The Ages of Faith, which are praised by our neo-scholastics, were the time when the clergy had things all their own way. Daily life was full of miracles wrought by saints and wizardry perpetrated by devils and necromancers. Many thousands of witches were burnt at the stake. Men's sins were punished by pestilence and famine, by earthquake, flood, and fire. And yet, strange to say, they were even more sinful than they are now-a-days. Very little was known scientifically about the world. A few learned men remembered Greek proofs that the earth is round, but most people made fun of the notion that there are antipodes. To suppose that there are human beings at the antipodes was heresy. It was generally held (though modem Catholics take a milder view) that the immense majority of mankind are damned. Dangers were held to lurk at every turn. Devils would settle on the food that monks were about to eat, and would take possession of the bodies of incautious feeders who omitted to make the sign of the Cross before each mouthful. Old-fashioned people still say "bless you" when one sneezes, but they have forgotten the reason for the custom. The reason was that people were thought to sneeze out their souls, and before their souls could get back lurking demons were apt to enter the unsouled body; but if any one said "God bless you," the demons were frightened off.

Throughout the last 400 years, during which the growth of science had gradually shown men how to acquire knowledge of the ways of nature and mastery over natural forces, the clergy have fought a losing battle against science, in astronomy and geology, in anatomy and physiology, in biology and psychology and sociology. Ousted from one position, they have taken up another. After being worsted in astronomy, they did their best to prevent the rise of geology; they fought against Darwin in biology, and at the present time they fight against scientific theories of psychology and education. At each stage, they try to make the public forget their earlier obscurantism, in order that their present obscurantism may not be recognized for what it is. Let us note a few instances of irrationality among the clergy since the rise of science, and then inquire whether the rest of mankind are any better.

When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, the clergy, both in England and America, with the enthusiastic support of George III, condemned it as an impious attempt to defeat the will of God. For, as all right-thinking people were aware, lightning is sent by God to punish impiety or some other grave sin-the virtuous are never struck by lightning. Therefore if God wants to strike any one, Benjamin Franklin ought not to defeat His design; indeed, to do so is helping criminals to escape. But God was equal to the occasion, if we are to believe the eminent Dr. Price, one of the leading divines of Boston. Lightning having been rendered ineffectual by the "iron points invented by the sagacious Dr. Franklin," Massachusetts was shaken by earthquakes, which Dr. Price perceived to be due to God's wrath at the "iron points." In a sermon on the subject he said, "In Boston are more erected than elsewhere in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! there is no getting out of the mighty hand of God." Apparently, however, Providence gave up all hope of curing Boston of its wickedness, for, though lightning rods became more and more common, earthquakes in Massachusetts have remained rare. Nevertheless, Dr. Price's point of view, or something very like it, is still held by one of the most influential of living men. When, at one time, there were several bad earthquakes in India, Mahatma Gandhi solemnly warned his compatriots that these disasters had been sent as a punishment for their sins.

Even in my own native island this point of view still exists. During the last war, the British Government did much to stimulate the production of food at home. In 1916, when things were not going well, a Scottish clergyman wrote to the newspapers to say that military failure was due to the fact that, with government sanction, potatoes had been planted on the Sabbath. However, disaster was averted, owing to the fact that the Germans disobeyed all the Ten Commandments, and not only one of them.

I think this is a wonderful statement on the fallacies of Christian thinking, examples that even the most hardcore Bible-thumper can accept as moronic, and yet, while everyone can agree that the examples given, like the lightning rod story, are evidence of faulty logic, most Christians cannot extend this realization to the myths that are still perpetuated in their religious doctrine today. I can't help but think it odd that while people can accept that possession by demons is an unlikely scenario, they will ferverently defend the belief(sans any evidence) that a man named Jesus was born to a virgin in a stable over 2,000 years ago and wandered around randomly performing miracles. Their evidence for this is a book that is blaringly wrong a hundred times over, and while they take this as proof for the miracles of Jesus, they silently pass over the sections where this mythical hero says or does things that by today's standards would be considered "evil" or "wrong".

Why is possession by evil spirits seen as laughable, but possession by good spirits not only a possibility, but as actual fact?

The power of governments over men's beliefs has been very great ever since the rise of large States. The great majority of Romans became Christian after the Roman emperors had been converted. In the parts of the Roman Empire that were conquered by the Arabs, most people abandoned Christianity for Islam. The division of Western Europe into Protestant and Catholic regions was determined by the attitude of governments in the sixteenth century. But the power of governments over belief in the present day is vastly greater than at any earlier time. A belief, however untrue, is important when it dominates the actions of large masses of men. In this sense, the beliefs inculcated by the Japanese, Russian, and German governments are important. Since they are completely divergent, they cannot all be true, though they may well all be false. Unfortunately they are such as to inspire men with an ardent desire to kill one another, even to the point of almost completely inhibiting the impulse of self-preservation. No one can deny, in face of the evidence, that it is easy, given military power, to produce a population of fanatical lunatics. It would be equally easy to produce a population of sane and reasonable people, but many governments do not wish to do so, since such people would fail to admire the politicians who are at the head of these governments.

I'd like to note that Russell wrote this speech during WWII, and it was published in 1950. How aptly it applies to modern American society! 20 years ago, Iraq was our ally, Saddam Hussein a herald of a new age in the Middle East, Afghanistan was reviled not because of all the damn towlheads from Al Qaeda, but because of all the damn red commies from the USSR. These were common facts, well known, as well known as the facts today that Saddam Hussein is an evil, insane, genocidal maniac, and that the Russians are not our enemies, but Muslims are most certainly a dire threat. We don't believe these things because we have any real knowledge of them, merely because that is the position that our government has taken. If anyone here has actually spent time with Saddam Hussein, or read any Al Qaeda doctrine, they would have room to speak, but instead of informed opinions, we are now encumbered with a national witch hunt, a crusade against the "evil" men in society, started at the top levels of the government, the like of which hasn't been seen since the Inquisition. Of course, any rational person horrified at the lengths people are willing to go to in order to eliminate their fears is denounced as "un-American" or a "terrorist sympathizer". Doesn't it bother anyone else that while bombings on US Embassies in Egypt and Syria or terrorist attacks on an airliner over Lockerby Scotland are swept under the rug, in fact, forgotten by this point, a few hijacked planes(truly no more serious than previous terrorist attacks) have galvanized the entire country into giving up their civil liberties and rights all in the name of protecting their freedom? If September 11th is a wake up call to our nation that we are lacking in our security, then we should most certainly take steps to fix the problem. However, what we have done is such an overreaction that 400 years from now, students will be studying America under Bush the way they study the Spanish Inquisition under Tomas de Torquemada or Germany under Adolf Hitler.

There is one peculiarly pernicious application of the doctrine that human nature cannot be changed. This is the dogmatic assertion that there will always be wars, because we are so constituted that we feel a need of them. What is true is that a man who has had the kind of diet and education that most men have will wish to fight when provoked. But he will not actually fight unless he has a chance of victory. It is very annoying to be stopped by a speed cop, but we do not fight him because we know that he has the overwhelming forces of the State at his back. People who have no occasion for war do not make any impression of being psychologically thwarted. Sweden has had no war since 1814, but the Swedes were, a few years ago, one of the happiest and most contented nations in the world. I doubt whether they are so still, but that is because, though neutral, they are unable to escape many of the evils of war. If political organization were such as to make war obviously unprofitable, there is nothing in human nature that would compel its occurrence, or make average people unhappy because of its not occurring. Exactly the same arguments that are now used about the impossibility of preventing war were formerly used in defense of duelling, yet few of us feel thwarted because we are not allowed to fight duels.

Don't have much to say about this, I think Russell explained it well enough on his own. Honestly, this was rather eye-opening for me, as I've always subscribed to the theory that there will always be wars, although I that the world would see much less war if religion was eliminated completely. He brings up a good point, however, that what we often take as common knowledge is sometimes faulty, such as the example he gave of dueling. It no longer seems impossible to imagine a world without war, if only there was a strong enough authority backing up such a dictum. Perhaps if the UN wasn't simply a puppet for the views of the American government, we might be able to see such a world...

Belief in "nature" and what is "natural" is a source of many errors. It used to be, and to some extent still is, powerfully operative in medicine. The human body, left to itself, has a certain power of curing itself., small cuts usually heal, colds pass off, and even serious diseases sometimes disappear without medical treatment. But aids to nature are very desirable, even in these cases. Cuts may turn septic if not disinfected, colds may turn to pneumonia, and serious diseases are only left without treatment by explorers and travellers in remote regions, who have no option. Many practices which have come to seem "natural" were originally "unnatural," for instance clothing and washing. Before men adopted clothing they must have found it impossible to live in cold climates. Where there is not a modicum of cleanliness, populations suffer from various diseases, such as typhus, from which Western nations have become exempt. Vaccination was (and by some still is) objected to as "unnatural." But there is no consistency in such objections, for no one supposes that a broken bone can be mended by "natural" behavior. Eating cooked food is "unnatural"; so is heating our houses. The Chinese philosopher Lao-tse, whose traditional date is about 600 B.C., objected to roads and bridges and boats as "unnatural," and in his disgust at such mechanistic devices left China and went to live among the Western barbarians. Every advance in civilization has been denounced as unnatural while it was recent.

The commonest objection to birth control is that it is against "nature." (For some reason we are not allowed to say that celibacy is against nature; the only reason I can think of is that it is not new.) Malthus saw only three ways of keeping down the population; moral restraint, vice, and misery. Moral restraint, he admitted, was not likely to be practised on a large scale. "Vice," i.e., birth control, he, as a clergyman, viewed with abhorrence. There remained misery. In his comfortable parsonage, he contemplated the misery of the great majority of mankind with equanimity, and pointed out the fallacies of reformers who hoped to alleviate it. Modern theological opponents of birth control are less honest. They pretend to think that God will provide, however many mouths there may be to feed. They ignore the fact that He has never done so hitherto, but has left mankind exposed to periodical famines in which millions died of hunger. They must be deemed to hold-if they are saying what they believe-that from this moment onward God will work a continual miracle of loaves and fishes which He has hitherto thought unnecessary. Or perhaps they will say that suffering here below is of no importance; what matters is the hereafter. By their own theology, most of the children whom their opposition to birth control will cause to exist will go to hell. We must suppose, therefore, that they oppose the amelioration of life on earth because they think it a good thing that many millions should suffer eternal torment. By comparison with them, Malthus appears merciful.

