Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: Richard Dawkins: 'Somebody As Intelligent As Jesus Would Have Been an Atheist'

  1. #41
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 09:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,109
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    43
    Thanked in
    43 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire
    I think a lot of atheist debates prefer to avoid philosophical topics because believers tend to dismiss them as "great mysteries" of God that they simply cannot understand because they lack God's greatness. For example, if you ask a Christian if an all-powerful God would be capable of making a rock too heavy for him to lift, he/she will either give you some nonsensical, convoluted answer he/she genuinely believes is true, or will insist that it's just something for God to understand and humans not to understand. That seems to be the case with most any philosophical idea that undermines theists' beliefs. If you point out that an omniscient deity would know the future and therefore know his own actions/decisions, in a sense taking away his own free will, theists will simply believe that you're the one with flawed logic.
    They always eventually smoke grenade the room in response to better arguments, regardless of their intelligence level. Getting them to admit their beliefs don't make sense is the challenge. The stupid ones you can get to quit with even the worst brand of 'atheist' argument, such as "Why does evil exist?" Those types won't even be able to think of the correct response to such questions, which is "Well, that only disproves the existence of a God who is good and also omnipotent. It doesn't disprove a God who is good but not omnipotent, nor a God who is omnipotent but not good." Those types aren't really worth bothering with, since if you refuted every stupid idea currently in their heads, they'd simply fill their stupidity tank up with different, probably worse, stupidities.

    But the smarter ones, such as the types you find here on Skadi, generally like to take refuge in arcane verbosity and jargon ripped from millennia of unsuccessful philosophical floundering. Most people shy away from debating these types, what with their roar so confident and bearing so proud. The 'advanced religious' are usually more prepared for the fight than their adversaries, and while their weaponry's made of plasticine with a few sharp pieces of polystyrene duct-taped on, from a distance they look fearsome. So it's dishearteningly common to see people quit the field when they'd have won if only they'd been a little bolder. Picking on Biblical literalists after that seems a little like what's left of the Spanish armada kicking stray dolphins on the way home.

    It's just nice to get a certain type of religious mind, one that's accustomed to winning debates by default by citing unread texts and through crass equivocation and shameless obscurantism, finally admitting defeat in that familar religious way: God's ways are mysterious.

    My proudest moment (well, after getting Slavic death squads dispatched after me) was in getting the most obnoxious member in the history of Skadi to do this. Here's a collection of his gems, and I'll order it such as to show his smug pretentiousness give way to utter defeat

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Jupiter
    It's amusing to me that your sole arguments against Christianity are based upon heretical sectarian and reformist doctrines that are only a few centuries old, if that.
    If you can't tell me off the top of your head what the controversy is regarding the translation of this passage, you officially know nothing of Christianity and discredit yourself to all.
    He doesn't, and that doesn't matter. The Absolute by its very nature does not and cannot exist, since we cannot attach any of the qualities of manifest existence to it without it ceasing to be the Absolute. The key is not to bring God down to our level, but to raise us to His level.

    Short answer: The argument of God's existence is a red herring. Next question.
    I believe that matter is manifested by will. Meaning that I don't believe God created everything, because I don't believe in everything.
    You're not wrong, per se. Just, well, limited.
    Anyway, his primary argument was that there's no division whatsoever between the absolute and the empirical realm, meaning that the non-absolute is exactly the same as the absolute. He then supported this self-refuting assertion through pompous references to chapters of this or that ancient manuscript and smug dismissals of better arguments as 'beneath him'. I even remember (though I can't find it without reading all his posts again...ugh, the thought) his saying, in response to one of my arguments, this: "I used to think that, but I advanced beyond that view." And left it at that

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Nebelwerfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 10th, 2012 @ 07:20 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    122
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    I haven't watched the video but if you're not the son of God(Dawkins must assume jesus wasn't) it can hardly be considered a good idea to have yourself nailed to a cross and left to die - that is not an intelligent thing to do (unless you want to end it all and enjoy pain).

  3. #43
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Eastern
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Posts
    3,943
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,612
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    425
    Thanked in
    372 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    The thought is purely ridiculous because Jesus was the Son of God. How could he deny the existence of his own Father?
    It's not evident that Jesus saw himself as an exclusive son of Yahweh, but saw that all Jews were sons of Jacob and ought to have followed his faith to Yahweh as their father did. Much of the systematic theology in Christology is based on Hellenistic ideology projected onto the Nazarene sect after the initial cosmopolitanism involved with incorporating the personages and events of the Bible as mythos within Hellenistic religion. This is reflected in the avatar and demigod theology with the God of gods in the sky impregnating a mortal woman or earth mother, as if Heracles was an avatar for Zeus. The Trinity is also undeniably Greek and has no basis in the Bible, but the Trinity is therefore that much more relevant to Indo-Germanic folks than the Bible.

