How To Be An Objective Non-Christian Scholar, By Bertrand Russell
"Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one."-Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not A Christian.
"So little is known of him [Leucippus] that Epicurus (a later follower of Democritus) was thought to have denied his existence all together, and some moderns have revived this theory. There are, however, a number of allusions to him in Aristotle, and it seems incredible that these (which include textul quotations) would have occured if he had been merely a myth." -Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy, 1972, p.64
"I'm not concerned about the question of Jesus' alleged existence either..."
Does your denial disprove the existence of Jesus? I find your "syllogism"(or lack thereof) to be devoid of any objectivity. And for your information, there are a compendium of secular sources that vouch for Jesus' "alleged existence".
Here, we're concerned with Russel's two quotes. You can feel free to avoid his error by admitting he is inconsistent, and shifting the goal posts for yourself, but this just grants my post against Russell.
So, you agree with the purpose of my post.
We're not really here to discuss your apathy towards history. But, perhaps if time allows, I'll post about lazy atheism and its general apathy towards history.
And, I should say, that you should be concerned with the existence of Jesus. For one, if he exists, and if he is who he says he is, then you'll be giving an account of your life (judged by his standard) on the last day.
To me, you have another inconsistency. Russell had his, but you're like someone who says he's not "concerned about the question of your car's break line being cut," especially when you have to drive down a long and windy hill to get to work.
If you'd be concerned about that, how much more would you be concerned about the truth of Jesus' claims (which his existence is a precondition for).
With Leucippus, it doesn't really matter if such a person existed, yet he was mentioned and quoted in Aristotle. With Jesus you have a figure who's existence is very important but a dearth of historical evidence (from Russell's view, I'm assuming), so it seems less likely the figure written about existed.
Not sure that came out right, hope the idea is conveyed.
On the other side, so what? Russell wasn't entirely consistent, it's hardly surprising, he wrote a good deal. Is he some sort of "atheist hero" or something that you wish to tarnish?
"With Leucippus, it doesn't really matter if such a person existed, yet he was mentioned and quoted in Aristotle. With Jesus you have a figure who's existence is very important but a dearth of historical evidence (from Russell's view, I'm assuming), so it seems less likely the figure written about existed."
1. That's not what Russel said. Russell said that his being mentioned in Aristotle (around 100 years later) was reason to believe he existed. On the other hand, people with a few decades mention Jesus, but we doubt he ever existed. You're committing the intentional fallacy. Don't import to Russell what's not there.
2. "It doesn't matter if Leucippus existed," for what, or for whom? Russell devotes an entire chapter to The Atomists and claims their philosophy is very important, and the closest to what modern science (in his day) tells us is the case. Russell says that Leuscippus is one of the two "founders" of the atomist school.
3. There's hundreds of mentions of Jesus by 100 years after his death.
4. So, if the evidence for the one is allowed (being mentioned by Aristotle), then the other must be allowed, on pain of holding to biased double standard.
5. Russell believes other ancient Greeks lived, and they are more important philosophically than Leucippus, while barely being mentioned at all.
6. Is your argument:
If someone was "unimportant," but nevertheless mentioned in a few lines of someone elses works around 100 years later, then it is likely that that person existed.
?
"On the other side, so what? Russell wasn't entirely consistent, it's hardly surprising, he wrote a good deal. Is he some sort of "atheist hero" or something that you wish to tarnish?"
Good thing you note him as being inconsistent. This would negate your above argument, though.
Anyway, apparently I can't cite an man's inconsistencies and blatent bias against Christianity without getting a "stern talking to" and a lecture about atheism having no heroes.
We knew that though. There are no heroes in a depressing philosophy.
It was less of an argument on my part, just a suggestion that the situations may not have be equivalent, but if so, then yes it is an inconsistency.
1 - I haven't read any of Russell's stuff, so I'll try to refrain from further speculate.
