Why I am Not A Christian - Bertrand Russell

Jasusi said:

Bluray,
Russell anasemaje kuhusu yai na kuku? Kilichoanza kipi? Yai au kuku?

Click to expand...

Ilianza simple protein, according to Darwinian evolution, halafu katika line ya evolution akaja predecessor wa kuku na transformation ya huyo predecessor kwenda kwenye kuku ikawa gradual, si sudden.

Kwa hiyo hii notion ya kwamba "yai na kuku nini kimetangulia" ina assume a suden transformation, which is not the case according Darwinian thought.

Bluray said:

Ilianza simple protein, according to Darwinian evolution, halafu katika line ya evolution akaja predecessor wa kuku na transformation ya huyo predecessor kwenda kwenye kuku ikawa gradual, si sudden.

Kwa hiyo hii notion ya kwamba "yai na kuku nini kimetangulia" ina assume a suden transformation, which is not the case according Darwinian thought.

Click to expand...

Simple protein ilianzia wapi? Did it just evolve?

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." Averroes.

Even before Christianity came to Africa our ancestors believed in a Supreme being.
I saw my grandfather pray to the sun in the morning at sun rise and gave his thanks as the day came to an end. Sijui hawa Russell angesema wamedanganywa na nani?

MaxShimba said:

"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?" (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34)

Click to expand...

There are naturally occuring sundials and water clocks, that, save for the notion that everything is created, have no obvious maker.

So this notion that elegancy and symmetry must be designed is absolutely fallacious.

The sundial can easily be said to be made by man, for one who does not believe in a god, the tides of the ocean are a natural water clock, the many mountains create natural sundials, the shadow of the earth on the moon is a very good sundial for civilizations that used the lunar calendar, for one who does not believe in a god and does not want to take the argument from design by face value, the natural motions of these things create a natural clock, not gods design.

Jasusi said:

Even before Christianity came to Africa our ancestors believed in a Supreme being.
I saw my grandfather pray to the sun in the morning at sun rise and gave his thanks as the day came to an end. Sijui hawa Russell angesema wamedanganywa na nani?

Click to expand...

There are people who believe that there actually is a tooth fairy, loch ness monster, James Bond 007, SAnta Claus etc etc.

Hawa wamedanganywa na nani?

The mere fact that people believe in something does not make it so.

There was a time when people believed that the sun was going around the earth, did that make this fallacy to be a fact? No.

Kwa hiyo hii argument ya belief ni very weak, kwa sababu if all it takes for something to be is believeing, vipi kama tuko wawili tunaamini vitu tofauti, wewe unaamini mungu yupo na mimi naamini mungu hayupo, huoni kwamba kutakuwa na bonge la contradiction katika hii logic?

Kwa hiyo wakati huo huo ancestors wetu wanaamini katika supreme being, kuna ma buddhist huko walishaamini siku nyingi sana kwamba hakuna supreme being, kwa hiyo nao utawasemaje?

Bluray said:

There are naturally occuring sundials and water clocks, that, save for the notion that everything is created, have no obvious maker.

So this notion that elegancy and symmetry must be designed is absolutely fallacious.

The sundial can easily be said to be made by man, for one who does not believe in a god, the tides of the ocean are a natural water clock, the many mountains create natural sundials, the shadow of the earth on the moon is a very good sundial for civilizations that used the lunar calendar, for one who does not believe in a god and does not want to take the argument from design by face value, the natural motions of these things create a natural clock, not gods design.

Click to expand...

Bogus assumptions. Do you believe that all nature reflects inherent purposiveness and direction?

MaxShimba said:

"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." Averroes.

Click to expand...

Hii mbona Russell kai address vizuri katika argument ya "first cause"

Kama mungu ana direct beings, nani anamdirect yeye?

Kama yeye hahitaji kuwa directed, kwa nini unafikiri beings ni lazima wawe directed naye?

Bluray said:

Ilianza simple protein, according to Darwinian evolution, halafu katika line ya evolution akaja predecessor wa kuku na transformation ya huyo predecessor kwenda kwenye kuku ikawa gradual, si sudden.

Kwa hiyo hii notion ya kwamba "yai na kuku nini kimetangulia" ina assume a suden transformation, which is not the case according Darwinian thought.

Click to expand...

hii sequence ya evolution ya darwin inaendelea mpaka leo au imestop? na kama imestop why?

MaxShimba said:

Bogus assumptions. Do you believe that all nature reflects inherent purposiveness and direction?

Click to expand...

Actualy I don't, where did I say that? there must be a comprehension issue somewhere. To the contrary, the theist seems to believe something closer to that than the non believer.

