by Chris Alexion, Copyright January 17, 2006, all rights reserved. 193 views
"As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds…. Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing–fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things….The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
–Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
1 • hector • February 15, 2006 • 8:16 PM
your FEAR to be a Christian, most likely you were a Christian just gave it up b/c of a bad experience… by the way that?s why people become Christians because of experiences not because of fear of the unknown
2 • gemma • May 21, 2006 • 6:55 PM
Hector i just wonder if you could expand your argument that people become christians because of experiences. What kind of experiences in your opinion makes people turn to christianity?
Russell's point is that Christianity has in the past resorted to fear to make people believe, and example is "if you dont believe, you will go to hell". As there is no empirical evidence to point to a God other than the bible which in my opinion is dubious and contradictory, the Churches relied on instilling fear to make sure people chose their religion.
3 • Apollos • January 08, 2008 • 1:24 PM
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;
Act 2:23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:
Act 2:24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Act 2:25 For David saith concerning him, I beheld the Lord always before my face; For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
Act 2:26 Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; Moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope:
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades, Neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption.
Act 2:28 Thou madest known unto me the ways of life; Thou shalt make me full of gladness with thy countenance.
Act 2:29 Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.
Act 2:30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne;
Act 2:31 he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
Act 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?
So, eye-witness testimony of miracles of Christ (upon the Jews' part) in conjunction with the empirical evidence of the miracles done by the eye-witnesses of Christ's resurrection in conjunction with the obviously fulfilled prophecy in conjunction with the actual conviction of the audience of their crime given the true premises and conclusion of Peter's argument (which the audience accepted) makes for an "unreasonable" religion?…
What more would be needed for it to be reasonable?
This only goes to show that no amount of "proof" will convince some individuals who will not accept evidence "a priori" (innocent until proven guilty)
4 • Apollos • January 09, 2008 • 3:42 PM
instead of the "a priori" at the end, read "prima facie"
——-