2 - I mean for the philosophy, it doesn't matter if the actual person existed. That the ideas produced do not actually need Leucippus to have been around, someone else, say, Joe Shmo could have articulated them and it wouldn't change anything.
3 - Granted.
4 - Based on the influence of the figures, I think the evidence expected may differ. For example, if you had the same evidence (a mention 100 years later) of say a Pharaoh and some slave that lead a rebellion, they wouldn't add the same support for believing they existed. The Pharaoh you'd expect inscriptions, and so forth, while the slaves, perhaps a family story would be passed down, so expectations based on the figure would differ.
I don't think I lectured you, sorry if it came off that way.
As an aside, is it an expectation for authors to be entirely consistent? Guess that's a question about textual criticism. Do we take inconsistencies to be changes in an author's views (perhaps intellectual development), biases or just not being careful enough or etc.?
2. Maybe so, but Russell was making a claim about his existence. Besides, you have philosophers mentioning Leusippus, but no Jews. Why? They don't really care. Likewise, we have followers of Jesus (mainly) mentioning him, but not your average, say, Roman, or Greek philosopher. They don't really care. They thought it was all B.S. anyway.
3. Okay.
4. I see no substantial reason Rusell could allow Leusippus to exist because Aristotle mentioned him around 100 years after the fact, while at the same time having 100's of mentions of Jesus (and in a factual manner) 100 years after his death not indicating his existence.
___
I think it's important to point out peoples biases, especially when it's the Christians who are always said to be the biased and prejudiced ones, while atheists are the "open minded," "objective" and "scientific" ones.
Anyway, Russell published his History of Philosophy in 1945, which came after his Why I Am Not A Christian (1927), but Russell didn't edit out his claims about Jesus when Edwards republished the essay (as well as others) in 1957 (around 13 years before his death). Usually people edit out their inconsistencies. So, all evidence looks like Russell wasn't even aware fo this. That would make sense if this were a case of presuppositional bias.
On a further note, Russell's History of Philosophy is riddled with all sorts of misrepresentations and inaccuracies regarding Christian theology. For such a brilliant man, these mistakes are inexcusable. The types of uncharitable and hostile understanding he portrays of Christian theology (and his inexcusable mixing of protestantism and Catholocism when it suits him) are best explained on the hypothesis of presuppositional bias.
Given this information, I think it is best to read Russell has holding Christians to a standard he refuses to hold himself to. To further support the idea that Russell frequently applied a different standard to himself than he did others, we should note the report found in Johnson's Intellectuals. Russell had agreed to sign a letter of protest, and when his name was put first, he complained to them by phone. But, he was told, since he agreed to sign the letter, he cannot complain if his name is put first, it isn't logical to complain. Russell replied, "Logical fiddlesticks!" as he slammed down the receiver.
Apparently he required rigerous logic from his opponents, but when it didn't suite him, logic was simply "fiddlesticks."
Russell was well known as a man who liked to "get the best of both worlds" (Intellectuals, p.223). And the above are just a couple of examples.
So, this man is often trotted out for his trenchant refutations of Christianity, or his great achievement's for the atheistic cause, and so I thought it fitting to show how some of "the best" atheism has to offer went about thinking.
If a Christian pastor takes drugs, watch out!, the world will rip him for his inconsistencies (even thouhg there's nothing inconsistent about a sinner sinning). And so I just thought atheists would be behind me on this one. I thought if they can roast a preacher who sleeps with a prostitute, and is thus inconsistent, they can join with me and roast one of their own for his inconsistencies.
But, apparently, holding Christians to a double standard is the same today as in Russell's day.
Forgive my blasphemies of the secular priesthood! :-)
Thanks for the response Paul, since you get so many anon comments I figured I'd login. I'm K from above (cue sci-fi UFO music...)
"But, apparently, holding Christians to a double standard is the same today as in Russell's day."
Do you mean this in regards to what I wrote, or the general response of atheists to this post?
