I watch anything and everything with Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou in it. Brilliant, engaging, erudite, amusing, funny, entertaining, a great speaker, I *always* learn a great deal...thoroughly enjoy and appreciate any channel that profiles her.
Why and how could you learn anything? she spouted vague nonsense without being able to cite specific contradictions and made assumptions on what people thought 4500 Years ago without giving a single example why. She is supposed to be an expert and she can't give exact examples. She is nothing more than a sounding board.
Loved this interview and I totally agree on her stance with Jordan Peterson, there are no "Judeo/Christian values" this is political and ideological hybrid concept that doesn't stand to scrutiny. Also Peterson "acting" as a "Christian" without been capable to clearly state if he believes Jesus rise from the dead is such a hipocritical stance that even Muhammad Hijab said he's a posmodernist when it comes to religion and the way he uses language, which is quite true. Thanks for this interview, keep it up.
You people are so goofy. Okay atheists can you explain to me why things in the world around you exist who created your car who built your house? Do things in the material world exist just cause because according to you folks everything just there just cause. So please explain.
JP really doesn't like not appearing the smartest person in the room. He would deflect and obfuscate and try to derail about the exact definition of every single word.. then go one a 10 minute ramble about Dostoyevsky to make himself sound more intellectual
One point of clarification on New Atheism: The goal is not to remove religion. Being science minded, we are aware of the neurological basis for religious perspective (agency bias, cognitive short cuts). The aim is to remove the unwarranted immunity from critical assessment afforded the Bible and Christianity in general. It's an objection to the special pleading noted by Dr. Stavrakopoulou. We feel that so long as religion is held to the same standard as other parts of society, the negative effects can be managed.
Absolutely. I have never once heard Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens ridicule religion or those with religious faith, and I was disappointed to hear Dr Stavrakoloulou imply that they had. Their main aim is to highlight the harm caused by certain beliefs in organised religions and to point out that we should not allow this just because we have been conditioned to accept anything with a religious root as sacred and beyond criticism.
Thanks, Ryan. This was a great interview. I’m a Christian (training to be a priest!) and studying for a PhD in theology, and always appreciate and enjoy Prof Francesca’s scholarship - although we don’t fundamentally agree on a lot about religion and faith, I think there’s a lot to learn and hear about. We need to engage with this scholarship as Christians. Subscribed. Off to watch your interview with Barbara Brown Taylor now!
Thanks for the comment! Totally agree that Christians should engage with this kind of scholarship. Super important in my opinion. Best of luck on the path to the priesthood! Sounds exciting.
@sydmccreath4554 only one religion is real. That is submission to the one n only Creator n he's last messenger that gave us the answers to be successful in this life n to go to heaven.
@@MartaSpendowskaor maybe just maybe, there’s nuance to each worldview maybe The secular atheist materialist conception of the world isn’t convincing. idk just a thought 🤔
@@MartaSpendowskaor maybe just maybe, there’s nuance to each worldview maybe The secular atheist materialist conception of the world isn’t convincing. idk just a thought 🤔
I've read her book God, an anatomy, and I thoroughly enjoyed it and learnt a stack. It was a really engaging writing style that imparted history and ancient thinking with lighthearted but serious appreciation (somehow at the same time) of the topic. I would recommend it.
Another great discussion from Francesca Stavrakopoulou, always enlightening. She is absolutely right about jordan peterson being deeply troubling and quite stupid too.
Regarding the comment that there are so many bibles in the world: I have wondered whether that number is so large because many/most of those bibles are published by groups pushing their religion on others, rather than bibles acquired by believers.
Ancient and sacred seems good enough for me to pay close attention and how it points to something time tested, worthy of reflection. But yes i think absolutism does make religious adherents overly prescriptive and intolerant. Such a great opportunity to think what has shaped us and become more authentic in my own faith as a practising Christian. I readily accept limited knowledge and potential self imposed blinders. These talks help me revisit and refine my own beliefs.Thank you for the publishing the conversation.
I love the way Fancesca explains the way she see the Bible , I find it also far a reality in many ways . it is history and it is interesting and you free to believe what you like . I like her way of being a atheist and she is not angry about dealing hangups like a iv noticed on youtube . Id love to hear more on her study if she had a series we could follow one a week for 30mins it would be so educating .
