Richard Dawkins Tells Theology Student Why His Degree is Useless 

I could argue that science, or reason is the new religion. People adhere to being told what to believe about how the world works based on what a select group of thoroughly vetted people tell them trying desperately to prove the teachings of their most well Known “Prophets”, the main tenets of which are unverifiable theories even now, two hundred years on. So Mr Dawkins, I call bullshit. Especially when the realm of theoretic physics can promote the concept of a humanity Living in a simulation as viable. And biology can say a sauropod existed even though if we scaled up the caloric needs of Elephants by weight a brontosaurus would need 353,000 calories a day…from plants… the largest sauropod would need 700,000 calories a day. Then there is Megalodon, a species inferred to exist based on teeth found in the ocean, nothing more. They looked at a great white and decided it’s body size was proportional, even though Great Hammerheads teeth are tiny for being nearly as big as Great White’s…that’s not super scientific is it? What’s going on here?

Only because there are 2.3 billion people who are Christian believers. And maybe because the world view and our culture has been profoundly influenced by Judeo-Christian principles

​@@eltondelcid3672 Exactly why atheists are the oppressed group who need to make their voices heard, who deserve to be in power and have more financial wealth and political power. Exactly why christians have nothing to complain about and no right to say they are "oppressed" or "silenced" in any way.

@@theultimatereductionist7592 atheists have been in power before and look what they did. In the USSR there were like 200 millions dead and other millions sent to the gulags. In China was worse like 300 million dead I think is more. So far atheists have done atrocities, if you don't know is because you are ignoramus.

It could be said that a degree studying Darwinian Common Descent Macro-Evolution would be useless. *_"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress."_* (Stephen J. Gould, Professor of paleontology from Harvard University, During the question and answer session following his Hobart and William Smith College lecture, Dr. Gould was asked if there was not Stratigraphic evidence indicating gradualism)

Indeed! However I feel like Alex is a better role models for atheist than Dawkins. Especially because is better versed in theology and logic. Obviously the more the better but Im certain that Alex will have a great career.

Sadly, most of his opponents will not show Dawkins the same respect when he makes logically reasoned and scientifically backed arguments.

Yes Indeed!!

I bet its more than you could say. Here is a start for you How about saying things like- fair point or i could be wrong because I'm wrong often, although i may not feel wrong. It is called being honest something I rarely hear when talking to Christians.

I thought the same thing. He actually makes a very good point and glad to see he's come a long way from when I first started watching his vids.

Surprise plot twist.....it used to be a bottle of water 😱😁

@@luv2fly745 plot twist Richard Dawkins put food dye in it

I just busted out laughing

God.

@@oscarantoniomoreno5247 nope, it's the blood of Jesus, that's why it's floating.

lol

most say I'm disappointed in the old man.... he's smart..... what kind of silly-ass answer is that bro. he asked a legitimate question my guy and kinda caught you. he's basically telling you why you talk so much noise if you haven't even familiarized yourself with the subject. and you responded instead of a reasonable argument or defense of your postures ( clearly you got caught with our knickers down cos you had to say ok you got me I'm talking shit like an ignorant cunt without informing myself something I criticize a sort of like a hypocrite no? so you said what you said...... I lost respect for the guy and his points of view..... very very disappointed. good job young man exposing this less-than-perfect scholar and man of science..... shame on him..

I bet

With all do respect that is like someone who is religious saying they don't believe in what science has taught us, and yet they spend their lives trying to spread the word of their religion to others and convert them. And there is a lot more of those people than people like Richard

@@hughdonaldson3066 there are millions of religious scientists out there

He's always fair.

You guys should watch more of his stuff. He ducks and doges like everyone else, and reveals he has gaps in his knowledge, like everyone else, and speaks on things he should not.

Definitely. Discussion and agrument should be a way of growing and thinking. Not of parroting dogma. Dawkins knows this and shows that willingness to consider and learn here.

That is the only reason for engaging with people of different beliefs.

Why would he need or want to? That would negate the entire point of his existence.

Most people dont even read Bible. Or any other religious text. They know Jesus and thats enough for majority of people.

That's the fun part - trying to find the reason people believe what they do. Most don't have a good reason; a lot claim to be members of a religion they know very little about. Belief and faith are fascinating to me because of this. But I agree with Dawkins in the sense that all of the apologetics type content is a big waste of time...

I disagree. There are some vague religious ideas, but there is no consistency within the so-called religions. Even Catholics who have a whole legal structure to their beliefs are not that homogenous.

That's not what Theology is about tho, that's more like Anthropology

@@SpartaApple How would you separate religion from society?

Anthropology and history as well.

you intentionally mis-hear...Theology IS useless...unless you want life ever lasting in Paradise, that's not what they mean when they say "pie in the sky," is it?

@@RaveyDavey same thing can be said for science really, talking about science yields no actual results, and by this logic the only truly useful thing would be inventing things. Dawkins evolutionary biology study, though interesting, is quite useless to 99% of people. The only hope for Dawkin’s work to be useful is if some higher chemist came along and made some useful drug presupposed on his work. I do hate scientific elitism, it’s quite useless.

@@RaveyDavey people always say that about the 8/10 subject they are taught at school... Maths, history, biology, there is basic stuff that everyone understands and make use of, but more deeper knowledge?, That only useful for those who take those career path

@@michaelh13 Except, of course, the thing you happen to be watching this vide3o and commenting on... THAT was the result of talking about science. As was your refridgerator- the airplane you can fly on, the medical procedure that saves your actual life.... Whereas talking about imaginary fantasies is like Star Wars fans debating with Star Trek fans over which imaginary future is the one true future.

comes across as a bit too confrontational to me. he does this with every guest he mildly disagrees with

@@loganmawhiney2613 Confrontation is not necessarily bad. In this case, it even helps to get more thorough answers from Dawkins

Not to mention criticising someone or something doesn't require you to understand it in it's entirety or show compassion. An arguement is an argument.

Yeah I hate when people dismiss any form of liberal art as useless. I don’t think it’s useless, it’s akin to philosophy and classical literature study. Anthropology too. Especially if you study more than one religion.

Yeah. Basically, he is saying that if you are studying theology but don't use it to discern/support facts then he doesn't support that.

@@thomasmartin4281 It's pretty useless. I say that as someone a semester away from earning an MA in English Literature. The "Theory" they have us read (by the likes of Lacan, Derrida, etc.) is a bunch of pretentious babble, but without it, there would cease to be a subject, I guess. Reading books is all that would be left. Theology occupies its own special level of uselessness, though. (Comparative Religion is a real subject, but not Theology.) You might as well get a degree in the practices of witchcraft or communicating with the dead. I don't think atheists bear the responsibility of "engaging" with the religious in their own language. They are the ones making wild claims, so they should do the engaging.

@@thelifeaquatica - They both have points; Cosmic is describing a really specific reason for a theology degree, though, where Dawkins is saying that "the study of gods" is just mythology. I doubt if Dawkins would need that specificity in his daily life of science and debate.

