Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell (1927)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 янв 2013
- Bertrand Russell first delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall.
See below for a section breakdown:
What Is a Christian? :05
The Existence of God 2:58
The First-cause Argument 4:05
The Natural-law Argument 6:16
The Argument from Design 10:30
The Moral Arguments for Deity 13:32
The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice 16:13
The Character of Christ 18:23
Defects in Christ's Teaching 21:10
The Moral Problem 23:24
The Emotional Factor 28:15
How the Churches Have Retarded Progress 31:10
Fear, the Foundation of Religion 32:59
What We Must Do 34:24
Full text: www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whyn...
His longer book on the same subect, "Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays": www.amazon.com/Christian-Essay...
Bertrand Russel Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand...
My father used to read Bertrand Russell and listen to him on the BBC and would discuss it with me. I'd forgotten how lucky I was. Thanks dad.
Yes for sure
You really were!
My dad was my everything. I was born listening to the BBC.
I started reading Bertrand Russell's writings around 1981. I was still a believer in the concept of "god" but had abandoned organized religion several years earlier after learning about European history. Russell's writings convinced me that "god" as a concept was illogical which helped explain the harm done by religion.
My father died when I was 3 so I diacovered Rusell on my own and never have taken him for granted. How lucky I am. Thanks dad.
"Fear is the parent of cruelty" Yes.
Actually fear leads to anger, anger leads to fear, and fear leads to cruelty. Some other philosopher, talked real funny.
double yes
Wherever there is fear one will find some belief to cling too.
fear can be useful . fear of punishment can deter criminals .
Absolutely in agreemeny with B.R.
Wonderful, can't believe it's almost 97 years old and still feel so fresh and new.
100 years has not aged this wonderful piece at all… As relevant today as ever.
Very true. Although, I must admit I am saddened somewhat that many still use the bad arguments he crushed a century ago.
I credit Bertrand Russell with helping me to escape from evangelical brain-washing in my late teens. Reading "Why I'm not a Christian" was the tipping point that finally made me reject Christianity.
It was such a relief to be out from under the fear and guilt that were heaped upon us. The cruelty and inhumanity of Christians, with the constant threat of hellfire, was also a big factor leading to my being "aborted-again". One positive side effect has been a life-long immunity to religious nonsense. I now count myself as an anti-theist--an opponent to religion and the harm it causes.
The Fires Of Hell
Eternal Damnation
@@SuperGreatSphinx
Ancient myth. Nothing more.
@@SuperGreatSphinxAs Lord Russell said in the audio Fear is a fuel of religion. Remove fear from it and you free yourself from chains you've bounded yourself by believing mithologycal bulls*it. There is no Hell.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
~Lucius Annaeus Seneca
“But God chose what the world considers foolish to shame the wise. God chose what the world considers weak to shame the strong.”
1 Corinthians 1:27 CEB
@@RaphaTrombadinha God (The Christian one and ALL others) is IMAGINARY.
What part of that do you NOT understand, fundie?
Your beliefs are a SUPERSTITION that has no (*democratic!!) bearing on our SHARED reality.
You don’t need an ancient holy book full of moronic myths to tell you what is foolish and what isn’t, you only need the most basic critical thinking skills to unpack said superstition and PROVE IT.
If you can’t/won’t do that, then you are not arguing RATIONALLY, you're arguing from the perspective of a cult member.
And ANY cult will do…
Replace your quote with one from the Qu'ran, or the Bagavad Gita, or Dynanetics, or the Book of Mormon, etc...
Now what?
More Christianese or is there a working mind in there still somewhere? Let’s find out together, shall we?
Can your FRAGILE FAITH handle the pushback?
@@RaphaTrombadinha the Jewish gods are no more real than the Greek and Hindu gods
Seneca nailed it!
@@RaphaTrombadinha Paul simply ranting. That quote carries no logic. It's just a statement of personal conviction and cannot be defended logically as its "truth " rests on faith, not reason our evidence.
People calling Bertrand Russel stupid are the ones that already missed one little detail about what makes him smarter. He wouldn't hate someone because of their beliefs, he just stated why he doesn't believe.
The people did most likely not even click the little triangle to start the video. Most of the comments are void of even addressing the arguments Russell brought up by their very names nor could they repeat them in their own words. It is more a primitive emotional reflex to just post beneath a title of a video in the comment section. Even those people, who assert Russell's arguments to be shale or empty can't even repeat the arguments or content by their respective names. You can clearly see that the vaste majority of negative commentors use language not in the sense to engange or to think, but as handwave or insult noises like you trigger a dog to bark.
It is in my experience that most people who choose to attack these views are simply intimidated by them. If you don’t understand something attack it, kill it. How many times has that dynamic played out? I am soothed by listening to Russell here.
He is stupid because he has a serious flaw
1. He never established a better worldview, he only disproved the Christian worldview
2. Who created God would result in an infinite regression. We won't ever have today if it was infinite regression.
3. He never exactly thought about the people who should get justice, pol pot, Stalin, Hitler, including those who are pedo priests.
4. Very few crimes were done in the name of Christianity.
5. Thank people for telling everyone to read the Bible so literacy rates to skyrocket.
6. There are numerous sociological studies where intrinsic religiosity is extremely beneficial to society.
I'm going to start a new tradition of listening to this every Christmas Eve
The 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom.
The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory).
To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India to join Arthur!
Edit. Edit. Edit. 3 words max. Nobody listens after the first 2 anyway. @@ReverendDr.Thomas
@@elinannestad5320, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@ReverendDr.Thomas got it, leftism is evil, which leads inevitably to perversion and moral decay. Hilarious. Unfortunately, Dharma has no real ethical meaning, it is just a reverence for tradition, that which has become accepted through habituation. All evils are permitted as long as they have been established by a power structure lost in the mists of time. Like all religion, it is merely a recipe for subjugation.
I hope that works out well for you.
It's been about 20 years since I voluntarily went to church. The day I walked away, I realized I should have done it sooner. A rational mind can't listen to the nonsense and changing of rules without frustration and eventually anger. Once out of that loop, the world opens up.
Nature and the way it works is infinitely more interesting.
John Rudy: I've a question for you, one that arises from a deep spiritual struggle that has not yet been settled within me. When you walked away from church and a belief in God, how were you able to jettison the fear of hell? It seems to be one of the foremost issues that keeps people from leaving the faith. The prospect that one will suffer in a lake of fire in eternal torment is a terrifying concept. For me, it is something that I cannot shirk. Yet, when I consider the concept of hell, I must conclude that it is used as a bludgeon to keep people in line and living in fear. How can a God that claims to be love use this kind of fear to control people?
@@darlenegriffith6186 going to church is a bonus if you don't have a relationship with God then you go there
@@darlenegriffith6186 As someone who recently deconverted, the fear of hell subsides the longer you are away from the church. Christianity uses the concept of hell very effectively for two things: forced conformity with the denomination (“don’t do anything we don’t like, or you’ll go to hell”) and instilling fear of separation from the church (“without us you’ll surely go to hell”).
My advice, if you’re looking to remove yourself from this ideology, is to look around you for evidence of hell. From there you can determine if the idea of hell that the church puts forth correlates with the evidence. If I was a betting man, I would bet that you’ll only find “evidence” from those who are trying to manipulate and control you through fear.