I knew a guy who studied theology at Oxford and he said that he was the only one who was still religious at the end of the program. I think that the more you swim in it you either believe more or become an atheist. I was still religious when I dropped out of an MDiv program. But after stepping out for a bit, my wife and I turned to each other one day and almost said at the same time, this is not helping. And we walked away from religion just like that. I would be curious to hear from those out there who have suffered through losing a child to cancer or a young spouse, how they make sense of it. Did they keep their faith? Or get stronger. There research out there that suggests that atheists don’t live as long. We don’t know if it is from a lack of the social bonds or from giving your worries over to god. I do miss the choral singing. I was in the men‘s choir and we had a mixed choir, awesome polyphony. Woulda made Old Bach cry. I have met as many people who were impacted by experiences in Buddhism or just secular psychology to know that it is not just Christianity which changes people. The problem for Christianity now is, in the marketplace of ideas, how do you demonstrate Christianity is true without appeals to the Bible? The Muslim quotes from the Koran, there you go, proof! The Bahai quotes from the Bahuulah‘s teachings, sorry not sure of the spelling there. So Christians, what do you do?
the underlying assumption of many religious studies scholars (certainly when I went to college) is an atheistic one. so there can be no conclusion that leads to a faith based answer. it must isually have a historical or political answer.
@makanaima. Well adding MANY to your previous statement make it much more fair, but what does many mean? Is this based on Pew data? To your earlier statement I was going to say that scholars don’t read the Bible in a devotional manor, they certainly look for historical and political context, but that’s like saying that painters work with paint. In debates that I have watched of Bart Ehrman he never says, the Bible is not true and here’s why… he might say that there was no historical record of the Egyptians enslaving the Jews, and the Egyptians were good record keepers. You might like to read the Bible devotionally and not apply modern scholarship to it, my advice would be to take a pass on the PhD in Biblical studies. Are you saying that modern Biblical criticism doesn’t understand the Bible? I had a year of NT Greek and attempted to translate the first chapter of the Gospel of St John. The options were bordering on the infinite for how to translate it. Translations are based a lot on agreement between scholars. You don’t like what Stavropoulou is saying? Have you read what she’s read? Are you able to debate her in a scholarly manner? If so, go at her bro. But I am guessing that is not the case and she would open a scholarly whoop @$$ on you. But if you don’t like how scholars operate, don’t come to a channel and complain about their Modus operandi. If you have the goods, open a can and show us what you got. Otherwise go back to your devotional channel and be told what you want to hear. Peace
Some guy named David was Probably a real man from whom the kingdom derived ;) I disagree with her special pleading for Jesus, but it's tolerable. This woman is my hero! Her book is ahMAZing. I LOVE how she called out the anti-semiticism of the 'different' gods of the bible. It was a good wake up call.
No matter what you think about Francesca which I find her perspective fascinating, I would highlight her opinion on the human condition and respect for one another. Which we need greatly in the US and around the world. Even so called religious people have a problem doing.
people will not realise that an Atheist is the best person to study Religion. If you do not have a horse in the race then you can be more objective and see all the contradictions. I personally take it one step further, I refer to my self as a non believer in any Religion, Atheism is a label and it carries luggage. If I do have a label then call me a Truther for that is my only mission....
@@3rdeye399 I was pointing something out to you. You said that the label 'atheist' carries luggage & then proceeded to call yourself a 'truther.' I pointed out the enormous amount of luggage that the word 'truther' carries. This isn't hard..
@@atheist.archive the label "Truther " is one that I am happy with... I define it myself and even if I have a set idea I will always consider new evidence and am willing adapt to a new flexible model of the Universe. I think I have a good knowledge of what is truly going on but I as an individual cannot prove anything 100% and that is why I have to remain flexible. As for 9/11 I have my own ideas and have used very basic science to realise that the logic does not add up with the narratives spun...alternative dozens of clues were intentionally left that conscious beings should have noticed but failed to do so. 9/11 however is not the biggest event...the biggest one took place around 250 years ago but no-one has worked it out......