Yeah...I was a little impressed with him too.

I'm an atheist and I thought the young man did very well.

@@easystreet123 The interviewer is also an atheist.

Young man 😂😂😂🤣

yah but imagine there are a million books about bulshit and you have to read all of them before acquiring the right to call a bulshit what it is.

Definition of click bait.

Don’t hate the player hate the game...

i thought they will be arguing then richard tells him your degree is useless u r wasting ur time

@@athelstan5794 yup me too😂

@@jamie896745 The game is an illusion. "Hate" is the real enemy here, not the player nor the game per season. Welcome to the desert of ideology

Why would you listen to any atheist when by their own admission they are not intelligently designed. Read the Bible for yourself. It describes these people precisely, thinking themselves wise they became fools. Only God knows the end from the beginning and all Bible prophecies come to pass exactly as prophesied. Let that sink in. The proof is in the Bible. You won't know this unless you read it for yourself. The Roman Catholic Church is not the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. Don't be DECEIVED. Jesus warned about DECEPTION in the end of END TIMES. Pope Francis is preaching a heretical Gosple and heading up a one world satanic religion. You have been warned. Read the Bible for yourself. Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin on the cross once and for all. He said it is finished. Believe in the blood of Jesus Christ and you will be saved. He is the Way the Truth and the Life, nobody comes to the Father except through Him. No more sacrifices required. Have faith in Jesus not man's teaching. Maranatha

I agree. As an Atheist I sometimes don't find Professor Dawkins arguments for Atheism or rather against Biology very convincing. Because in the end it often seems as though he simply isn't holding the two up to the same standard at all. He is painting Religion in the worst light possible while not doing the same with Atheism. I fully agree with him on the way he "finds the truth" as a scientist on Religion. I find his arguments as to why God isn't likely to exist are so convincing that it's hard to imagine seeing people argue while addressing his points. The logic seems flawless. But the way he judges Religion seems excessive and it's obvious that he is not comparing neutrally. That being said I also hate all dogmatic beliefs in General. So I would even be on his side there. I just don't find his arguments as convincing as I should. I value neutral evaluation. And I don't think Religion is has to be bad in it's result.

He comes across as a huge snob. I don't think he tries to understand others, but prove them wrong according to his studies and thought process/hypothesis. He openly said Christopher Hitchens did not have adequate knowledge to discuss religion as Hitchens did not have a 'degree' in theology, but studied religion extensively, and also visited the countries of different religions so he (Hitchens) could know more about the people and practices. That's more than what we can say about a Gen Z from him sitting behind a mic at home claiming he doesn't plan to be the 5th horseman

​@@eliasvonbrille"I have better things to do, I do science".... and soon he will be dead and have nothing better to do but rot. Theology sure might come in handy at that point.

​@eliasvonbrille this is very well said, I also tend to agree with Dawkins general position but simultaneously dislike his dogmatism.

Couldn't have worded it better myself. I'm also an atheist, and all my school experience I didn't get most human sciences and got bored of it because I thought "Why so much religion everywhere? Boring". Because of the way I've been taught at school, I've been hating philosophy all my life. Now, I'm finally beginning to understand, only now that I am at university. The questions posed in a religious context are the question we, as human beings, are bound to ask ourselves, because we just naturally loof for the sense of what surrounds us. I regret not being interested earlier so much... The education system sucks

Most people also do not think in philosophical terms but rather irrationally, which includes religious thinking.

YES. My experience as well. "For me theology is just one of the necessary sides of philosophy and one of the deepest insight of anthropological questions. Those things are just human." I would also add: psychology. Religions understand human psychology far better than psychologists simply because they have been at it far longer. I would also point out you cannot understand the ME without understanding Islam. You cannot understand the West without Christian thought. Nationalism (God's Chosen) Marxism (The Book of Mark) ... I can give many more examples.

@@thepagecollective Marxism has nothing to do with the Gospel of Mark, wtf

@@LordJagd Ah, another person who has not studied the subject enough. Did you ever wonder why Marxism did not come into existence in, say, China?

I wonder if he even realises his own neo-Darwinism is rapidly becoming science fiction. Meanwhile theology is still the best and only way to explain the absolute good and evil.

@@chrisdeep8417 Firstly, absolute good and evil are meaningless concepts. Secondly, good and evil are topics of philosophy; theology has nothing meaningful to say about the topic - sure people who happen to be theologians can talk about the topic, as can anyone.

Not really. Dawkins has published several papers, particularly on phenotypes, that are pretty much part of curriculum when you study biology.

Science is not for everyone. Strictly scientifical books ,in this case about biology, are not that interesting compared to a book that points out the irrationality of the beliefs of billions of people. The selfish gene, although it's a great book, it's not that interesting and easy to read unless you are a biology fan. The God delusion, on the other hand, is addressing to everyone.

I don't know how you got the idea that Dawkins' ideas are out of favor in biology. When you take an evolution class and discuss the different levels of selection, you learn about Dawkins and the gene's-eye view. The "selfish gene" ideas successfully predict a lot of otherwise-hard-to-explain traits such as altruism or junk DNA while also supporting elegant abstract modeling and computation. It's sort of inarguable, he's an important biologist and usually important enough to name drop in lecture as you would do with a seminal study author. As for the idea of encountering him in a religion class, I have taken many religion classes and never has he been in the curriculum.

Wtf how?

@@DaviSilva-oc7iv 🤷‍♂️ I’m just imagining all the comments being said with an English accent

@@WhyPhi əʊkeɪ I already did things like that, I shall understand. But you know: We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

@@DaviSilva-oc7iv yeah for sure, but also: Only the wolves can cull the elk; in order to ensure the survival of the next generation of baby aspen trees, so that beavers may flourish.

@@WhyPhi yeah but also: To be, or not to be, aye there's the point. To die, to sleep, is that all? Aye all: No, to sleep, to dream, aye marry there it goes.

@ A Darwinian evolutionary creation myth is a religious belief in its own right. According to Darwinist evangelist Dawkins natural selection, the modern pagan cult main deity, would have taken some bacterial life forms through billions of years of an evolutionary journey, resulting in the creation of all living creatures on earth, Here is a lecture by the darwinist evangelist as to how the atheistic miracle was made possible by smearing the process over an unlimited timescale. "Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch." Pretending that billions of years would solve the issue of an astronomic improbability is clearly unscientific nonsense. Dawkins pretending that the human eye, the human heart and other organs in our body would only be presenting an illusion of design is also beyond stupid.

Yes.

Well said. I find his position quite hollow and somewhat unintelligent. How can one dismiss a belief system, point of view or way of life without studying or critically analysing the détails therein. The sheer arrogance of it all is ridiculous.

