Atheism Culture Intelligent Design News

Dawkins argues that Jesus would have been an atheist …

Spread the love
File:14th-century fresco of Jesus Christ bearing the cross, Visoki Dečani, Kosovo.jpg
Via dolorosa/Ghirlandaio

… if he knew as much as Dawkins and his contemporaries.

In “Richard Dawkins: ‘Jesus Would Have Been An Atheist If He Had Known What We Know Today’” (Townhall , October 25, 2011), Greg Hengler offers a clip.

It’s like we suspected: Dawkins isn’t debating Craig because he is just plain past it.

The thing for Brits to take from the whole affair is: This is what tax burden media do for you. They are unnecessary now, have become self-referential,and end up promoting fake celebs like Dawkins.

Tell us, what sport would you respect, if the champs could choose not to defend their title next year and still keep it?

No one needs UD News to say this, but some bright-enough philosophers and many shallow sophists were atheists long before Jesus was born, and they didn’t know any more than people of his time and place did about how the world worked – probably less, if they had slaves.

But the typical toff don probably knows less than anyone in history.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

7 Replies to “Dawkins argues that Jesus would have been an atheist …

  1. 1
    Joseph says:

    By that logic darwin would have been a Creationist had he known what we know today.

  2. 2
    News says:

    To some of us, the real message is that publicly funded broadcasting no longer serves a useful purpose. It protects flea-bitten “champions.” For all WE know, there are better atheists in Britain, but why should the fat cats on the public dole find them? They can get their same salaries for not doing it.

  3. 3
    Eocene says:

    I have to admit that I don’t understand why the ID movement offers subject material like this if they are trying to distance themselves from Creationism and as something separate and neutral. No offense, just puzzled. Of course i guess this is someone else’s private blog.

    Some of the other subjects have been about Christianity and the Bible(which is fine since yes I do believe in them, but since ID is promoted as neutral???), along with subjects of conservative right-wing political views and just like the Darwinist Left-winger side, I don’t know what any of it has to do with science. Maybe this is why I bring up it has nothing to do with science at times in my posts.

    Sorry, just thinking out loud.

  4. 4
    News says:

    Eocene, for some of us, it is a responsible news coverage issue. Britain is full of fleabitten celebs like Dawkins, staples of Tax TV.*

    After a while, tax burden media prevent serious discussion of issues by waving their sock puppets in everyone’s faces, instead of fronting people who offer a real challenge.

    Everyone other than the Tax TV hosts and their sock puppets is harmed by the resulting loss of intellectual integrity.

    Re conservative right-wing political views: Right now, the US Republicans are fielding candidates, many of whom have expressed views on the ID controversy. We can’t responsibly not cover that.

    The Dems are almost certainly going with the incumbent, so there is no news on that side. If there were, we would cover it, you can be sure.

    (*Canada is no different, but Canadians are more restless about it now).

  5. 5

    Look Eocene and Joseph,
    The point is that Darwinism WAS known in Jesus’ day, it was invented by Democritus, greatly elaborated by Epicurus, and codified in a long Latin poem “De rerum natura” by Lucretius in 50BC. When Matthew Arnold, who wrote “Dover Beach”, read Darwin’s magnum opus, his first response was “It’s all in Lucretius!”.

    And when St Paul debated the philosophers on the Areopagus of Athens, there were no doubt Lucretians among them. Dawkin’s may have a lot more than Lucretius (though you would be surprised to find how much is in there), but quantity cannot substitute for quality, and what Dawkins has in quantity, Lucretius makes up for in quality.

    (I challenge you to find me a better explanation of magnetism that explains how collisions of particles can attract two magnets without some invisible Aristotelian force of attraction. I don’t think Dawkins could give as coherent an answer as Lucretius.)

    So what advantage does Dawkins have that St Paul didn’t already confront? And win? The greeks had a name for it, 500 years before Christ they put it into drama. It’s called hubris.

  6. 6
    Blue_Savannah says:

    Well, if Darwin were alive today, he would be embarrassed by people like Dawkins who continue to support his ‘theory’ in light of the evidence…or lack thereof, I should say.

  7. 7
    englishmaninistanbul says:

    Oh wow so Dawkins believes in the historicity of the Gospels, then? Nice! 🙂

Leave a Reply