Why does Atheist Richard Dawkins sound religious? After all he agrees with most religions on Jesus?

hi.. I FOUND A MISTAKE ON YOUR THREAD...which is.
THERE IS A THIRD OPTION...JESUS was a prophet ,not a liar,not a lunatic and nor god.
a prophet like Abrahim and Moses...AND HE NEVER CLAIM TO BE GOD..PEOPLE DID..THROUGH TIME PEOPLE GET MISGUIDED...
AND I AM WITH THIS THIRD OPTION

[edit on 16-11-2009 by saima]

Originally posted by saima
hi.. I FOUND A MISTAKE ON YOUR THREAD...which is.
THERE IS A THIRD OPTION...JESUS was a prophet ,not a liar,not a lunatic and nor god.
a prophet like Abrahim and Moses...AND HE NEVER CLAIM TO BE GOD..PEOPLE DID..THROUGH TIME PEOPLE GET MISGUIDED...
AND I AM WITH THIS THIRD OPTION

[edit on 16-11-2009 by saima]

hmm??

I've heard that Jesus never actually claimed He was God."

John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

more: www.godonthe.net...

Mod Edit: Posting work written by others – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11/16/2009 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by saima



John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, "I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. " Again, in response, the Jews take up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus (John 8:59). Why would the Jews want to stone Jesus if He hadn’t said something they believed to be blasphemous, namely, a claim to be God? John repeatedly tells us of the Lord's connection to "I Am". See John: 4:26, 8:24, 8:28, 8:58,and 13:19. The Apostle Paul tells us that Jesus "..is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17)

reply to post by saima



more: www.tektonics.org...

IAM that IAM


= = = =

Edit to add: www.tektonics.org...


[edit on 16-11-2009 by OldThinker]

I haden't heard of richard dawkins untill just recently when I recieved an email about his feelings on catholics which i am no fan of and actually agree with some of his views but over all i think he is seriously off the wall:

newsweek.washingtonpost.com...

British evolutionary biologist and author
Richard DawkinsFormer Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford; author of "The God Delusion" and "The Greatest Show on Earth."

What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders. The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate. The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite. It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV. Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.

Originally posted by saima
hi.. I FOUND A MISTAKE ON YOUR THREAD...which is.
THERE IS A THIRD OPTION...JESUS was a prophet ,not a liar,not a lunatic and nor god.
a prophet like Abrahim and Moses...AND HE NEVER CLAIM TO BE GOD..PEOPLE DID..THROUGH TIME PEOPLE GET MISGUIDED...
AND I AM WITH THIS THIRD OPTION

[edit on 16-11-2009 by saima]

Imagine going to the mall this Saturday, and a guy stands up on the table and yells "I am God"

What you going to think?

"He's off his meds!"

"Call the police!"

etc...

So they shoot him...three days later he visits you in your bedroom and tells you, I'm alive...

then what?

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


I'm just praying for the dude...that he finds evidence...

A smart guy find evidence one day on the road...details here:

The Conversion on the Way to Damascus (Conversione di San Paolo) is a masterpiece by Caravaggio, painted in 1601 for the Cerasi Chapel of the church of Santa Maria del Popolo, in Rome. Across the chapel is a second Caravaggio painting (1600) depicting the inverted Crucifixion of St. Peter. On the altar, is a luminous and crowded Assumption of the Virgin Mary by Annibale Carracci. The dome frescoes are by one of Carracci's apprentices, under his design. The chapel was painted for Monsignor Tiberio Cerasi, who died in 1601 and had been treasurer general under Clement VIII. The commission for Caravaggio (and perhaps Carracci) was apparently secured by his newly acquired patron, Marchese Vicenzo Guistiniani.

The painting depicts the moment recounted in Chapter 9 of Acts of the Apostles when Saul, soon to be the apostle Paul, fell on the road to Damascus. He heard the Lord say "I am Jesus, whom you persecute, arise and go into the city." The Golden Legend, a compilation of medieval interpretations of biblical events may have framed the event for Caravaggio.