@@charlesiwunze182 there are also aspects of physics and biology and chemistry, or any field of study for that matter, that sound absurd and insulting to the intellect, until you read the actual studies, hypotheses, models, and intricacies that makes their proponents believe in it. He gets mad at certain creationists for hsving superficial criticism against the theory of evolution, which isn't just one theory, but consists of several models based on several aspects of archeology, natural history, genetics, etc, and then doesn't see the hypocrisy in him insulting the intelligence of those whom he debates by actually considering that maybe sometime in history someone else thought the questions he has, and provided answers and models for them.

@@charlesiwunze182 Part of the problem is that holy books are unchanging: they are upheld as the 'word of god'. Anything beyond the literal word of a holy book is a manmade interpretation, and thousands of these interpretations compete for recognition and supremacy.

Imagine believing a book's "God" is real when there's no evidence, Science is the only way to understand the world, all about Science is true, Religious people are just too ignorant and prefer to cry about the real truth: Science, because it denies every single part of God's existence, and that absolutely ruins their whole fake world they believe in, Scientists don't even mention his name 😂! It is so pathetic, what a waste of time, your so called "God" is a monster who allowed tons of atrocities to happen over "his presence" 😢😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Me too!! What incredible power created the atomic structures and quantum particles that make our everyday reality? Somehow he keeps missing that bit😅

@@ledzebulon6235 Exactly! That’s the fundamental point. I respect Richard Dawkins as a highly learned man but surprised that he rejects things science cannot explain.

@@newtrackrecordthat science can’t explain yet-or better yet that our human brains can’t understand. (Again, yet.)

@@thegoodgeneral True on both counts, although I think there could be countless things our science will never be able to explain, or even know about.

It can add value to an historian, a person thats studying cultures for whatever reason etc. Religion is historically an integral part to society so studying isn't inherently a bad or unecessary thing to do.

@@adelkayani2595 agreed, like dawkins said, theology focussed around literature, culture, and history is definitely of value. if tomorrow's world would consist of nothing but atheists, theology would still be worth while in those fields simply because it was this much of a central driving and often defining force throughout human history.

You can't study everything...if you believe something to be false due to lack of evidence, then maybe just study when religious people present evidence? At least that won't take long 😆

Sumple answer is no. The people that nelieve and studied it should bring up convincing argument as to whether or not sometging is true/real.

@ arguing whether the information based on religious views and their bias has value is not relevant to the conversation. Arguing whether their historical and culture impact based on how these people lived their lives and how it changed society def has value and Is factual since these people did infact.. live lol.

I wanted to put the same comment.😂😂😂 too funny dude but add the reply of alex : i see

Epic reply

Why then is he discussing theology?

@Al Strider lol

@Al Strider lmao

I would like to ask Dawkins how evolution gave the paranormal capacity to see the subconscious of people?

Dawkins isnt famous for being a scientist. Hes famous for believing in nothing. Now thats useless

He believes in evolution; however, I would like to know how evolution gave me the capacity to see the subconscious of people@@ikbenvoetbal

​@@jesusbermudez6775 And energy can't be destroyed😮

The bit about energy is not what I want to know. What I want to know is how come I can see the subconscious of people.@@ledzebulon6235

You should try to learn german and then read Heidegger.

Lezo hahaha

their* are*

British people

@@katherineminor3402 yep, but not all of us sound like these two lol

What do you suggest ? Lets hear what you think he should be doing . Protecting ones lifes work from pretencious regressionists apparently is not a woryhy use of his time .

@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906 He's not protecting his 'lifes work' by making snooty remarks about religion. Biology itself isn't under threat of being eradicated by religious people. He's just being a smug prick who makes the rest of atheism and secularism look bad. Alex is only a university student and yet is already a much better proponent of secularism than Dawkins.

@@georgeelmerdenbrough6906 As for what he should do, he could start by not dismissing things he hasn't read out of hand.

@@joepeake8972 Ah, so argument from feelies...oh dear...

@@RoninTF2011 I'm not arguing 'from feelies', I'm pointing out that other people's 'feelies', and that includes those of the mass of idiots that make up a sizeable portion of society, have a big impact on how far your ideas can travel. I'm not disputing his credentials as a scientist. I'm saying he's a poor advocate for projecting this air of elitism. It may not put you or me off but a lot of people are turned off by it and that harms his cause.

Dawkins is overrated. His books got popular and now he believes the drivel he says is not nonsense.

Smarter, too.

I think everyone's forgotten Dawkins is already what 80ish. Or you guys just have real high standards for "smart" people.

Kid?

@@joeyblogsy When you're my age lots of people fit into that category

Depends on the job lol lot's make millions from followers

@Mermaids love dick sure I didn't say most it's probably better than many degrees for a career some have very little prospect of getting work but still study them

@Mermaids love dick I didn't say it wasn't wow he said it won't get you a job and that's not true for many job's you need it

A lot of what you learn at school is useless (like Shakespeare), and it's the same in any degree, take maths for example, who realistically uses set theory in their job? I'm not saying shakespeare and set theory are useless, but for most people learning them there is no practical value except for it being another qualification.

@@colinjava8447 yea I totally agree

I see it the same way

Which is hypocritical given how the scientific community doesn't follow the same process But he very nature of peer review, you are encouraged not to criticism and evaluate, but instead to ritualize and standardize a practice or theory

@@ThatOneAlbinoMofo I wouldn’t totally agree. By the time something becomes a theory, it’s already gone through a bunch of review and scrutiny from the academic community and no one has been able to shoot it down. Certain ideas eventually get amended or even overturned. It may be an uphill battle to challenge the convention but it can be done.

@@ThatOneAlbinoMofo you are encouraged to question any and everything. That is why you have multiple ways to explain a single mathematics equation. Why there are detailed notations to explain how you can solve a problem with more than one set rule. The problem is religious people believe there is only one way to be, to have faith blindly and not question it. When atheists and scientists actually question the shit out every single thing they possibly can. But sure, science is a cult, religion isn't.

@@ThatOneAlbinoMofo Successfully challenging the consensus is celebrated and given the upmost respect and dignity in science, this contradicts your argument

Theology isn't investigating anything. It's a series of classes on how to sell one form of religious scam or another.

😂😂 So no he wasn't surprised at all

@@aniket8350 If you’re familiar with Dawkins, you’ll know that anytime he smiles it usually corresponds to excitement or surprise. 😂

@@readandrap283 so what you are saying is RD is a human? Got it thanks

I totally missed that bit.

Alex already has a channel-- where he's already been an Atheist for years... I dunno if you are thinking this conversation has literally just happened or not...

I second this!

That would be lit, that idea got me hyped 😲💣⚡

@Vim Fuego oh? What's he lying about?

@Vim Fuego leaving this comment to know why Stephen Fry lies

@Vim Fuego what do you think he lies about? I'm really interested to know

He isn't a kid.

Because when you have a go at christians they’ll only throw cake at you. Other religions aren’t so appeasing.