    In Christ's own life, the ideas that people take for granted now, weren't even a twinkle in the eyes of anyone--especially not his apostles. The Nazarenes viewed Jesus as an amateur rabbi and healer who came from a poor carpenter's family and had native talent to minister to them in such an earnest way that the official leadership would not, whether Pharisee or Sadducee. The Sanhedrin felt undermined by what they deemed seditious licence on the part of Jesus, who fit the role of Socrates, so no wonder that the Greeks ate up his story. Death by hemlock or crucifixion; neither had the intended effect. Much of the creeds from Nicaea and Constantinople onward, are tailored to suit the Roman population since at length exposed to Phoenician religion with the annexation of Carthage. It can truly be said that absorption of Levantine blood in Africa prepared the Romans for Judaism in the form of Christianity's replacement of it after Masada.

    It is often forgotten that early Christianity was based in Africa and that the Donatists were key to its fermentation, but that it was underground in the Roman catacombs. The Ptolemaic dynasty as patrons of the Library of Alexandria and in possession of the Septuagint were keen to see its project added to their collection and written in Greek for their subjects, but the Greeks themselves were not worshippers of Adonai or Adonis so much as facilitated his worship on account of Semites paying them tribute. In fact, actual Persians, Greeks and Romans didn't worship any 'native' cult, just accept regional affiliations in order to maintain stable overall control--all the while holding to Aryan religion on their own. That is why the decisions of Constantine and Theodosius split the Empire and only by them building a new one on Byzantium devoid of the Olympians was Christianity able to flourish, which means that Rome really did fall with the Pantheon.

    So, is Jesus a son of Jove, or Jehovah? In a multicultural world like the Mediterranean, Aryan religion fused with the Semitic and what were once separate cultures became forever lost by admixture. Pure Christianity is as Semitic as the Talmud and pure Paganism is Aryan. Anti-purists insist on muddying the waters to only allow defining accommodation as a feasible or even desirable option. Insecurity prompts weak people to dispense with simple facts, by concocting elaborate fancies to obfuscate uncomfortable realities. Neither do we have to welcome Jewish ideology for ourselves, nor deny it for others. It was not an expectation of Jesus or followers that Indo-Germanics fall at his feet, nor did any suffer for not doing so, until the Emperor converted and made disobedience punishable by death. This Emperor was an avatar of God on earth, or son of Zeus like Heracles, so how could Jesus out of a manger in Bethlehem and only from the House of David be his son? No Julio-Claudians or anything like them were Galilean.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Astragoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    21 Minutes Ago @ 06:57 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Posts
    1,094
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,126
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,129
    Thanked in
    620 Posts
    Here we go again......

  5. #45
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Eastern
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Posts
    3,943
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9,612
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    425
    Thanked in
    372 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Astragoth View Post
    Here we go again......
    Feeling apoplectic about others being honest why they don't believe as you do? Can you even justify why you believe as you do? This is a discussion for rational people, even though Dawkins isn't exactly one of those. Dawkins is obviously "superior" in his own mind, but the article is old news, even if he's still seeking trollish attention. There are many irrational believers and disbelievers. A rational person sifts through the rubbish for anything of value. What do you find valuable vs worthless in the arguments presented by believers and disbelievers? I have a tendency to avoid bipolar rhetoric, as supremely unproductive banter.

    Maybe you have cookie cutter, conformation or nothing hysterics, just as people like him are too dense to figure out religion? After all, that would tend to put your reply into perspective, as Dawkins likely groans each and every time he notices any obvious spirituality in another. Have you nothing important to say, or just cry when you don't have a world cushioning your biases, as he behaves? This type of interplay between people like you and Dawkins just makes you two sides of the same coin, or cut from the same cloth. Break the cycle of dysfunction and trust me, you'll be a lot happier. Neither you nor Dawkins is at peace, unfortunately.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Similar Threads

  1. Classify Richard Dawkins
    By Pro-Alpine in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Friday, April 15th, 2011, 11:36 PM
  2. Prof Richard Dawkins Drives Support for London's First Atheist Bus Advert
    By Hanna in forum Agnosticism, Atheism, & Irreligion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Monday, May 31st, 2010, 01:46 AM
  3. Professor Richard Dawkins Wants to Convert Islamic World to Evolution
    By Renwein in forum Agnosticism, Atheism, & Irreligion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 12:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •