart from the existence of a personal God
RCM
And the one does not become the other. Theories explain facts. Highly successful theories like evolution explain a lot of facts.
Evolution does not deny heredity, and in fact requires it. Mutation is also a source of novel traits.
The things you list arise from evolution and socio-cultural development. There's no reason to think a supernatural being was ever involved.
But this isn't really the place to debate evolution, so if you're going to challenge Russell's point that evolution undercuts the design argument, then I'll just note that this move further supports his other point about how religion impedes progress.
Last edited:
Surely you saw that coming?
Yes, your trolling is very predictable. Now take a hike.