@@BatZie he definitely is a kid lol but he’s still very smart

true, if you want to argue with them then its not realy a constructive thing, its just "Im right and you are wrong" while kind ask a very good question, if you are spending half of your life if not most of it debating religion you should study it and read and ingage in in debate by pointing out things that they are familiar with. If Dawkings says he only interested in science why then challenge religiouse people and insist its wrong if you are only interested in doing science so Kid asked a very good question at the end. It is one thing to dismiss and state your disbelieve in higher power and challenging religion without really knowing their scriptures is quite another.

Yeah, but if you take the kid at point, you could say the same thing about serious discussions about Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. "Serious, rigorous study" of those doesn't make them any more real. And while you might be able to converse with the nerds more effectively, it's a waste of time if the person you are talking too truly believes in "the force"...

Hahaha

He's at Cambridge or Oxford at the moment, if I recall correctly.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm, he's at Oxford

@@SoumilSahu It's not sarcasm. He's making a joke that Alex looks young, that's all.

Good news!!!!!!!!! Therefore repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped out, that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send Jesus, who has been appointed for you as the Messiah. Acts 3:19‭-‬20 CSB From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near.” Matthew 4:17 CSB “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” Mark 1:15 CSB Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:3‭, ‬5 CSB Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. 1 John 2:6 NIV Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 CSB For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life. John 3:16 GNB _Jesus_ actually died, *_GOD_* has _His blood_ as a sacrifice for your sins. *_GOD_* killed *_His_*_ Only Son_ for you. All your sins: sexual immorality (fornication, adultery(lust), LGBTQIA+ , pornography) murder( hating someone, envying, abortion and killing someone) , theft( murder, lying, abuse, corruption, disrespect, racism) and idolatry (greed, love of money, worship of other gods and pride) can be forgiven only if you believe in _Jesus_; that __*_God_* sacrificed _Him_ for the atonement of all your sins, and that_*He*_ raised _Him_ up 3 days later. And now He sits on the Right Hand of *_The Father_*__, ruling over all creation as __*_Lord and Saviour_* of the world. Jesus Christ died for your sins, and only through Him you can be forgiven of all your sins. You only go to heaven because of faith and belief in The death and resurrection of _The Son of _*_God_* for the sins of the world. Hell is for those reject GOD'S Only Son, they will be burnt by the wrath of The Almighty God. Believe that all your sins are forgiven because of The Blood of Jesus, who is The Messiah, The Saviour. Repent, turn away from your sins and live because, on the Cross of Jesus Christ your sins have been paid in full. Let Jesus is our only Hope, because *_Jesus Lives_*

Hardly...

@@eccoeco3454 Uh, no, he did. Dawkins said so.

I would like to ask Dawkins how evolution gave me the paranormal capacity to see the subconscious of people?

@@jesusbermudez6775 please see a doctor...

the point is ultimately moot. its like working out the physics of how santa claus could theoretically deliver gifts to every household on the planet

@@ShortFuseFighting Life is ultimately moot.

@@edwelndiobel1567 but is real, unlike god

How do you know its real, we may be dreaming, locked inside some capsule?

What was his point though

he definitely has better things to do. the burdon of proof lies by the theists, so THEY should study their stuff if that was the only way for them to answer simple questions about how the fuck their own claims make sense.

I took something different from that, ur comment makes it sound like "ooooh guy pwns dawkins," etc. I agree with Dawkins strongly here, why waste time reading absolute bullshit that we know isnt true? You dont have to have read it for it to not be true, we already know its not. And just because you mostly look up clips of him debating christians or muslims, or tv shows often invite him for that sole purpose, does not mean thats what he does with most of his time or what he considers worthwhile doing with his time. He is a scientist and as he said "i do science". he is gonna study and write on biology because thats his specialty. I dont want to read the bible just to throw out quotes and own a christian, i can make a solid argument against christianity without having read it. same with every religion. I think thats his point. Though thaat was hitchens area, he was a journalist and avid reader and author so its natural for him to read and dig into things for the purpose of his writing books and articles and debates.

@@Auron710 Your argument is so weak lol.

@@Auron710 It would be perfectly fine if Dawkins decided not to read theological texts and then just went on to “do science”, but he doesn’t. While he certainly is a respectable scientist, a significant portion of his career has been an attack on religion. In such a case, not reading theological texts equals not doing your research properly. You can’t just flat out refuse to engage with the literature of the very thing you've been arguing against for decades, and expect people to take you seriously.

@@Cephalonimbus It actually doesn't matter, the claims made in theological writings still don't meet the burden of proof, they are filled with flawed reasoning and understanding of nature (obviously since they're ancient), so there's not much to do with them except debunking or confirming the legitimacy of the characters mentioned and getting philosophical topics. In the end, we still can do all of that without religión ay all.

Or how about for helping one decide what is true concerning theological questions? You assume that must go into it assuming all of theology has no truth value to it at all (so some one already has their mind made up before they even study the subject).

@@mrfabulous4640 obviously there is some extent of study, inevitablely. In fact that initial studying may transpire while being a believer (like in my case). “Studying” in my comment is not the difference between some studying and no studying, but rather additional studying to the point of intimacy

​@@mrfabulous4640 Well, in order to establish a truth value for theology, you need some epistemological system that can coherently back it up.

He is no youth, he is a well educated young man.

Good for u

The algorithm doesn’t love these videos, it thinks *you* will love these videos

Go watch a Deepak Chopra video to cancel out the algorithm.

More than everything else?

@@ImperialMindMusic he didn't say that he only told you one subject he would love to study.

Me too.

Yo, if you're serious about this then Pints with Aquinas and the Thomistic Institute is a legit and free resource. Cosmic Skeptic even showed up there

@@winstonsmiththx1138 I think Chiara is woman's name.

Heres an exorcism and supernatural healing. Ive seen this ministry in person and have witnessed miracles and healings and exorcisms as well as experienced them myself. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-f3yM0aJBwfI.html

Yeah so anthropology. Alex is studying religion philosophically, not primarily anthropologically. Dawkins thinks studying philosophy is useless so he thinks Alex’s degree is useless.

Precisely I dont agree with him though

He's being self- deprecating. Let the man have fun.

@@christophergooding9820 Dawkins has tried to write about phylosophy with terrible results. He definitelly should trust his own words and stick to what he excels at, which is science.

Then why didn't he say the same thing here?

And we should not forget, that the basic purpose of the religion is to explain and describe the world around us. The moral comes later, on top of that explanation. The exactly same purpose and goal has the science. But while the science is damn good at that, the religions fails miserably, because of the lack of doubts and no constant checks of their believes if they are really true.

​@@insecteater1science may be good at it but COVID and COVID lockdowns showed us scientists aren't good at this process.

"Rattled"? I swear it's impossible to have a civil conversation with some of y'all

you sure were fooled then.... why do you think the kid's wearing headphones?..... do you think he's sensitive to sound?.... seems he's just a front for some other theologists who are camped nearby, want to have a go at RD but can't get an interview, and they're feeding answers/questions to the kid through the headphones.... and still RD wasn't rattled. hard to rattle the truth.

@@AVportau quite a presumption dont you think? Your "gut" feeling offers little evidence for the rest of us. I admit "rattled" might be a bit strong. How bout moderately flustered?

