Irritated by street-corner god-botherers?

[frankthring]

Personally, I found the Dusty bloke more offensive than the preacher. His
method of argument - like so much seen on U.S TV, is simply to rant and
not let the other fellow get a word in. I was hoping I might see a sensible,
even witty, discussion of God etc. Not so.
Dusty`s main thread - "that the bible is fiction" is fine if that is what you
believe. A Christian believes it is the word of God. Certain sects, such as
Jehovah`s Witnesses, take it almost literally. Thus the two sides will never
see eye to eye.
Dusty and non-believers are entitled to their views. I would argue that any
Christian who accepts the Bible as divinely inspired is entitled also to his
beliefs.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]There is real, conclusive historical evidence that Jesus existed.[/quote]

There is some historical evidence but I wouldn't class any of it as conclusive. You have to remember that many of the accounts of Jesus' lives in the gospels are from different witnesses and often contradict each other.

This is by the by. All I'm pulling you up on is this 'admission' from Dawkins that Jesus existed. He can't possibly know that for sure and so I just can't see him saying such a thing.

Can you point to where he did?

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Personally, I found the Dusty bloke more offensive than the preacher.[/quote]

Me to, although we have no evidence of what the preacher was saying so there's really no context. If the preacher was going round telling people they'd burn in hell then that is obviously far worse than what this random guy was saying, he just had a more amiable attitude.

[quote]Dusty and non-believers are entitled to their views. I would argue that any
Christian who accepts the Bible as divinely inspired is entitled also to his
beliefs.[/quote]

Agree with all of that. But I don't think the preacher should be too downhearted. Jesus told his disciples that they should expect to be mocked for their beliefs. Even Jesus knew that if you believe in some crazy shit, some people are going to take the piss.

[Essex Lad]

I'm not referring to the Gospels, which are propaganda more than historiography. Check out Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan, an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions for details of contemporary historical records from Jews and Romans.

[Sam Slater]

Interesting. And you would conclude that stuff in this book is 'conclusive evidence'? Maybe it is.

Still doubt Dawkins 'admits' Jesus was real, and you've dodged that question!

Let's remember that back in the day, there were supposedly many messiahs. I could easily accept a guy called Joshua was walking around saying he was the messiah, and it would only take a few skills from an everyday trickster to make people believe he had some magical powers. However, the Jews at the time didn't seem impressed by him and thought he was a fraud. Almost certainly he was.

[Essex Lad]

Sam Slater wrote:

> Interesting. And you would conclude that stuff in this book is
> 'conclusive evidence'? Maybe it is.
>
> Still doubt Dawkins 'admits' Jesus was real, and you've dodged
> that question!
>
> Let's remember that back in the day, there were supposedly many
> messiahs. I could easily accept a guy called Joshua was walking
> around saying he was the messiah, and it would only take a few
> skills from an everyday trickster to make people believe he had
> some magical powers. However, the Jews at the time didn't seem
> impressed by him and thought he was a fraud. Almost certainly
> he was.
>
You seem to be getting a little confused. My original response was in reply to AW saying that Jesus did not exist. He did ? of that there is no doubt. There are extant Jewish and Roman records from the time and a little after recounting his story.

The dispute is as I said earlier is whether people accept that he was the son of God.

Back in the day there were indeed dozens of "messiahs" including at least two Jesuses.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]You seem to be getting a little confused.[/quote]

No. You seem to be deflecting attention on to me to cover for your mistake. Either Richard Dawkins has admitted, as you state, that Jesus existed, or he hasn't. I doubt he has admitted such a thing and have asked you more than once to point to a source of him saying such a thing.

After 4 days, you haven't and tried to deflect attention onto other things like evidence in books from historians and now my supposed confusion.

If I'm so easily confused then we'll keep it very very simple: can you point me to any source that shows Dawkins admitting Jesus existed?

Yes or no?

I doubt you can or you would have already. Just admit you made a mistake and we can move on.

[Essex Lad]

Dawkins Admits Jesus Existed

[Essex Lad]

Also, Dawkins makes several references to Jesus in The God Delusion (pp118 et seq) and doesn't say that He never existed.

Dawkins obviously denies that Jesus is God but that He never existed... nah.

[Sam Slater]

Ah.....9 mins of my life I can't get back. Dawkins is just granting the point to show how unimportant it is to the discussion (the existence of God). He's not admitting Jesus existed in seriousness. And if you watch the clip from 9 mins onwards () you'll see where they cut out the bit before he says 'Jesus existed' because it would then put that statement in context, which is not what whomever uploaded the clip wants you to see.

The full debate is on youtube so you can take what he says in the context it was meant:

He's saying, "Ok....leave aside [what I said in my book about the doubts around Jesus' existence] Jesus existed!" Context, my friend. Context.

Take the following from me.

"Ok, Mr. Pistorius, you didn't kill your girlfriend intentionally. Then why did your neighbours hear screams before the gun shots and why didn't Reeva cry out when you screamed you had a gun?"

In that above statement, I said to Mr. Pistorius, 'you didn't kill your girlfriend intentionally.' Taken out of context, it looks like I believe Mr. Pistorius' claim he didn't mean to kill his girlfriend. Put into context, however, you know that's not what I believe at all.

You're still left holding an empty sack.