I laughed when I read the paranthetical statement about celibacy, because it is such a ridiculous concept, and what he says is so true. I, along with any other rational thinker, agree completely with what he's saying here, but to my frustration, the common and accepted Christian response is "We can't understand the will of God" or "God has a plan, and we can't know it". How anyone can revere a being as the epitome of good while crediting that being with the de facto torture of billions of innocent people over the course of thousands of years, I will never understand. You don't see people holding up Stalin as a paragon of virtue and charity, but it is unconscionable to question the goodness of the Christian deity, and if the accepted definition of good is at odds with the deeds of God, well then the definition of good must be changed. Preventing the prolonged suffering of millions is irrelevant, especially when it's the have's talking about the suffering of the have-not's. What is truly important is that those suffering understand that their suffering is nothing personally, and it's for their own good. Suffer now, but if you tolerate and even embrace your suffering as a divine punishment for the misdeeds of two mythical humans at the beginning of the world, you will be rewarded after you die! What a doctrine to propagate...

-- Sierra (Sierragrit@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005

Answers

Bertrand Russel has his own errors and inconsistencies. After all, didn't he make the absurd and tortured argument that promiscuity should be encouraged as a way to reduce sexually transmitted diseases. Well, we've tried that, and STD's have become more common than ever. Please don't quote Russel and expect me to take you seriously. As for the rest of you arguments, you're basically rehashing the worn old theme of the Problem of Evil. If God is good and all-powerful, why doesn't He alieviate suffering? Well, in a nutshell, it is because God gives us free will. You like having free will, don't you? You wouldn't like it if we were stripped of free will, would you? In fact, wouldn't you agree that it would be a great evil if we were deprived of our free will? But the suffering in the world, ultimately, is caused by the abuse of free will (which is, ultimately, the lesson taught by the account of the fall of Adam and Eve). God tolerates the abuse of free will and the suffering that such abuse causes, because He does not want to deprive us of free will. And, so as not to turn a blind eye to our suffering, He sent Jesus Christ to teach us how to transform suffering into a way to become more deeply united to Him in love. Read about the life of St. Therese of Liseaux, for example, or the martyrdom of St. Lawrence. They rejoiced in their sufferings because they knew that through them they would grow closer to God.

-- Michael Healy, Jr. (temuchinkhakhan@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.

Rememebr, seirra sint very Bright. Basiclaly, she is he type of Ateist that decided to be an atheust and wuotes other Atheist thinkers in an attemtp to discedit Christaiity.

remmeber, seirea doesnt beleive in free will becase "This is not he default Universe", as if God creaitgn the universe differnetly eliminates what we do in the Universe.

Seirra is a "Freethinker", whihc to her mans " I am not rleigious and therefore think for myself", this si why she qotes outdated and patently wrong matieral like rissel.

Heck, she even thinks demon possess ion is rejected by Modern Christains, and impleis theat Jesus didnt exist, and herslef says that Jesus "Radomly performed MiralcS", EVEN THOGYH A PLAIN REAIDNG OF THE TEXT, EVEN AS mYTHOLGY, REVELAS THAT MIRALCES WHERENT RANDOMLY PERFORMED.

sEIRRA DOSNT READ THE bIBLE, SHED JUST CRITISES IT. sEIRRA DOSNTHINK FOR HERSELF, SHE JUST ACCEPTS aTHEISTM AND ANY ATHESTIC ARGUMEN SHE THINKS MAKES HER CASE SOUND UNTELELGENT.

Relaly thohg, russles "Why i am not a Christain' has been debunked een by honest Atheist shcolars, ti sjust used online becase its easy to read an dunderstansd, but its not worht anyoens time.

However, if seirra wants, Ill go throgy point by point.

Do you want me to Seirra? Remember the free wil thread where yo where dashed to peices?

I will if you insist.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 10, 2005.

Incednedtlay Sierra, let snot call Jesus a "Mythical Hero". I know the Jesus Myth theory is bog amog atheosts right nwo in the internet, but lets look a the real world here.

If Jesus where a Myth, how woidl the movement start so rapidly , and why is it no one ever critised Christaunity in the firts cenury becaue "There never was a man called Jesus christ"? Even the CRITICS int he firts century accepted Jeus the man as alive, and Paul write f pee wo coild verify Jesus's existance whio still live din his time.

so did many othe firts century writters.

so ow is it this "Mythical Hero" is a myth?

Most secular hisotrians, including Atheists, accept Jesus christ a a Historical person, they just dotn accept him as anyhtign but a Human who got cricfied.

Only "Freehtinkerds" liek you who need to undermine Christainity use terms like "Mythical Hero". wudl you call buddha a Myth? I doubt it, but you hae o prop up yout hateed of Christaiunity, right?

Incednetlay Nohign int he Gospels shows Jesus dign anythign that woidk be seen a s"wrong" or "evil". Cpmmon "wrong and evil" things used agsint Jdesus where often just cultural points.

Do you relaly expect Jesus to act liek a 20th century American thogh? Is that not less realistic han expectign him to act liek a man form the Middle east 2000 years ago?

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 10, 2005.

Also Seirra,this si a rleigoosu board, not a politcal one, so comparing Bush to Hiler an complaning abot a loss of Civil righs relaly dosnt apply.Plenty of zthests support Bush, and not alL Christians do.

Liekwisde, I HAVE read al qeuda doctoine and havent forgotten Lockerby.

And I know what Saddam did.

Thats rlelay mor laong theloens if "CHristasn support Bush Athests dont, bush is evil therefore chrisyanty is evil", and dpesnt rellay apply logiclaly to the assessment since we ARE NOT here to discuss naitonal policy.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 10, 2005.

Thank you, Zarove. I'm new to this board and didn't know much about Sierra. However, I have here some additional arguments, which I will mention for the benefit of those who actually do want to have a serious discussion. You see, when I was studying for my MA, one of my professors subjected that very line of argumentation she is using to a truth table (a very useful concept stemming from symbolic logic, if anyone didn't know). What he found, to his surprise, is that it isn't even a valid argument. So much for the assertion that any "thinking person" would be an atheist.