@@chuckxjarhed8706 rofl... we can have a happy circle... you being presumptuous about my presumptions... ok. why do you think he's wearing the headphones?.... i do audio visual so i can see the pair of SM7s and the digital recorder... in radio, or tv, interviewers are commonly supplied with headphones or ear piece so producers can feed info without it going to air.... and the interviewee also can't hear.... c'mon, don't say you've never seen it. Dawkins was enjoying this. seems he was wondering about the headphones too. RD has taken on many more religious zealots than this one YT church rep to be even flustered... if he does seem flustered to you it's more of what i said, wondering who's feeding the kid info and Qs through the headphones.... the kids a puppet for his elders.... coz... you know.... religion is all just a human device to control others.

@@AVportau Podcasters wearing a headphone is a perfectly normal thing to do. I don't understand why you would try to create a conspiracy theory out of it when virtually all podcasters record their sessions like this? To the point of Dawkins being flustered, I would agree. I love this man which is why I found this video but he lost this point and ended rather unconvincingly to a very valid point which was that some of the questions he poses, theologists have apparently answers to (I wouldn't know if that's really true). So it would seem a bit ignorant to act like there isn't and that Dawkin's questions would immediately reveal the absurdity of the practice in question (they were using the example of God sacrificing himself). Dawkins then goes with a cheap "why would I care" which is not a valid question if you tour around the world talking about this which shows that obviously you do care - which is what the kid was hinting at as well. And then Dawkins finds no better reply than "I have better things to do"? Well, Dawkins would probably also agree that you then should not spend so much time of your life debating a topic that apparently you neither care about nor have time or will to dedicate some research into. It does not invalidate all of Dawkins points and the validity of him discussing religion but this one particular discussion point, he clearly lost.

Can't argue with that one

Yeah Dawkins got his ass handed to him there. He agreed that it makes sense and then tried to argue in a way that's not logically consistent and then used this as a form of escape as it might sound funny.

@Rico Vanwinkle Science is manipulated to fit left wing agendas? You mean like when climate change deniers claim there’s no consensus when, in fact, some 95% of climate scientists agree it’s happening?

I mean he's a journalist at best

Lol, “I do science.” - Author of the God delusion.

so how do we counter theism these days? by giving support to these BS "schools of theology" that exist in some universities, through taking their courses or paying money to take their courses. yeah great idea... sounds like this kid really thought that one through

@@calldwnthesky6495 read just a tiny fraction of the mass of theological texts available in libraries and online for free (or the other option is just don’t talk about theology if you’re not interested - and that’s ok… that’s the point). Start with Aquinas and maybe Maximus the Confessor and be intellectually honest when you do. Or even read pre-Christian philosophers like Aristotle who deal with metaphysics and ontology (the study of being) or even Plato. It’s all good for us to broaden our horizons and understanding of ultimate reality. Also, your comment seems to point to your understanding of Christianity as st like American Evangelical/fundamentalist grifters out to fleece gullible ppl just to make a buck… but again even if you just scratch the surface of the wealth of philosophical & theological resources readily available online, I don’t think you’ll walk away with the same impression and you might even find it interesting (if ur already into philosophy of science etc.) I definitely don’t see how it will hurt you or cost u a cent. Peace and grace to you mate.

@@spilkafurtseva1918 i'm not against them - they may serve a worthwhile purpose at this time in history - but religious liberals absolutely legitimize - even invigorate - evangelicals and the like... that's a fact. all of the sources of information you mentioned could be archived in perpetuity of course, but study of those texts (if that's what one wishes to do) should be conducted for the advancement of anthropology, archaeology (or some such discipline) alone... not for so-called "theology". "theology" should be euthanized asap...

@@calldwnthesky6495 hehehe...absolutely, asap

But isn't it ok not to see any reason to invest the precious hours of your day with something that has no evidence to begin with? It's just like not being willing to engage with astrology or homeopathy. You don't need to read "papers" about them to discredit them. It's the opposite, nothing is scientifically true, unless you can support your claims with evidence. Religion is another realm of human knowledge, it doesn't belong to science.

I don’t know who you’re referring to but if it’s john Lennox, he pretty much mops Dawkins every time they debate. He mopped hitchens too, he’s admitted it on video

@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr Quite the opposite I'd say, but sure.

​@@Wexexx Hitchens would disagree. You can't straw man Lennox, he has a triple doctorate in math and science from Oxford.

@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr Strawman? I mean, the guy's debate technique is good, obviously. But he is inherently speaking about things that are contradictory and that makes it really hard to call him an intellectual.

We have to reckon that atheist Dawkins is quite good at debating, given that the Darwinist atheist evangelist is regarding his own brain as a designoid object too badly flawed to be the creation of an intelligent entity. "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." atheist Dawkins.

Yes, but what is this knowledge used for in the end? To satisfy our curiosity about ancient (for lack of a better word in my vocabulary) idiocy? Like watching a show about primitives and being entertained by their lack of scientific prowess?

@@KangMinseok Why should there be applications? Art doesn't have many practical applications.

@@vr5076 please read what I wrote, as I said, I acknowledge that there is entertainment value, same as with art... is sicence for the purpose of entertainment valuable science? Well we see in the video that the two don't agree.

@@KangMinseok from an economist point of view you don't make sense. You are giving different topics value based on what you think instead of what society wants.

@@martinsoukup562 does the value of science depend on what society wants? Also a curious question.

out of all of his work for public consumption i think he's done one book and one tv series on religion

Richard Dawkins does Science, he is a Science -Biology educator. He has shifted from teaching at University lecture halls and more to the general public and specifically engaging and correcting Creationists because of their very purposeful attempts to undermine Science -Evolution and obfuscate the subject. Kitzmiller vs Dover is an incredible example why Creationist Religion needs to be engaged directly. If your going to have Atheists take on Creationists and anti-Science rhetoric who better than an Atheist and actual Evolutionary Biologist?

He taught proper sciences in Zoology in Oxford for 20 years. That counts as doing science to me

@@ccchung151 I guarantee Dawkins is more known around the world for his work against religion than he is for his science, most people have probably heard of him from his book The God Delusion. I'm not denying that he's a scientist and that he's contributed to science, but him dismissing theology and the study of religion is a joke considering a large portion of his life was devoted to debating about religion. He doesn't just do science, he also does religion and has for decades, but for some reason he seems to not acknowledge those decades is the point I was making. Did you fail to read the rest of my post? Comparing him to Sagan who had little no fight against religion? Science is what Sagan did, it's pretty much all he did, his career is probably over 90% dedicated to science and the history of science. Dawkins on the other hand, a fair bit of his life and his work has been dedicated to theology to some degree or another, so for him to dismiss it like that is just poor taste.

His life isn’t full of religion. A vast majority of his books are about the truth of science, not about religion

I would like to as a rational person as yourself how much would you say in percentage of the information presented by CNN is true? And how much the information presented by Dawkins? And how much of the information presented by Joe Biden?