It's kind of hard to hold Russell's feet to the fire, seeing how he's dead and all. ;)
Do you agree there are levels of inconsistency? The preacher who says drugs are absolutely wrong and homosexuality an abomination, then goes off to pack fudge while hitting the pipe doesn't look to be on the same level as someone that doesn't apply the same standards of evidence in all areas.
Scribe: Does your denial disprove the existence of Jesus?
No, and I never claimed that it does.
Scribe: I find your "syllogism"(or lack thereof) to be devoid of any objectivity.
How did you “find” this?
Scribe: And for your information, there are a compendium of secular sources that vouch for Jesus' "alleged existence".
So what? I’m still not concerned. But my lack of concern sure has some people concerned.
___
PM: Here, we're concerned with Russel's two quotes.
Above it seems that Scribe is concerned with my not being concerned about Jesus' alleged historicity. Are you concerned about that as well?
PM: You can feel free to avoid his error by admitting he is inconsistent, and shifting the goal posts for yourself, but this just grants my post against Russell.
Your “post against Russell”? Your post consists of two quotes and a title. Nothing more.
PM: So, you agree with the purpose of my post.
That Russell wrote those two quotes? No, I don’t doubt that.
PM: We're not really here to discuss your apathy towards history.
What would happen if you put James Cameron and Jacobovici across a table w/ Bertrand Russell? Teapot tombs! I think that could be entertaining. I wonder if Russell would like Terminator movies...
"Above it seems that Scribe is concerned with my not being concerned about Jesus' alleged historicity. Are you concerned about that as well?"
That's fine, because you took the topic off track. My post wasn't about lazy atheists who have a general apathy towards history.
"Your “post against Russell”? Your post consists of two quotes and a title. Nothing more."
Hmmm, but above you said that "you're more consistent" than Russell. So, you must note that the halfway intelligent person can put "two and two together" (so to speak) and see this as a "post against Russell."
My post relies on what's referred to as "your powers of inference." So, yeah, I asume everyone to use the little mind God gave them.
__________
Kraft,
Hello.
"Do you mean this in regards to what I wrote, or the general response of atheists to this post? "
I meant it as a general sarcastic remark. But I find it odd that atheists can't just say, "Yep, he was a turd, here." It's like that would be a sort of secular blasphemy. An impious remark.
"It's kind of hard to hold Russell's feet to the fire, seeing how he's dead and all. ;)"
Well, atheists do it all the time with Jesus, the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc. Heck, there's even an atheist whose handle is "Bahnsenburner" (after the late Christian apologist, Greg Bahnsen).
So, I do thank you for more instances of atheist double standardism. It appears we have a bunch of eRussells 'round here. ;-)
"Do you agree there are levels of inconsistency? The preacher who says drugs are absolutely wrong and homosexuality an abomination, then goes off to pack fudge while hitting the pipe doesn't look to be on the same level as someone that doesn't apply the same standards of evidence in all areas. "
I most certainly do. But here, in this post, we're concerned with Russell.
Furthermore, on one level, there's no inconsistency, for there's nothing inconsistent with a sinner sinning. But, yes, on another level they are inconsistent.
But, I'd add that it's likewise inconsistent, say, for an atheist, like lord Russell perhaps, to hold these men to the fire for being *immoral.*
And, forget the moral inconsistencies. Atheists will frequently cite Christian's works, arguing that their account of God's love, and justice, are inconsistent with eachother.
So, I'm just wondering why atheists don't like these little pebbles I throw in their shoes? It's like some kind of fraternity. Like you all had to take a sacred oath, or something. Seems like herd mentality over ra - tionality
I agree with you. Betrand wrote some things that can be construed to be inconsistent.
Whoop dee frickin do.
I really think you're projecting your own 'herd mentality' 'circle the wagons' 'defend Calvin at all costs' attitudes onto unbelievers here.
do you REALLY think unbelievers care if Bertrand contradicts himself, or is seen as inconsistent in some writings? Who has ever claimed he is perfect? Who cares?