Removing oneself from years of religious indoctrination is scary, but getting out from under the crushing unsubstantiated fear of eternal torment is worth it. Stay strong and keep seeking truth
That's true. I think that is how you find the true religion, uncontaminated by human biases and attempts to control.
Your error was focusing on the "modern church organization" and not Christ.
PS this is incredibly clear audio for an almost century old recording. What a marvel to have public organisations like the BBC to preserve our cultures and histories.
What a shame they have taken it upon themselves to become political and woke. What was once a great institution has now been infected and destroyed by social justice warriors and neo communists.
I don’t think it’s actually his voice
Definitely not Russell; the tone is far more assertive and declamatory than Russell's natural voice and manner. I recognise the reader whose voice would also be familiar to other radio listeners of that time but I cannot yet identify who it was, possibly an actor from the 1960's
@@carollane8694 Wasn’t Russell a campaigner for social justice and admirer of Marx? Haven’t the BBC always been something of a well-meaning socialist organisation, since it started?
@@MrMusicbyMartin
Not entirely, it has been a tool of propaganda since its inception - and I mean that in a technical sense, not simply a derogatory one.
However, it did have a broad view up until its politicization in the 1980s and showed a range of views particularly in the 60s and 70s, but that was the era of post war consensus, so in all cases it reflected the political values of the time.
Perfect. If I needed arguments why I am not a Christian, this would be it. I will listen to more Bertrand Russell.
I can't recall a better day in my life than the one i got myself free from my catholic education. Not being afraid of Death is the ultimate Freedom.
Catholics are afraid of death? Why do we accept martyrdom?
🤔👍A/M/E/N 😬😄😆
@@ericklluch6311
and women
amen
You don’t know what you’re missing out on without Jesus Christ dwelling within. 1 Timothy 3.16 God manifest in the flesh. Enjoy your short stay in his creation🙂. I’ll see you guys at the judgment hey we’ll see if you accepted or rejected his free gift of everlasting life.
Proud to be an atheist. I made that decision at age 14, 1960.
2 years later I read Bertrand Russell's " Why I am Not a Christian",. I knew then I was not alone, nor wrong in my decision.
Same here! 1946-20?
@@poollife777 This is garbled grammar. Is English your 2nd language?
@@pm3302 Later in life 6 1/2 years into a marriage, two kids, my non religious wife was brainwashed by the Morman's. At 9 years I had enough. They destroyed my marriage, my life, and separated me from my kids when she took off out of state and it took me some time to find them. She has been married to four Mormons since, all three abused her mentally and physically. She is now in hiding in central Utah. My daughters are now adults and one is completely anti Morman and religions in general, the other is over it and separating herself from the Mormons , her husband has declared, after 18 years marriage and Mormon assault, he has had enough. About time.
Religion, in general, has completely fd up the world.
@@petertobin7163nobody cares about society’s ideas regarding the ‘objective’ standards of grammar. all that matters is can we understand his point? we can. therefore your point is childish.
Love that he doesn’t pull punches, or dance around trying not to insult someone - if he means to say that someone or something was “wicked”, he says “wicked”.
He uses logic to contradict common thought. Logic is a skill which is sadly neglected or ignored today. He does make a very important point here though which I believe is really the central issue and justification (if you call it that) for religion…fear. Wouldn’t it be nice if humans would stop letting fear be our primary motivation instead of love, fairness and compassion. His argument that we don’t need religion to be good is the point.
Wow you're easily impressed. Did you know that fire is hot?
Wicked actions only exist if there is a God. God defines good and evil. Atheists believe in nihilism, not metaphysical concepts like good and evil.
@@alliep8946 Fear deters crime. Stop speeding or get a ticket.
@@timopheim5479 Fear the heat or get 🔥 burned.
I was raised Christian, which is why I’m not one now.
I AM who I AM!
Don’t worry, Hell is going to be filled with people with similar backgrounds, so you won’t be lonely.
@@edwardlandry1113i kiss men
Really showing that Christian love ^ psychopaths
seems that’s the story for many of us
As applicable today as back then, in fact he was brave to question religion almost 100 years ago.
His 'History of Western Philosophy' should be on every school curriculum. Not only is it the best introduction to philosophy ever read but it gently pushes you towards critical thinking. HOW to think, rather than WHAT to think. It's written beautifully also. :)
It's also beautifully written - it scans so much better.
@@jimmycricket7385 ...though grammatically incorrect... ;) :)
It is also an excellent guide to the history of Western life in general.
@@StarHuman-bi9lnthat’s true, but it’s not going anywhere either.
They don't look to the future because that would entail God. They don't believe in God means no future. The way life is now, is the result of when you take God out of the position where he belongs. At the top. Number One priority. Why? Because He is Sovereign over everything. He picks and chooses who gets what. When you leave it to man.... We tend to destroy and corrupt things, this is our nature. We come from the devil, whereas Jesus came from God. We are eternal beings in fleshly attire. Our hearts are deceitful. Our mind is a trap where the devil lies in wait. We have the Bible and we have the Lord. Without them, we are nothing. We can do nothing. We need Jesus more than we need air. God bless
There was a questionnaire asking, “What was your life-changing book?”
The best answer : “The Bible …. After reading it, I became an atheist.”
"The road to atheism is littered with Bibles that have been read from cover to cover." - Andrew Seidel
Leave it to the intellectuals who always try to define God with their limited intellectual capacities please mr. Intellectual Define how do you get something from nothing all you big Bangerz
@@DavidBrown-zs1ic : _ Oh, you suddenly start talking about causation, which is logically explained by science. How do you define “something” and “nothing”? (Q1)
Someone insists there's a turtle-like creature living billions of light years away from the earth, and that it controls everything happening in the universe. Do you believe him? (Q2)
@@Satans_lil_helper : But, you don’t have to read fairy tales to be logical.
@@DavidBrown-zs1icYou understand the mind of the creator of the cosmos? Teach me how, oh Master of the Universe. I'm not worthy! 😭
Excellent points and eloquently spoken. Thank you for finding and sharing this wisdom from Mr. Russell.
What a wonderful speech, im glad i came across it.
Geez. For 1927, this man is on fire with great and well organized reply to theism & many other topics. What a fine product of his spacetime-culture!
You must not read much history for if you did you would find the arguments over the articles of the U.S.Constitution impressive. Or the Magna Charter and a thousand writings in between.
@@marksmith9176
I totally appreciate and I understand your response. I understand that many important bodies of law and philosophy have been charted out before Russell ever lived.
A classic starting point would be the Code of Hammurabi and an end point could be this moment in spacetime-culture. As I reckon, it would take tens of thousands of hours studying these million points from Hammurabi to now. Bertrand Russell did it for his spacetime-culture, and the prize he obtained was a clear enough perspective on human thought that he could then teach to other people.
Both of your examples are excellent. I simply feel like I was sleeping on Bertrand Russell's work. He has such a well done, systematized manner of dealing with modern philosophy. He certainly missed out on contemporary issues, but he has a great knack for explaining all of philosophy up to the early 1950's. He's practically a talking textbook.
Also, I am very far from finished with my personal hobby of philosophy. I recently learned how Russell is one of the two founding members of analytic philosophy. This makes him possibly the greatest philosopher of the 20th century: the same century I, and likely you too, were born in.