i always see the bible and Torah as RPG anime manga from the middle east😅 now I'm gonna start reading this chic professor book which I just bought yesterday God: An Anatomy😅
Dr. Stavrakopoulou has an almost uniquely talent for presenting very complex cultural and historical themes and inter-related evolutions in an accessible and understandable way. It isn't that she is trying to convince any one of anything other than the objective facts and the full extent of their context to the extent that we know it. She is an excellent scientist and I deeply appreciate her scholarship and generosity in sharing her studies. Going from his other public comments, I believe the reason that Jordan Peterson is so enamored of Christianity is two-fold. First, it is already woven into the accepted mythos and identity of the United States imperial character. Some American Christians would have a hard time electing a non-Christian, (though Jews would get more of a pass.) Secondly, Christianity became very hierarchical during the Roman period and if there is something that Jordan really likes is hierarchies. Anything that keeps the extant social structure in place is going to be on his "must-do" list.
Been a fan of Prof Stavrakapoulou for decades now, glad to see her being recognised across the pond. This is just me vibing as an exmuslim, but I always found it interesting that islam came out of a context (around 6th Century) when we start to see the emergence/importance of the idea of a 'true canon'/authenticity of texts, with the Quran being seen as an inerrant/infallible final testament with an extreme fetishization of the text. I've always found islam to be a kind of combination of Evangelical Christian attitudes towards Faith and Scripture (minus salvation), combined with Jewish theology and legalism (+ Arabian custom and culture).
As much as I love her, the one thing I disagree with is her depiction of Richard, Sam and Christopher. Richard finds religious things beautiful, Sam has spoken a lot about spirituality and meditation, and Chris said he doesn’t care if people are religious, just don’t involve him or others against their will. And there’s way more depth to it than that and what they say. They DO understand religion. Maybe not as much as her, but usually enough to say what they say
i find their depth goes only so far as the level they can understand and rationalise. that might well be as far as we can go with truth, but then it just creates another religion.. one based on a belief in human exceptionalism. if nothing else the biblical texts disavow us of such hubris?
I like the reference of older gods also dying and rising 3 days later as Jesus. The difference is explained in Saul/Paul who died walking the wrong way on the road to Damascus (he hears God's voice behind him and has to turn around). Death is just separation from God in the New T. and Saul was a very religious man. Saul only murdered himself that day transforming into Paul. He never killed another and Saul was only blinded from God for 3 days. Saul could see the road and face of Ananias. Only you can remove the veil over your eyes to turn water into wine by accepting the second coming b/c we all have free will. It's why no one knows the hour of Christ's return b/c it happens all the time.
Funny that Paul never writes about his "road to Damascus" experience. In the accounts of this by other authors, Paul doesn't "see" Jesus. He sees a light from above and hears a voice. Yet in his letters he claims Christ appeared to him. No contradictions there...
Good interview, and it's always interesting to hear her points of view. I did take issue with one of the remarks about the "new atheists" as they're called. Christopher Hitchens was once asked if he would erase religion from the world if he had the ability to do so, and he said no. He said "Religion is part of the human make-up. It's also part of our cultural and intellectual history. Religion was our first attempt at literature, the texts, our first attempt at cosmology, making sense of where we are in the universe, our first attempt at health care, believing in faith healing, our first attempt at philosophy." He was anti-religious in the sense that he opposes the totalitarianism inherent in the idea of gods, especially monotheism, and he thinks a lot of the stuff that's presented as moral good by proponents of world religion is actually deeply awful, and that many religions cause more harm than they do good, and I agree with him on all of that. But he never wanted the world to rid itself completely of religion. As for the comments on Jesus' historicity, I think I agree with her that the best we can say is he probably existed. I think her reasons for saying that are not the reasons I would pick, because anyone who is familiar with the rise of urban myths, cargo cults and things of that nature will see that completely ridiculous false beliefs can pop up in a shorter timespan than the time between when Jesus allegedly lived, and when the earliest writings show up. But I still think it is likely some apocalyptic preacher from Nazareth that might as well be called Jesus did show up, and ended up being executed. Nothing special about that. But as for how he died, what happened to his body, the miracles, sayings attributed to him and all that, I think that's a lot more confused and uncertain - except of course we know miracles aren't real. They were obviously parlor tricks like cold reading and planted stooges and so forth.
I wonder if his opinion would have changed had he lived through a trump presidency and jan 6th and lived every day after that seeing how they want to do it again.
@sydmccreath4554 There are thousands of years of history showing how abrahamic religions have always been used the same way. I would give you a list but youtube won't allow it. The more you know...
@sydmccreath4554 Your response speaks volumes for your level of intelligence and historical understanding religion. How do you respond with such babel and not actually say anything or put together a coherent thought?
Great questions. A nice holistic interview where it’s not too specific on something she’s doing right now. You covered all the questions I had. Rlly good, thanks for this video 💪🏼
Thank you I'm a big fan of her work. All of the historical scholars who work on some aspect of the Bible I've read are secular, Joel Baden, Ehrman, Litwa, Richard Miller, Carrier, Price, Mcdonald, Finklestein, John Collins, Mary Boyce, Lataster, Kipp Davis, John Tabor, J.Z.Smith, Klause, and many more. It's very common in critical-historical scholarship. I have yet to read a peer-revied historical work who argues as a believer. Some start out fundamentalist but see the evidence and are forced to face the reality of what it demonstrates. It's the theologians who are religious. They, like all theologians in Islam, Mormonism and so on, assume their text is from God.
The idea of an angry and vengeful God and a loving and forgiving God was developed and supported by Gnostics in 2nd century CE. Marcion just formulated the first authoritative book (similar with the New Testament) around 150 CE. The idea of 2 Gods is not new.
The section about new atheists and Jordan Peterson were amazing. Always like hearing atheists speak out against the shallow critiques of the new atheists. And then re JP: “Deeply troubling and quite stupid” 😂
I would love to see this lady talk with "Paul Wallis" (an ex Anglican priest of more than 30 years), of the "the 5th kind" and "Paul Wallis" RU-vid channels. Also, what does she say, in relation to the original languages and alphabets of the Bible???
The god that chose the Israelites is not the god that Jesus prayed to. That's why for centuries people have wondered "How come the god of the Old Testament is a brutal, slaughter-all-the-women-and-children god, but the god of the New Testament is full of love and mercy?" ------------> Because they are not the same god.
Francesca your a great scholar. I'm a rational and humanist like you. My question is why Christianity is called Judeo-Christian tradition when its a Hellenic-Levantine tradition? Judaism in an anthology of Persian, Egyptian, Assyrian and Mesopotamian mythical stories and traditions. Its time overdue to rewrite this false perception and solve the present mess in the Middle East. The whole Middle East was Hellenized and Jews and Middle Easterners were speaking and writing in Greek. Also were two Hellenic dynasties in the area ,the Seleucid dynasty based in Antioch and the Ptolemaic dynasty based in Alexandria Egypt. Apostle Paul was a Hellenized Jew from Antioch and Philo a Hellenized Jew from Alexandria. The two dynasties were antagonized each other. They were also different Hellenic philosophical schools in the entire region. What was their influence on those people?
I don’t understand how someone can - correctly - identify Moses and David and others as being probably mythological characters because there’s a lack of corroborating evidence for their existence and then turn around and say there probably was a Jesus. The lack of corroboration applies to Jesus as well.
This is an important point to consider- I have come to think that if he existed, Jesus was a man who was turned into a god whereas Abraham, Moses et al were more like gods who were turned into men (being figures derived from Near Eastern/Egyptian mythology)
@@yohei72 There really aren't. The mentions of Jesus or Christians in texts that are most often cited (Tacitus and Josephus) are later forgeries inserted by Christian transcribers -- and even if they were legitimate, they are hardly contemporaneous, having been written many decades after he would have died. Meanwhile, Jesus is clearly missing from documents from the era in which he supposedly lived.
@@OliverBenson-b6v There were dozens of messianic Jewish cults before Jesus. And the figure of the Christ is an amalgamation of several mythological characters. Jesus is pretty much exactly the same as Moses or David.
I find Francesa’s respectful skepticism very palatable as a full bible believing Christian. And yes all of us must suspend our belief systems, revisit it and test it undeterred to find a new, relevant and better truth.Appreciate the many useful points! Proverbs 18:15 “An intelligent man is always open to new ideas, in fact he looks for them”
There's a delightful catch 22 in saying the universe, and thereby our brains, are purely material phenomena. Materialism would say (if it could, but being material it can't) a material brain doesn't know what materialism is. Even more ironically, the material brain is that brain which hasn't even heard of materialism.