On this canvas, Saul is an epileptic and fractured figure, flattened by the divine flash, flinging his arms upward in a funnel. There are three figures in the painting. The commanding muscular horse dominates the canvas, yet it is oblivious to the divine light that defeated his rider's gravity. The aged groom is human, but gazes earthward, also ignorant of the moment of where God intervenes in human traffic. Only Saul, whose gravity and world has been overturned lies supine on the ground, but facing heaven, arms supplicating rescue. The groom can see his shuffling feet, and the horse can plod its hooves, measuring its steps; but both are blind to the miracle and way. They inhabit the unilluminated gloom of the upper canvas. Saul, physically blinded by the event for three days, suddenly sees the Christian message. For once, his soul can hear the voice of Jesus, asking, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" His sword and his youthful sinews are powerless against this illuminating bolt of faith.

This is not a pallid faith, Caravaggio has exterminated all the cherubim that infest the Virgin like flies in Carracci's adjacent Assumption. Carracci's altarpiece is a world of an ascendant and joyous faith, bathed in refulgent daylight colors. Caravaggio's world has fallen into dusk. This is not a myth with multitudes of demigods, but a stark life-sized world of one horse and two men. One man has crashed with and now feels crushed by the lit universe. Caravaggio is painting at his peak of control and in his most enduring style. (See the immediately preceding paintings for the Contarelli chapel in San Luigi dei Francesi regarding St. Matthew, including The Calling of St. Matthew and the Martyrdom of St. Matthew.)

Caravaggio's first version of the Conversion painting is in the collection of Principe Guido Odescalchi. It is a much brighter and more Mannerist canvas, with an angel-sustained Jesus reaching downwards towards a blinded Paul.

check out the painting its awesome... en.wikipedia.org...:Caravaggio-The_Conversion_on_the_Way_to_Damascus.jpg

reply to post by OldThinker


So let me follow this logic. If someone agrees with something someone has said or done then they automatically follow the same religion. Is that right or am i slightly off, maybe i misread it.

Well if that is the logic then every vegetarian must agree with Hitlers political standing, he was afterall a vegetarian. I knew they always looked sneaky!

Originally posted by OldThinker
Imagine going to the mall this Saturday, and a guy stands up on the table and yells "I am God"

What you going to think?

"He's off his meds!"

"Call the police!"

etc...

So they shoot him...three days later he visits you in your bedroom and tells you, I'm alive...

then what?

Bad comparison because the guy in the supermarket is being shot not crucified. In the past people were regularly thought dead when they weren't. Is it not possible that jesus was taken from the cross and despite seeming dead was actually still breeathing? They shove him in a cave, one of his followers goes in to find him alive and well and takes him away.

Oh and i know you'll say they didn't do that but if you followed someone for so long and admired them that much then it's a pretty good insentive to hope they're alive and check it out.

Actually if we take your hypothetical of someone claiming to be god, getting shot and then saying hi three days later i would apply the scientific method. First i would check where they were shot, did it hit anything vital? Then i would see how they were declared to be dead as very occasionally people have woken up in the morgue. Finally i would repeat the experiment and shoot them again.

If they wake up after 3 days then i'll check their body for some kind of incredible healing ability and if they don't have that then i'll accept them as god

Anyway we have no PROOF that Jesus rose and the fact you don't quite understand that the Bible is not proof just shows you as a typical blind follower. Is it so bad that some of us want evidence and base our beliefs systems upon evidence? That is after all what Dawkins is doing.

The mention of Jesus in other religious books is pretty easy to explain. If someone was walking around thousands of years ago, proclaiming they were god and rumours started to circulate after people saw some magic tricks then it makes sense that an ignorant people would write about it whilst men with learning did not.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

OP's logic is flawed on a couple of important points.