Sorry don’t agree
Do you think they were less intelligent or philosophical in 1927? They were probably more so. They weren’t dumb down by the media and television
@@overtones450 Okay, no worry. If you like elaborating, then feel free to do so.
Bertrand Russell was an amazing intellectual. His words are as poetic as they are enlightening.
No he was an idiot
Says you?
I was with him until he spoke of Hitler. You never let the bullies win.
@@ABT212 He spoke of Hitler? In 1927?
@@Alsatiagent Russell lived to 1970. As an extremist pacifist, Russell wrote to Godfrey Carter that if Hitler invades Britain, they should not oppose him.
Definitely concur. Thank you, professor, for your clarity and courage.
This man was brilliant. I enjoyed his book, "the ABC's of Relativity"
The 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom.
The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory).
To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India to join Arthur!
Still one of the best books on the subject. Russell and Einstein knew each other.
@smoothygroovyI don’t think you understand what atheists think about the creation of the universe, atheists don’t believe the universe came from nothing rather they just don’t believe that the universe was created by one of many gods humans have created throughout human history. We have our theories about it which come from reasonable logic instead of superstition created by Bronze Age peasants who barely understood anything about the universe and even the world for that matter.
The same arguments 94 years ago that we still hear today, and 94 years from now it will still be the same.
And still no evidence.
Agreed, Russel argument are so solid against Christian religious beliefs to withstand the test of time. As long as the Bible, the faith, the second coming expectation remains unchanged so will be the validity of the arguments against it, for the next 94 million years.
...VERY SADLY...EFUCATION HOLTS US...AND I AM.A TEACHER.
@James Patrick ¿Misleading the masses? Leading the masses has become impossible, let alone misleading them. In my modest view, what western institutions and societies are doing right now is trying not to be trampled by the masses.
That’s because no one really knows the truth and no one ever will everything is based on theory and dogmatic beliefs about the beginning of the universe and the hereafter. How we came and where we’re going This question will never have a certified answer
One of the most profoundly thought provoking and logical, if shocking , lecture on Christianity I have ever stumbled upon. Terrifyingly true to an open and rational mind.
There seems to be a continuous recycling the story of Jesus. Apon recent readings by myself I discovered the story has been told fo 1000's of years. For reference, I'm a long standing practicing Catholic.
Even more amazing that these truths were realized in the 1920s before we knew what we know now about evolution, our origins and our universe. Impressive intellect on this man.
The key here is rational. Belief is irrational but can be word-smithed to appear rational. If you believe in Santa Clause as an individual, seems irrational but harmless. If this grows into a religion, it can create irrational group behavior. Belief that a certain physical attribute either as an individual or group is irrational and can be much more harmful.
He's not wrong on many points. I have two major topics that he missed on, though:
-ultimate origin is a rather chicken or egg topic, and that's a boat all philosophies are in. Why did the big bang happen? Where did the matter and energy come from? Answering "it just is" sounds suspiciously like what a religious person might say of god. I reject Russell's arguement on that. I have no good answer, but neither does "science" (I hold a PhD in micro-paleontology, so I know a bit about the science). Pretending we "know truth" here is a religious move, and to say otherwise is sophistry.
-Russell keeps conflating "how" with "why" which may actually be the sin against the holy spirit. Why? Well, if I show you how to properly tighten and torque a nut onto a bolt, that's not the same as why. The existence of a bolt does not carry an imperative that it have a 70 ft lb nut torqued onto it. "Why" might be to secure your tire sufficiently to your car.
@@GenXdad everyone constructs someone or something that is beyond death, that will always be the ultimate relationship to the Devine, it’s the story being recycled not the being
Pretty amazing that the Christian apologists' best arguments are the same now as they were 100 years ago, they haven't moved forward an inch, whereas our understanding of the world is so much further advanced.
I just found this video in my RUclips feed and I'm fascinated with Bernard. I Dove right in to the life of this fascinating individual
I loved Russell from teenage onwards. What he says applies to all religions. So wonderful to hear this again in his own voice. I had only read it before. Rational and so clearly stated. Such a great thinker.
This isn't his voice tho, the quality is too good for 1927 and it doesn't sound anything like him, this is being read by a narrator. This is his actual voice, he had a great speaking voice full of gravitas.
ruclips.net/video/4OXtO92x5KA/видео.html
I'm pretty sure this is not his voice, there are some recordings that you can listen to.
From this speech, Bertrand Russell must have been an obnoxious asshole.
Renuka; He could not think way out of a paper bag. All he is doing is spewing psychobabble.
@@wrongfullyaccused7139 Why would he use psychobabble when discussing theological ontology? That has nothing to do with psychology or psychiatry? How would either subject be relevant for a thesis on deontological ethics? I watched and did not hear him do that at all? What phrase would you consider psychobabble? Please give an example?
As to claiming Bertrand Russell couldn't think his way out of a paper bag? lol You are talking about the Bertrand Russell who was one of the founders of analytical philosophy? The man considered to be the preeminent logician of the twentieth century? That Bertrand Russell? The Nobel prize winning Bertrand Russell? The Bertrand Russell that was a mentor to Wittgenstein?That one?
I think you just learned a new word and just wanted to use it but you should know what words mean first. Here let me help you so you don't look silly again -
Psychobabble
[ sahy-koh-bab-uhl ]
noun
writing or talk using jargon from psychiatry or psychotherapy without particular accuracy or relevance.
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
~Founding Father *Thomas Jefferson,* in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814
@@diazjesse97 Did any of your fellow fundie nutjobs found our SECULAR country?
Do tell...
@@diazjesse97 No, but I DO see the irony in modern American RW fundie nutjobs like YOU pretending that we were "Always a Christian Nation" while also hilariously claiming "Freemasons worshipped Satan!"
The irony is SO THICK, you can cut it with a ritualistic knife (made for human sacrifice...like that of Jesus himself).
I bet you don't even know why Freemasons and the like were called "Occultists" or "Satanists" by your Christian propagandists of old, do you?
Scared to LEARN now, are we?
Mmmmhhmmmmm......EXACTLY!
@@diazjesse97 Cool.
A) I (always) appreciate a conciliatory tone to neuter any animosity, which I mainly use as offense to maintain engagement as most opponents RUN when they see I know how to write and think and TRUTHBOMB.
B) The fact that you “don’t have a dog in this fight” really means nothing to the topic, except that you may be more brainwashed by centuries of Catholic bs about Freemasons or perhaps, "The NWO" conspiracy theories, etc.
C) Freemasons were a secular “cult of science” basically, born of the Enlightenment and designed to COUNTER centuries of superstitious nonsense sanctioned by the church. The Catholic church would love it if we never had an Enlightenment, but alas….the Dark Ages ended centuries ago, didn’t it? Lol!
D) The belief that they are “Satanists”, etc IS Christian propaganda..
I got more, but let’s just see how that lands with you. I don’t care if “Mr. Crowwwley” (que Ozzy Osborne…) was a Freemason, btw. There is no such thing as “Satanism” in the sense that Christians believe it. This is fairly easy to prove.
Your OG objection was a thinly-veiled attempt to dismiss a quote that was about the Separation of Church & State. It was a “Genetic Fallacy”, something Creationists and other fundie nutjobs are fond of using. It has NOTHING to do with the subject of the quote. Attacking the author of ANY quote is pathetically sophomoric as a "critique".
