Joe Rogan, Richard Dawkins, and God (Part 1 of 2) 

Jordan TRusso it won’t happen. Joe knows he wouldn’t be able to handle bishop barron. The only way it happens is if he gets bishop barron and Dawkins on at the same time. That way he can tag team and feed off Dawkins. But he couldn’t handle bishop barron by himself.

Andrew J I’d have to disagree with you, Joe is absolutely no kind of intellectual, he admits that freely, but he has in the past brought on a number of scientists and religious people of views and beliefs much different to his own. I would not go so far as to say it is impossible. Maybe just improbable.

He’s got an animosity toward the Catholic Church and he goes off on it all the time. He wouldn’t get a staunch defender like barron unless he has help. Kind of like he did with Tim poop and Twitter people.

@@Ajas0810 Joe mostly rolls over before all of his guest so long as they don't criticize marijuana. Criticize that and his gloves come off in all cases. In some cases he is understanding, like when Randal Carlson went through why he thinks climate change is a normal non-human phenomenon. When Candide Owens comes on and says the same stuff without the depth of knowledge Joe finds his balls and tears the woman apart. Joe's width is as wide as the ocean and his depth is like a plate of cereal.

I agree though I feel joes more open to atheism than religion

Bishop Robert Barron should make a video on Theramintrees youtube videos.

Look to Christ, not Barron.

@@acrovader Christ threw down the rope: Barron.

Dawkins is a great biologist, but a terrible philosopher and an even worse theologian.

@@acrovader I can look at Barron and see Christ. Perhaps if you get the log out of your eye you can too.

Martin Viassolo I agree 100%

@@gameologian7365 i don't think he intentionally hates the church......he hates what he doesn't understand because of years of oppression and hate

Epic Style just like what Fulton Sheen said

he should try dmt first

Thats True!

Why would he? Haven’t listened to it, so just curious how it relates to Barron

@@graysonhoward1562 It's called Jesus Is King and every song is about God. It's actually quite good.

augustv123 ughhhh but it’s Kanye tho. He’s such a dick. Oh well I’ll listen to it tho

I think he converted to Christianity. I know his wife, Kim, got baptized and baptized her children.

Grayson Howard can’t deny he’s a musical genius tho haha

The Mohawks had a strange culture

Grayson Howard Probably why it captivated them.

Matthew Arenson exactly. And the French jesuits didn’t hate the natives, even though they may have been a bit discriminatory. They believed they had as much right to communion in the church as anybody. Europeans get a lot of shit for how they treated natives, and it is deserved, but man those Jesuit priests were the real deal. Some of the bravest son of bitches in history

True. Any idea on which Native American tribe had the most complex oral culture? Are there any modern "primitive" or nonprimitive tribes that have a culture that rivals the best?

@@guineapig55555 My first guess would be the West Coast Haida, partly owing to the insane abundance of food resources on the West coast, which led to them devoting a lot of their time to art and oral literature (well, and raiding and pillaging but, you know, what you gonna do?).

So become familiar with them and make them known as you feel called to. Similarly that is how I began my journey. God bless you.

Brent Razz perhaps because most atheists feel you can have all the positives that religion offers without belief in the supernatural or (more importantly) without dogmatic gospels (which include mutilation, murder, slavery and genocide).

Yes Dawkins always acts like he is an expert on the subject of God's existence, when in fact he knows very little about the subject.

Please tell me a rational argument for God. I've never heard one. I've very often heard people say that there is rational arguments and evidence but I have never once heard nor seen one. If you manage to do so I Will be open minded as I've gone back and forth between believing and not believing as a child, but I'm a very logical person and logic says that there is no CHRISTIAN god. I can not say there is no higher power, but I can confidently say that no human religion is even close.

