https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tiIRHTZwlTw If You believe in God you don't believe in Gravity -Richard Dawkins BAHAHAHAHA Why do pretentious Atheists like this Guy. Richard answers his questions like a politician and is a liar.
watched the video all the way through and he never said this. unless i zoned out. if i'm wrong, please point it out to me. i did not see outrageous about what either person said. it sounded like two people stating their opinions
He didn't say it but he thought of it, in the video that's what he thought John Lennox meant in the beginning when he brought up gravity which is pretty preposterous...and kind of insulting. I'll find you a video of his viewpoint on science lol Richard said Jesus Christ didn't exist.....which is a lie and he wrote it in his book that he existed and Lennox calls him out on that. I'm too stoned for this....Lol.
You know what someone else is thinking? Impressive. Again, he did not say that about jesus christ in the video either. Damn dude, I was half paying attention to it. You ought to rewatch it when you are in a better state of mind.
Forget Richard Dawkins for just a second... How many books about "Jesus Christ" were written by legitimate historians contemporary to the life and times of "Jesus Christ"? ZERO... How are the gods of religious doctrine any more viable/true than the myriad god "mythologies" that proceeded them?
11:40 of the video to 13:10 9:20 Lennox calls him out on it bringing up his book "Gods Delusion" asking him why would he lie? After Lennox calls him out he brings up his pathetic bus ad and basically Roasts him. You should've payed full attention to it. Why would you say he didn't say that?
Because he didn't say that. He said "most historians agree that he [existed], and some don't". And then he granted the premise that jesus did exist to make a greater point, but was cut off before he could. That is what happened in the timestamps that you pointed out to me. You have a proclivity for hyperbole. I don't care about richard dawkins one way or another, but I've noticed you like to misrepresent a lot of things.
I looked.. and Dawkins was clearly about to get into a point. People do that in a debate.. for the sake of the argument, saying something is true even when they don't believe it is to go on to make a point based off that assumption. Not only that.. the person who threw this video together seemed to leave out the point that Dawkins was about to get to. Dawkins was about to get into a point, Lennox interrupted him with a rant about Jesus and science.. and then the tool who edited this ended it right after, which was probably because Dawkins went on to finish his point after he politely let a lunatic interrupt what he was saying.
I missed the lie. I also missed the alleged roast. He stated that most historians believe Jesus existed, some do not. Which is accurate, no? The general consensus is that a man name Jesus preached in the Roman Empire in the early first century. That means very little on its own. It is not proof that if he did exist, he was a god. Where did he contradict himself? And who gives two shits about the damn bus ad? Are you the maker of this video, or just regurgitating their lines? There are religious signs along roads all over the place, is that pathetic too? Is there something I'm not getting?
Dawkins is a haughty cunt imo. I like his accent though. Idk why but i prefer the late Hitchens, he is as pompous as Dawkins but i still liked him.
First it is simply not true that legitimate historians did not write of Jesus of Nazareth. With even a small amount of Internet research you will find numerous Roman historical records referring to the man. That a Galilean name Jesus lived and was executed by the Romans is as much historical fact as anything else we know from the period. However that is about all we can conclude from those records. The more relevant point is that none of the Gospels nor the letters to various churches were written by anyone who ever met the man. It is quite true that the early church manipulated the historical record in order to gain political power. The scholarly work of Elaine Pagels is a great source to research this. I recommend "the Gnostic Gospels" and "the origins of Satan".
Dawkins is not good at debating religious ppl because all of his arguments r from a scientific stand point. He's debating against people who r impervious to science, he should study Abrahamic religions and criticize their history and texts Like the debate Dawkins had with a Muslim journalist in the UK, tht was pathetic on Dawkins part
Since you have some knowledge in this area maybe you could point me toward something to validate my speculation. I have suspected that there was a purge of material written about Jesus (more properly Yeshua), possibly involving the crusades. I find it highly suspect that the Romans made Christianity the state religion. Purge the narrative -> rewrite/edit the narrative -> issue state/papal control of narrative -> undermind and delegitimize the narrative/cultural transition.
The books I mentioned that the best place to start. "the Gnostic Gospels" is a tough read but it's available on audible. It details what traditions were lost in the Bible and offer some historical context of why that might've been the case