I will tell you why, the rational person/ non-believer is keen on understanding nature for it's sake, and is not lost on some dream of existence having a grander meaning that is presented naturally, hence no belief in god, supernatural powers, the afterlife etc.

The believer believes in the afterlife, life having a grander meaning that what meets the eye initially, god having a grand plan that will be realized in heaven and hell etc.

So you can see, the teheis is more likely to believe in "purposiveness" and direction than the non believer. A common mistake is the thinking that evolutionist believe evolution has a direction, big no, evolution mostly stumbles and natural selection improves things.This is why evolution is so slow.It is like we arrived here by stumbling along, that is why it took billion of years, and we did not even plan to get here, we got here by sheer chance. This is a hard fact to swallow for the human ego, but it is a scientifically established fact.

About that cheap shot on my being bogus, the only thing that is bogus is your attempt to repudiate "bogus assumptions" without properly exposing the weakness, hence exposing your weakness that you can't properly repudiate the supposedly "bogus assumptions"

Which assumptions are bogus? Why are they bogus? What assumptions that are valid are you using to show that the repudiated are indeed bogus and not merely purpoted to be so?

Nilisema

Let's discuss and elevate the level of scholarship up in here

Click to expand...

Na nikakataa dogmatic fanaticism.Tafadhali heshimu matakwa haya.

British philosopher, mathematician and social critic, one of the most widely read philosophers of the last century,Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was one of the most influential opponents of Christianity of this century. When he won the Nobel Prize in Literature (1950), he was characterized as one “who constantly figured as a defender of humanity and freedom of thought.” Actually, he was a militant defender of skepticism and a dedicated enemy of Christianity. Nevertheless, the Swedish Academy described him as “one of our times’ most brilliant spokesmen of rationality and humanity.”
He lived a very long life..almost 100 years!His life is quite interesting and I believe his character by then was so incompatible with the norms of the day - he was too defiant!Lets take a look at some facts about his personal life.
- Against his family's wishes, Russell married an American Quaker, Alys Persall Smith
-In 1907 Russell stood unsuccessfully for parliament as a candidate for the Women's Suffragette Society
-His marriage ended when he began a lengthy affair with the literary hostess Lady Ottoline Morrell, who had been a close friend of the Swedish writer and physician Axel Munthe
-Other liaisons followed, among others with T.S. Eliot's wife Vivien Haigh-Wood. Later Russell wrote about his sexual morality and agnosticism in MARRIAGE AND MORALS (1929). Russell stated that human beings are not naturally monogamous, outraging many with his views.
-He also opposed existing laws against homosexuality and maintained that sexual relations between unmarried people are not morally wrong
-In 1922 Russell celebrated his 50th birthday, believing that "brain becomes rigid at 50."
-In 1936 Russell married Patricia Spence, ( 3rd wife after divorcing his former student -second wife Dora Black)who had been his research assistant on his political history FREEDOM AND ORGANIZATION (1934)
-in 1940 he was appointed Professor of Philosophy at the College of the City of New York. The appointment was revoked and he was barred from teaching basically because of his libertarian opinions. Judge McGeehan declared that "considering Dr Russell's principles, with reference to the Penal Law of the State of New York, it appears that not only would the morals of the students be undermined, but his doctrines would tend to bring them, and in some cases their parents and guardians, in conflict with the Penal Law". The judge also tried to hint that Russell promoted the practice of masturbation, in which he referred to Russell's book entitled EDUCATION AND THE GOOD LIFE (1926).
-Retaining his ability to cause debate, Russell was imprisoned in 1961 with his fourth and final wife Edith Finch for taking part in a demonstration in Whitehall. The sentence was reduced on medical grounds to seven days in Brixton Prison. His last years Russell spent in North Wales. His later works include HUMAN KNOWLEDGE: ITS SCOPE AND LIMITS (1948), two collections of sardonic fables, SATAN IN THE SUBURB (1953) and NIGHTMARES OF EMINENT PERSONS (1954), and THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF BERTRAND RUSSELL (1967-69, 3 vols.), in which he stated: "Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." Russell died of influenza on February 2, 1970. When asked what he would say to God if he found himself before Him, Russell answered: 'I should reproach him for not giving us enough evidence.'

Plato (c.427-c 347 B.C) posited a “demuirge” of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. For Plato, the demuirge lacked the supernatural ability to creat “ex nihilo” or out of nothing. The demuirge was able only to organize the “ananke” (a?a???). The ananke was the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato’s cosmogony. Plato’s teleological perspective is also built upon the analysis of a priori order and structure in the world that he had already presented in The Republic.
Argument:
Why did Plato posited a “demuirge” of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus?

Bluray said:

Actualy I don't, to the contrary, the theist seems to believe something closer to that.

