|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 2, 2018 10:26:19 GMT
It should be said that Francesca Stavrakopoulou is also an atheist and a theologian. She is the Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter and Head of its Department of Theology and Religion. A person could become well versed in Aristotle's works and decide Dawkins doesn't understand biology too. |
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Jan 2, 2018 12:16:41 GMT
Do you agree with Francesca Stavrakopoulou that Richard Dawkins misunderstands the nature of religion? This is what she said on Twitter in 2014 so its a while ago "I've debated with Dawkins on TV and discussed religion with him off camera. My impression is that he misunderstands the nature of religion."Do I agree with Francesca Stavrakopoulou that Richard Dawkins misunderstands the nature of religion? I don't understand what she's saying so it makes it impossible for me to say if I agree or disagree. Does anybody here know what Francesca Stavrakopoulou finds controversial in the beliefs of Richard Dawkins? If so, tell me. The only thing I can find is that she considers him to be dogmatic, quite similar to religious people in his own way. See here: |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 24, 2018 1:01:21 GMT
that's ironic I've listened to Francesca discuss religion plenty of times and she's arguably even more clueless than Dawkins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 1:34:17 GMT
that's ironic I've listened to Francesca discuss religion plenty of times and she's arguably even more clueless than Dawkins. I doubt that a theologian and professor of the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion is clueless about religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 24, 2018 1:47:46 GMT
that's ironic I've listened to Francesca discuss religion plenty of times and she's arguably even more clueless than Dawkins. I doubt that a theologian and professor of the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion is clueless about religion. think again. heres an example of her cluelessness. |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 24, 2018 12:41:30 GMT
I don't trust anyone with a silly name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 24, 2018 12:44:28 GMT
I don't trust anyone with a silly name. I don't know with a face like her's I think I can get past the name. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 24, 2018 15:01:40 GMT
Francesca Stavrakopoulou has argued in popular venues, based on her research, the current academic consensus that important figures in the Hebrew bible were not historical figures as represented in that text. She has further stated that she believes "very little, probably" of the Hebrew bible is historical fact, based on the arguments that ancient writers had an understanding of "fact" and "fiction" very different from a modern understanding, and that the Hebrew bible "wasn't written to be a factual account of the past"; she concludes, saying she does not believe accounts of Moses and King David in the Hebrew bible to be factual, and that "as an historian of the bible, I think there is very little that is factual." [Wiki]
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 24, 2018 15:25:35 GMT
Francesca Stavrakopoulou has argued in popular venues, based on her research, the current academic consensus that important figures in the Hebrew bible were not historical figures as represented in that text. She has further stated that she believes "very little, probably" of the Hebrew bible is historical fact, based on the arguments that ancient writers had an understanding of "fact" and "fiction" very different from a modern understanding, and that the Hebrew bible "wasn't written to be a factual account of the past"; she concludes, saying she does not believe accounts of Moses and King David in the Hebrew bible to be factual, and that "as an historian of the bible, I think there is very little that is factual." [Wiki] Does that reassure you? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 24, 2018 15:28:51 GMT
Francesca Stavrakopoulou has argued in popular venues, based on her research, the current academic consensus that important figures in the Hebrew bible were not historical figures as represented in that text. She has further stated that she believes "very little, probably" of the Hebrew bible is historical fact, based on the arguments that ancient writers had an understanding of "fact" and "fiction" very different from a modern understanding, and that the Hebrew bible "wasn't written to be a factual account of the past"; she concludes, saying she does not believe accounts of Moses and King David in the Hebrew bible to be factual, and that "as an historian of the bible, I think there is very little that is factual." [Wiki] Does that reassure you? Unlike the devoutly-challenged, I find I usually don't need reassurance in this area. It is however always interesting to hear what, away from old-time religion, biblical scholars actually say about such a patchwork text as the Bible and its intellectual provenance. |
|
