Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus

cjab

Well-known member
No it is not. See the OP where I summarized his arguments.

It was you saying you'd discuss this without ad hominems. But it turns out you had no intention of refraining from ad hominems.
As I said, one ad hominem warrants another:

Proverbs 26:4 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

An absurd list of strawmen. It is not an ad hominem attack on Christians to criticize Christianity. If you can't handle a critique then you shouldn't have asked for one.

Where? Quote him calling you cruel.
The word "cruel" or "cruelty" as alleged against Christians appear no less than 4 times in your own summary. Obviously you're into ad hominen just as much as he himself was.

He said "logically anterior" which has nothing to do with time.
Try looking it up in the dictionary.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
As I said, one ad hominem warrants another
You said you'd do this without ad hominems. You lied.

The word "cruel" or "cruelty" as alleged against Christians appear no less than 4 times in your own summary. Obviously you're into ad hominen just as much as he himself was.
Quote where he calls you cruel.

Try looking it up in the dictionary.
Try reading for comprehension.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You said you'd do this without ad hominems. You lied.
You took this as an opportunity to lauch an all-out ad hominem attack on Christians. And then, to cap it all, you appear to by denying that I am one.

Prove to me anything I said about Russell is unjustiable from what is known of him.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You took this as an opportunity to lauch an all-out ad hominem attack on Christians.
No I did not.

And then, to cap it all, you appear to by denying that I am one.
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Prove to me anything I said about Russell is unjustiable from what is known of him.
No. I'm here to discuss Russell's ideas. I thought you were to. I'm sorry to have discovered otherwise.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
You took this as an opportunity to lauch an all-out ad hominem attack on Christians.
You're ignorant of what "ad hominem" means. It is not merely an insult.

 

5wize

Well-known member
The thing that's always seemed somewhat off to me about Russell's case here is that it seems to assume the listener/reader is going through a two-step process:
1) Can I establish, through reasoned argument, that God exists?
2) If I can, which of God's supposed prophets/messengers/avatars seems to teach or embody the best moral qualities?

Now this may be the process Russell went through, but of course hardly anybody else approaches religion that way. Which might be irrelevant if all Russell is doing is explaining "why I am not a Christian." But if he's trying in part to imply, "and that's why you shouldn't be a Christian either," then I think he would need to address other, more common reasons for being a Christian: because people were brought up to be Christian and it's worked for them, or because they think they've had some kind of personal, revelatory experience.
This is actually a really good point. If we are asking Christians to argue out of where we are at as atheists in order to bridge us from there to belief, we should do the same. Why are you Christian? National or familial culture? Logic? Faith? Disenchantment with the world? Disenchantment with the self? Fear of Hell? Desire for heaven? Gratitude? What?
 
Top