Perhaps you could offer a more thoughtful counter-argument instead of, “The guy who said that is fat AND ugly so, Mmmmtthhhh!”, which is how you sound to me.
Hahahahaha!
Like a child.
Most fundies are mentally like kids to me now (I’m 53 and a former Christian, raised Catholic) though so, ya know..
You're in a cult.
@@diazjesse97 Quick aside: Did old Ben Franklin discover electricity because "SATAN???" (Church Lady voice)
Gotta love that goofy Christian propaganda. Stay curious, bro.
@@diazjesse97 Then go back to the Dark Ages where you belong. Oh right, this tech we're using was PRAYED into existence, was it? Haha!
And you think all non cult members are delusional...
Hilarious.
His voice is genuinely amazing
What a legend this dude. He would be so excited to know that nearly 100 years in the future, people would still listen to his speech on these advanced electronic machines interconnected all around the world
@@hkschubert9938 Nope.... still a legend. People still quote him and use his arguments to this day. And what is so bad about a dinosaur museum?
And perhaps also disappointed by the sloppy way in which this video is presented.
There doesn't seem to be enough respect in this upload for Bertrand Russell's demand that we consider THE FACTS. This video has been here for ten years and two days, and STILL the description doesn't acknowledge
(A) that the voice in this recording is not that of Bertrand Russell
(B) that the accent of the speaker in this recording is not that of Bertrand Russell
(C) that this recording obviously was made more recently than 1927
(D) that the photo used in the video is not of Russell's delivery of this speech
(E) that the microphone in the photo is of a design that came after the 1920s
(F) that Russell in the photo is many years older than he was in 1927 (the year in which he turned 55).
It's not hard to state that this is a recording of someone else reading the speech many years after 1927 and that the photo of Russell was taken long after 1927.
This is how Bertrand Russell really sounded in 1932, five years after 1927: ruclips.net/video/qvsPgCx-gMA/видео.html
ഒരുപക്ഷേ 1000 വർഷത്തിനുള്ളിൽ വരും ഭാവിയിൽ ആളുകൾ തലച്ചോറിന്റെ ആഴത്തിൽ ഘടിപ്പിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന ബയോണിക് ചിപ്പുകൾ വഴി റസ്സലിന്റെ വീഡിയോകൾ കണ്ടേക്കാം.
@@smadaf ഈ ഓഡിയോ റെക്കോർഡിംഗ് സമകാലികമാണെന്ന് കുറച്ച് ബുദ്ധിയെങ്കിലും ഉള്ള ആർക്കും അറിയാം. .. അതുകൊണ്ട് അവർ അത് റസ്സലിന്റെ ശബ്ദമാണെന്ന് തെറ്റിദ്ധരിക്കില്ല.
@@smadaf I come to a conclusion instantaneously that Bertrand Russell was not exist!
I wish everyone would listen to this
Amazing how accurate this all still is.
Read his essays on the future of education and propoganda. Gives one shivers in its accuracy
Wow, this is one of the better arguments I’ve ever heard. Especially given that it was recorded so very long ago.
It's not that long ago in the scheme of things really.
Nothing new under the sun , the more I read the more I realize they were not the 1 dimensional black and white photos but people just like us , just as lost as us searching for answers in the void
im not sure, im an atheist so all the part of god for sure, nothing new but narrated with an amazing voice and eloquence, but the arguments on christ... "well jesus said this on wich i agree with him but the christians dont act like that" how is that an argument on christ character? . Im sure he was a great mathematician.
@@melkicastillo3399 he was not attacking the character of Christ in that section, that was the part where he actually agreed with him. the comments on christians is just an aside. The attack comes after, where he talks about the cruelty of the concept of hell = Christ is cruel.
“Conquer the world with intelligence” Absolutely profound.
The Nazis had very intelligent people in their ranks. Their intelligence almost conquered the world. Intelligence has committed some of the worst atrocities on people.
absolutely profane
" Conquer the world with Love" .
@@omnicromagnon3793 how can he 'profane' that which cannot be interacted with? , What's obscene is the fear you people are made to live with.
Unfortunately, Russell's extremely optimistic view on human progress and intelligence seems to be dented somewhat by disasters like climate change, and the existence of massive nuclear arsenals with the potential to destroy most of human civilization. It's starting to look like humans are morally flawed and stupid by nature after all. In 1927, the future looked really bright. Humans' impact on the environment wasn't really widely discussed or well understood, but everyone knew how much better standards of living were getting. And they've gotten far better yet, but now we know that can't last.
Now we need the people in power to apply our modern understanding of sustainability to our economic system, and we need the public to get on board. Predictably, the response is denial, resistance, and opposition. And that's not because of religion alone. It's also because of culture, powerful psychopaths who don't want the status quo to change, and basic human nature. But if we all still shared Russell's optimism, we could fix today's problems as well. The epidemic of hopelessness in the face of our ability to solve these problems may itself by the biggest problem.
On a technical note, I must say the audio quality for 1927 is amazing...
I concur.
Yes. Far too good.
Must be using a yeti mic 😂
It’s someone else reading his words
There doesn't seem to be enough respect in this upload for Bertrand Russell's demand that we consider THE FACTS. This video has been here for ten years and two days, and STILL the description doesn't acknowledge
(A) that the voice in this recording is not that of Bertrand Russell
(B) that the accent of the speaker in this recording is not that of Bertrand Russell
(C) that this recording obviously was made more recently than 1927
(D) that the photo used in the video is not of Russell's delivery of this speech
(E) that the microphone in the photo is of a design that came after the 1920s
(F) that Russell in the photo is many years older than he was in 1927 (the year in which he turned 55).
It's not hard to state that this is a recording of someone else reading the speech many years after 1927 and that the photo of Russell was taken long after 1927.
This is how Bertrand Russell really sounded in 1932, five years after 1927: ruclips.net/video/qvsPgCx-gMA/видео.html
Everyone should read Bertrand Russell's book, "Why I Am Not a Christian". It is a breath of sanity and humanity in a world that still does not realize just how backward and ugly that it really has remained until this day.
Actually, everyone should read The Bible and The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ, and seek to receive a witness from God that they are true (as I have ).😊
Plus it's funny!
@@Fred-mp1vf Everyone should read the christian bible, the book of Mormon and the Koran. It's the best way for people to realise what a load of bollocks they all are.
@@Fred-mp1vfHow did you determine it was God that was interacting with you?
@Fred-mp1vf fool, the book of mormon contradicts the Bible!!! Moroni comes from moron!!!
Excellent book. One of the first books I read when I set out on my journey to Freedom from Religion.
In your own words, define “RELIGION”. ☝️🤔☝️
...curious comment. You wanted to be free of religion but you needed to read somebody else's reasoning to convince yourself. Not much faith in your own thinking capacity. And it was only the first book ?? The other problem is your ultimate conclusion has only a 50/50 chance of being right. It seems you spent a lot of useless time for a 50/50 proposition...You don't sound very selective on how you use your time...
This is a true gem! Amazing to hear this remarkable man expose religion in his own voice. His thinking and oratory is still as fresh today as it was a century ago.
There doesn't seem to be enough respect in this upload for Bertrand Russell's demand that we consider THE FACTS. This video has been here for ten years and two days, and STILL the description doesn't acknowledge
(A) that the voice in this recording is not that of Bertrand Russell
(B) that the accent of the speaker in this recording is not that of Bertrand Russell
(C) that this recording obviously was made more recently than 1927
(D) that the photo used in the video is not of Russell's delivery of this speech
(E) that the microphone in the photo is of a design that came after the 1920s
(F) that Russell in the photo is many years older than he was in 1927 (the year in which he turned 55).
It's not hard to state that this is a recording of someone else reading the speech many years after 1927 and that the photo of Russell was taken long after 1927.
This is how Bertrand Russell really sounded in 1932, five years after 1927: ruclips.net/video/qvsPgCx-gMA/видео.html
Just came across this while studying for my intro to philosophy class. Great listen.
I am convinced that i have never met a christian. I have met many who claim to be.
So you’ve never met Jesus?
@@Dude0000 no. And Jesus was a jew, not a christian.
The last Christian died on the cross.
@@ejam1117 You are dismissing a straw man of your imagination as not being perfect is taken into account by the concept of sin. Why are so many atheists so dumb yet are so proud of their own self perceived intellects?
Rhetorical question, I have no evidence of your personal ontology. I do know based on your comments that you lack basic understanding of Christianity, though.
@@ejam1117Jesus was Christ, he was ethnically Jewish and upheld the laws of the second temple period, as the temple still stood while He was living - but what He preached was entirely antithetical to Judaism as it is known today. Being the Messiah, being the Son of God, being God in a triune Godhead etc. is antithetical to rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism.
I was brought up in a catholic family and was made to go to church every Sunday even though I didn’t want to go..I was also every 2 months taken to church on a Saturday night around 6pm for confession which frightened me to death as a child talking to a man in a box who’s face I couldn’t see , I just found the whole experience bizarre..It all seems so outdated to me and I choose not to bother with it now I’m older...
I thought the same thing.. priest in a box..
We were very Catholic. I went to school everyday and bibles school for 3 hours after school everyday.. alongside homework every evening for both.
I was always in trouble for asking very innocent questions. I truly just couldn't make sense of a lot of it.
Do as your told!! And nuns can be VERY mean. Very very mean. -wicked- one might say.
I decided around 4th grade I wasn't catholic/christian.
In my 40's and the story is still the same.
Spiritualality is one thing religion another. They can be braided but usually not so.
i grew up Southern Baptist, and my dad swore that the Church only adopted Confession as we know it in the MIddle Ages,as a way of keeping tabs on parishoners
Me too
“A good world needs knowledge, kindness, and courage. It does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence, by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.”
For the win
Wisdom: Arguably one of the very best analytics, logician and philosopher. Especially in today's world....Bertrand William Russell thank you for igniting a spark.
He's not helpful
Kenyans emancipated
Arguably.
So far my favorite line is something we say a hundred years later: " "the reason being to create the best universe, of course; although you would never think it to look at it." 😅😂
A brilliant mind!
"...the future that our intelligence can create..." Thank you Bertrand Russell. A wise man indeed.
philosophers are prophets
ruclips.net/video/kPWkPEb8rPc/видео.html
Maybe that future is no so great as you think. How certain is it that we shall travel the Stars by of our invention? Our intellectual mistakes often lead us into blind allies.
Imagine if our intelligence was actually able to create a school curriculum that was not an indoctrination camp that opposes a population that’s strong in critical thinking skills.
A "FOOL" says in his heart, there is No God
The company of Bertrand Russell is always fulfilling. The cogency of his arguments and the clarity of his expression are a source of great satisfaction.
Almost 100 years later. So much has changed. We’ve learned so much and yet… this truth is still truth.
Would you say his argument about beginnings, that there is no need nor evidence for there to be a beginning of the universe, holds up with the knowledge humanity has today
But it didn't change the mind of the Christians because they still believe in a invisible guy in the sky.
@@7vnYes since we still can’t explain what before big bang
@@user-jl5de4qf7gMaybe there isn’t a “before.” If time started at the moment the Big Bang happened then using time as a measurement for the state of the universe pre-Big Bang doesn’t make sense.
The truth is not always apparent. As Trump''s spokesman once said, we are presenting alternate facts.
What a magnificent man, what a wonderful thinker.. Every word as relevant today asit was then. When will we ever learn.
‘A History of Western Philosophy’ should be on every bookshelf, Lord Russell has a knack for making the complex ideas of philosophy clearer to laymen like me. I read it when I was 22, newly graduated in the sciences but working in a bar and not motivated to seek a ‘profession’ or ‘career’. I became a teacher after reading his book - not a directly related choice but he changed my way of thinking. His logic seems faultless, and his understanding of psychology and the perception of things a revelation. His other writing taught me that an atheist can be moral and live a purposeful, meaningful life.
If you seek philosophical discussion online you will be offered Zizek or Jordan Peterson. I wonder how Russell would have addressed their overt Marxism (for the former) or the 400-year old idealism served up by Dr Peterson? Or what he would have thought of Derrida and Foucault? He didn’t appear to care for Hegel and had a grudging respect for Marx, so I suspect he would have taken them back to Plato’s cave to talk about shadows on the wall 😉
And further...what would he have thought of Christpher Hitchens
I wonder?
It’s a real shame, because Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual lightweight and doesn’t hold a candle to Hitchens or Russell.
Thank you for uploading this!!
Spot on ! ❤
I remember reading two books rather contemporary with one another. Russell's Why I am not a Christian, and another by a theologian called Why I am a Christian. This disconnect in reasoning between the two was so vast
that this one example of 'reasoning' demonstrates the incredible flaws and loop-holes in using it to settle arguments. 'Truth' always comes in some box. The place where truth resides outside this box is like trying to contemplate infinity without thinking about time.
Unfortunately, a great number of Americans would be lost listening to this man. I am glad to say that I am not one of them.
I'm not completely lost. Luckily I've been exposing myself to these subjects for a decade now. RUclips and Google do have a lot of information that isn't all bad.
Same here. Was introduced to him at an early age by parents that thought you should learn to think and reason for yourself.
@@kevinmurphy65 Believing in a higher power doesn't mean one can't think for themselves.
@@wizardofahhhs759 thats not what i meant but...ok. What was meant that to blindly accept anything is not a good idea and a great many people do, at face value...I live in the USA, want me to provide some examples? Had some real doozies here recently.
It´s nothing grandiose; he is really talking a load of crap and doesn´t know what the bible defines as a christian. So, he might sound eloquent but he is completely wrong. And yes, you are lost because he just took you down a rabbit hole of nonsense. There are many people who call themselves christian and are not but Jesus said you must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven. You need to get born again, friend. You didn´t come from a pile of mucus floating in space, c'mon.
I read this text two years ago. Amazing to hear it.
Amazing how much of this still rings so true today.
Thank god his thoughts are more widespread now
than when he wrote them.
It gives one a little hope that
one day we will all be free
of the scourge of religious nonsense.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL "Thank god..." I see what you did there lolol! But in all seriousness, I agree. It seems like we're finally moving slowly away from that religious thinking that has plagued society for millennia.
@@creamandcream9331 Only the last two to three millennia. Before that, what we would call religions were actually the nameless control systems of civilizations populated by bicameral minded people. A situation that persisted for seven millennia after agriculture triggered civilizations into existence ten millennia ago.
All this according to a theory I believe to be most likely and certainly the one with by far the most explanatory power.
See Julian Jaynes' great book,
"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
for the details.
The magic aspect of religion is an obsolete artifact of cultural evolution. But there's more to religions than magic nonsense. Religions have had millennia to become extremely knowledgeable about and highly skilled in regard to the psychological/behavioral control of truly huge numbers of people.
Nothing to sneeze at.
@@creamandcream9331 to be however replaced by something worse… that to oppresses people in the name of money…
Excellent.
I'll never forget the first time I read Unpopular Essays. Listening to him now fills me so many thoughts and emotions, given the present state of this world...
“Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith”. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the Earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute Emotion for Evidence.” - Bertrand Russell
I have never seen China. I have had many people tell me it exists, but I have no direct evidence of it's existence. I take it on FAITH that it exists .
@@philcorris5899 -- There is a night and day difference in believing China exists and that a specific 'god' exists. One has Real Evidence for it, that being China. That Evidence is "real" and good because it can be Tested and it's Falsifiable. Claims for 'gods' are to be believed with religious faith, which is nothing more than the Politically Correct way of calling it was it truly is = BLIND Faith. That is, the belief in something you Cannot See (hence the Blind Part) but you HOPE is true.
Bottom line is, Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence, of which religions provide ZERO. Because of that, religions survive on Blind Faith.
Honest question: Do you see the difference between a claim like "China is real" and "My specific god, whom I was born into, is real"?
@@MasterSpade I understand what you are saying, however until you go and see China for yourself, you are simply taking someone else's word that it exists. That is faith of a sort.
Questioning the reality of China is of course an extreme example of things we take 'On Faith'
@@philcorris5899 -- I understand what you are saying too. But believing that a place like "China" exists has nothing to do with faith. It's more about the "Confidence" of it being real. Faith and having Confidence in something are 2 very different things, especially when speaking of Religious Faith/Blind Faith.
Having "faith" in something, is when there is No Real Evidence. While having Confidence in something is based more on past Real Events and real evidence.
Example: If you meet a stranger and he asks you to let him borrow $10K, do you lend it to him? If you do, it would be on Blind Faith that he would pay you back.
However if you lend him $10 and he pays you back before he said he would, you start building Confidence in him based on Actual Events (him paying you back). Then after some time you become best friends and you let him borrow, $100, he pays you back. Then $1K, he pays you back. Your Confidence in him is rising. Then you lend him $5k, he pays you back. Then he asks you for that $10K loan... do you let him borrow the money? If yes, it is no longer based on Blind Faith, but on the Confidence that you have in him based on those actual events (Real Evidence) that he has always paid you back. Now, you cannot be 100% sure that he WILL pay you back, but at this point it's the Confidence that was built up on past real events.
So Blind Faith/religious faith = No Real Evidence. Based on something you cannot see, but you Hope is true.
Confidence = Based on Actual Real Evidence of past events. Because of that, you have a feeling/belief you can trust.
See the difference?
@@MasterSpade I would respectfully disagree that true faith is blind and not based on evidence.
Hebrews 11:1 clearly states in the King James Version “faith is the substance of things hoped for, ->the evidencea confidence, Of facts
A brilliant video. Consequential even today. Well thought out intelligentLy spoken and reasoned dispassionately.
Wonderful.
absolutely outstanding.
A Christian: One who holds the belief that God became his own son in order to sacrifice himself to himself to fulfill a law that he created and had prior knowledge of.
A Christian: One who beliefs that zombie Jesus will return one day to judge the living and the dead.
A Christian: One who believes that man was created out of clay; and women out of his rib.
A Christian: One who believes that the creator can use telepathic means to read your thoughts and condemn you of thought crimes.
Fear always motivates humans more than reason.
Carrot =heaven and stick =hell is part of every religion. LOL
@Ellie Bradlee how is it different for a non-believers or people of other religions?
I say. No difference.
Bravo! What a great video. 👋
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
- Epicurus
Christ took all sins upon him and has defeated sins.
@@nirmaljose7763 The Christ myth is a “Human Sacrifice that worked” for the faithful. Nothing more. It’s an ANCIENT archetype of martyrdom based on sacrificing animals to the gods. The fact that Christians can’t/won’t see this simple facet of their faith is part of the problem and why this superstition persists.
You can’t MURDER someone or RAPE someone and just “ask Jesus to forgive you”, thus making it “all better”. Life and JUSTICE does NOT WORK THAT WAY.
Start there or go back to your fairy tales. This is the real world where your religion get SCRUTINIZED properly.
Former Christian here, btw…
@@nirmaljose7763 so why is there sin right now?
Because we as humans have "free will" (allowed by God"} It is "man" that is evil not God. God allows man to do evil to one another!!
@@DW_Kiwi “Free will” is an EASILY debunked Christian propaganda tool designed to keep YOU, the faithful, from thinking too hard about this stuff. I can prove this if you engage with me, and yes, I see you’re attempting to answer someone else here. Not wasting time debunking that gem without your curiosity….which is precisely why Christianity thrives in America.
We’re not a terribly curious or bright country…
Do you even realize that you just ignored the quote completely with “God allows man to do evil”. To reiterate Epicurus, “then why call him God”?! What good can belief in any "gawds" possibly offer our way of life if he “allows” these injustices and the only way to appeal to his “mercy” is your piety?
Do the parents of dead cancer kids not pray hard enough for him? How about mass shooting victims’ families, same deal? Meanwhile RW Christianity in America stunts REAL debate on gun control (AND cancer-curing research via stem cells, etc) in the name of useless “Thoughts & prayers” and/or “religious liberty”.
Theism is demonstrably dumb…
"if i cant see, hear, touch, taste, smell or otherwise experience your god on my plane of existence then to me you see... HE SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST" i love this quote from Bertrand Russell.. how true, how true.. 👍😎☮️🌄
It's a silly argument. There are things you can't hear, touch, taste or smell that exist. Microwave signals, radio waves, satellite signals, etc... If you don't have the proper equipment you won't know they've there. You could deny them as pure fantasy with your criteria.
@Ollie Foxx Yes, but if you have the proper equipment you CAN experience them and therefore, prove they are real. You seemed to only take the "see/hear/touch/taste/smell" part of his argument in consideration. If anything, we never we assumed the existence of microwaves until we could experience them somehow, so why just assume God's existence without proof?
If you use your Third eye you will find out the Truth . Russell was a member of the Elites Occult Egyptian Satanic Club !
@@olliefoxx7165 "you can't feel microwaves" the movie Kick Ass would beg to differ
@@quadpad_music try fitting consciousness into that criteria and see how you go.
As an atheist and skeptic, that style of proof and my experiences with the paranormal, do not wash.
Both ends of the spectrum think they have a monopoly on truth, yet neither do, but both will lie to maintain their beliefs as the truth.
Truth is somewhere in the middle and I no longer associate myself with the common attitude expressed by atheists in a dogmatic appeal to authority.
The mental gymnastics that I've seen from religiots and atheists etc, do not have a clear distinction.
Both have their God. With non believers it the peer review process, and while science itself doesn't lie, those within science, do lie to maintain the status quo.
Scientism is the God of non believers. Whereas a particular God is the chosen authority figure for those engaging in a cult like belief system.
The other thing both ends suffer from is, arrogance, ego and the misconception that they've never been fooled.
