tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6317862370609615355.post6632566747112059776..comments2023-09-02T09:33:47.693-04:00Comments on Atheism Presupposes Theism: Interlude: "Why Bertrand Russell should have been a Christian"Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03410277894552158218noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6317862370609615355.post-30448492742771370552013-03-12T12:37:23.244-04:002013-03-12T12:37:23.244-04:00The criticisms posted about the article obviously ...The criticisms posted about the article obviously don't address the points made by Bahnsen, and actually just repeat mistakes of Bertrand Russell. Bahnsen's article is not an attempt to prove the existence of God, or the truthes of Christianity, or that no Christians (or those calling themselves Christians) have ever done bad things to others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6317862370609615355.post-67294395788820762792013-01-13T19:49:58.620-05:002013-01-13T19:49:58.620-05:00vlad the impaler was a christian.. he lead CHRISTI...vlad the impaler was a christian.. he lead CHRISTIAN knights against the Turks and logic is a human construct yout prsupptionalism is nothing more that just circular reasoningwakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6317862370609615355.post-75057688296920617972012-12-04T04:31:58.347-05:002012-12-04T04:31:58.347-05:00From what I'm reading, Russell was reviewing C...From what I'm reading, Russell was reviewing Christianity from an objective point of view, having found merit in what most people would consider a plethora of theistic disciplines, but <i>STILL</i> rejected Christianity.<br /><br />And he was very objective. To beat a dead horse, even though nobody can prove the existence of unicorns, if someone were to suggest they exist, they would have a burden of proof to provide evidence to the non-believers if he/she expects people to believe his/her claims.<br /><br />In the same way, nobody can suggest that the existence of a deity is any less fantastic. <br /><br />The world as we know it is the construct of a logical series of events. To me, it would make sense that it's always been that way, and will always be this way. Some scientific findings are fantastic, but the scientific community holds them to a burden of proof that they must fulfill. If they don't, the findings are discounted.<br /><br />The religious world doesn't hold itself to the same standards.<br /><br />So why am I not Christian? Poor maintenance. They hold a 'near enough is good enough' view of the world, and they have a history of suppressing minorities and their cultures which have exactly the same right to exist as they do. (not all sects of Christianity, some of you are quite nice, you know who you are)<br /><br />I agree with Russell, I'll believe in a deity without any proof on the same day, and no sooner, that I believe in a floating teapot between Earth and Mars with no proof. A fight against this kind of rational expression is a fight against freedom, which is beginning to make more and more sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6317862370609615355.post-35925991309069292642011-09-19T17:00:04.180-04:002011-09-19T17:00:04.180-04:00This is some of the dumbest drivel I've encoun...This is some of the dumbest drivel I've encountered on the web. Though, granted, you do an excellent job disguising it with philosophical terminology and sly editorials. Still that only makes it all the more sinister. Good luck on your journey.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6317862370609615355.post-49446158583081013702011-09-17T16:24:21.093-04:002011-09-17T16:24:21.093-04:00Of course he can (in theory) be criticizing Christ...Of course he can (in theory) be criticizing Christianity subjectively. But he's not. He trying to be persuasive in an objective sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6317862370609615355.post-63933771147455328962011-08-18T17:05:22.155-04:002011-08-18T17:05:22.155-04:00This post doesn't really make sense to me. It ...This post doesn't really make sense to me. It says that Russell assumes an objective morality. Couldn't he just be criticizing Christianity from a subjective morality. It's called "Why I am not a Christian" after all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6317862370609615355.post-68582509569695186522011-07-25T13:34:40.818-04:002011-07-25T13:34:40.818-04:00Is it more logical to have more "fun" no...Is it more logical to have more "fun" now and die eternal, or be righteous now and live forever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6317862370609615355.post-21974276493329367632010-05-29T14:44:31.292-04:002010-05-29T14:44:31.292-04:00yeah, but isn't sin just more fun? :)yeah, but isn't sin just more fun? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6317862370609615355.post-5291492553056850622007-06-29T21:40:00.000-04:002007-06-29T21:40:00.000-04:00Whoops. Almost forgot to provide the source. It's ...Whoops. Almost forgot to provide the source. It's <A HREF="http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA103.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03410277894552158218noreply@blogger.com