Richard Dawkins Talks to an Ex-Atheist Christian Theologian | (Part 1) 

McGrath spoke for 20 minutes and David Race is too stupid to understand what he said.

@@TBOTSS good one, mate! 😆 Bless

To understand that you would have to be able to have a whole computer model that describes the belief process in the brain, and then when the model can prove that the beliefs were unfounded, you would hope they would stop believing. Hopefully, something like this can be realized in the future. As of now, no one knows what spurious things could be going around in the brain of a Christian that causes them to believe. No doubt they are built into us by a selection process, where non believers were tortured, burned at the stake or worse. We still live with the consequences of that past today.

"Psychologist Paul Bloom, in a 2005 article published in The Atlantic ("Is God an Accident?", Dec. 2005), made the provocative claim that explains our innate willingness to separate physical and intentional causality the fact that religious beliefs are virtually universal. He noted: "We perceive the world of things as largely separate from the world of the psyche, and this enables us to imagine soulless bodies and disembodied souls." , to which our perception is attuned, lead us to accept the two central beliefs of many religions as a matter of course. An immaterial deity is the ultimate cause of the material world, and the immortal souls control our bodies as long as we live and leave them again as soon as we die." In Bloom's view, the two concepts of causality were each formed separately by evolutionary forces that built the origins of religion into the structure of System 1." Source: Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast, Thinking Slowly, page 103

Indeed it does sum it up, in the sense that trying to force this issues through a linear chain of facts will never bear fruit. The linearity is the problem, not the lack of facts that don't support it. Life is not a set of facts, that's as abstract as is the notion of God. He and you can't see outside your own limited way of thinking and perceiving

@@gosh5137 that is certainly a provocative claim

@@mindymild Provocative for religious followers who always dislike conclusive arguments.

Because he sounds like he’s talking from a pulpit .. self righteous attitude

Brilliantly put

“I don’t need the testimony of men.” J.C.

It’s a shame that the wisdom & teachings of someone like Seneca is not more widespread. Unfortunately, it appears that humans, collectively prefer the solace of myths/religions rather than seeking the truth or fully using the faculties that nature & evolution has bestowed us with.

@@bardoface ~ AMEN!

Geoff ~ _''But God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong''_~ 1 Corinthians 1:27 Why? Because _''God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble''_ ~ James 4:6

I think it's maybe just a bunch of nonsense words that cover up a simple truth, "I felt lost and confused, so I joined a club." Two heads are better than one, sorta thing. If it's the prevalent group, so much the better for comfort.

I also used to be an atheist. I became a believer in god after I had an experience after a meditation where it felt like I shot out out of my body into (what I can only describe) as my “eternal” state (and yes I was completely sober - no drugs involved). I became an atheist into a theist in a blink of an eye. Dont get me wrong - most of religion is bullshit. Look into Buddhism, Gnosticism, and new age spirituality, and you will get a better sense of the deeper truth of reality. And I say this as a former militant atheist. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all a bunch of crap. Oh and if you have the time, look into the “annunaki” (Annunaki are the “god” of the Old Testament).

@@etaylor8028 I don't think what you're talking about is theism as such, more just a belief in a bigger reality which is fair enough. Theism is the belief that there's an invisible magic person outside of the universe watching everything you do and occasionally finding parking spaces for you.

@@grahamblack1961 I don't know what the definition of "theist" is, to be fair. More simply, I understood what "god" meant. "god", to me, meant simply the divine spark that exists in all things. Not a man in the sky dictating rules like religion says. Rather I understood that "god" is simply existence itself. I guess I am a pantheist.

@@etaylor8028 When someone describes themselves as having been a "militant" of any kind, I don't generally think they had much perceived choice in the matter.

Yep, that’s what you get when you add academics to belief … unintelligible stream of consciousness

It's strange to think people eat that up without realizing it's just bs. BS that is so easy to see.

All believers behaved in a same way, just like John Lennox, Petterson, William Craig, etc. They all talked nonsense, or pulling the wools over your eyes, no one including themselves, knows what exactly they were talking about

He's always been like that, just getting worse by the year. Pompous ass, springs to mind.