Hello Chaos, Try this video out, it’s only 15 minutes and crams a lot into that 15 minutes. It’s from John Lennox. He’s a scientist, so he’s a very logical man. This was in a debate format so he moves through the presentation quickly but very informative. Good luck my friend! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-otrqzITuSqE.html

@@joemccarthy7975 thank you I will check it out

@@joemccarthy7975 Thank you for sharing, but it doesn't do it for me. All of his points were things I've heard before, just articulated better and sound smarter. Nothing he said proved, nor pointed towards the Christian God, nor any human god at that. I would go point by point and explain, but I've done that too many times and those discussions always drag on and get no where. I'm assuming that your Christian, and I fully understand why, but if you're at all interested I would check out the channel darkmatter2525 ( m.ru-vid.comvideos ). He makes animated videos that range from comedic to very serious and long to short, but they all revolve around the premise of Christianity. I would especially recommend these three videos: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X05Wn1ZAlfE.html m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Y201QzDdzbg.html m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lWZifSXlzlI.html If you do end up watching these three videos, please let me know what you think.

I concur

Ethan F. Amen

Your'e lds?

@@LuisAngel-mu4zv Yeah

ironymatt He’s argent

It's a strange paradox to be sure. I get the sense that he's very angry with the Church and religion in particular. What is interesting is the Bishop's statement on cultures throughout history having a religion or religions. That alone seems to indicate something at least exists outside of us that has formed and controlled the universe.

"Professing themselves wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22

another "swing and a miss". perfect analogy for this season.

I think Dawkins was happy writing about biology and evolution.. But some unqualified people called his work bullcrap, so he wrote some books about their bullcrap to get his own back.. :) No one likes having their profession and calling misquoted and derided by amateurs, be they biologist or theologist.. So what was sown was reaped...

@@toninobelimussi296 what do you mean. I can prove that I'm an atheist by simply saying I'm an atheist.

@@toninobelimussi296 why is it that you believe this professor until proven otherwise, but assert that atheists cant be trusted about their own stated non-belief until they can prove it? Seems a little unfair to me

@@toninobelimussi296 I don't think you understand what atheism means. Just just means no belief in God. I'm not lying, I don't live in a country with a church tax. I'm not and atheists aren't claiming that a god doesn't exist. We are only saying we don't have a belief in any.

@@toninobelimussi296 my point is there is no way to prove to anyone else the internal beliefs or lack of beliefs a person holds. If someone tells me they are an atheist that is them telling me that they do not believe in the existence of God. And i have no reason to disbelieve their self-disclosed non belief and demand proof that they aren't lying to avoid taxation. They are making a categorically different sort of claim than the MIT professor you reference as being someone you trust because you see them as smarter than you. The professor is making claims about topic you hypothetically could go become well educated on yourself. You respect that professors informed opinions. Theres not anyway to get well informed on what someone else thinks except asking and listening. To disbelief someone about their own statement of beliefs or non belief is to claim they dont know themselves well enough to say that. Generally that is seen as rude and disrespectful. You dont have any basis on which to assert that.

@@toninobelimussi296 you know what, fuck this I'm not even gonna bother watching this video. People like you drive me insane. All I've said is I don't believe in God. In my initial comment I said I'm excited to hear the other side but you have done enough to confirm my initial thoughts that there is no compromise with religious people.

Time at least in the form we understand it is a product and aspect of physical reality. Does this rule out a sequence or continuity beyond our experience? No, Purgatory for one must be finite so ir shares at least some basic aspects with the temporal nature of time as we know it. As for Heaven, well new souls do enter it, so some form of progression must be, but the means of that and its nature are beyond our scope of ken perhaps, certainly it is above mine. God makes all things, so the form it may take is nigh infinite in form, and who is to say it is static in its nature, this life is but a foretaste of Heaven afterall. I hope this msy help with understanding on the potential nature of time need not be limited to the form we take it by experience. Note that this is but my speculation and not anything official, use it or discard it as you will, I certainly will. God bless you.

@@LostArchivist Thank you for that, but to my ears it all sounds like white noise. The science of it is faulty. How can we speculate about such things with our gut or intuition. The only measure we have of the world is our rational mind. And this simply does not compute. a) How do you KNOW time is a product only of our physical reality? b) How can we know what is BEYOND our experience? c) What rational, physical proof is there that Purgatory exists? c) How do you know that something beyond our ken will always be beyond our ken? d) Why would life be a foretaste of heaven? For some it is a hell. e) How do you know "the potential nature of time need not be limited to the form we take it by experience." You did not clarify.