The only thing that is bogus is your attempt to repudiate "bogus assumptions" without properly exposing the weakness, hence exposing your weakness that you can't properly repudiate the supposedly "bogus assumptions"

Which assumptions are bogus? Why are they bogus? What assumptions that are valid are you using to show that the repudiated are indeed bogus and not merely purpoted to be so?

Nilisema



Na nikakataa dogmatic fanaticism.Tafadhali heshimu matakwa haya.

Click to expand...

Kama umemsoma Aristote katika Metaphysics (c 384-322B.C) ,
Aristote developed the idea of a creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover"

Are you telling me that Aristote katika metaphysics was wrong and you are correct?

Bluray said:

Hii mbona Russell kai address vizuri katika argument ya "first cause"

Kama mungu ana direct beings, nani anamdirect yeye?

Kama yeye hahitaji kuwa directed, kwa nini unafikiri beings ni lazima wawe directed naye?

Click to expand...

No body,

He is Supreme.

MaxShimba said:

Plato (c.427-c 347 B.C) posited a “demuirge” of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. For Plato, the demuirge lacked the supernatural ability to creat “ex nihilo” or out of nothing. The demuirge was able only to organize the “ananke” (a?a???). The ananke was the only other co-existent element or presence in Plato’s cosmogony. Plato’s teleological perspective is also built upon the analysis of a priori order and structure in the world that he had already presented in The Republic.
Argument:
Why did Plato posited a “demuirge” of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus?

Click to expand...

Kama ungeelewa ulichokileta hapa hata usingekileta in defence of Christianity.

Plato alikataa kwamba mungu anaweza kuumba vitu "ex nihilo"

Mungu wa ukristo anaweza yote, including ku create vitu "ex nihilo"

You are shooting yourself in the foot.This argument is against the Christian godhead, labda tafuta nyingine.Next time soma uelewe, siyo copy paste.

Bluray said:

Kama ungeelewa ulichokileta hapa hata usingekileta in defence of Christianity.

Plato alikataa kwamba mungu anaweza kuumba vitu "ex nihilo"

Mungu wa ukristo anaweza yote, including ku create vitu "ex nihilo"

You are shooting yourself in the foot.This argument is against the Christian godhead, labda tafuta nyingine.Next time soma uelewe, siyo copy paste.

Click to expand...

Give some airtight arguments.

MaxShimba said:

Give some airtight arguments.

Click to expand...

How more airtight can I get?

Ukifahamu "omniscience" ya mungu wa kikristo, ukafahamu maana ya "ex nihilo" utaona kuwa Plato haamini katika mungu omniscient.

Kama Plato haamini katika mungu omniscient, na ukristo unaamini kwamba mungu ni omniscient, na wewe unaleta argument ya Plato inayoeleza kwamba Plato haamini katika mungu omniscient, basically unaleta argument ya kukudefeat wewe mwenyewe.

Bluray said:

How more airtight can I get?

Ukifahamu "omniscience" ya mungu wa kikristo, ukafahamu maana ya "ex nihilo" utaona kuwa Plato haamini katika mungu omniscient.

Kama Plato haamini katika mungu omniscient, na ukristo unaamini kwamba mungu ni omniscient, na wewe unaleta argument ya Plato inayoeleza kwamba Plato haamini katika mungu omniscient, basically unaleta argument ya kukudefeat wewe mwenyewe.

Click to expand...

So you are telling me that, you have NO any tangible and verifiable references which are impeccables?

MaxShimba said:

So you are telling me that, you have NO any tangible and verifiable references which are impeccables?

Click to expand...

This is called "mental jujitsu"

Wewe umeleta argument yako kutoka kwa Plato, unamaanisha kwamba Plato unamuheshimu sana mpaka ukaamua kum quote umlete hapa atetetee argument yako, mimi ningeweza kukuletea kina Hawkins na Bohrs na watu wengi sana kui dispute point ya Plato, nikaona labda hutawaamini, ngoja nimtumie Plato wako mwenyewe kui defeat argument yako.

You gave a point of reference, presumably a reputable one to you, now I am using the same point of reference then you have the audacity to ask if my source is verifiable and impeccable.

Are you saying that you do bring unverifiable and less than impeccable references here? I did not bring the Plato quote, you did.

So if there is anybody to be questioned about it's authenticity and verifiability it should be you, not me.

Hii ndiyo inaitwa "kumfunga mtu kwa sheria yake mwenyewe". Wewe unaleta sheria bila kuijua, halafu mtu anaitumia kukufunga wewe mwenyewe, then unasema source yako iko wapi? Source umeileta mwenyewe hapa then unauliza source iko wapi.

That just goes to show how weak your argument, and possibly thought process, is.

You are tempting to believe that you are just putting togethere words and copy pasting without actually understanding.