What is your point here, besides displaying/projecting your own personal/subconscious issues?
"do you REALLY think unbelievers care if Bertrand contradicts himself, or is seen as inconsistent in some writings?"
I think Paul's point was that modern atheists, like the Russell's of the past, have an inconsistent method of historical analysis.
They want to use one method so that they can deny the existence of Jesus (even though He had hundreds of attestations to Him very early on), but they use a different method for just about everyone else in history no matter how obscure.
This inconsistency is the hallmark of a failed worldview. It is a clear suppression of the truth of God and His risen Christ.
"What is your point here, besides displaying/projecting your own personal/subconscious issues?"
Russell is just a tatse of what I find in atheological literature on a frequent basis.
I'm trying to help you. You should try harder. You're not going to put a dent in anyone's belief in God by parading arguments which, despite some details, ammounts to what Russel writes above.
So, now that you've seen how we mock and laugh at Russell's claims, you have a better idea of how we look at the vast majority of your fellow atheist's arguments.
They might be more detailed, and showing the inconsistencies may take more time, but in the end it's the same. So, I'm glad I could give you a glimpse of how you and your ilk are looked at.
As far as me projecting, no, I don't think so. I mostly find atheists doing this, though. When Christainity is under attack, "truth, logic, and mental toughness" is demanded, but when faced with the bad arguments people put forth of your side of the fence, you constantly defend them (by saying, "so, atheists don't have to agree"), or turn to mocking Christains again.
Christians are held to the claims other Christians have made, but when it comes to atheists, that doesn't fly. But, this is not the case with us. For example, scroll through the archives here and you'll see that we critique and refute both the atheist and religious alike. We have critiqued many Christians as well. You don't usually find that on most atheist blogs. But, that's what one expects when people are more into herd mentality than ra ... tionality.
"Paul, you should really implement an age restriction where immature Ten year olds can't just frivolously post the first thing that comes to mind.lol"
Well, apparently his parents won't teach him how to think critically (they just "pray" that the atheistic, state enforced public school system will do that) and so not wanting to "turn away one of these little ones," I feel it is a public service we can provide by helping educate atheist's children. Call me a softy if you will, but I've also been known to take in stray pups and give them some food and shelter on a rainy night.
"And you realize, of course, that inconsistency is also the hallmark of the hundreds/thousands of different Christian flavors out there?"
Paul's argument is NOT that because atheists can be inconsistent sometimes that atheism is false. Rather, he is pointing out that their methodology for determining historical truth claims is one way for Christ and Christianity and another for just about every other historical figure.
One example is Brian Flemming's nonsensical belief that the mystery religions were the source of Christianity's doctrines. This argument has been debunked so badly that the radical Tubingen school, the place where the argument originated, no longer uses it and would probably laugh someone off the stage if they did.
The very fact that some atheists (and I assume you) are engaging in this biased historical analysis shows that they don't WANT Christianity to be true.
BR: I am not concerned with the historical question...
ReplyDeleteI'm not concerned about the question of Jesus' alleged existence either...
So why was Russell concerned with the historical question of Leucippus, especially since we "know little about him?"
ReplyDeleteAnd, what does your statement have to do with Russell's foot-in-mouth comment?
PM: So why was Russell concerned with the historical question of Leucippus, especially since we "know little about him?"
ReplyDeleteBeats me.
PM: And, what does your statement have to do with Russell's foot-in-mouth comment?
I'm just more consistent is all, as I'm not concerned about the question of Leucippus' existence either.
"I'm not concerned about the question of Jesus' alleged existence either..."
ReplyDeleteDoes your denial disprove the existence of Jesus? I find your "syllogism"(or lack thereof) to be devoid of any objectivity. And for your information, there are a compendium of secular sources that vouch for Jesus' "alleged existence".