@vehmic The idea of living for eternity horrifies me. What the heck are we going to do with all that time? I would MUCH rather cease to be. I hope, if there is a God - and I am inclined to believe that there is - He just puts and end to me when the time comes.

That sounds even worse. Are we going to play chess and smile all day?

Sebastian Melmoth . Taking New and Old Testaments as reference, we can speculate. But Our God Himself said ‘eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it even entered into the mind of man, what God has prepared for those who love Him”. So why desire it if we don’t know what we’re getting? Because our God promises it will be good. I trust that promise because of the taste of bliss I get from prayer and the Eucharist. I’ve discovered Catholicism has depths and heights and I expect more awaits. Science demonstrates the benefits of faith in this world- if not the next. As far as what eternity is like, my speculation is based on the experience I remember of holding my newborn in the night - my whole heart and mind united to her with a profound contentment I’d never known and knew I would never tire of if it never ended, and time even seemed to be only an eternal present. Some things have to be experienced and cannot be imagined. Such is the case with heaven, according to Him.

You're right about the citation. We should however remember that Justin was an orator. I think it is quite clear that the rhetoric figure he uses in the context of atheism accusation against Christians is to prove something completely opposite to what Dowkins supports.

How do get out of the problem of evil? If this father can stop why doesn't he?

The god who regulates slavery, sex positions, textiles, and diets...he loves you so much!

@@davosholdos1253 He punishes for those and free will is maleable. How about you go help people instead of blaming God for anything but your own actions?

Were your mother and/or father Catholic?

Anthony Alto you should watch Dawkins, hitchens, Harris, and dinnet just to name a few debate theologians 10-12 years ago. They all get massacred.

levi davi depends on your perspective. Most atheists see the four horsemen as doing the massacring. I’m sure you cannot possibly be ignorant of this fact

Anthony Alto this interview is not a presentation of all Dawkins’ arguments

Tonino Belimussi thanks for that inane baseless assertion. Unfortunately the belief in eternal hellfire does not correlate well with intelligence - it would therefore seem likely that you do not have much credibility when it comes to assessing intelligence.

Anthony: I felt exactly the same way. I actually have enormous respect for Dawkins as a serious biologist, but his knowledge of Christianity is embarrassingly shallow. He seems to instinctively grasp for the cheapest caricature of religious faith and exclaim “see? That’s all Christianity is about.” But that’s intellectually very lazy and easily disproven, as Bishop Barron does over and over. I frankly expected so much more from Dawkins.

Enrique he should be.

Iv been waiting for a while, the bishop has been on with peterson, rubin and shapiro so hopefully rogan will be soon!

"Jamie, pull that video up of that skydiving priest giving Communion 10,000 feet in the air. Look at that. That's crazy. Anyways do you think chimps have rational souls?"

@@tr1084 I literally heard Rogan in my head hahaha

@@toninobelimussi296 yeah that's some insane logic. Morality based on the punishment of hell rather than just being a good person. No offense people locked away from the world in monasteries shouldn't give advice on life

FYI, God Exists, and without the grace of God you will end up in hell. But God told us how to avoid that fate, "Ask and you shall receive"; "Seek that you may find ", " Knock, and it will be opened unto you " Ignore the reality and truth that is God, and you please the devil, who wants us all in hell. Hell was NOT created for men, but for fallen angels (aka Demons). Death was not made by God but is the consequence of the devil's envy of mankind. Why did the fallen angels rebel against God and lose heaven forever ? They envied that men can suffer for God.

@@toninobelimussi296 the religious way, blah blah go to hell if you don't believe! Lmfaooo I still love ya'll!

@@toninobelimussi296 yeah good people go to hell because they don't believe seems like some controlling manipulation to me. I'm sure if there is a god he'll have a sense of humor and let me slide. Lolol

@@toninobelimussi296 because I'm not a piece of shit and if say my friends and family who are non believers go to hell than fuck it loyalty first we gonna party in hell!!!!