Funny when you realize that Dawkin isn't known for science in academia.

Does evolutionary theory actually help humanity?

@@adsffdaaf4170 Does understanding the functioning of our world help humanity?

@@glenw3814 is all knowledge beneficial to mankind?

@@glenw3814is all knowledge good?

@@adsffdaaf4170 Knowledge is a tool. It is neither good nor bad. Its value is derived from its use. Do you feel humanity would be in a better place today if it were stuck in the living conditions of superstitious hunter-gatherers? (If you ask another question without answering, I won't respond.)

I have already read religious texts. They're all rubbish.

Because flat earthers only say one thing: "the Earth is flat". It doesn't take much time to study that.

@Norm Meunier There are a LOT more religious people engaging in scientific endeavors and education than there are athiests who reciprocate. But yes, if a theist wants to be taken seriously, he should be scientifically literate and be willing to read, book for book, if he is offering books to those he disagrees with.

“Why don’t you spend more time studying what flat earthers have to say ? Because the world is spherical” Logical positivism is self refuting! “logic is an illusion” (Nietzsche)

@Norm Meunier “I usually throw it back at them it’s for the same reason you don’t read science books” Sorry but what do you mean exactly by “science” books ? Because “science” is just a word an adjective to describe the (methodological approach) found in all subjects such as mathematics, philosophy, logic linguistics and aspects of theology such as hermeneutics etc. Equally, making appeals to the scientific method is nothing more than rhetoric as the “scientific method” is just a myth perpetuated by scientific popularisers but it completely over simplifies the scientific process and the array of complex subjects involved in the scientific project. The natural sciences merits no monopoly on knowledge and meaning which is why there are an array of different scientific subjects all with their own techniques (methodological approaches) for accessing knowledge and meaning. Equally, there is no conflict between science and religious expression. This is just a myth and a false dichotomy promoted by militant atheism. Science has not buried metaphysical beliefs as logical positivism is self refuting. One of the greatest scientific discoveries in history was mocked and rejected by atheist scientists and they coined the name “Big Bang” to ridicule the discovery holding back scientific progress for several years because it clearly supported the Genesis account of a metaphysical beginning to space and time. Ironically, the brilliant scientist who discovered the “Big Bang” George Lemaitre turned out to be a Catholic priest. Maybe if you had read some books on “science” you would have known all these interesting facts already. The irony is that your approach to the scientific project is clearly unscientific. The scientific project is not synonymous with “materialism” and should not be committed to any particular attachment to materialistic belief systems, doctrines, dogmas, or ideologies. Methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral. Nevertheless, classical materialism crumbled under the weight of evidence from quantum superposition decades ago which you would have known already if you had actually read any books of “science” . All the best to you and your family and keep safe during Corona virus crisis ♥️

@Robin Robbins it may be useless to humanity's progression but thats not what atheism is about. Atheism is about not believing in any God. Unlike religion, it is not a subject to be studied. Unlike religion, it does not replace science and give another worldview.

@Robin Robbins Aw, someone need a hug?

@@foreverbooked2964 You do realize atheism is also a religion, right?

@@kenvisvielgern4436 atheism a religion? Okay, tell me - Who exerts the sole authority on atheists? Who do atheists believe in? What scripture do atheists follow? Who do atheists pray to? Atheism is not a religion. Period. Its the literal disbelief in a God. Religion is belief. Atheism is disbelief. Its literally the opposite of religion. It is not a religion. Religion uses faith, whereas atheism uses facts and evidences.

@Robin Robbins its not a pathological anger or obsession. Its just not believing in God. Thats it. Nothing more. And of course books are written on it. Books are written on everything. Books are written on sex for heaven's sake. Does that mean the authors are sex addicts? No. It just means that the authors wanted to publish their ideas on the topic.

@@Ka112eb : )

Good news!!!!!!!!! Therefore repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped out, that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send Jesus, who has been appointed for you as the Messiah. Acts 3:19‭-‬20 CSB From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near.” Matthew 4:17 CSB “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” Mark 1:15 CSB Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:3‭, ‬5 CSB Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. 1 John 2:6 NIV Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 CSB For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life. John 3:16 GNB _Jesus_ actually died, *_GOD_* has _His blood_ as a sacrifice for your sins. *_GOD_* killed *_His_*_ Only Son_ for you. All your sins: sexual immorality (fornication, adultery(lust), LGBTQIA+ , pornography) murder( hating someone, envying, abortion and killing someone) , theft( murder, lying, abuse, corruption, disrespect, racism) and idolatry (greed, love of money, worship of other gods and pride) can be forgiven only if you believe in _Jesus_; that __*_God_* sacrificed _Him_ for the atonement of all your sins, and that_*He*_ raised _Him_ up 3 days later. And now He sits on the Right Hand of *_The Father_*__, ruling over all creation as __*_Lord and Saviour_* of the world. Jesus Christ died for your sins, and only through Him you can be forgiven of all your sins. You only go to heaven because of faith and belief in The death and resurrection of _The Son of _*_God_* for the sins of the world. Hell is for those reject GOD'S Only Son, they will be burnt by the wrath of The Almighty God. Believe that all your sins are forgiven because of The Blood of Jesus, who is The Messiah, The Saviour. Repent, turn away from your sins and live because, on the Cross of Jesus Christ your sins have been paid in full. Let Jesus is our only Hope, because *_Jesus Lives_*

@@fredfox3851 Good news!!!!!!!!! Therefore repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped out, that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send Jesus, who has been appointed for you as the Messiah. Acts 3:19‭-‬20 CSB From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near.” Matthew 4:17 CSB “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” Mark 1:15 CSB Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. John 3:3‭, ‬5 CSB Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. 1 John 2:6 NIV Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 CSB For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life. John 3:16 GNB _Jesus_ actually died, *_GOD_* has _His blood_ as a sacrifice for your sins. *_GOD_* killed *_His_*_ Only Son_ for you. All your sins: sexual immorality (fornication, adultery(lust), LGBTQIA+ , pornography) murder( hating someone, envying, abortion and killing someone) , theft( murder, lying, abuse, corruption, disrespect, racism) and idolatry (greed, love of money, worship of other gods and pride) can be forgiven only if you believe in _Jesus_; that __*_God_* sacrificed _Him_ for the atonement of all your sins, and that_*He*_ raised _Him_ up 3 days later. And now He sits on the Right Hand of *_The Father_*__, ruling over all creation as __*_Lord and Saviour_* of the world. Jesus Christ died for your sins, and only through Him you can be forgiven of all your sins. You only go to heaven because of faith and belief in The death and resurrection of _The Son of _*_God_* for the sins of the world. Hell is for those reject GOD'S Only Son, they will be burnt by the wrath of The Almighty God. Believe that all your sins are forgiven because of The Blood of Jesus, who is The Messiah, The Saviour. Repent, turn away from your sins and live because, on the Cross of Jesus Christ your sins have been paid in full. Let Jesus is our only Hope, because *_Jesus Lives_*

@@koketsobaholo7 I Am Glad That You Are Smart.