First, Dawkins is an Atheist. That does NOT mean he has no morality or no ethics. All it means is that his sense of right and wrong are not based on what the Bible tells him is right and wrong. Almost every Atheist has a strong sense of what is good and bad to do, just as almost everyone else has. Most people grow up with a sense of morality, regardless of their religion or lack of religion.

As for the Bible being "true" because the witnesses agree - that's not even close. If there is an auto accident, and there are several eyewitnesses, their reports are going to be wildly different. If they were all to agree, the police would immediately know something was wrong, because witnesses *don't* agree. That's just not how it works. Try telling the police that God inspired all these witnesses, and therefore they all agree. It will go over like a lead balloon. The police would know that there was some fraud going on, that the witnesses had been coached on what to say.

The Gospels were all written down many years - some say as much as 60 or more years - after the events they purport to describe. And yet, the three Synoptic Gospels are almost identical in their details. This is beyond miraculous; this is fraud.

The Bible wasn't just written by 40 different people all in a short while. It was passed on orally at first, then eventually written down in bits and pieces over thousands of years. Since photocopying hadn't been invented yet, copies were written out by hand. During this copying process, it was a simple matter to "correct" obvious mistakes, making the texts better fit the religious beliefs of the copyists. Different texts of the Bible, from different times, do not in general agree verbatim.

All you have are the various texts that were accepted into the canon. Those texts had long ago been "corrected" so as to agree with one another and to fit into the story line of the Bible. The books that could not be made to fit, were rejected. They are called the Apocrypha.

The only reason the Bible seems to fit together so nicely is that we had thousands of years to make all the pieces fit together nicely. Books that couldn't be made to fit were rejected. Others were changed to make them agree with current theology. All of this convenient corroboration took place long after the bulk of the books had been written.

So to take OP's analogy, you go to five different people in five different places/times, and ask them to write about God. Then give them (or their followers) a few thousand years to reconcile the texts. I guarantee you, you'll wind up with something that fits together very nicely.

reply to post by OldThinker


Except for the parts where Jesus' mother was a virgin, that Jesus is the son of a god, that Jesus performed miracles, or that Jesus was sacrificed to wash away mankind's sins. You know, all the stuff that makes Christianity christianity, rather than just a fan club

For Dawkins - and a lot of his fellow atheists - admiration for Jesus is basically like admiration for any other good fictional character. Have you ever used a work of fiction to make a real life point about something?

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


You laugh, but I've seen people actually make that claim.

It's worth noting, then, that Hitler was not a vegetarian. He was a man who happened to have developed something akin to a phobia about meat after the death of his niece.

Originally posted by chiron613
OP's logic is flawed on a couple of important points.

First, Dawkins is an Atheist. ......


As for the Bible being "true" because the witnesses agree - that's not even close. If there is an auto accident, and there are several eyewitnesses, their reports are going to be wildly different. .....

First, You are stating the obvious here, is there a point?

Secondly no innocent bystander who 'saw' THE ACCIDENT would ever say they DID'NT see it...sure there version of the accident may differe, but none would say, NO ACCIDENT.

These people were given a choice deny or live...there choose to be matyed, very powerful, why do you deny?

Notice the word EYEWITNESSES...not used much, but is here

details:

In these verses, therefore, Peter lays out the reasons why he still believes Jesus to be the Christ and why he believes that he will come again. He reflects on the transfiguration, which is recorded for us in Matthew 17. Six days after the events we have just discussed about Jesus' questioning of the disciples regarding his identity . . .

Jesus took with Him Peter and lames and John his brother, and brought them up to a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. And Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; hear Him!" And when the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were much afraid. And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Arise, and do not be afraid." And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, except Jesus Himself alone.