The others you mentioned have numerous historic accounts in other literature or documents. Jesus seems to exist nowhere outside of the Bible. People 300 miles away seem to have never heard of the guy

Bernard Walsh which idea does that challenge?

no we dont, religion had its time of propaganda for the last 10 centuries now is the time of anti religion. took us long enough

They have not uploaded it yet.

He's meeting his Maker shortly..

Why do you let him annoy you?

Complaining Qoheleth Well bright side Jordan Peterson I think is becoming more popular then him.

He isn’t the first, won’t be the last

You didn't listen to your bishop. It doesn't matter what is more comfortable. What matters is what is true.

@Julian Classic misunderstanding of what God is. If it is scientific evidence you seek, then you will never clearly find God. Science deals with probabilities, not truths (a conclusion is found to be most likely or true beyond a reasonable doubt, not absolutely true); also, science is restrained to what we can observe within the universe, it cannot say anything about something outside it. You are making a categorical error. Catholics never claim God to have a penis (at least until he became man). God is beyond male or female, but we use masculine pronouns to attempt to understand his character, since he is like a father to us: loving and wise, but also just and wrathful. I could talk more, but I doubt you are going to listen.

@Martin Šaroch I wholly agree. Truth ought not be derived from comfort. The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t guarantee comfort.

@Julian _You claim such amazing spiritual experiences and yet your prejudiced mind is incapable of seeing what is a minority within the Church. Making such hateful generalized statements about peoples or believers of a certain faith does not suggest you've learnt anything from your "amazing spiritual experiences". It suggests otherwise. p.s. Hatred and judgment are EXACTLY what you are exemplifying.

@Julian There was no skepticism in your remarks, which were quite decidedly emphatic, judgmental and hateful. Learn to practice what you preach.

Awesome!

I really appreciated that. I found that to be true, I'm very happy to hear a Catholic Bishop confirm this.

"He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions, so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us." (Acts 17, 26-27).

@@giovannimartini6405 ☆☆

God bless you, friend.

@@BishopBarron Thank you.

I'd prefer jre way over the atheist experience. The latter tends to only address the low fruit resulting form laymen misconceptions and tends to dismiss or strawman most of the scholar arguments by silly excuses like : "I wouldn't call that god", or "I'm not going to address semantical arguments" jre on the other hand generally is genuinely interested where the atheist experience has an agenda to push.

God is a reality, something you’ve distanced yourself from. And He isn’t a religion. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Not talking about religion. God is what Dawkins is obsessed with. Atheism is about the non-belief in God, not religion. You, poor reprobate, are sadly confused.

Yet you feel the need to dignify the insight of an ‘uneducated child’.

Keep telling yourself that and see where it will get in the end. The joke is on you.

I’ve said for years that atheists are angry with God. Angry and someone you don’t believe in seems odd. Listen to him or Hitch or Maher. All just angry with God.

I remember a long time ago when I saw a two-part episode of South Park called “Go God Go”, which satirizes some of the atheist celebrities like Richard Dawkins and pretty much illustrates that atheists can be just as irrational, bigoted, and mob-driven as religious people (explanation on the plot synopsis below if you want to read it)... The basic premise involves Mrs. Garrison having to teach the theory of evolution to the boys in science class. Because Mr./Mrs. Garrison in the show is often the stand-in for any ideological fanatic, she starts out in this episode as a stereotypical fundamentalist Christian. When she cannot teach evolution, without getting the facts wrong and breaking into the stereotypical Young-Earth Creationist rants, the school ends up hiring Richard Dawkins to teach the class alongside Mrs. Garrison. After the two of them get acquainted and meet after-school, Richard Dawkins is able to convince Mrs. Garrison to become an atheist after giving just one generic argument. But then Mrs. Garrison turns into a raging anti-theist who actively bullies even the students who have a belief in God while understanding and accepting the science being taught. Soon, Richard Dawkins and Mrs. Garrison start a relationship, with the latter boasting about what a better world they could create if religion did not exist, goading Dawkins into also becoming just as extreme. Another sub-plot begins with the spoiled rotten kid, Eric Cartman, becoming impatient about the pending release of the Nintendo Wii. He desperately tries to freeze himself in the snowy mountains to make the time go faster, only to find out that he slept for too long and it is now centuries in the future. Now he wakes up in a future where Dawkins and Garrison married and started a successful movement to abolish religion. But the world is still just as violent and chaotic as before, with warring factions fighting over who is the superior group: The Unified Atheist League, the United Atheist Alliance, or the Allied Atheist Alliance (which happens to be a new race of sapient otters). So the world is no better off, and the few humans/otters that do suggest an openness to religion get stoned to death on sight, until Cartman uses a time traveling device and accidentally stops Richard Dawkins and Mrs. Garrison from marrying. Supposedly, these were Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s way of telling people that even the poat-apocalyptic future in the episodes is more believable, than the world magically becoming some kind of utopia and automatically yielding a superior civilization with religion being gone.

Hattin Productions I agree

That's your prejudice....in no book/opinion he's said/stated Jesus didn't exist (100% certainty). The least you can do to argue against a scientists is to use facts over preconceived ideas.

@@chilenozo the change from doubting he existed to saying he probably did is a pretty meaningful change.

@@chilenozo argue against a scientist's vague notion? it's a two-way street, isn't it?

@@wickedhenderson4497 I clearly was referring at quoting or saying something a scientist never did. If you want to argue against a a scientist the least you can do is use the scientific method, cite the sources (the burden of proof is in the person who claims something about someone), and not misinterpret his words. I know religious people tend to interpret the scriptures all the time, but in a modern world you must stick to facts, specially about someone who is still alive and has dedicated time to write precise words in his books. Dawkins never said he didn't believe Jesus existed, period....still, what he said in this video does not implies Dawkins believe in the divine nature of Jesus....use logic ppl please.

@@chilenozo your reference certainly was not clear. Nunez gives a dawkins quote and renders an opinion. You awkwardly restate the sentiment of dawkins' quote and falsely assume that it must be responded to with some sort of data. Nunez is allowed to express an opinion in any way he sees fit. He isn't formulating a formal argument. Never did Nunez say that Dawkins believes in the diving nature of jesus. I think you need to settle down a bit and check your own logic. chill out dude

We must be God's hands and feet here below and help Him in His work of saving those held by the darkness, help them to see a peek at the Light that they may know the Truth and be saved by our Lord. God bless you.

Humans make their own meaning, no God needed.

@@86645ut if you think so...we are all free to believe what we want...

@@clattereffect, thanks for the comment. Do you ever question your beliefs? Is there anything in my comments (found elsewhere in this comment stream) that you disagree with and can give me evidence that I am wrong? If so, I would love to hear about it. Peace.

After listening to his comments on the Gospels, it would be great if he and Bart Ehrman would to have a discussion/debate.

Matt Mayuiers in what possible way is he anything like either of those two?

Shankz He gives lazy and intellectually dishonest arguments. In terms of academics, obviously Dawkins is more intelligent, he’s an Oxford professor. But still, both Joel olsteen and Dawkins are the sophomore fundamentalists of their ideologies

@Matt Mayuiers Dawkins is not, and can not, be a fundamentalist atheist. Atheism is the rejection of theism or the position that there is insufficient evidence to support theism. To refer to Dawkins as a fundamentalist in this regard is nonsense. I personally don’t see anything lazy or intellectually dishonest about Dawkins’ arguments. Just because some intelligent christians have answers to his arguments, which may be sufficient to you, they are still insufficient arguments to many atheists. Give me an example of how Dawkins is lazy or dishonest if you like and we can work through it if you like.

No, evolution by natural selection is real.

Shankz Watch him cover Aquinas, it’s awful, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the slightest and talks as if he’s voice of authority. If some one replies to Aquinas’s 5 ways with “infinite regress”, then he demonstrably doesn’t know the arguments. A biology degree won’t help in terms philosophical arguments. On top of that when ever stumped with the Objective Morality question, he’ll just insult the Bible and claim it’s not sufficient, rather than acknowledge the short comings in his arguments. He raises the same trivial questions that have been answered and covered by philosophers and scholars centuries ago, acting like he’s a genius for repeating other people’s arguments. There’s smart atheists out there, I have more against Dawkins personally, than atheism as a whole. I can respect intelligent atheists and their arguments, such as JL Macky, Graham oppy, Anthony Kenny, Bertrand russel, etc. Dawkins however in my opinion is in the JV league. Would you mind if sent a short video that goes over his specific arguments, I just don’t wanna send you ton of paragraphs lol

Kurt Lac He has a a dangerous power the power to captivate an audience and in the wrong hands it’s a dangerous power to have.