Why? He has better things to do. He does science.

Your brain is beautiful and you should never change.

Dawkins wouldn't have the intelligence to counter that argument. He thinks he's all that but he ain't. Maybe Alex should have said that too.

@@retro2vr Salty.

@@xensonar9652 wow. You get his joke but you don't get mine.

@@xensonar9652 balls

All this "vast literature" can have its arguments summarized in less than twenty pages. There has been no new theological arguments in the last two hundred years (except from Paul Tillich), and all the old ones have been easily refuted. Dawkins like many people would have read all these arguments when he was younger, and therefore has no need to read them anymore. Experts and even "experts" don't argue about topics for hundreds of years unless those things are not real.

@@lightbearer313 theology isn't just about trying to prove the existence of god. it's also trying to push a moral / ethical framework and a philosophical ideology for the average (or below average) person. many of those those moral and ethical lessons hold weight regardless of god not existing. "There has been no new theological arguments in the last two hundred years ... and all the old ones have been easily refuted". how about this: god is just an abstract philosophical concept to push a framework, god isn't a real entity. that's my personal stance. try to refute it.

@@lightbearer313 "All this "vast literature" can have its arguments summarized in less than twenty pages." - said by someone else who hasn't read the literature.

You are an expert at nothing if everything you have been studying is based on invisible gods that cannot be proven to empirically exist. Theologians try to legitimize religion but it's just the same fictitious nonsense dressed up in academia.

@@josephrich3509 Mr. Rich we meet again. Speaking to you about these things is tough because you are so adamant in your efforts to give them 0 credit. Saying that everything theologians say is pointless because we study the existence of invisible gods is a shallow argument at best. You even went as far as saying that Christians 'demand answers' and are incapable of saying 'I don't know'. But that contradicts a very important biblical principle called 'faith'. You also said that beliefs are not facts which is ironic because you still have to believe a fact to be true. I even offered a few examples of how certain facts thought to be historically accurate were proven false centuries later. That means accepting something as a fact today always comes with the possibility that it's not really a fact at all. You see, you claim that Christians suffer from a distorted reality, but the truth is that everybody does in some way. There isn't a single person on this planet who knows everything, and there is no way to guarantee that everything we think we know is an absolute truth.

Dawkins hasn't done science in a very long time. That's the joke.

Alex for Pope!

Sure, Dawkins didn't even say that though. His point on theologians was on a the specific type and by useless he meant in what they contribute to society. He even said in the video that some theologians do good work in a sort of anthropology and history sense. The title was clickbait lol

@@liquidzen906 The title isn't that clickbaity. In the end, Alex is interested in the kind of theology that Dawkins calls useless, aside from the degree issue.

It's the Oxford part that will get him a cushty job in the city regardless of subject

yes, when you show up and tell people you spent 7 years or so reading fairytales, sure they are going to hire you. especially if they have kids that needs to have the shit scared out of them before sleep. its a totally waste of time and resources studying theology. if we sat that money on fire next to some homeless people they would have actually served a purpose instead of just being wasted.

Should Dawkins have made that comment? Well, you can either interpret it as immature or you can do as me and hear it as a snarky fun little dig at the massive logical fallacy that is religion... One really doesn't have to go all that far into any of the religions you mention in order to understand that they are absolutely horrendously hateful both in text and action. Religious people have done the most horrible things in the name of their gods, and not only that, but continued to do so, unapologetic I might add. "Ah, but have they not also done good?" you might ask. I'd like to challenge that, but ok, let accept it to be the case. If that is the case, then it just means that religion can be used to justify any kind of action, whether it be rape, murder, hate, love or being good (whatever that means). Which in turns renders it useless as any form of guiding principle or philosophy. Because now all you do is impose your personal interpretation on whatever religious text you find convenient. And besides, Dawkins didn't misunderstand Aquinas' argument, you and apparently Edward Feser just don't like when it's been boiled down to its core: "Something happened initially, therefore god." Or the simple logical fallacy "god of gaps"-argument. And after this procrastination I have better things to do; it's called science.

You don't have to read philosophy to dismiss it. Philosophy is not "a truth" or "a fact" is Dawkins point. It is made up and man made. It doesn't transcend time and space and it doesn't exist in and of itself.

You mean like Chistian theology flows better than Aboriginal theology? Both are works of fiction, you can't take any theology seriously, unlike scientific works which are rooted in fact, not fiction.

I would like to meet Dawkins and ask him where did I get the paranormal capacity to see the subconscious of people?

It's likely he would tell you that you have some level of mental delusion. @@jesusbermudez6775

Lemme know when theology helps us develop better meds, tech, or anything useful that progresses our species

@@skepticeevee2565 theology does have elements in it to create a better society. I am not a believer by any means of sort, I'm merely trying to point out that just like people look for diamonds in the rough there are a few things that were better explained from religion aspects would bring upon a better society. But people blindly choosing not to do those but at the same time picking and choosing whichever fits their idea of worship the best is why I hate religion.

@@skepticeevee2565 and of course the idea of worshipping and devoting your life to a non existent deity that no one can ever prove exists. But I think that's kinda obvious.

so how do we counter theism these days? by giving support to these BS "schools of theology" that exist in some universities, through taking their courses or paying money to take their courses. yeah great idea... sounds like this kid really thought that one through

@@skepticeevee2565 Churches actually used to double down as schools in many countries since real schools were only for rich nobility. The priests would teach the children to read using religious texts as they didn't have the luxury of special manuals back then. So they're largely responsible for greatly improving the literacy rate among the peasantry. As for today, I can't speak for other religions but the Christian Church brings to the table huge humanitarian contributions, charities, disaster relief efforts, international aid for underdeveloped countries and fund raising. What do cringy neckbeards arguing against theology do for humanity?

I can understand Dawkins point though. I think he speaks from purely practical point. Like why should he waste his time on theology when he can do science. On the other had Alex's point is valid that if you are well versed on theology you are in better position to argue against theologians, which is what Dawkins did in his career.

@A F that was my point though. speaking from purely practical point of view and on consideration of time, ie he only has finite time and energy, so it is understandable why he would hold the view that studying religion is not optimal use of that time. he is very scientific, right? so he simply applied scientific method on the claims of religion, think of it like he is peer reviewing religion. I think he ends up with the conclusion like "your methodologies are shit, and your data are faulty". the human factor of religion is disregarded essentially. Maybe he is of the view that the scientific method is the end all and be all of testing all claim. He also use that method to argue on the merits.