Here in his letter Peter is saying that he and James and John did not conspire together in the writing of a cleverly designed fable. No, they went up on a mountain with Jesus to accompany him while he prayed and the Lord was transfigured before them. Jesus underwent a metamorphosis; he changed into another form. His face shone like the sun, his garments became as white as light. Note this was not the same thing that happened to Moses, whose face shone brightly after his conversations with God during the wilderness experiences. Christ's change of appearance resulted from an internal transfiguration which revealed the reality of the glory of his character, permitting for a moment that glory to shine through the veil of his flesh. The disciples saw Jesus as he truly is. The transfiguration thus was a foretaste, not of the resurrection of Jesus, but of his second coming in glory and power. That is why Peter says, "We were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

This is the only time the word for "eyewitness" is used in the New Testament. This word was used of spectators to the passion plays put on by the mystery religions of Peter's day. These plays related the story of a god who suffered, died and rose again.

After a long period of instruction, the new worshiper was finally allowed to be present at the play and was offered the experience of becoming one with the dying and then resurrected god. When he was ushered to this stage and initiated, he was classified as a privileged "eyewitness" of the experiences of the god.

Here Peter is saying that the apostles were not eyewitnesses to a play, but eyewitnesses of the Son of God. The word "majesty" suggests splendor, overwhelming glory and beauty that compels the viewer's mind and heart to adoration and worship.

How can we be certain that Jesus is the Christ, and that he will return again in power and glory? Peter says, first, that he, James and John were eyewitnesses of his majesty; and secondly,

2. Because of the witness of the Father's voice

2 Peter 1:17-18:

For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am gospel, following well-pleased"_and we ourselves heard this utterancemade from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

At the moment of his transfiguration, Jesus received honor and glory from what the Father said of him to the disciples, to Moses and Elijah. We find the same words in Isaiah 42 when, speaking through the prophet, God said, "Behold My Servant whom I uphold, My Chosen One in whom my Soul delights." At his baptism by John the Baptist these words were again uttered by God concerning Jesus, "Thou art My beloved Son; in Thee I am well pleased." Jesus himself quoted these words of Isaiah 42 during his public ministry, confirming that he was God's chosen one (Matt.12:15-21). Now, nearing the final days of his ministry on earth, once again the Father says of Jesus at the transfiguration, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased."

Why was the Father so pleased with his Son? God was satisfied with the life Jesus lived in private in Nazareth. He was satisfied with his honest toil in the carpenter's shop, with the years of public ministry, with his willingness to face the cross so that we might be saved. He was pleased with his Son because Jesus said, "My will is to do the will of my Father in heaven." Jesus never did anything without first checking in with his Father. His will was swallowed up in the will of the Father. His example demonstrates how we should live on this earth in our humanity.

How can we be certain Jesus is the Christ and that he will return again in power and glory? First, Peter says, because we were eyewitnesses of his majesty; secondly, because we were witnesses of the Father's voice; and thirdly,

3. Because of the witness of the prophets

2 Peter 1:19-21:

And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Keep in mind the flow of Peter's argument. He is encouraging believers to remain faithful to Christ; to be diligent to grow spiritually; and to fill their hearts with the promise of the second coming. In response to the mockers who challenged Christians about the second coming, Peter says they did not follow cleverly devised tales when they told of the power and glory of that event. We saw, we heard, and we are supported by the partial fulfillment of this at the transfiguration, he says. Further, we are supported by the witness of the Father to the Son of his Messiahship and his second coming glory. But God also spoke to us through his prophets concerning his return.

In these verses, then, the apostle makes three points. "And so we have the prophetic word made more sure." Old Testament prophets were chosen by God to be his mouthpiece, declaring his message for immediate or future needs, or both. They were given message after message concerning the life, character, ministry, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension and second coming of Jesus in his glory to rule on earth in righteousness.

source: www.pbc.org...

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by OldThinker

 

So let me follow this logic. If someone agrees with something someone has said or done then they automatically follow the same religion. Is that right or am i slightly off, maybe i misread it.

Well if that is the logic then every vegetarian must agree with Hitlers political standing, he was afterall a vegetarian. I knew they always looked sneaky!

try again?????