Both express the same fear that they've been wrong, so continue to push their brand of existence, due to that fear, then claim all others not like them, are not being honest.
Hypocrites keep breeding but will never admit that's exactly what they are.
It's good to have a few sane people to remind us what sanity is, or was.
The Miracle of the Atom
The Laws of physics that exist are due to the activity within the atom, which is finely tuned in order for us to exist and as we know atoms are required for life. The main energy level occupied by an electron during orbit is dictated by its fixed distance from the nucleus of the atom. This is relative to electron and proton attraction. There are constants within the atom, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the protons relative to each other. All orbitals that have the same value “N” being the main energy level relates to the quantum number and are said to share the same shell level. Protons are subatomic particles which are charged in relation to the nucleus, electrons are attracted towards them because they have opposite electrical charges; this fine tuning keeps them in orbit around the nucleus making the development of life possible as we know it. The atom is a miracle of design not an accident waiting to happen. Everything is made up of atoms which are finely tuned for the building blocks of life and also they create the environment necessary for the existence of life. The conditions on our own earth in particular are finely tuned being described as biophilic in which life as we know it can flourish.
If any of the fundamental constants like the speed of light or the strength of gravity were to change just a little, then life as we know it would cease to exist. This realization has led some physicists to argue that our universe is intelligently designed, made especially for us, no accident waiting to happen. We live in a finely tuned universe perfectly primed in order to support life.
There is irreducible complexity within the atom never mine the cell as atoms make up cells and are responsible for life as we know it. Atoms are unique and their atomic number dictates what substance or chemical property they have. Carbon for instance has an atomic number of 6 positively charged protons in the nucleus. Atoms are essential building blocks of life, for example the body contains fat which is made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Carbon atoms because of their unique make-up also bond strongly to other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen because they have branches or rings of various sizes that contain thousands of atoms, carbon is quite accommodating with other substances. These have unique atomic numbers that make life possible. Atoms suffer from irreducible complexity because all the electrons, protons and neutrons must be present at the same time in a particular number and order, for the atom to function as a designated substance. This knowledge dispenses with the idea of mutations and natural selection relating to chemical interactions. Life on the earth is based on carbon chemistry. Carbon is used in organic matter such as our bodies for instance in order to maintain life. They silently carry out important chemical reactions within our bodies and they are essential to life on the earth. Carbon atoms make up the sun, stars, comets and the atmosphere of most planets. Carbon is found in coal, oil, diamonds and natural gas deposits. The atom is clearly designed and many physicists now recognise this, but they won’t use the word God or Creator, they would sooner believe aliens were responsible, but the question is then begged who made the aliens?
The term atom really means invisible unit or uncuttable, and for a long time it was thought that the atom could not be split, but when they did, it produced the atomic bomb. An infinite intelligence made the various atoms which are so small and are measured as being one tenth of a billionth of a metre across. They are so small that they cannot be seen under a powerful microscope. We are led to believe that all our sophisticated atoms are derived from an invented primordial complex soup of chemicals which then produced the first living cells. Remember each atom is unique due to its composition and arrangement of subatomic particles relative to the number of protons in the nucleus. This is no accident waiting to happen! A primordial soup is purely fictitious and based on fantasy and imagination because men do not want to retain God in their knowledge.
Jesus did not lie to us concerning him being the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. He said that men shall give an account for every idle word spoken, except they repent of their sins!
@@normanthrelfall2646He covered this in the book if you listen. 10:24
@@guitarizard You need an encounter with Jesus personally, that is your problem. I have had an intimate spiritual encounter with our Lord Jesus Christ and I encounter his presence every day. I walk in the the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is hard for you to understand at the moment. Jesus said every plant which my Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up, leave them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind and if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch. Jesus loves you! I wonder if you are a lost sheep that needs finding? If you are seek his faith through his loving words!
@@normanthrelfall2646 i don't need an imaginary friend
@@guitarizard Evolution is your imaginary friend!
Religions tend to be full of contradictions, almost like they were devised by us humans 😮
This was brilliant! And VERY relevant to everything happening today! Thank you for posting!
Yes very brilliant. The breakdown of family and love, horrendous and inhumane lockdowns, the looming threat of a global one-world communist government and constant threat of censorship due to speaking the facts. What a brilliant world it is without God! So intellectual and productive! So brilliant wow atheism and communism is so great!
Not really actually, at least with his arguments on science. They’re very dated, especially his statements on the beginnings of the universe and the laws of nature.
"And VERY relevant to everything happening today!" -- No. The religious fanatics making life a living hell in the U.S. today are not Christians or any of the traditional religions.
@@seanhoffmeyer442 not really. Dated in the sense that science has become even more evolved today then it was 100 years ago, but even with the limited understanding of the time, this 1927's argument still beats every Christian apologetics arguments I've encountered
@@seanmiller6583 Science has diverged from Russel’s view, not further evolved from it. The Big Bang Theory wasn’t well researched or accepted until decades after Russel recorded this, which renders several of his points moot, and the discovery of quantum mechanics (also decades later) breaks the concept of materialism (which Russel relies on) and suggests a transcendent consciousness outside the material universe (whether modern day materialists like to admit it or not). Experimental research in the past decade has only made this more clear. Check out Inspiring Philosophy’s channel, he has several series which summarize this research very well.
Respect to the BBC for airing this.
Of course they aired it?
a gift to the world...truly a brave man that stood up to nonsense as one should if they value intellect, morality and/or integrity.
You know who else was brave? Jesus Christ dying for our sins.
@@yomomshouse100Yes Jesus died so his dad doesn’t have to torture us for breaking the rules he made and he knew we would break due to how he designed us to break them.
@@shroomer8294 God is perfect. Any being he creates with a free will to choose will by default not be perfect because they are not God. But anyone can get right with God through Jesus who God sent for us. So in reality we have free will and a choice that is love + DIGNITY so more than love i guess you are right.
@shroomer8294 Not only did god know that humans would break the rules he made, because he designed us, but because he is supposed to be all-knowing. That contradicts the existence of a free will. You can't have it both ways.
@@yomomshouse100 ure an idiot if you stand here and say the name jesus as if you knew he ever existed. We know so little of that hypothetical schizophrenic, we as in those who actually care about the truth, you on the other hand read second hand accounts of second hand acounts written centuries later, heavily edited on political whims and pseudopigraphied into contradictions beyond any consistency. I know how the bible was made, i know when the gospel were written, copied dossens more times, and how the copies were assembled, thats why i know they're not a reliable source of information. Blind fate is for fools, and i pity you and your children that you endeavor to blind just as you were blinded ur self!
Thank you.
I have listened patiently to B Russell...To my mild surprise I can say that I thoroughly agree with everything he says...Thank you B...
Then you end up in hell with him.
Atheists often worship their intellects.
Faith is a wonderful gift.
My word what a wonderful speaker. Fantastic.
Good to listen to this😊
My library had the records of this and other of his thoughts. When the technology came into existence, I transferred them on to cd. They're always good for a chuckle.
It's amazing to me, how many of his logical arguments made in this recording from 1927, came to my mind as a youth in the 1950s. I lost any belief in Christ about the same time I lost my belief in Santa, at about the age of 8. None of it made any sense to me and I could never understand those who were and are believers.
