Russell was being sarcastic. His point is that this is just ordinary common sense unless one has a vested interest in being wrong.
are we to believe that common sense is always right?
If so, bring it! Im not skeptical that you will.
add by edit: I'm not currently super familiar with Bertrand Russels philosophies, beliefs, and observations... but I am taking some time to study him in the interests of forming some sort of intelligence so as to engage my fellow EvC brethren in a debate/discussion.
Iron sharpens iron, and the only reason that I promoted this topic into Faith/Belief was to allow for a philosophical exchange rather than an absolute framework of logic, reason, and reality. Yes I know, it allows for my pet woo to enter the discussion, but I allow for it to be questioned, challenged, and tossed out by you skeptics!
Is skepticism the approach taken by science? Is it paradoxical and subversive?
If we accept skepticism as an approach to considering claims, assertions etc. etc. where does that leave claims of the mystical and supernatural?
Science uses the scientific method, don't they? And would it not also depend on who is making the claims? Extraordinary claims may well require extraordinary evidence, but for me personally, vivid dreams are weak yet possible evidence as well as daily happenings that are beyond random coincidence...though I suppose you will challenge me to explain the difference between..say..a chance encounter and a divine appointment.
It's a never-ending process that may get you closer to truth/knowledge but it never gets you "there".
My belief basically boils down to the idea that God exists...regardless of evidence. I suppose that its healthy for me to question my thought processes, but I dont want to end the day with a question regarding Gods interaction with me. One must stand for something or else they will fall for anything!
as far as "there" I would define there as being in communion, or walking in the Spirit, if you will.
quote:This is compounded by the hypocrisy of preaching self control over one's sexual behavior and urges, (as evidenced within the RCC, but equally as wide spread in every religious group including the Rabbi and ministers of the denominational Protestants, they attack the very science that could support their medieval bible teachings simply because their loyalty to their particular Faith has always taught Genesis that way).
Lets get real for a moment. Sexual behavior is human. Humans can control what they choose to do...within reason. The issue is not gay or straight. The issue is not promiscuity...apart from commitment. Quite frankly, we were never meant to be polygamists. The issue is male and female. The problem with sexual pleasure devoid of personal responsibility is a matter of idolatry.
Deut 4:15-20 writes:
Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars--all the heavenly array--do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.
The sin of any sexual obsession or habit is one of idolatry. Bowing down to the human rather than the Divine. Is anyone skeptical of this truth?