Tenmojo,
ReplyDeleteHere, we're concerned with Russel's two quotes. You can feel free to avoid his error by admitting he is inconsistent, and shifting the goal posts for yourself, but this just grants my post against Russell.
So, you agree with the purpose of my post.
We're not really here to discuss your apathy towards history. But, perhaps if time allows, I'll post about lazy atheism and its general apathy towards history.
And, I should say, that you should be concerned with the existence of Jesus. For one, if he exists, and if he is who he says he is, then you'll be giving an account of your life (judged by his standard) on the last day.
To me, you have another inconsistency. Russell had his, but you're like someone who says he's not "concerned about the question of your car's break line being cut," especially when you have to drive down a long and windy hill to get to work.
If you'd be concerned about that, how much more would you be concerned about the truth of Jesus' claims (which his existence is a precondition for).
Are the cases really equivalent?
ReplyDeleteWith Leucippus, it doesn't really matter if such a person existed, yet he was mentioned and quoted in Aristotle. With Jesus you have a figure who's existence is very important but a dearth of historical evidence (from Russell's view, I'm assuming), so it seems less likely the figure written about existed.
Not sure that came out right, hope the idea is conveyed.
On the other side, so what? Russell wasn't entirely consistent, it's hardly surprising, he wrote a good deal. Is he some sort of "atheist hero" or something that you wish to tarnish?
K,
ReplyDelete"With Leucippus, it doesn't really matter if such a person existed, yet he was mentioned and quoted in Aristotle. With Jesus you have a figure who's existence is very important but a dearth of historical evidence (from Russell's view, I'm assuming), so it seems less likely the figure written about existed."
1. That's not what Russel said. Russell said that his being mentioned in Aristotle (around 100 years later) was reason to believe he existed. On the other hand, people with a few decades mention Jesus, but we doubt he ever existed. You're committing the intentional fallacy. Don't import to Russell what's not there.
2. "It doesn't matter if Leucippus existed," for what, or for whom? Russell devotes an entire chapter to The Atomists and claims their philosophy is very important, and the closest to what modern science (in his day) tells us is the case. Russell says that Leuscippus is one of the two "founders" of the atomist school.
3. There's hundreds of mentions of Jesus by 100 years after his death.
4. So, if the evidence for the one is allowed (being mentioned by Aristotle), then the other must be allowed, on pain of holding to biased double standard.
5. Russell believes other ancient Greeks lived, and they are more important philosophically than Leucippus, while barely being mentioned at all.
6. Is your argument:
If someone was "unimportant," but nevertheless mentioned in a few lines of someone elses works around 100 years later, then it is likely that that person existed.
?
"On the other side, so what? Russell wasn't entirely consistent, it's hardly surprising, he wrote a good deal. Is he some sort of "atheist hero" or something that you wish to tarnish?"
Good thing you note him as being inconsistent. This would negate your above argument, though.
Anyway, apparently I can't cite an man's inconsistencies and blatent bias against Christianity without getting a "stern talking to" and a lecture about atheism having no heroes.
We knew that though. There are no heroes in a depressing philosophy.
It was less of an argument on my part, just a suggestion that the situations may not have be equivalent, but if so, then yes it is an inconsistency.
ReplyDelete1 - I haven't read any of Russell's stuff, so I'll try to refrain from further speculate.
2 - I mean for the philosophy, it doesn't matter if the actual person existed. That the ideas produced do not actually need Leucippus to have been around, someone else, say, Joe Shmo could have articulated them and it wouldn't change anything.
3 - Granted.
4 - Based on the influence of the figures, I think the evidence expected may differ. For example, if you had the same evidence (a mention 100 years later) of say a Pharaoh and some slave that lead a rebellion, they wouldn't add the same support for believing they existed. The Pharaoh you'd expect inscriptions, and so forth, while the slaves, perhaps a family story would be passed down, so expectations based on the figure would differ.
I don't think I lectured you, sorry if it came off that way.