Anyway, here goes. First, we reduce the argument to symbols:

If God is good and not all-powerful, then he is impotent. (W + -A) > I If God is all-powerful and not good, then he is malicious. (A + -W) > M If there is evil, either God is not good or God is not all-powerful. E > (-W v -A) There is evil. E But if God exists, he is neither impotent nor malicious. G > (-I v -M) Therefore, God does not exist. -G

Now, we assume that the conclusion is false and see if we can make all the premises true, step by step:

(W + -A) > I, (A + -W) > M, E > (-W v -A), E, G > (-I + -M) /:. -G F F TF T F F F TF T F T T TF T TF T T T TF T TF FT

In other words, this particular argument against God's existence, which Sierra and Rusell before her have used, is not even a valid argument.

-- Michael Healy, Jr. (temuchinkhakhan@yahoo.com), February 11, 2005.

The premise "If there is evil, either God is not good or God is not all-powerful" is obviously flawed. The first subpremise, "If there is evil, God is not good" is simply unsupportable by logic. The existence of an absolute (good, light, knowledge, love, life) obviously does not preclude the existence of a counter- absolute (evil, darkness, ignorance, hatred, death). Therefore the existence of evil does not contradict the existence of a God who is perfect goodness.

The second subpremise would be logically tenable if it were not for the fact of free will, a reality which most atheists therefore ignore or reject. If something contrary to the will of God existed because God lacked the power to prevent it, then God would indeed be impotent. However, if a counter-absolute exists only by direct permission of the opposing absolute, if evil exists only because the one who is all-good and all-powerful allows it to exist, then the existence of the counter-absolute does not contradict the fact of absolute power, but rather is subject to it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 11, 2005.

In a nutshell:

Many people throughout history have thoughts which we now consider to be outdated, and since some of them were Christians, this clearly means that Christianity is a fallacy and God doesn't exist. Rock-solid logic, this is.

Sierra writes: "I, along with any other rational thinker, agree completely with what he's saying here..."

Sierra, that's an extremely easy game to play ("if you agree with me, you're right/intelligent/rational/good etc., and if you don't, you're an idiot"). In fact, it's so easy that many children figure it out on their own and play it against their peers. Until they grow up.

So, why don't we put aside our arrogant little children's games, and let the rest of the world's rational thinkers speak for themselves.

-- JJ (nospam@nospam.com), February 11, 2005.

Please enlighten me on these obvious loopholes and poor reasoning of the highly respected and world reknowned Dr. Russel.

I'm sure most Christians, dumb as they are, no longer fear demon possession if they don't cover their mouth when they sneeze, or if no one is around to say "God bless you." When's the last time you saw a possessed herd of pigs run off a cliff? You know, from a strictly technical standpoint, I believe it's a possibility too. Of course, the probability is down there with every person on the planet simultaneously exploding into brightly colored glass beads...

The early Christian movement was not at all large or swift, in fact, Christianity didn't become a major religion until late in the 4th century. I would argue that Mormonism has had a much faster growth rate since it's inception(1912 I think?) than Christianity did in it's first hundred years. There are two reasons that you'll find no such criticism. One, nobody cared about Christianity because it was a relatively minor sect. Two, it is often theorized that early Christians did not believe in Jesus as a man but as a spirit in Heaven, that the Crucifixtion was the hands of Satan and his fallen angels.

" so did many othe firts century writters."

Find me a first century non-Christian text that refers to Jesus. There are only two that I've ever heard of, Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus and The Annals by Tacitus. Neither one makes particularly credible mention of Jesus of Nazareth.

Names please.

"Do you relaly expect Jesus to act liek a 20th century American thogh? Is that not less realistic han expectign him to act liek a man form the Middle east 2000 years ago? "

I would not expect your Jesus to act like a man from 2,000 years ago, I would expect that he would act in a manner consistant with the beliefs of contemporary Christians, else the contemporary Christian view is wrong. If you're not basing your life on all the attributed teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, you're either denying the validity of the Gospels or you're admitting that you don't believe that Jesus was divine, that his teachings are the word of God.

-- Sierra (seirragrit@yahoo.com), February 11, 2005.

"...most Christians, dumb as they are..."

Seriously, Sierra, how old are you?

"...of the highly respected and world reknowned Dr. Russel...."

Respected? By whom?

World reknowned? So was Hitler. So is Jessica Simpson.

(Ah, sophistry. It was so much fun in high school.)

-- JJ (nospam@nospam.com), February 11, 2005.

Please enlighten me on these obvious loopholes and poor reasoning of the highly respected and world reknowned Dr. Russel.

"Highly repsected" and "world renowned" doesnt mean "right".

Thomas Aquinas is "Hihgly repsected" and "world renowned. So is augustine. so is C.S.Lewis.

You think them all wrogn though.

Andf the logical flaws are that he is using poor hermunetics, doesnt calculate all factors ( Such as free will) and exagerates the choices down o a minimalistic scale, which quantum Ohysics alone forever desotryed during his own lifetime.

And I agree, sayign " I and all rational thinkers agree with this" is pretty danged arrogant.

I can always say " All rational and sane peopel are Christians" and se hwo easily that goes over.

Lets face it, even if you are shown the errors of russel, whih you will be, I assuer you, if this thread continues, you will just try to defend them, and when you fisn you cannot, blame your loss of an argumet on our srupidity and inabiltiy to see the ruth, leave for a couel of weeks,a nd return with some other pilfered argument.

