Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
dougeaton

William Lane Craig on the Historical Jesus -

33 posts in this topic

This only proves how limiting our beliefs make us when seeking to understand another point of view....

Peace

mark

If your point of view is founded on logical fallacies, understanding is only going to refute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins is afraid to debate people that use real logic. All you have to do is watch any of the debates. His vast use of ad hominimns and non sequiturs prooves he does not have a mind for logic nor respect. You should hear Rupart sheldrake talk about the time dawkins wanted to discuss these things on camara with him.

I'm no fan of Dawkins, but he has more respect than William Craig.

This is why Dawkins didn't debate the fool.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of Dawkins, but he has more respect than William Craig.

This is why Dawkins didn't debate the fool.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Well, to be honest, I'm not a fan of Craig either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong! Odin11 is quite correct!

You perceive it that way because you don't like Dawkins! Your attack on him is nothing more than your opinion.....your preconceived opinion....

In the scientific world, Dawkins has great respect.....William lane Craig.....not so much. :td:

Don't care that much for Craig either, but if you actually read his work, he dosnt seem to be much of a scientist at all. He simply involves hinself in and writes about his position on controversial subjects. He is not famouse for actually doing anything other than critisizing, and talking about what he thinks. Sounds more like a politician to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no fan of Dawkins, but he has more respect than William Craig.

This is why Dawkins didn't debate the fool.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Dawkins has a history of refusing to debate people that actually use real logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins has a history of refusing to debate people that actually use real logic.

William Craig doesn't use real logic, I've already posted the arguments he uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William Craig doesn't use real logic, I've already posted the arguments he uses.

I would agree with you in his apologist capacity, but in his criticism, I would say he is Dam good at pointing out the gross flaws of others, but yes he should turn that analysis on himself.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see the “brilliance” of this apologist and am stunned by the assumption that one absurdity is aceptable while another is not. Was Mithra born of a rock? Yes. But I find birth, which may well be a simulation found in myths, no stranger than a woman being impregnated by a god and being virgin at the time of birth. Could the virgin birth of Jesus also be such a simulation? Yes. But it would fall in line with multiple virgin births of earlier gods, none of which this “brilliant” apologist was willing to mention.

I am also repulsed by his constant mention of “Christian documents” as if they were originals and trustworthy. There are no original Christian documents and the tales of the New Testament have no more valid authenticity than the tales of Mithra which are reduced to “myths” by men like him. The earliest “Christian documents” are fragments of copies of copies of copies dating to 200 years after the alleged death of Jesus and the vast majority are dated 100 to 200 years later.

He ridicules the baptismal tradition of Mithraism because it dealt with a bull and blood. But he probably sits in church each Sunday and sings about the blood of the lamb and the senseless sacrifices that are endorsed within New Testament writings.

Was much of Christianity formed form the religion honoring Mithra? Probably. Roman soldiers brought the Mithra beliefs with them when returning from distant battlefields and Constantine was no dummy. He needed the military’s support and would later use it to spread Christianity by force throughout eastern Europe. It would be only logical to blend an existing faith with the establishment of a new one.

And by the way, this "historical Jesus", where do we find him?

Edited by Dr. D
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.