We ought to pray for him and his guests. God have mercy upon them and save their souls. Amen.

To be clear, I don't have an outright problem with Rogan. I guess I just don't understand the appeal or enormous popularity of his show. Especially with some of the guests he gets.

He gets pretty interesting people on once in awhile.

Myself I think it can actually be healthy for some teens and people to go through an atheist phase.

You may have regressed

same with my friend, until he read God Delusion and converted...

@@noescape2108 to catholicism? Because im going through a phase of atheism but the more I read the arguments, the more catholicism and god just make sense

Why do you think i never bought what he was selling. The guys a bully.

nick sibly everyone who comes off as patronising and/or mocking is automatically wrong? I get what you mean about Dawkins, but I genuinely think he doesn’t mean to come off that way. He is very straight forward, which there is nothing wrong with. I think people pussy foot around religion too much. I don’t think religion is special - it should be open to examination and argument at least as much as any other topic.

@@shankz8854 I might be wrong but my gut feeling is that he uses this tactic to belittle his opponents. Perhaps he was a little braver in an environment where he would not be challenged. I'm with John Lennox when he says that no one believes in the god that Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in, however, I wouldn't patronise him because he and I have vastly different concepts of what or who the creator God is.

@@shankz8854 ..and yes I agree we shouldn't pussy foot around religion.

@nick sibly I cant argue whether it’s a tactic or not. I don’t think it is, but that’s just based on my general measure of his character from listening to him on countless occasions over the years. I disagree with John Lennox - Dawkins frequently describes a God which the majority of the faithful believe in. Shall we call them the less sophisticated christians at risk of sounding patronising? I find when you press deeper thinkers such as yourself, you come up with a vague deism that has no strong logical link to the Christian bible. I find Lennox misses the point when he rebuts Dawkins’ issue with the “who created the creator” argument. Simply defining God as something that doesn’t need a creator seems to completely miss the point in answering the question of a prime mover. Why not just assert that the universe doesn’t need a creator and skip the God step? It’s exactly the same. Or better still, be honest and admit you don’t know. I have no problem with people believing in God because that’s how they feel - I strongly disagree you can get to God honestly using logic.

Michael Porter and Graham Hancock would school them both about psychedelics and their role they play in human consciousness.

@@Chris_Valle I'll school all of them on phsycoldelics 😝

Julian Hahahaha

It’s not the facts I mind. It’s just that all facts, or very nearly all, require _some_ kind of faith, and the faiths of Fr. Barron and Dawkins are widely divergent, to say the least. Their conversations (if only by proxy) were exhausted of any meaningful content a long time ago. Or so it seems to me. Fr Barron (or maybe Brendan) thinks differently, obviously. And hey, it’s their show ... I’m just tired of seeing Barron (and so many others) take up the subject of Dawkins’ lack of religious faith. He doesn’t have it! Who cares?!? It’s not for everybody.

@J. C. Yeah...Like I said, ten years tops.

@J. C. Well, I didn't specifically say Catholicism, but I can certainly see him embracing Christ, once he truly hears the Good News anew.

MrSottobanco lol calm down buddy

MrSottobanco hopefully atheists will find a God of compassion who understands why they became atheists and that he loves them. This attitude that God is going to kick your butt for unbelief makes God sound like a monster. If I can have empathy for why people become atheists I'm certain God does too.

@@Amadeus1066 God makes it all too clear that atheists aren't invited to stay with him in heaven for all of eternity. Showing them the door is the acceptance of the exercise of Free Will on the atheist's part. That is an act of respect and justice. Logically speaking, atheists should be happy with eternal separation from God.

MrSottobanco I wholeheartedly and completely disagree. But you have a great day!!!

The one god further thing isn't an argument for atheism.

@Julian valid but nothing to do with my comment

www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3&version=NRSV