Heck, ptoof that you arent a "Rational midned frehtinker" is that you cant een think for yourself and get your own arguemnts. All you can do is cheerlead other peopels ideas that agree with what you want ot beleive, wich, although not a flaw to russels work ( that shall eb expounded in due time) is certainly a flaw to your own claim to beign raitonal.

Modn you, using anothers work is not in and of itsself proof that you can think on your own, but to cut-and-paste it iht nothign but your personal praises attatched neither proves much more that you know how to Cut and paste, nor is relevant.

weve discussed rssel befoe on this baord. Ill try to fidn the hread. If I cant, Ill answer his logic.

Or others will beat me to it.

I'm sure most Christians, dumb as they are, no longer fear demon possession if they don't cover their mouth when they sneeze, or if no one is around to say "God bless you."

So basiclaly, all Chrfisyains are idiots, and all peopel who are Ateist are smart. dont you find htis pretentious, and les than a civil tone to take on a Chrisyain board? Or do yo think you are entitled to treat us like lowly minions to yor vast superiority?

How are you shown uperior to us by condecent and rude manners? Especially since you have yet to present an origional thought on this board.

When's the last time you saw a possessed herd of pigs run off a cliff? You know, from a strictly technical standpoint, I believe it's a possibility too. Of course, the probability is down there with every person on the planet simultaneously exploding into brightly colored glass beads...

You arent too bright, or you woidl knwo of odcumened cases of Daemon possession,that even Sceptics cant explain away as epilepsy. Bugt I guess we shoudl ignroe evidence, after all we are too bust proving bow styupid Christaisn are and how wonderfully intellegent we are...

The early Christian movement was not at all large or swift, in fact, Christianity didn't become a major religion until late in the 4th century.

Its goewht, however, was rapid in comparison to other movements. Comparable to Buddhism. Biuddhism didnt pikc up for 300 years, yet grew rapidly.

Most peopel arent Star Trek fans, btu star Trek fandom grew rapidly upon the releae of the series in 1966.

Rapdid gorwn tdoesnt mean instanly that its the largest religion around, that takes time. Hwoever, even Asimove, who was Hostile to the faith, concluded tat it wa rpaid, and that Jesus wa real, before you launch into "Jesus was a Myth and Im smart engu to knwo that".

would argue that Mormonism has had a much faster growth rate since it's inception(1912 I think?)

1830. The Hurhc wa orignised in 1830. And for soemone who said CHristaisn where stupid and braggs abotu her own intelelgence, don you think it woidl be wise to check facts fist?

than Christianity did in it's first hundred years.

This is patently false.

Christaunity gre w much more rapicly than Moronism in the firts 300 years.

10% of the roman empire was Chrisa by the tiem Constantine erected the edict of Milan.

3% were Christain by the middle of the Second century, aboitu 150 AD.

Compare that with Mormonism, 10% of te populac eisnt ormon.

Likewise, yuo forget to factor in similatudes. Chrisyaimity as gorwing agsisnt hostility asnd persecution, Mormonism largley as not. Most of Morminisms growth has been in the last 15 years, whe mormons arent regularly persecuted.

Further, yo ignroe the obviosu problem, Mormonism is not an independant rleigion that started on its own,but is based on Christinity.

Indeed, MOST Christain Docotriens are foiudn in Mormonism. One must acept the vlaidity of Christaintiy to be a mormon, as pposed to Mormonism, which can be ejeted whle oen remains Christain.

The fact that mormonism is dependant on Chrisyainity and alreayd based on familiar gorunds allows for conversion to be easier that, say, Roman aganism snd Chrisanity, which where worlds apart.

So, basing hings on bad statistics is largley a pathetic attempot to invalidate soemthing. And dosnt work.

There are two reasons that you'll find no such criticism. One, nobody cared about Christianity because it was a relatively minor sect. Two, it is often theorized that early Christians did not believe in Jesus as a man but as a spirit in Heaven, that the Crucifixtion was the hands of Satan and his fallen angels.

Yeh thats right. They cared about about Chrisyaiity to write volumes aint it, but not enough ot say "Chrisyainity is a lie because Jeuss never existed."

And as for "Theorising" aboytthhe early Christains, may I ask you, begn smarter tha me becase yo not CHrisyain adn I am, if you have read the earliszt Christain writtings?

Justim Martyr for instance?

Or Ignatius?

I can link the early Fathers if you like.

The theory that they ddnt beleive in a Literal Jesus and real crucifiction runs CONTRARY tot he evidence, not in favour of it.

The earlist Chritais kepot writitngs which both preserved critisism of Chrisainity and ther rebutles, and their own beleifs, which invalidates your thwity. Ask, and Ill link the early writtings form the firs cntury and ealry second.

Its wel cdocumented. As are opponants t the faith, which, dipite your claim that hey didnt care, where volumenous in ther objections, espeically in the rieghn of Nero, whichw as in Living Mmeory of Jesus.

" so did many othe firts century writters."

Find me a first century non-Christian text that refers to Jesus. There are only two that I've ever heard of, Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus and The Annals by Tacitus. Neither one makes particularly credible mention of Jesus of Nazareth.

Philo. and why aren they credible? becaus they shoot down your "Jesus wasa Myth" theory? Come on, this si stakcign the deck.

Vifrts you say they didnt care enoufh to objec tit christainity, now you want them to keep records? The lack of records proves they didnt ca enough to critisise it, yet t also proves Jesus didnt exist? This si a doubel standard.