As an aside, is it an expectation for authors to be entirely consistent? Guess that's a question about textual criticism. Do we take inconsistencies to be changes in an author's views (perhaps intellectual development), biases or just not being careful enough or etc.?
1. okay.
ReplyDelete2. Maybe so, but Russell was making a claim about his existence. Besides, you have philosophers mentioning Leusippus, but no Jews. Why? They don't really care. Likewise, we have followers of Jesus (mainly) mentioning him, but not your average, say, Roman, or Greek philosopher. They don't really care. They thought it was all B.S. anyway.
3. Okay.
4. I see no substantial reason Rusell could allow Leusippus to exist because Aristotle mentioned him around 100 years after the fact, while at the same time having 100's of mentions of Jesus (and in a factual manner) 100 years after his death not indicating his existence.
___
I think it's important to point out peoples biases, especially when it's the Christians who are always said to be the biased and prejudiced ones, while atheists are the "open minded," "objective" and "scientific" ones.
Anyway, Russell published his History of Philosophy in 1945, which came after his Why I Am Not A Christian (1927), but Russell didn't edit out his claims about Jesus when Edwards republished the essay (as well as others) in 1957 (around 13 years before his death). Usually people edit out their inconsistencies. So, all evidence looks like Russell wasn't even aware fo this. That would make sense if this were a case of presuppositional bias.
On a further note, Russell's History of Philosophy is riddled with all sorts of misrepresentations and inaccuracies regarding Christian theology. For such a brilliant man, these mistakes are inexcusable. The types of uncharitable and hostile understanding he portrays of Christian theology (and his inexcusable mixing of protestantism and Catholocism when it suits him) are best explained on the hypothesis of presuppositional bias.
Given this information, I think it is best to read Russell has holding Christians to a standard he refuses to hold himself to. To further support the idea that Russell frequently applied a different standard to himself than he did others, we should note the report found in Johnson's Intellectuals. Russell had agreed to sign a letter of protest, and when his name was put first, he complained to them by phone. But, he was told, since he agreed to sign the letter, he cannot complain if his name is put first, it isn't logical to complain. Russell replied, "Logical fiddlesticks!" as he slammed down the receiver.
Apparently he required rigerous logic from his opponents, but when it didn't suite him, logic was simply "fiddlesticks."
Russell was well known as a man who liked to "get the best of both worlds" (Intellectuals, p.223). And the above are just a couple of examples.
So, this man is often trotted out for his trenchant refutations of Christianity, or his great achievement's for the atheistic cause, and so I thought it fitting to show how some of "the best" atheism has to offer went about thinking.
If a Christian pastor takes drugs, watch out!, the world will rip him for his inconsistencies (even thouhg there's nothing inconsistent about a sinner sinning). And so I just thought atheists would be behind me on this one. I thought if they can roast a preacher who sleeps with a prostitute, and is thus inconsistent, they can join with me and roast one of their own for his inconsistencies.
But, apparently, holding Christians to a double standard is the same today as in Russell's day.
Forgive my blasphemies of the secular priesthood! :-)
Thanks for the response Paul, since you get so many anon comments I figured I'd login. I'm K from above (cue sci-fi UFO music...)
ReplyDelete"But, apparently, holding Christians to a double standard is the same today as in Russell's day."
Do you mean this in regards to what I wrote, or the general response of atheists to this post?
It's kind of hard to hold Russell's feet to the fire, seeing how he's dead and all. ;)
Do you agree there are levels of inconsistency? The preacher who says drugs are absolutely wrong and homosexuality an abomination, then goes off to pack fudge while hitting the pipe doesn't look to be on the same level as someone that doesn't apply the same standards of evidence in all areas.
There's just no question that Bertrand Russell was one of the greatest philosophers of our time. But boy is he proof that atheism makes you dumb!
ReplyDeleteScribe: Does your denial disprove the existence of Jesus?
ReplyDeleteNo, and I never claimed that it does.
Scribe: I find your "syllogism"(or lack thereof) to be devoid of any objectivity.
