3 ms·

That's a bit like claiming that an astrophysicist needs to understand astrology to make informed nuanced claims. That is obviously absurd, it is the people maki

• tasty_freeze 3y ago
  I'm not saying that Dawkins is wrong, I'm saying a lot of what he wrote was not compelling to anyone who disagrees with him. It has been years since I read his books, but let's say he says, "We all know it is extremely unlikely that a dead person came back to life, much less physically ascended into heaven? Where is this place heaven?" That might sound cutting to someone on the side of Dawkins, but to those who are religious he sounds like a simpleton, as if their religion hasn't already given them an answer to such elementary questions. On the other hand, people steeped in religious tradition know all the arguments and counter arguments and can contest religious claims in a way that has a greater chance of breaking through. For instance, it is 100% obvious and undeniable to most Christians that Jesus claimed to be God and that his disciples also believed that. Bart Ehrman has an entire book [1], based on historical precedents and writing contemporary to early Christianity, as well as having spent years reading the Gospels in its original Greek, which shows that that "obvious" narrative was alien to early Christians. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Jesus_Became_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Jesus_Became_God