One expectsbetter form a brilliant midn lik you.

Likewise, just dismisisng ecvidence dosnt woek. let me gess, you can fidn a Scpetical website to ct and paste form right?

Look lassie, the truth is thee are nonBiblical texts that mention Jesus. You may rejectthem, bu hey exist. The rth is the ealry pagan opponants to Chrisyaitiy did NOT think Jesus never existed and did care anotu to write agaisnt Christans.

The trith is you are a spoiled midnless prat who wants to flaunt how superior you are for putposes of ego who latches onto any anti- Christain theiry that makes oy feel good abotu your atheistm and then tres to use moronic argumens to prove how smart you are.

That abotu cover it?

Names please.

if I give htem, yo will dismiss them

How abit htis game instad. if jsus didnt exist and is a Myth, ho did the movement gain momentum so fast, why didnt anyone onject ( No syopid" They didnt care" argumet, they cared enoghh to write volumes agsint, and those are freely available onliner).

Try PRIVING Jeuss dint exist, a statement mae by idiots liek you who think theri smart but not supported by any crdible hisotrian.

"Do you relaly expect Jesus to act liek a 20th century American thogh? Is that not less realistic han expectign him to act liek a man form the Middle east 2000 years ago? "

I would not expect your Jesus to act like a man from 2,000 years ago, I would expect that he would act in a manner consistant with the beliefs of contemporary Christians, else the contemporary Christian view is wrong.

This he did, within cultural context. Contemproary chrisain eiss on MORALITY and THEOLOGY he held and taught. However, CULTURAL NORMS are not the same as either mroal teahcing or theology.

are you relaly that vain, arrogant, and midnelss that you lum them all togather?

Let me give you an example.

Jesus thoguth Adltery was worng, like Modern Chrisains. He likely also thoguht showugn he bottom of his foot to a host in whose house he wa in woudl be rude. we dont.

Jesus never taight as a Bidign doctorine not to show the bottom of oens feet.

But culturlaly it was a practice.

Now, learn this.

1: Jesus taught Morals accepted by Chrisaisn today.

2: Jesus tauht a theology beleived by Christaisn today.

3; Jeuss lived in a culture not the same as Chrisaisn today, and adapted the moral principle to his culture the same way we do to our own.

This sint inconsistant, this is simple logic.

different cultures breed different ltural behaviours, howeve the morals and theology remain the same.

Do NOT offer such stupidity again.

If you're not basing your life on all the attributed teachings of Jesus in the Gospels,

Teres that word airbuted again. You just live the idea htat Jeuss didnt exist don you? orgetthe fac that even the hardest core athstic isotrian woidl lauhg in or fce, the fac tis that if Jeuss didnt eixst Chrisainity is wrong, that makes Jesus not exist!

the extent f your free thinking is to regergeate other peopels thoguhts, and to use any and all Anti-Christaun arugments, no matter how sad and apthetic, t discredit Chrisanity.

if it discretics Christainity, its true, if it supoorts it, its not to be acceoted.

Do you honeslty exepct anyone to bother listenign to you?

you're either denying the validity of the Gospels or you're admitting that you don't believe that Jesus was divine, that his teachings are the word of God.

Again, ther eis a difference between accepting th Morlaity of Jesus, which is universal, an h theoligy of Jeus, which is Universal, and the culturejesus lived in, which was rgional.

Again, the "Queatsionable thigns he did" wherent nesisarily qieastionable if they where driven by cultural concenrs of the time. Hwoever, the spacific behavious in any givin culture are boudn to be fdiffernet, and what Christaisn hodl to is not Jesus's Aramic culture ofrm Palistine 2000 years ahgo but the mroal teachigns an theology.

Again, are you SO INCREADIBLEY STUPID as to not realise the difference?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 11, 2005.

This pretentious snob demands ''Find me a first century non- Christian text that refers to Jesus.''

Find it yourself, free- thinker. ''--There are only two that I've ever heard of, Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus and The Annals by Tacitus. Neither one makes particularly credible mention of Jesus of Nazareth.''

When they suit YOU they're particularly credible? ''--Names please.'' His name is Sierra; hardly a philosopher's name; and who would ever compare him [her?] to Dante or Da Vinci-- they believered in Christ and His Church-- But Sierra dismisses that pair, the apostles, the Christian tombs in Rome's catacombs, and this forum. ''Names please.'' Go look in a telephone directory, Wittgenstein. --You should find names to spare in them. Post back here when you've found a few you like. Or even better: post someplace else.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 11, 2005.

Sierra, someday perhaps you will realize that blind skepticism is no different than blind faith. It's the same error in a new disguise. You are no different from what you accuse us of, except that in your own life you substitute lack of belief for belief. Or at least that is the impression you are creating. But your accusations against persons of faith lack substance. If you, or Russel before you, had ever cared to take a fair and unbiased look at Christianity, you would have seen that the Catholic Church has always had a rich and varied intellectual tradition, and still does. You would also realize that in accusing Catholics of lacking intelligence, you are actually regurgitating seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century British propaganda that they used to rationalize the conquest of Ireland, anti-Irish racism, and the perscution of Catholics in both England and Ireland. Of course, such accusations were not limited to England. They were inherited by the colonies, and again used to rationalize racism and persecution (yes, there were religious persecutions in colonial America). OR are you hoping to start another persecution? If you are, please tell me so that I can sign up to be martyred!

-- Michael Healy, Jr. (temuchinkhakhan@yahoo.com), February 11, 2005.