At 55:20, clearly, the translation movement and the introduction of knowledge through the exchange with the islamic world through the crusades and Andalus has more to do with the progress the western civilisation was able to achieve. Actually, Christianity and the control of the Church was one of the main reason why the dark ages are called as such!
I wonder why people always say that Bible contradicts itself, im reading the Bible, spending sometimes 2 hours on each chapter with taking notes, and haven't found a contradiction yet. Ive found the adversary (most likely the "God" of Jacob/Israel) pretending to be God but actually really being satan in disquise many times, yes. Even the parts that people read as being God are actually the adversary (and most Christians think its God) ive read God as a plurality (let US create mankind in OUR image, etc) However, i haven't read any contradictions so far though, why do people, even scholarly people, say there are condradictions? I just don't see them. 🤷🏻♂️
That's because you are too deeply indoctrinated! When non-Christian scholars study the bible then they find numerous contradictions! Moreover, the bible is literally FULL of scientific nonsense and disgusting and discriminating morals! That's because it was written by several totally ignorant men who knew nothing about the real natural world and moreover took over the disgusting and discriminating morals of their patriarchal community! That's also why women and minority groups have been discriminated and considered second class people for centuries and still are!
You don't seem to understand that reading the Bible in English doesn't allow you to correctly understand the text. You're just making meaning out of nothing
@@basedgamerguy818 oh, don't get me wrong, their are contradictions galore IF you believe the god of Moses is actually the father of Jesus (when he's not) Just go to where the god of Moses lies in Leviticus 19:18 and compare it to Exodus when he talks about an eye for an eye. Leviticus 19 is just this liar who calls himself God trying to seem "good" because he's afraid his followers will leave him for foreign gods like Molech
@@basedgamerguy818 the Bible is a big book afterall It can't ALL be translated incorrectly, that's just not logical 🤷🏻♂️ That's like saying if we read Sun Tzu's The Art War we're getting "meaning out of nothing" because it was written in Chinese, by that same logic we can look at Plato's republic as getting "meaning out nothing" because it was written in Greek, and so on and so forth, that's just silly
You don’t see contradictions? Read Genesis 1 and 2 and compare them. How about the flood story? How many animals were on the ark? How many days did the flood last? Compare the birth stories of Jesus in Mathew and Luke side by side. In Mathew Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem. In Luke they live in Nazareth and have to travel to Bethlehem. In Mathew they flee to Egypt. In Luke they return to Nazareth. That’s just to get you started.
The death threats might be more about certain "cults" not wanting their secrets exposed because they don't want to lose control of their flock. I know someone who has gotten death threats.
31:09. Professor Stavrakopoulou finishes the section begun here with "It's bullshit!" No it isn't, but what IS "bullshit" is her reaction and take on the subject! The Old Testament god IS a completely different god than the god of the New Testament, the god Jesus talks about! They are so different, they might as well be totally unrelated... which is exactly what Professor Stavrakopoulou herself says at the end (56:22), the term "Judeo-Christian" is a misnomer as the two religions are totally different! To say that the humane, humble, peaceful god of the New Testament is an evolution and improvement upon the primitive (by any measure), barbaric, blood-thirsty, vengeful god of the Old Testament isn't anti-Semitic! It's just a statement of fact! Besides, the people depicted in the New Testament were Jews, and presumably so were the people who wrote it! So how could it be anti-Semitic by any stretch of the imagination to say that one is an improvement upon the other? It is total nonsense, and seems like an emotional reflex by Professor Stavrakpoulou rather than a rational argument or a reasoned point of view.
Asking someone why they study the Bible even though they are an atheist, is like asking someone why do they study Homer or Hesiod if they don't make sacrifices or pray to Zeus and the Olympian gods. There is something called academic study because of interest. Homer's influence on western culture, art and literature is vast. But we no longer believe in the Olympian gods. The Bible's influence is even greater with the difference being that the God of the Bible still has approximately 2 billion living followers of various denominations.
Ancient humans did invent gods, angels, etc but I don't think they would have invented the human characters like Abraham or Moses. I think they actually existed, though their real status was quite different than that described in the Bible. Also, the absence of archeological evidence is not the evidence of historical absence.