McGrath. What a pompous arse. Linguistic flatulence.

Exactly!

I struggle with this, too. I'd think because they were never really atheistic in the first place even though they claimed to be.

If you have a brain,you may be brainwashed..

I know right! It's the epitome of stupid. It's like Tropic Thunder "You never go full retard" but they went beyond full retard.

When someone says they were once an atheist, but are now a Christian, I would suggest that their atheism was never well grounded. One can become an atheist through good or poor reasoning. Adopting atheism because you jumped upon a Marxist bandwagon is a ludicrous reason.

Great spot!

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xIHMnD2FDeY.htmll Dawkins sits mute/deaf/sub-moronic as ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHED biologists, 2 Nobel laureates & atheist Craig Venter ALL SAY, "it is IMPOSSIBLE that humans will EVER know life's origin". Life's origin is SINGULARLY, SOLELY, Dawkins' contribution; it's not his work on RNA, MRNA, retrovirus.... His ONLY claim to fame is his "imprimatur" suggesting he has "EVIDENCE" on natural origin of life. IT'S A LIE!!! WHY isn't he illuminating the above BIOLOGISTS on this GREAT GASPER OF HIS?!?! 'CAUSE HE AIN'T GOT SH%T!! Other than tons of $$$$ from his scam....

Where did life come from? Oh, you probably haven't learned that from him yet...

@@UniteAgainstEvil Science accepts that we don't know everything and there are things we may never know, and thats ok. Claiming to know the origin of life and whatever else is merely human arrogance, we are not that important

@@UniteAgainstEvil Do you have an answer?

​@@UniteAgainstEvilyou can learn it from me.

Evolution is a government supported RELIGION It isn’t a proven science. Without taxpayers pick pocketing it will never last more than a year 😂😂

Both of them were respectful. I actually appreciate seeing to men politely and respectfully having a conversation in a world were everything is for the sake of humiliating and denigrating the other.

Whether they want to or not, atheists beleive in God. Actually they rely on God. Not the "God" they imagine (or caricature and rightly reject), but the one identified by my famous colleague, the great mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 😆 Because when they argue against God (more precisely, against what they imagine as "God"), they implicitly trust in the spaceless and timeless, i.e. immaterial and eternal, laws of logic. In this way, they recognize these laws as universal and unconditionally valid eternal truth. What is actually the case and can be seen, for example, by the observation that mathematical facts, such as stated in the Euclidean prime number theorem or the fundamental theorem of algebra, e.g., cannot be thought of in any other way than as being valid in, before and independently of every conceivable world. Already that alone shows that they exist in some kind of intangible, immaterial manner. As Leibniz points out, if one admits that spaceless and timeless, i.e. immaterial and eternal, truths exist, such as the laws of logic and mathematics, then one must conclude that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this ‘something’ is God. The Logos God [cf. Jn 1-1] is the realm of eternal truths. Leibniz in his “Monadology“: "The understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and of the ideas on which they depend... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction." Every theistic, but also every atheistic, argument relies on logic. In this way both testify to the Logos God. The first consistently, the second obviously not ... 😆

Atheism is an empty and despairing religion, I can’t imagine that the entire universe has zero purpose.

There is no truth in Religion but that doesn't exclude the possibility of a Mind behind it all. The universal fine-tuning argument points to a Creator of some type but it can't be a Religious God as there can be no physical interference in the material universe.

An opportunist, and IMO as much a charlatan as the religious bigots he chides.

@@briansmith3791 thats an interesting take. does that mean you believe that there is an entity behind all that?

@@conspiracy1914 Yes, i believe there could well be an entity, a Mind, behind the fine-tuning. "Our conclusion is that the fundamental properties of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for Life".- Astrophysicists Lewis and Barnes. ( 'A Fortunate Universe').

@@briansmith3791 not a lot of people here see it. most of the people just dismiss following that reasoning

I don't think he's awesome, outside of biology, he's a clown. He has led his followers off a cliff into moral depravity.

His accent makes him sound much smarter than he is.

@@billmartin3561 I just think he’s sick, not the smartest man of all time. I don’t like him because I think he has a 200 IQ or something like that, I appreciate his conversation skills more than that, he’s a good, respectful talker.