ZAROVE, no offense, and I love what you have to say, but would it be possible for you to watch your spelling? Some of your posts can be very hard to read!

-- Michael Healy, Jr. (temuchinkhakhan@yahoo.com), February 11, 2005.

I';m Dyslexic.

I'd also like to poitnout to seirra that CHrisyainity doesnt suggest Compelte celibacy, but chastity. In other words, no sex till mariage. Thats not relaly torture. I know, I know , All raitonal epopel agree with tou, but my Psych book ( wirtten by a liberal dominated commitee at the APA and lalgey agnostic and atiestic in aporach) says that Men and women function best in he cinfines of a sable and monogomous rlationship...

funily, this is exalcy what Christanity ( and most rleugions relaly) advocate.

So, you advocate an encd of Celibacy to end a non-existanct torture, say " all raitonal peopoel agree with me" and compare Go to stalin for pointing out the obvious, that rampent an duncontroled sex drive is dangeous to body and mind.

Yeah how raitonal...

you wanted a weakness to russel, try pikcing up modern researhc on Human sexulaity, there is weakness 1.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 12, 2005.

I laughed when I read the paranthetical statement about celibacy,

Pity yo didnt do the smart thing an try to undertsand what christaisn rellaythink,and instad just took russles word for it, but oh well, why not just post what you agree with...

because it is such a ridiculous concept, and what he says is so true.

Its ridiculous why? becaue you have accepted the Modenr veiw that sex for recreaito is OK and no oen can do wihout , or if hey do they becoem totured? Really thats not proof of russel, but of your own inability to contain yourself and excersise any form of self disiline, which is needed ot advance in life...

I, along with any other rational thinker, agree completely with what he's saying here,

See, this is hwy no one cares to speak to you. "I, along with any other raitonal thinker..." so in other words, to disagree wihhte above is to be irational.

Yiu know, civil disagremeent f this libertine veiw of Sex occures even among fellow ahrists. It snot just Christyain stupidity that advicates celibacty in light of real fsacts, btu real fact shat advocate chastity since the latter has wroth more damage than yo imagine.

but to my frustration, the common and accepted Christian response is "We can't understand the will of God" or "God has a plan, and we can't know it".

To date, this has never been offered on this forum. To be

Funny, the "Christaisn can onely say "we cannot undesand the will of God" argument" is only use dby ahtusts to show how supid Christaisn are. I have yet to see a Christain acutlaly use it on an internet debate.

Atheists continually say they use logic and present arugmens and christaisn only counter with " we cannot knwo th will fo God", but I have yet to see oen actlaly do so.

Instead, several fune arugments are usually made that you, seirra, ignore then turn aroudn and lie and say this i all we offer whoel you propound truth.

The relaity is, your "Frustration" is a prop used to show your intelelctual superiority as a "Rational peson" as opposed o a "Stupoid Christain". yoy larched ontot he sterotype and propogat eit as evidence and reent to fustratiosn hat aren her.

Perhapd if yo relaly listen to what acula Y Christaisn say instea dof asumign they make this arugent because others old you they did and yo want to burry yotself inoyr Atist drvel, then yo woidl be frustrated.

How anyone can revere a being as the epitome of good while crediting that being with the de facto torture of billions of innocent people over the course of thousands of years, I will never understand.

God sin credited withthe de factortorture. you asusme that Humans MUST have sex, and to expec tthem to contian thre sex drives till mariage is unrelisic therefore Birth controle mys be practiced,and those who ay otherwise allow Childrne to go hungty, starv to deat,a dn go to Hell.

The problem is you have NOT approached this forma Chrisyain veiwpoint soemthign needed to understand thPhilospphy. Heck to understand hitler yo must adpt his Philospophy, if no in practie and fact at leas academiclaly for th ime of stidy.Instead you merley make asusmtion, as per usual.

You don't see people holding up Stalin as a paragon of virtue and charity, but it is unconscionable to question the goodness of the Christian deity, and if the accepted definition of good is at odds with the deeds of God, well then the definition of good must be changed.

Only if yor an idiot.

Your ligo is that because Humans sin by commitign sex acts, they need to protec thtmselves with cotnraception, becaue hey won have contorke ove rthmselves, or if thy do excersise self conorle liek a mature raitonal adult, they will liv ein torture...

Heaven forbid they just get married...

Then all the cildren will be born wif we oppose Birth contole because we wn sto; the sex!!! ( this asmes that the peopel who don care enough abouthte teahcign on celibacy wll care abouthe teachign on Birh corole).

WHats relaly laughable is how misinformed you are.

Youthink that God is evil and like salin for creatign all he unwanted babies because Birth cotrel is wrong.

Yet statisticlaly, communities whre birth contle is outlawed and religious beleifs high have few illegitimate Bieths. this as opposed to the society you advocae, where sex is allowed anywhere with anyone,btu Birth contole allowed.

To you this is better because we cn torture peopel by expectn them to have self conroel over their own live an dbodies.

So birth coteol shoudkl reduce the number of Illegetemate hcdlen, yet it INCREASES them. the advent of biorht contole is clrrollery tot he rise is Illegetimate Births and aboritons.

Funnily, your whole logic is a lie. Birth conrole isnt 100% efecting and only serves to increase the numebr of tmes one has sex and the numbr of partners which increases h chances of an unwanted pregnancy, and you call that"Rational" and h teahcign that one must contorle onesself irrational?

Preventing the prolonged suffering of millions is irrelevant, especially when it's the have's talking about the suffering of the have-not's.

This asusmes a sterytype. Yoiu think only rich and styipid pepel advicate his an raitonal ppel an th epoor dont, but the poor are usually more rligious htan the rich, and usualy benefit mor form chastity...

But hen you thouht Birth cotrel eliminated theprob,e of nwanted chlrnen, dispite the statistics.

What is truly important is that those suffering understand that their suffering is nothing personally, and it's for their own good.

Christainity twches that heir are two rasosn for suffering.

1:Sin.

2: ntural hapnesnce.

A freak sotrm may cause suffering,but is not diliberated or avidable.

Byt sin alwyas is avibable and alas causes sufferage.

Chrisyainity doesnt teahc there suffeirng isnothign personal. And yor an idiot if you think it does, especially snce you use a sophist aruent like " Peopel wont sp haivng casual sex so its bes tot use bith conole to prven h einevitable unwanted pregnancis that will reslt otherwise."

Before his Nonsence was accepte dby our society few illegetimate cildren where bron, now almost half of all chidlren ar illegitimate. Acceptance of both caual sex and birht contorle has NCREASED the number of unwanted chldnre broght intot he world, the exact opposite of what you think its results are.

How do yo explainthat?

Suffer now, but if you tolerate and even embrace your suffering as a divine punishment for the misdeeds of two mythical humans at the beginning of the world, you will be rewarded after you die! What a doctrine to propagate...

Again, our own sins caue f sufering. and the lifestyle toy advocate, that we shoukl allow free sex to end the tottute of eveyone and everyone shidl use Birh contorle, has resulted not in the elimination or reductin of unwanted pregnancies, btu an increatse.

In the late 1800's, few chidlren where Born outside of wedlock. About 7%. Not its baout 50%.

Nowwdays we perfeclty accept sex outside of marirage an h use of Birth Contorle, but the numb rof times we have sex and number of partnrs has increased, not decereased as Rusle thoguht, and it has also increased h enumber of unwanted prenancies dispite the use of contraceptives.

In short, al that suffeirng you wantot avid by the preventain of unwanted pregnancies has priven false. To end the sufferage, you remive Birth control as an opton and tll peopel to excersise restraint.

beleive it or not, this is more phycologiclaly halthy, andpysiclaly healthy.

Its laso not torturous. i know, I don goout and have Sex. Im not torutred.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 12, 2005.

'I think this is a wonderful statement on the fallacies of Christian thinking, examples that even the most hardcore Bible-thumper can accept as moronic, and yet, while everyone can agree that the examples given, like the lightning rod story, are evidence of faulty logic, most Christians cannot extend this realization to the myths that are still perpetuated in their religious doctrine today. I can't help but think it odd that while people can accept that possession by demons is an unlikely scenario, they will ferverently defend the belief(sans any evidence) that a man named Jesus was born to a virgin in a stable over 2,000 years ago and wandered around randomly performing miracles. Their evidence for this is a book that is blaringly wrong a hundred times over, and while they take this as proof for the miracles of Jesus, they silently pass over the sections where this mythical hero says or does things that by today's standards would be considered "evil" or "wrong".'

[great said...]-sdqa

'I laughed when I read the paranthetical statement about celibacy, because it is such a ridiculous concept, and what he says is so true. I, along with any other rational thinker, agree completely with what he's saying here, but to my frustration, the common and accepted Christian response is "We can't understand the will of God" or "God has a plan, and we can't know it". How anyone can revere a being as the epitome of good while crediting that being with the de facto torture of billions of innocent people over the course of thousands of years, I will never understand. You don't see people holding up Stalin as a paragon of virtue and charity, but it is unconscionable to question the goodness of the Christian deity, and if the accepted definition of good is at odds with the deeds of God, well then the definition of good must be changed. Preventing the prolonged suffering of millions is irrelevant, especially when it's the have's talking about the suffering of the have-not's. What is truly important is that those suffering understand that their suffering is nothing personally, and it's for their own good. Suffer now, but if you tolerate and even embrace your suffering as a divine punishment for the misdeeds of two mythical humans at the beginning of the world, you will be rewarded after you die! What a doctrine to propagate...'

[great said again,religious ppl can't think for theirselves...they form their ideas and opinions blindly on a 2000 year old and a 3000-4000? year old book(OT& NT) if it was said now in the bible that abortion and contraceptives were good,you'd all come up with tons arguments how good it is and trying to convince others that way...they don't form your opinions on rationalisation but accept everything their relgion tells them...a quite logic reaction...they find arguments for these things because they believe them to be god's word...they should first question the bible before taking it as a truth,but if they already are convinced that the bible is true,i think then that it's very difficult to question it...relgion makes people dumb in a certain way i guess,it stops them for using their own brains but makes them rely completely on things with little or no proof for it,religion works because people are scared and are ignorant of where we come from and where we go,people are scared of what will happen when they die,people have a need for shelter,people have a need for a saviour,people just need something to believe in...]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 12, 2005.

SQ, YOU LIE.

Religious peopel can think for htemselves. And to be fair, Seirra and you aren thtinkign for yourselves.

Heck, we;ve givin NONRELIGIUS answers for Aboriton and mopped the floor wth boht of you before.

The truth is, seirra and you lakc the ability to think for yourselves, but not becaue of atheism, but because you dedicate to yuor premise and prop it up with any argumen you find useful.

Then spread sterytypes, for the smae reaosn.

How is that "Freethinking"?

I mena, come on, do you rellat think tghat everyone woidl automaticllay accept Aboriton icff not for religion? And all peopel who think fo themselves do?

Isnt that moronic?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 13, 2005.