In a way, "the Bible" is a Protestant concept. The printing press made the canonical scripture into a book available to a far wider section of society. In that context, Martin Luther elevated the status of the scripture in faith life with a theology which situated truth as stemming solely from the canonical texts, Sola Scriptura. Orthodox/Catholic Christianity had not had this understanding and had not believed the faithful needed to themselves read the canonical texts to live a worthy Christian life (most believers had been illiterate from the time of the mission to the gentiles). Catholics speak of Magisterium providing source of truth for the Church and Orthodox have spoken of an Orthodox phronema (faithfulness to an apostolic model). Another issue speaking about the Bible is whether the books need be bound in one volume. In Orthodox practice this isn't the case, as the Evangelion is used liturgically, a collection of the four gospels. Orthodox proceed the Evangelion out of the altar, the celebrant elevates it and the congregation bows to it.
@@Multijoe84 Sure. Why? The point is that in an age where most people were illiterate and books were rare, it would be terrible if salvation depended on being able to read Holy Scripture.
I saw very early on as a very young boy; there were aspects of what I was being taught in church; that just didn't seem to coincide with the Bible. There I was listening to a preacher telling me that there is one God. I went into my Bible and I found that, right there in Genesis, God said; Let Us make man in Our image and after Our likeness. Of course, the preacher would say; he was talking to the angels. That made no sense to my little mind. Why would He be telling the angels to help him when, it clearly states He made one from the dust and the other from a rib? Then of course you have the 10 commandments. The first thing God is alleged to have said is; I am the Lord your God. You will have no other gods before me. I asked my little self; if there are no other gods; why did He say that? What's more; why was He jealous of other gods if; there were no other gods? After seeing the Buried Secrets of the Bible on Netflix; I was then introduced to the first Atheist Humanist; I ever saw as a Sacred Atheist. I know that is unlikely to make sense to Dr. Francesca but, that's just my perception of her. She is the only Atheist I have encountered who encompass all of the attributes I learned about from the Beatitudes. She is so kind, compassionate and respectful of us Theists. I fell in love with her whole approach and care for the way she presented her scholarship. The first time I saw, the first episode of her mini series; I wanted to adopt her as my little sister. I still want to. I have really learned a lot from her. I still believe in God but, in a much more liberated and peaceful way. I have her to thank for that. Since it is highly unlikely that, I will ever meet her in person; please express my sincere thanks and gratitude to Dr. Stavrakapoulou. Thank you for this video.
You wouldn't get death threats from an atheist! Love Francesca and the work she's done. We should view religion as human history, but leave it in the past.
And the Jewish temple had golden images anyway, of golden calves and angels etc., in spite of the no graven image commandment. Josephus mentions too a Jewish temple of the Golden Calf visited by Vespasian. The Ark of the Covenant was kept in a golden box surmounted by golden angels.
We can't live in the sky without special equipment. Resources are hard to come by and it's very very cold. The Bible authors didn't know (1st Thessalonians 4:17).
Hi, Dr. Francesca, I m one of your more enthusiastic viewer of this video and appreciate your sharing why lost your faith in Christianity and became, to me personally and (my wife will kill me for this) one of the sexiest biblical scholars to grace this page. You are very welcome.
I was saying,,,,,and became a, what I can sense, reluctant atheist. May I be so bold and presumptuous enough to suggest that you try the video on this same channel titled:"Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch if only out of scholarly and scientific curiosity as to what it is all about. You may be in for a very pleasant and revealing surprise. Enjoy and you are very welcome!
Religion should be criticized the same way any historical or moral claims are, and dawkins and Hitchens don't think religion shouldn't be studied, because of them I can think critically about the subject
I think people underestimate the role of protestantism in the literalist understanding of the Bible. If you have no apostolic claim to authority with which to argue a well-supported oral tradition, you need something else. The Bible was the only answer.
Francesca is brilliant but I differ with her opinion about Jesus actually existing. Instead of the notion that Jesus was an actual guy who had extraordinary claims made about him which transformed him into a God, I think it was the opposite. I think Jesus started off as a story about this heavenly character, then he was "euhemerized" and became a real person in the Gospel stories.
MADAM, PEOPLE MAY NOT REALIZE, MAY NOT ACCEPT, BUT OVER 90% HUMAN BEINGS ALIVE TODAY OR ATHEISTS TO SOME DEGREE... LOWER OR HIGHER DEGREE, WHICH IS WHY THEY DON'T GIVE A SECOND THOUGHT WHEN THEY NEED TO CHOSE BETWEEN WHAT IS JUST AND WHAT IS IN THEIR OWN ADVANTAGE...RELIGION IS SOME LABEL THEY CAN TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT ANY GIVEN DAY
Anti-theist here. Five scholars, R Dawkins, S Harris, D Dennett, L Krauss & F Valkai. Bonus up and coming Erica from Gutsick Gibbon. With endless respect Christopher Hitchens, rest in peace. Have not read the book of revelations but I have been in the cave.
I don’t understand why people especially people who espouse certain beliefs like Christian’s do send threatening and violent stuff to people like her simply because they are confronted with a different view point. I’ve been a Christian my whole life and have had a great deal of questions along the way and doubts that now I’m starting to think maybe I don’t really believe this anymore and yeah I get it it’s super scary I mean Christian beliefs are scary enough as is but then the thought that it might not be real and then you’re like well what do I build my life on now what is the rudder for me to navigate life and what are the implications of this not being real especially with regard to the afterlife it’s pretty scary but I also see a lot of freedom in it too. Death is so terrifying to so many and he’ll makes it so much worse especially when you think there is literally nothing I can do or at least that so many of the things I want to do are considered sinful and will apparently send me to hell potentially. But the thought that maybe that’s not how it is maybe there is something different in the afterlife. Maybe we just go to sleep and that’s it. Maybe we see our friends and family again. Maybe we go to some beautiful heaven like place to just enjoy whatever the afterlife is. Maybe we are reincarnated. Maybe we merge into one cosmic consciousness. Maybe the experience is like some psychedelic trip. There are so many possibilities that could be so much better than the duality of heaven and hell. And really not believing it doesn’t mean you lose a rudder when it comes down to it it just gives you freedom to add to your understanding I think. There is still much you can learn and utilize from the Bible as well as so many of the other religious and secular texts that exist that can help navigate the world. You don’t have to believe every single thing but the questioning and the introduction of new concepts and ideas can be extremely helpful in living a better life. Letting go of beliefs that don’t serve yourself or your community is not a bad thing. We can be more than some set of beliefs and I think we need to. When you get stuck in one particular view point you miss out on so much connection and richness that life has to offer you also become almost arrogant in your thoughts when you don’t allow yourself to question things. There is so much that we know but there is so much that we don’t know which probably far exceeds by orders of magnitude what we do. There is so much that we don’t know that we don’t know that we don’t know it. So to say that anything is for sure the way it is is a fallacy it’s all really just our best guess based on the evidence and observations we have so far but our understanding of things sometimes oftentimes shifts pretty dramatically and other times more gradually as we are presented with new information. At one point most people thought the earth was flat. Now at least most of us know it’s not. At one point we thought diseases were caused by spirits now we know diseases are caused by germs and genetic defects. At one point we couldn’t even fathom the idea of flying in some machine like a bird let alone flying in rockets and traveling to distant planets or even stars which may one day become a reality.
This was interesting to read. I think we are all searching for answers we will never get. I sometimes feel ashamed when I'm sitting in church and my mind questions what's being said. I've had a near death experience and evil dreams when I find myself in a good place. I've watched my grandma on hospice claiming that she was seeing angels. It's these unexplainable events that make me open minded. Then I think about our free will, and if we don't choose the right way we will end up in hell. That's not fair? Did we really have free will to begin with? But then I look around and notice that there's so much darkness here. I think if you really want answers god shows you in mysterious ways, and believe me I should have died that day. But I'd rather live my life with the hopes of reuniting with loved ones and living with good intentions because it's what I choose to believe.
The opening question about her name may be applied to religious belief. To her it is just the name she grew up with but to others it sounds weird. So it is with religious stories and beliefs. It is easy to see those from other cultures as strange and weird but to anyone growing up in those cultures they are normal and it is the god of Abraham that sounds add. The truth cannot be determined by familiarity, for that we require evidence and no religion anywhere has a scrap of genuine supportive evidence. That at least should make us question.
Well, the idea of a different god in the earty christian period, is hard to frame as modern anti-semitic trope, as it's in the Marcion gospel and the Gnostic texts.
I like Francesca but she bashing "new atheists" with false portrayals. Never heard Dawkins and Hitchens try to stamp out religion, only the associated dogmatism and supernatural suppositions.