How did you “find” this?
Scribe: And for your information, there are a compendium of secular sources that vouch for Jesus' "alleged existence".
So what? I’m still not concerned. But my lack of concern sure has some people concerned.
___
PM: Here, we're concerned with Russel's two quotes.
Above it seems that Scribe is concerned with my not being concerned about Jesus' alleged historicity. Are you concerned about that as well?
PM: You can feel free to avoid his error by admitting he is inconsistent, and shifting the goal posts for yourself, but this just grants my post against Russell.
Your “post against Russell”? Your post consists of two quotes and a title. Nothing more.
PM: So, you agree with the purpose of my post.
That Russell wrote those two quotes? No, I don’t doubt that.
PM: We're not really here to discuss your apathy towards history.
Okay.
What would happen if you put James Cameron and Jacobovici across a table w/ Bertrand Russell? Teapot tombs! I think that could be entertaining. I wonder if Russell would like Terminator movies...
ReplyDeleteTenmojo,
ReplyDeleteAwww, look, he just wants to play games...
"Above it seems that Scribe is concerned with my not being concerned about Jesus' alleged historicity. Are you concerned about that as well?"
That's fine, because you took the topic off track. My post wasn't about lazy atheists who have a general apathy towards history.
"Your “post against Russell”? Your post consists of two quotes and a title. Nothing more."
Hmmm, but above you said that "you're more consistent" than Russell. So, you must note that the halfway intelligent person can put "two and two together" (so to speak) and see this as a "post against Russell."
My post relies on what's referred to as "your powers of inference." So, yeah, I asume everyone to use the little mind God gave them.
__________
Kraft,
Hello.
"Do you mean this in regards to what I wrote, or the general response of atheists to this post? "
I meant it as a general sarcastic remark. But I find it odd that atheists can't just say, "Yep, he was a turd, here." It's like that would be a sort of secular blasphemy. An impious remark.
"It's kind of hard to hold Russell's feet to the fire, seeing how he's dead and all. ;)"
Well, atheists do it all the time with Jesus, the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc. Heck, there's even an atheist whose handle is "Bahnsenburner" (after the late Christian apologist, Greg Bahnsen).
So, I do thank you for more instances of atheist double standardism. It appears we have a bunch of eRussells 'round here. ;-)
"Do you agree there are levels of inconsistency? The preacher who says drugs are absolutely wrong and homosexuality an abomination, then goes off to pack fudge while hitting the pipe doesn't look to be on the same level as someone that doesn't apply the same standards of evidence in all areas. "
I most certainly do. But here, in this post, we're concerned with Russell.
Furthermore, on one level, there's no inconsistency, for there's nothing inconsistent with a sinner sinning. But, yes, on another level they are inconsistent.
But, I'd add that it's likewise inconsistent, say, for an atheist, like lord Russell perhaps, to hold these men to the fire for being *immoral.*
And, forget the moral inconsistencies. Atheists will frequently cite Christian's works, arguing that their account of God's love, and justice, are inconsistent with eachother.
So, I'm just wondering why atheists don't like these little pebbles I throw in their shoes? It's like some kind of fraternity. Like you all had to take a sacred oath, or something. Seems like herd mentality over ra - tionality
Tenmojo:I'm not concerned about the question of Jesus' alleged existence either...
ReplyDeletealleged(adjective) 1 : declared but not proved
Scribe: Does your denial disprove the existence of Jesus?
Tenmojo:No, and I never claimed that it does.
Huh?
Scribe: And for your information, there are a compendium of secular sources that vouch for Jesus' "alleged existence".
Tenmojo:So what? I’m still not concerned. But my lack of concern sure has some people concerned.
Scribe: I find your "syllogism"(or lack thereof) to be devoid of any objectivity.
Tenmojo:How did you “find” this?
That's how.
Paul, you should really implement an age restriction where immature Ten year olds can't just frivolously post the first thing that comes to mind.lol.