To continue the conversation I would like to add there is a bit of a twist in logic in this conversation. Why don't the theologans get a degree in science and then talk to Dawkins? The divide goes both ways. Also consider this, Dawkins doesn't maybe care about convincing thologans of anything. Most of them are so entrenched in their own world view they won't change. Dawkins is communicating ina way that you or I might understand. The common tongue as it were. Besides to discuss spirituality topics would be fighting on a religions terms, like Dawkins said why not Native American spirituality or zeus etc etc. Here's my best analogy. Imagine that scene in Indiana Jones - Raiders Of The Lost Ark where Indi after watching a dude with a sword fling it around a bit casually shoots him. So Dawkins is Indi and the sword guy is the theologans. Dawkins just uses his gun instead of fighting a sword fight because fuck that shit, he's sick and just wants the day to end.

@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros stay mad, Alex is brilliant and university is a money driven lie

@@psicologomiguelcisneros oxford is a competitive school to get into. Even if you have good test scores. i dont think his education matters in his ability to reason and convey his ideas and thoughts accordingly.

Kid 🤔

Theologians know a lot of things, but they know absolutely nothing about the gods. Please look up the meaning of the verb "to know". ;-)

That was by far the highlight 🤣

@Andrew Jonathan Rowe: I wonder if you'd say the same if Richard Dawkins professed the same re. e.g. Mormon 'theology'. If so, I call cheap shot.

Funny thing is is that cosmicskeptic actually is engaging in theology at school. I think he gains some more respect because of that and so proves himself to be more scholarly than Dawkins. I've listened to Dawkins before, but I can't take him seriously because he doesn't know what he's talking about and as we can see from this clip, he doesn't care either. You can't really engage him anymore than requesting him to read something, which I guess he probably won't do.

It's true he keeps doing theology without knowing a bloody thing about it. Can't understand why some atheists won't engage with more serious atheist thinkers. Many atheists don't take Dawkins seriously, because his disdain for theology extends to philosophy including formal logic and of course the social sciences, which have very different things to say about religion.

Psychology alone has more wisdom and substance that theology

@@visualthinker9339 nahhh most psychology is a racket tbh

@@TheRosyCodex modern psychology and psychotherapy saved my mother from a severe form of depression, while theology did nothing to help her.

Master of Entropy of course. If severe depression was gods plan for your mother then he has a much more warped sense of humor than we thought and if your mother is supposed to get better somehow and they say it’s also gods plan then it’s also bs since whatever the outcome that happens to your mother good or bad, “gods plan” will always be the excuse... it’s like how when good things happen to people they give the credit to “god” and when bad things happen they blame it on other things. You see how convenient it is for these religious people? We humans don’t give ourselves enough credit than we do tbh

Sounds meta af

He's a SUPER hard black and white Materialist and Determinist, and the trouble with hard Materialists and Determinists is that we have trouble conceiving of something that isn't right in our faces. Personally, the only way I finally got out of that funk was an interest in psychology which Dawkins definitely doesn't share. Acknowledging that an argument for Materialism and Determinism IS philosophy is to acknowledge that other models of the world exist and that'd be _painful_ for him to acknowledge.

But that’s in assuming religion can be understood. I don’t believe it can be. Why should I understand someone when they use their religion in defense of not wearing a mask? Why should I try to understand when a Muslim beheads a teacher for showing a cartoon? Sometimes it’s a useless endeavor.

@@SolikBrrr I didn't mean understanding as in forgiveness or sympathy. I mean understanding as in how the heck do their minds work so we can speak their language, maybe reach a common ground, maybe push them towards progress.

@@annachan8151 Yes to both of your comments lol. We should try to understand them to show how they *could* (more than likely) be wrong. Or at the very least, have no good reason to believe what they believe. Critical thinking and all that good stuff.

@@annachan8151 That’s fair. Obviously religions going always be around. It would be nice to meet in the middle and find a compromise. But, to paraphrase Hitchens, religion is almost the root of all the issues we face today. So in that manner, I would have doubts about that middle ground being met. But hopefully I’m wrong.

Not really. It's more important to respect each other's boundaries and make laws based on science rather than fiction, even if the majority of the society believes the fiction to be true.

Sure, but if you spend time publicly debating the existence of fairies, you should probably know what the people who believe in fairies have to say. An alternative example would be evolution. If someone just says they don’t believe it, whatever. But if they publicly debate it then they should probably be relatively up to date with evolutionary biology.

The Easter Bunny doesn't inspire a thousand web sites against God. This suggests that there's a difference. Same with Santa.

@@bradleymosman8325 the Easter bunny and Santa are not vain creatures demanding worship or else.

But then what is the point of life and what is the point of any belief system if there is nothing bigger than ourselves - then there is only majority rule where the majority imposes its values on others and there really is no difference between Hitler and Mother Teresa and the value of their lives.

@@timh8324 "But then what is the point of life and what is the point of any belief system if there is nothing bigger than ourselves ..." Alas, you're assuming the fact rather than showing it. There may, in fact, BE no point to life and belief systems. As to the diff. betw. Hitler & Mother Teresa*, to me there is only one ethic, viz.: _The unnecessary infliction of pain is evil._ Everything follows from that. *Mother Teresa. From many accounts, she was a pathological individual who may have done way more harm than good, so not a good example here.

​@@timh8324Mother Theresa believed in the Catholic notion that the more you suffer then the closer you are to Jesus and his own suffering on the cross. Her 'patients' were subjected to the worst cruelties of care imaginable. Despite the millions of $ donated to her 'cause' visitors to her hospital were left appalled at the suffering and squalor of her charges. When it came to her own health of course only the finest hospitals would do. Being a (retired) registered nurse i have looked into her 'career' and can only agree with Christopher Hitchens, look it up.

The young man in the video is an atheist RU-vidr named Alex. The name of his RU-vid channel is CosmicSkeptic.

He's very much an atheist !

No he does a great deal of actual science as you would know if you'd read any of his books. He allows himself time to work on spreading logic and reason as a way to help society and make some money. But he has many books on evolutionary biology and only what...one on atheism or religion?

@@liquidzen906 All his in the last two decades are either directly against theism or have theism as one of their main targets. And there can be no true logic or reason in a universe which (as Dawkins claims) is ultimately meaningless.

@@AnthonyOzimic Good. Making religious idiots out to be the brain dead zombies they are is a win in my opinion.

Science simply shows religion to be bogus. Why would Dawkins spend a minute more than he has to rummaging through it’s nonsense?

@@JesseDLC i think you are missing the point. Science does in fact refute religion. Thats why religion uses spurious arguments about lack of understanding of the various texts are a defence.It’s as if a better understanding of religion somehow would make it true. Dawkins shows his disinterest in being involved to that depth because it is utterly pointless. There is simply nothing about religion and it’s teachings that show there is a god. Why waste further time when there is so much science to be discovered?

Nah, it's fine the way it is :)

@@koketsobaholo7 I have nothing against Christians so as a friendly word of advice I promise you proselytizing is the number 1 thing that drives people away from taking any interest whatsoever in your religion and the internet spam technique is the least likely of any at all to work in your favor.

I think is better off dead.

@@8ritt8ritt35 Im a Christian, but I do agree with you.

@@boringname3657 why?

@@Quyanxi Because he didn't seem to bother about Iraqi people either.

Hello phthisis How're you doing?