Yerda
Veteran Member
Clear English, assertive statements, light humour and the odd display of literary flair. I doubt it will significantly alter your views on the subject, however. Enjoy.What should I expect?
-Scott
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Clear English, assertive statements, light humour and the odd display of literary flair. I doubt it will significantly alter your views on the subject, however. Enjoy.What should I expect?
most religions yes but the Bible is based on fact. Jesus was a true living person . his resurrection has never been disproved. and the history in the bible is backed up like no other book on earth.
However, I for one, did not enjoy his literary style. Something about it seemed less professional than what I was expecting.
I had mixed feelings about that too.However, I for one, did not enjoy his literary style.
I understand your point. Indeed i see such things sceptical too.What gives Dawkins the authority and right to speak on behalf of these people that lived many decades and centuries ago? Does Dawkins really think he has their psychology, philosophy, and theology mapped out so conciescly that he is able to accurately speak for them? I honestly found it all a little bit distasteful.
Dawkins writes well. He has a nice, light touch. As for his arguments, since I'm an atheist, I'm not a good judge--too biased. I think his arguments have some strength, but, how can I put it, he doesn't quite follow all possible implications of theism.
What gives Dawkins the authority and right to speak on behalf of these people that lived many decades and centuries ago? Does Dawkins really think he has their psychology, philosophy, and theology mapped out so conciescly that he is able to accurately speak for them? I honestly found it all a little bit distasteful.
most religions yes but the Bible is based on fact. Jesus was a true living person . his resurrection has never been disproved. and the history in the bible is backed up like no other book on earth.
So that people who think it has been proven can get enlightened.Why disprove something that's never been proven?
So that people who think it has been proven can get enlightened.
In the atheist discussion forum here the dominant opinion in Jay's thread on the matter was that there probably was probably an historical Jesus (well, Yeshua, if the distinction is important).Does anyone here think the existence of the supposed Jesus has been proven?
In the atheist discussion forum here the dominant opinion in Jay's thread on the matter was that there probably was probably an historical Jesus (well, Yeshua, if the distinction is important).
See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-2/69002-atheist-poll-there-historical-yeshua.html
well he is mentioned so much in the gospels (evidence) which means he probably did. so did gilgamesh, hercules, and everyone else who has been metioned in paper (L.R.R. Hood.)
Most authors weren't known until they wrote their first book or text.....The gospels are NOT a historical record of any sort because
1. The authors are unknown.
2. They were written well after the time of the supposed events they recorded, i.e. they are hearsay at best, and fiction at worst. The exact dates they were written are unknown.
Generally, to be a historical record, the author must be known, and it's more reliable if the date written is known.
Most authors weren't known until they wrote their first book or text.....
If the date a historical event was written is after the date the event happened does that mean it isn't reliable? And even if is dated does it make it true fact?
The authors of the declaration of Independence were not known as authors when it was written does that make it any less true?
What about the works of many authors whose works were not published until their death, does that alter the fact that they were indeed great contributions to literature?
When Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner, we have the date and the reason he wrote it but do we really know that he wasn't watching fire works at a 4th of July picnic and was inspired to write what is now our National anthem and supply false information surrounding it's origin?
Just wondering with what yard stick you use to measure truth and fiction?
Dawkins isn't a philosopher, he is a scientistI would just like to say that actually having read the God Delusion and 'The Dawkins Delusion', what we need to realise is that Richard Dawkins is not a theologian. He is a philosopher and as such it is pertinent to remember that he does make crass generalisations. He even makes up excuses for things that he has no idea about...bear that in mind