Yep, I'm done...
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Betrand wrote some things that can be construed to be inconsistent.
Whoop dee frickin do.
I really think you're projecting your own 'herd mentality' 'circle the wagons' 'defend Calvin at all costs' attitudes onto unbelievers here.
do you REALLY think unbelievers care if Bertrand contradicts himself, or is seen as inconsistent in some writings? Who has ever claimed he is perfect? Who cares?
What is your point here, besides displaying/projecting your own personal/subconscious issues?
"do you REALLY think unbelievers care if Bertrand contradicts himself, or is seen as inconsistent in some writings?"
ReplyDeleteI think Paul's point was that modern atheists, like the Russell's of the past, have an inconsistent method of historical analysis.
They want to use one method so that they can deny the existence of Jesus (even though He had hundreds of attestations to Him very early on), but they use a different method for just about everyone else in history no matter how obscure.
This inconsistency is the hallmark of a failed worldview. It is a clear suppression of the truth of God and His risen Christ.
Saint and Sinner said:
ReplyDelete"This inconsistency is the hallmark of a failed worldview. It is a clear suppression of the truth of God and His risen Christ."
And you realize, of course, that inconsistency is also the hallmark of the hundreds/thousands of different Christian flavors out there?
so christians are also suppressing the truth. And why should I listen to you then?
But, you'll probably fall back on the 'we're poor sinful creatures' excuse.
Useless.
Carl Jr,
ReplyDelete"What is your point here, besides displaying/projecting your own personal/subconscious issues?"
Russell is just a tatse of what I find in atheological literature on a frequent basis.
I'm trying to help you. You should try harder. You're not going to put a dent in anyone's belief in God by parading arguments which, despite some details, ammounts to what Russel writes above.
So, now that you've seen how we mock and laugh at Russell's claims, you have a better idea of how we look at the vast majority of your fellow atheist's arguments.
They might be more detailed, and showing the inconsistencies may take more time, but in the end it's the same. So, I'm glad I could give you a glimpse of how you and your ilk are looked at.
As far as me projecting, no, I don't think so. I mostly find atheists doing this, though. When Christainity is under attack, "truth, logic, and mental toughness" is demanded, but when faced with the bad arguments people put forth of your side of the fence, you constantly defend them (by saying, "so, atheists don't have to agree"), or turn to mocking Christains again.
Christians are held to the claims other Christians have made, but when it comes to atheists, that doesn't fly. But, this is not the case with us. For example, scroll through the archives here and you'll see that we critique and refute both the atheist and religious alike. We have critiqued many Christians as well. You don't usually find that on most atheist blogs. But, that's what one expects when people are more into herd mentality than ra ... tionality.
Let me know if I can be of any more assistance,
~PM
Scribe,
ReplyDelete"Paul, you should really implement an age restriction where immature Ten year olds can't just frivolously post the first thing that comes to mind.lol"
Well, apparently his parents won't teach him how to think critically (they just "pray" that the atheistic, state enforced public school system will do that) and so not wanting to "turn away one of these little ones," I feel it is a public service we can provide by helping educate atheist's children. Call me a softy if you will, but I've also been known to take in stray pups and give them some food and shelter on a rainy night.
Softy...
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDelete"And you realize, of course, that inconsistency is also the hallmark of the hundreds/thousands of different Christian flavors out there?"
Paul's argument is NOT that because atheists can be inconsistent sometimes that atheism is false. Rather, he is pointing out that their methodology for determining historical truth claims is one way for Christ and Christianity and another for just about every other historical figure.
One example is Brian Flemming's nonsensical belief that the mystery religions were the source of Christianity's doctrines. This argument has been debunked so badly that the radical Tubingen school, the place where the argument originated, no longer uses it and would probably laugh someone off the stage if they did.
The very fact that some atheists (and I assume you) are engaging in this biased historical analysis shows that they don't WANT Christianity to be true.