Are you just being silly?

OT

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
...For Dawkins - and a lot of his fellow atheists - admiration for Jesus is basically like admiration for any other good fictional character. Have you ever used a work of fiction to make a real life point about something?

Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”/

This thread contains little in the way of evidence... The Bible is not a suitable source.

The evidence for a man named Jesus is NOT available anywhere. The only reliable, close sources we have are those writings of those such as Suetonius who spoke of a man known only as "Chrestus", a common slave name and in context most probably a Jewish antagonist, and not the Christ. This is the only factual record of anyone with a similar name existing in this time period, other than the mentions in the Bible.

How is it possible that this King of Kings who made such an impact on the establishment, peoples and religions of this time was not more widely recognized by notable social commentators or subsequent historians who study the time period?

It's my understanding that Jesus is entirely fictional... because I have yet to see any evidence that suggests otherwise.

Originally posted by OldThinker



Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”/

Personally, I think the 'evidence' for his existence is questionable and I certainly would question the contention that he was the 'Son of God' based on hearsay, supposition and deceit.

But I realise that OT has an agenda against atheists as can be evidenced by his many other posts/threads and that mere regurgitation of bible passages is by no means evidence; AT ALL!

Oh, I see the post above beat me!

[edit on 16-11-2009 by aorAki]

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
How can an atheist be religious, I see this claim splattered all over ATS.

late to the point here, and there are lots of boggling conclusions being drawn left and right and center, but this one tweeked me a bit.


Atheists are certain in their beliefs having come upon them via their own experience. They are certain regardless of the experiences of others and often invalidate the experiences of others.

Religious Devoties are certain in their beliefs having come upon them via their own experience. They are certain regardless of the experiences of others and often invalidate the experiences of others.

both view those not in their camp as either damned or dotards.



so i agree with this statement... there is little diference between the zealotry of atheists & of religious devotees.

both are myopic. both create walls and not bridges.

both use their belief as a sword, a shield and a crutch.

neither has the true faith to ask "what else can there be?"

OP is basing far too much of their debate upon one source... a source that is subject to any manner of critique. (i am referring to the bible)

the OP also uses logic "either/or" type arguments to extract a particular point he/she is attempting: either Jesus is Lord, Lunatic or Liar.

once again, these points are derived from only one source... the bible.

this is all very black/white. the complexities of the mysteries of creation aren't nearly as pigeonholed as this argument is attempting.

the complexities of any historical/legendary character are also not so simple.
who was King Arthur? Siddhartha, Gilgamesh, Noah, etc. legends? actual people? some mish-mash of both?

it is when we believe we know for certain something as uncertain as history and the ultimate defination of God, we have limited ourselves and our perspectives. such limitations are the death of understanding... not the beginings of faith.

faith is taking the next step. discovering anew. traversing what what we thought we knew to grow in our understanding and connections to life. it is not advertising the steps someone else has already taken, and forcing everyone else to accept this.

anyhow... just my two cents.

PS... should whether or not Jesus was God incarnate deter one from appreciating the message that was attributed to him: one of compassion, love, humilty.

are those words not expressions of god?

which is more important to a Christian - that Jesus is A-#1, or the message that was attributed to him, that he died for?


why should it matter whether or not he is God's only son.

if love is in one's heart, then surely they are embodying all that Jesus, and Buddha and all the rest of those swell folk have professed.

Ok.. now i'm rambling.

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Kargun
......Eleven of the twelve disciples were martyred for their belief and even Peter was nailed upside down on the cross for his belief. None of these men who walked with Jesus thought he was just a good teacher. .....

Yes, that sort of throws out the 'jesus is a myth' theory...many of the historians of the day, and after...recorded the deaths of the followers of Jesus...


they were all willing to be be killed...very powerful evidence there!

A lot of people were willing to be killed for Jim Jones, too... very powerful evidence that he was a prophet?

I think not.