this deserves it own op: atheists for jesus by richard dawkins

[arely staircase]

This argument about whether Jesus existed as a historical figure is pretty much settled among historians.

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/20

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. The whole debate is pointless

Was there a guy named Yeshua bar Joseph living in first century Judea? Sheer probability suggests yes, there was. But seriously, who the hell cares? There's nowhere you can reliably go from that point.

"Proving" an historical Jesus doesn't validate Christianity any more than an historical Vlad Tepes validates Dracula.

[skepticscott]

2. Well, not pointless

Its gives a whole subculture of Serious Academic People something to discuss solemnly at their seminars and to talk about on NPR.

[cbayer]

3. I'm wondering how much it matters.

Whether a single individual or not, there was a powerful presence with a powerful message. His story and messages have not only survived over time, but have captured the hearts and minds of so many people.

I guess people could argue all day long about his existence or the actual nature of his existence. In the end, it is clear that something existed and that it had a profound impact on our world.

[Humanist_Activist]

4. I take issue with a few things in Dawkins article...

First, I don't understand his lauding of Jesus, whether the guy lived or not, he's not some ideal, nor were his ideas that original or revolutionary. Indeed, while he is different compared to Yahweh, its for the worst, not the better. The worst Yahweh could do to you was kill you, Jesus can torture you for eternity. Yahweh cared more about sinful actions, Jesus said that sinful thoughts have equal weight, etc.

Now, this next section I have to wonder what he means about Human Super Niceness, which he calls an aberration of Darwinian natural selection, and I would agree, but he seems to have forgot that species can have their own selective pressures that are self imposed(unconsciously), as long as they don't endanger the survival of the species itself, they aren't selected against through natural selection. I also don't understand why he thinks this distinctive human trait needs to spread like a religion, its self imposed on societies, and as we move further into the globalized society, a singular society, the greater this pressure will be.

I also would tell him to avoid using the word "singularity" to describe humans, to avoid confusion with transhumanists.