People's desperate need for lies can be quite alienating for a young mind waking early to the senses of logic. Irrational people fuel infantile depression in the brightest and most vulnerable.
I am born again and I can tell you without a doubt that the bible is true. If you honestly seek for God you will find him. When you pass into eternity I believe it will all be very clear to you how obvious that this was not an accident and that of course there is a Creator. Unfortunately at that point it will be too late. I do wish you well and hope you continue to search.
@@jtm7336 You wrote, "Unfortunately at that point it will be too late." No matter what else you say, I honestly can't listen well to you after trying to strike fear into your readers with those words. It's reprehensible, unChristian, and those words cannot be found in the bible. You are merely drawing your own conclusion to stress the negative outcome instead of sticking to hope. In other words, you've tainted all your hopeful sentiments like a bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch! Wake up and address the vid, which you fail to do whatsoever. I wish you well in that endeavor or whatever, but please stop spouting your conclusions even if you believe them. Thank you.
@@abeautifuldayful Have your little hissy fit, that is fine. I am telling you the truth and not candy coating it. If you pass into eternity without Jesus you will have no hope. Yes, that is biblical!
@@jtm7336 I'm not candy coating it either when I say to go screw yourself - somehow this very personal truth of my divine faith seems to be deleted everytime. Seems there is a disparity of faith in the algorithm.
It's amazing to me that these arguments still need to be made. An absolutely brilliant and excoriating take-down of Christianity and an inspiration to human solidarity and kindness.
I wish I had seen this when I was a child.
I wish my sainted mother, who lived under the thumb of the Catholic church had heard it. She might have had a happier life.
Nothing amazing about it. As long as children are indoctrinated with fear, these arguments will have to be made.
@@benjamintrevino325 Sad but probably true.
I'm being terrorized by drug addicts. My catholic friend says ...you have evil forces coming at you.....pray! What BS I have vile ,mean, nasty addicts bothering me.
You do yourself far too much credit to think that you would have understood this then. I bet you can barely understand it beyond "god bad" right now.
I am listening to this on Christmas Day.... Wonderful.
Yep. When we celebrate the birth of the savior. Jesus Christ!!
I come here just to frustrate myself over the fact that "gods-believers" cannot see why they are the evidence against "supreme beings".
I read his book of the same title decades ago and liked it very much. I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to his very eloquent speech even more though. He was brilliant.
"I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion as organized in its churches has been and still is the principle enemy of moral progress in the world."
Truth
Atheistic communist states have killed millions upon millions.
@@djg585 LOL. There has never been a Communist state. Russia was a fascist state and not driven by atheism. The Nazis were Christian. The Holocause was the culmination of over a thousand years of antisemitism being preached from the pulpit. Pogroms against Jews had been happening for centuries. Without Christianity, anyisemitism doesn't even make sense. It's not atehists who call Jews "Christ killers." By the way, this would not cause your fairy to exist even if it was true, and just FYI, there has never been a religious theocracy that worked. The US works because it kicked religion out of the Government.
What is your yardstick for "progress"?
@@physiocrat7143 Why does there have to be a yardstick? I don't understand your question. You're asking what counts as "progress?" How about equal rights for women? Would that count as progress? The Bible says women are property7 who have to keep their mouths shut. Getting rid of slavery, was that progress? Christians supported slavery and accurately used the Bible to defend it. How about Scientific progress? Christians have fought every inch of scientific progress. They wouldn't even admit that the Earth went around the sun. Now they refuse to admit evolution is true, say COVID is made up and doctors are all liars, Global Warming is a liberal conspiracy, etc. We can also talk about lgbt people. Christianity has nothing but shame on that score. Marital rape is A-ok, though.
Can you think of a single social, scientific or moral progression that Christianity didn't resist? I can't.
Hmm. I’d like to know what BR’s idea of “moral progress” is and how he can purport to define what he evidently believes to be objectively moral. On what basis was his concept of morality objective?
I first read this essay in 1967 or 1968 and have not considered myself a Christian since then.
@Nathan Desta Correlation does not, ipso facto, imply causation. But existence implies the right to exist.
Very great video im grateful
Whenever I read his books I was amazed by their clarity. But now that I've actually heard him speak for the first time I'm even more amazed
I wish I could express my thoughts on religion as precisely and eloquently as this
Cut the crap, friend
You'll have to do far better than this dead- eyed creature. Russell is an amateur. Terribly flawed information which causes his logic to turn on itself like a dog chasing its own tail. He has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the Bible passages he attempts to interpret as if he is an authority on the subject. Far from it. What a little uniformed, lazy prig he really is.
Practice and I'm sure you will
@@eduardbenedic9844 study, study, study science and philosophy, learn to use language effectively, steel man your opponents positions, Ect and practice for a tumultuous lifetime...
Best wishes
"Some people mean no more by it (Christianity) than a person who attempts to live a good life." I wonder if atheist Bertrand Russell ever talked to a Christian and/or where is 'opinion'/s are founded on. From a non-academic point of view this 'lecture' is quite poor and surely arrogant. 'Why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness.' Think about it, 'I, Bertrand Russel, grant Jesus...'.
Feeling blessed to have found this video.amazing!
You can only be blessed by the holy spirit. Therefore you must believe in god and Jesus sacrificed himself for all of our sins. Believe this and walk in the way of Christ and you will have eternal life. Without it you die in your sins. God bless us all
@@billlajoy3374 shouldn’t there be evidence for such claims. But there is none.
@@ronaldsyme752 the evidence is in the bible
Brilliant.
This makes so much sense to me.
What a mind.Thank you for the upload!
The fool in his heart says theirs no God
@@jeffbogue4748 Only fools take the word of others without proof.
God was created by the first conman when he met the first fool.
@@dukeemzworth3005 lol
Real fools spell "there's" as "theirs".
What an incredible speaker and his logic is so believable !!!
It's actually "unbelievable"
@@hijohojo2868 I think he got it right the first time lmao
@@sneakybeaver8866 no, had to be a mistake.. I'm positive
I felt like struck by thunder when I first read this over a quarter century ago, and the sensation still remains the same.
Struck by thunder? Please explain...
@ktl4539 no…
this was really fascinating. the age of its release is insightful
A much-needed talk in this current time when our world needs to face the challenges by reason not scapegoating to falsehoods!
And yet you put all your faith in science, because
@@republica843 why did god create Jupiter?
@republica
Because science works and makes accurate predictions of the natural universe. Considering virtually all specific religious/theological claims revolve around what happens after death they’ve been, and remain to be, unfalsifiable and purely speculative
@@loganleatherman7647 Not very acurate,.asumptions at best.
Because it is real and we can see it works?
He was a very tolerant person, and even campaigned for the decriminalisation of homosexuality. He was very ahead of his time for a Victorian.
Tolerant… don’t you mean tyrant
@@Trp44 ?
His marriages failed. Have to wonder if Bertrand was gay.
@@freyamckenzie5583 Of course, it couldn't have been the women, there had to be a problem with the dude.
@@Illlium, Four marriages.
Having followed the modern debates in, generally speaking, northern america, about atheism/theism, it makes me speechless, that people are basically still repeating the same arguments, that have been properly summed up and replied to in this video. Everything has been said. From both sides. Yet still, intelligent people have to repeat it again and again and again.
almost a hundred years ago and he NAILED IT!