He should stop shadowboxing and face William Lane Craig. The world is crying for that debate. Unfortunately, it would not happen cause Dawkins knows how much of a dubbing he would receive. Ask Christophe Hitchins and Sam Harris.

@@andybotchwey4620 I disagree. I like William Craig, listened to him more than a few times, but I do not think he would destroy Dawkins in a debate or even possibly could, since so many of his arguments HAVE to be faith based and theological, and Dawkins talks about pure facts, no faith involved. There’s no ground to work there realistically, although the debate would be very entertaining to spectators like us

Larry, i agree with you. I am a free thinker myself. But back then, 2000 y ago, i would have been with the Club. It makes sense as a group ideology in those olden days. Around year 1540 the european glass craftsmen made the first real good lenses, microscopes and telescopes ..... there is no going back .... when you can see for yourself.

I’m sorry for your apostasy, atheists believe there is no God, and eternal separation from God is hell, so you will get what you have chosen…

@@crockmans1386 the only time you would have been a free thinker is like before your mother gave birth to you or your progressive dad gave birth to you. That is the only time your mind was a clean slate. After that you were never and never will be a free thinker

Agree, and yet I would advise anyone new to that position not to throw everything away just because the foundations are undermined. For instance, I think many traditional Christian values are heuristics for living a "good life." They are likely an accumulation of successive learnings from situations experienced by individuals and their consequences. Naturally, one would be compelled to question everything, but before taking alternative paths, try to understand the naturalistic reasons behind those values to ensure you are on firm ground.

DikkiDawk was the intelligent one, and Bent-Neck talked piffle. Bent-Neck showed no respect. He has all the makings of a Pythonesque skit.

And by logical extension, if they fight and argue their supernatural variant is true, then those are the ones lacking faith. Faithless theists fight over it thinking it will get someplace. It does. It creates divisions and hatred. They are therefore, the most tribal minds in humanity.

Quote from someone who lived in a time before scientific epistemology, rather outdated at this point. A rational response to "no explanation possible" is to say, "we don't know", not to profess that suppositions which cannot be measured or observed are truth. When something cannot be known, observed, or measured defaulting to belief in it as truth is irrational.

It is perfectly understandable because he has no answer, nor any religious people have any good answer to those same questions. His point though is clear. He accepts all the scientific facts and the improbable existence of gods. He chose to believe it for the utility which by the way is not recognized and accepted by non-believers. That is where his disconnect is and where he has to invoke faith. It's rationally choosing an irrational choice, which he could not find a good explanation.

The gravey train runs in many directions ok

He should just honestly say I don't have an answer to that question.

That’s what they all do. It’s all they have, evasion and obfuscation. Boring. Any religious person that ever claims to once have been atheist, never was imo and experience. They become untethered from their foundational theism , for one reason or another , likely due to inconsistency and incoherence of the various theistic texts then rationalise and eventually reconcile there way back in…..it’s quite sad in point of fact.

@RidetheGeoffening Religion has got more than you have to offer what have you ever done like Dorkins Nothing jeez

You suction.

@@SleepyPenguin-8og 🤦‍♂

Too cliche but tell him "The truth doesn't care about your feelings"

@johncarter1150 ha! Marvellous analogy. I just find it EXTRAORDINARY that ANYONE believes in (a) god(s) - the definition you so expertly supplied seems to be the perfect definition of convoluted confabulation of almost literal nothingnesses, whether that be this conversation - or indeed the entirely of all theologies everywhere. I find it all such egregious drivel, it physically hurts me...

@@mrkiplingreallywasanexceed8311 Thanks, your existence makes me laugh, too.

Not really any worse than many forms of religion. Christianity purports to be most benign, but it is yet another trumped up death cult.

Any Abrahamic religion for that matter. Same invented God. Different tribes using it.

A lot of young girls marry into the religion and regret it. By then it's far too late, they're pregnant and can't get out and neither will their children. It's spreading all over the West this way.

Is he an "alpha male"? Because that religion is very attractive to people like that. I can see its pull all over social media. They don't get convinced over good reasons. They just want to postulate how totally alpha they are. The hating women part is also quite important.

@@Finckelstein You’re describing a brain type and the same people are Abrahamics as Christians. Especially the GOP. Trumps, Taliban

That would include an expiration date not yet available.

Richard left the concept of death far behind on his path of continuous evolution. He's becoming a theosapiens

@@anatolydyatlov963 intellectuarthal.

@@anatolydyatlov963 least i am.

It was shot sometime in 2004,2005 ,so RD would have been a young looking 63 or 64 years of age.The series this is from aired in England in January 2006.

Never wanted it anyways.

U cant remove all the Fs and Es youve given me. Nor would i want u too.

Experiencing the wonder and mystery of the universe is akin to the most profound religious awakening. This is your proud and friendly neighborhood god-free hellbound, atheist, sinner heathen speaking.

You left out a word. The actual quote is, “Science, IT works…bitches.” Why you leave out the it?

Atheism has nothing to do with science actually it's anti-science. Atheism is a disbelief which means it's an unwillingness or inability to accept as true the origins of life is the result of creation AKA God . Agnosticism believing in God and atheism you can only hold one of these positions while being completely brain-dead void of any thought consciousness and that would be atheism because you wouldn't have to the ability to accept God

The man clearly has no answer. He rationally chose to believe in something irrational.

Easy ... just go holiday in North Korea or Nazi Germany for a year or two.

@@PietStassenAdamastorNorth Korea is a religious state. Kim Jong Un is a god to the North Korean people. And Kim Jong Un is his father reincarnated into him. The citizens of North Korea do nothing but praise and worship their holy leader all day everyday. They’re arguably one of the most religious state on the planet. They didn’t outlaw other religions cause their atheists. They didn’t cause they didn’t want competition As for Nazi Germany, Hitler despised atheism. He himself was brought up as a Roman Catholic. He later denounced the faith and revived an ancient Teutonic pagan type faith. The majority of nazi citizens (with the exception of the jews of course) were catholic. Hitler’s first political treaty was with the Catholic Church. Not to mention all the belt buckles of Nazi officers said “gott mitt uns” or “god is with us”. It’s amazing what a bit of reading and research can do. Try it sometime

It would be so much safer and more humane

chaos.

@@gowdsake7103 What makes you think that? Do humanity really comes off as peaceful to you?

Jesus' story is made up on a mono-myth template. People can't read it. If they could, then they would know everything Abrahamic is fake. Noah was the first called in Jewish religious myth, Jesus in Christianity and Muhammad in Islam. Like King Arthur and Luke Skywalker and Jason and Homer and......... But the concepts need to be extracted. Like a fable.

And god impregnated said child because he set up Adam and Eve to eat a fruit from a tree he planted right in front of them. When they ate it - which he already knew they would since he knows everything - he got mad and cursed all of humanity for....what he made them do. But because he's sooooo loving and merciful he had a child have a child so he could be sacrifice his child-self to himself to appease himself for what he himself set up. Because that's the only way the all powerful and all knowing god of the universe could think of to save humanity from....himself. It's perfectly logical. Just pray to god and HE - because we all know it must be a man. Can you even imagine a female god? Or worse....a Gen Z a.k.a. genderless god? Utter madness! - will answer.

@@Finckelsteinyou must be one of those gen zzzzers who thinks they’re so very very smart.

That's the Sam Harris argument

Toss the chips too.. too many empty carbs fried in seed oils.

​@@mavrosyvannahI prefer Haddock

Good question, probably many years ago, looking at a rather youthful Richard.

Whereas American tactics dictate that, "he who yells his points louder has his points heard, and therefor wins the debate."

It exactly is. I don't hear this from many people. You have higher than average awareness. They are all framed on one common template held in local, analogous verbiage. Jason and Moses just about had identical starts. Both saved as kids. But struggle to leave the past and it chases them. Both get supernatural aid. Both cross the threshold at the clashing rocks or Red Sea etc. Same with Jesus

He does not have to. The fact that he accepts all the scientific facts yet never admits any problem of believing the highly improbable things, is good enough to show the religious people that he is not defeated in an argument with the "infamous atheist" Richard Dawkins

He would have to suddenly have a spiritual experience, to get a Nighthoody!

I'll assume that you're asking a serious question, so I'll give a serious answer: dunno, mate! 🙂 Most of what follows is probably not news to you, but I'm writing it because most RU-vid peeps aren't Brits and may not know how the ancient honours system works. To get an honour of any sort, whether an MBE or OBE, a CBE or even being made a Lord, an Earl, or Billy Big Trousers, you have to be nominated (there's an official form to fill in; it's free and anyone can do it. You can even do it online). The person being nominated doesn't have to know that he's being nominated. You can tell him that you're putting him forward if you like, but it's kinder to keep quiet and not get anybody's hopes up. "Many are called, but few are chosen..." It's a completely democratic process. It's all down to public opinion. Once a name's put forward, the Awards Committee will do a lot of digging to see that the person's real, 'worthy', not an escaped criminal, and won't bring the system into disrepute. You can't buy an honour, but getting to the top in some careers almost guarantees that you'll be offered one. It used to mean winning a Nobel Prize, becoming Prime Minister, winning a war, discovering a new treatment for leukaemia, or holding the post of Admiral of the Fleet, but nowadays it can be for selling pop records, writing a book on transgender parents, or Standing On One Leg in a Meaningful Way. There has to be a category definition: you can't be honoured simply for looking nice, so you need to be recognised for (for example) services to the theatre - 40 years running the Royal Ballet, maybe - sporting excellence (getting 5 Gold Medals at the Olympics and then using your fame to inspire kids); doing outstanding work for charity; for services to literature (such as inventing Harry Potter and getting loads of kids into reading); for environmental activism; or - in someone like Richard's case - for promoting the advancement and understanding of science. Meanwhile, the guy who proposed the candidate will have to get several independent people (not relations) to send hand-written letters of support, backing the proposal, to the Committee. It's not difficult, but there's a good deal of snobbery [allegedly], and common people sending scummy letters probably won't help, unless there's a minority quota to fill. Whoops. Allegedly. So... you need to have friends in professional positions - doctors, lawyers, councillors, teachers, Members of Parliament, engineers - in order to be taken REALLY seriously for a really serious honour. The more genuine letters the Committee receives, the better the chance that the candidate will be considered for an honour. The highest awards are rare and go to prominent people who've lived long enough to have done something special with their lives, so even with a million letters of support, Mavis the school dinnerlady wouldn't suddenly be made a Dame, but she might get an MBE. A nationally famous actor or musician could get an OBE. An internationally famous one might even be knighted. The head of a major corporation, a Chief Constable, an MP, or a High Court judge could get a Knighthood. Alas, the honours system has been rather hijacked by box-ticking of late, so all sorts of previously undeserving people are being honoured for some exceedingly lame reasons. I won't say any more about that or my Comment will be removed.🙄 Someone like Richard Dawkins does deserve recognition for having devoted much of his life to promoting the teaching and understanding of science and also for his contribution to literature but... But to a lot of influential people he's a controversial figure. Wild-eyed religious nuts loathe him. Attracting that kind of attention may be reason enough for the Awards Committee to pass him by. It's also possible that Richard's already been offered an honour, but has declined to accept it (it's a private matter that some candidates choose to keep to themselves). Some people don't want to be associated with the honours system any more because they feel it's been devalued by modern political changes. It's definitely not what it used to be. On the other hand, maybe Richard's not been proposed yet. If you think he deserves a Knighthood, why not start the process yourself? Could be tricky getting enough letters of support unless you're well connected, but there's no harm in trying. Naturally, not everybody supports England's [Britain's] constitutional monarchy; many right-on Brits despise the Royals and 'the Establishment' and would never accept an award that seemed to endorse its existence. I think John Lennon turned down an OBE for political reasons when the Beatles were at the height of their fame. Perhaps. Allegedly. His writing partner didn't. The Beatles' bassist went on to get a Knighthood. Hello, Sir Paul... Militant socialists and anti-monarchists, having formally been recognised by the King/Queen, sometimes refuse an honour VERY VERY LOUDLY, then capitalise on the publicity, making a lot of noise about how much they detest the honours system and how unfair it is and please, please, please buy my latest book of angry poetry... Not surprisingly, the Awards Committee is wary of making ANY award when they know it could be used for political reasons to beat them over the head. That kind of thing reflects badly on them, so part of the Award Committee's job is to determine whether a candidate holds 'unfashionable' views. These days that's a minefield of gender, inclusivity and diversity, so I imagine a lot of otherwise deserving candidates are passed over when the Honours List is made up. Did you know that the comedian Jim Davidson received an OBE? Yep. That's democracy, folks...

The English monarchy is Anglican Christian. Therefore, heathens like Dawkins can't be knighted. 😊

The English monarchy is Anglican Christian. Therefore, heathens like Dawkins can't be knighted. 😅

😂​@@amoh5

Which book? What’s the quotation? I would like to see

Yeah, a Creator must be outside of the universe, only Religion says it is inside. The universal fine-tuning argument precludes any physical interference, ruling out any God of Religion but not the possibility of a Mind behind all of this.

Reasoning is immaterial concept / process, so if your reason confront evidences that leads it to faith, we start speaking about reasonable faith

The rational interpretation of faith makes faith empty

Reminds me of when Microsoft started.

Exactly. "I was one of you guy, but now see what nice drug I got." Plus, he do not take the questions. If you are not willing to take my exact question, then why bother to talk to you anyway.

Huge audience here for Richard. He’s beginning to rival me, a nobody. (I have one 30 second RU-vid video)

Turned you off how? And who had a good run? I’m so confused.

Turn off? Yeah, he can be perceived as somewhat arrogant, but how could one not _appear_ arrogant when debating someone who has silly beliefs, like "I am Napoleon reincarnated", or "God exists because, well 'faith'...". Speaking logically with anyone who _believes_ anything so silly will _always_ appear arrogant.

Yes, what is that about?

I've noticed that too. Most go back to their original conditioning. I was brought up Christian, became an atheist for years, but now believe there could well be a Creator, owing to the fine-tuned Physical Constants. There can be no going back to any Religion as fine-tuning precludes any God of Religion.

me too I find athiests in their ignorance to be so exasperating

I believe any faith is a complex myth that acts as a placebo. If you believe it, it will have some beneficial effects for awhile, but it doesn't mean the myth is true, just like the sugar pill that works if you believe it will is not real medicine.

Not only McGrath, you also believe in God. He is just more logical and consistent. In fact, whether you want to or not, you believe in God 😆 Moreover, all atheists rely on God. Not the "God" they imagine (or caricature and rightly reject), but the one identified by my great colleague, the mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Because when they argue against God (more precisely, against what they imagine as "God"), they implicitly trust in the spaceless and timeless, i.e. immaterial and eternal, laws of logic. In this way, they recognize these laws as universal and unconditionally valid eternal truth. Which is actually the case and can be seen, for example, in the observation that mathematical facts, such as those set out in the Euclidean prime number theorem or the fundamental theorem of algebra, cannot be thought of in any other way than as valid in, before and independently of every conceivable world. This alone shows that they exist in some kind of intangible, immaterial way. As Leibniz points out, if one admits that spaceless and timeless, that is, immaterial and eternal truths such as the laws of logic and mathematics exist, then one must conclude that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this 'something' is God. The Logos God [cf. John 1-1] is the realm of eternal truths. Leibniz in his "Monadology": "The understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and of the ideas on which they depend ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all that can be thought, because they do not imply a contradiction." Every theistic, but also every atheistic argument relies on logic. In this way, both testify to the Logos God. The first consistently, the second obviously not ... 😆

@@marie-jeanne_decourroux I do not hold a belief in god(s) and certainly not those interpreted by religions. I hate to be corny, but my position regarding the existence of god(s) is identical to the existence of unicorns, garden fairies, mermaids and the boogeyman under your bed. I disagree that; "theistic arguments rely upon logic". All religions with god(s) rely upon the existence of the supernatural, which has demonstrated zero evidence that is verifiable, demonstrable and repeatable. I will remain an agnostic atheist until evidence for such an intelligent agent is clearly provided. The Logos of god(s) is not supported by evidence.