How tolerant was Konstantine when he told a white underage grape victim that she doesn’t deserve a society that can protect her because of what her people did to his people in the holocaust?

Certainly nothing they accused NPR can be seen on the right leaning news... this is so stupid. C'mon, compare the level of bias on NPR and the most viewed news channel in US, Fox news.

Excellent insight that news and opinion have merged.

a political christian indeed

In some ways there isn't a separation between atheism and nontheism. At least in peoples understanding. Online & IRL I've met plenty of nontheists who identify as atheist. They often never heard of nontheist as a term. I tend to see it as a spectrum. A spectrum of belief, with blind believer on one end and old cynic on the other. 🤔 Though I Dont atm have a clear cut space for atheism, theism or nontheism. Im more interested in hearing where other people might place them on a spectrum.

There are thousands of religions. Which one to choose?? What makes Christianisme exceptional is the suffering of Christ to save us and the promise of eternal life. The latter makes no sense and the former suggests that Christ was a very social and people loving person. That's it!! All the rest is story-making. Only science, logic thinking devoid of ideology can bring us worldwide peace and understanding. There is only one way to reach this goal: education, education, education.

To note, I will never ever ever apologise for racism, because I am not.

So deep thinkng , skepticism, and a drive for intellectual honesty has gone out of fashion.

Dawkins pathetic grovelling of Neil Tyson was the final nail in the coffin for me with this bozo. Dawkins is irrelevant now, he was the intellectual kids version of Alice in Chains. Move on folks, nothing to see here.

To be honest I didn't really learn anything in this "dissident dialogue"

More Konstantin Kretin Delusion!

The host is a bit ridiculous. Can’t you live Baby Jesus please? The person on the left lost le when he mispronounced « Pensées ». The only memorable thing about his contribution is how clever he thinks he is. He is self-propositional. Other than that, pretty vacant.

She is populist politician and has zero scientific arguments! Do not understand why Dawkins did not say much to her meaningless points

For Alex to say that it doesn’t matter what Thomas Jefferson thinks but starts off by referring to Blaise Pascal as if he has something useful to say. How is it possible to be that obviously inconsistent!?

Modern feminism is pure cancer. It teaches young women that they can do whatever they want and that everything is justified to achieve the morally superior idea of feminism in its purity; in case anyone sets boundaries to their behaviour, they are part of the patriarchy or they do not stand in solidarity with women (# gaslighting). The future is NOT female; the future belongs to all human beings (#Ihoughtwewerepromotingequality). In addition, neo-feminism teaches young women to complain, never to be satisfied nor be grateful about what they have achieved (e.g. legal equality, opening of professions to women, more women in university than men), and to be overly self-centric. There is a lot going on in the world, including wars, and feminism (in the West) is really not the top priority. If women truly believe that the matriarchy is morally superior, then show it in the facts, including being realistic that societies require a balance of interests and that trade-offs should always be sought. Neo-feminism is a utopia (from the female standpoint at least) that does more harm than good, and is in essence a symptom of excessive individualism; people who believe that the entire universe should adapt so they can continue to live in their own little fantasy world of how life should be (obviously neglecting that other people have a right to live life at their terms - because that is irrelevant for the inherently narcissistic neo-feminist). The 'feminisation of life' argument is a very good point. This certainly manifests at school, but also in the work place where HR serves as a re-education camp, as well as by the legal system (in many countries there are more young female judges than male). I guess women just love to tell people how to comply with the social norm - like mothers do. This is a tremendous problem for men, who on average need more space - including to rebel. But the imposed confirmity resulting from feminisation of society also stiffens innovation, which is what is needed to maintain our Western prospertity. Therefore, the forced installment of the matriarchy is not as innocent as it might sound. On Anna's point that both sexes try to lash out to each other: yes, but it is more subtle than that. Feminism started with a brutal, disproportiate, and blind outrage against men and men are REacting to it (cfr. Kathleen's point that feminism tries to punish all men). It is fundamentally wrong and simplistic to suggest that the extremes on both sides can be equalised in their behaviour. Next point, feminism is a global hype that lacks nuance. Even if we narrow it down to Western countries, one cannot deny that there are big differences. Feminism is for instance still an obsession in France, while that country de facto already classifies as a matriarchy. It, therefore, is about time to bring in some nuance as regards the country as well as the socio-economic background of women (AND men). Final point, feminism is highly politicised. Any argument that does not ressonate with the feminists is ipso facto seen as an attempt of the patriarchy to control women. Stop the nonsense. Look for instance at Richard Reeves, who makes valid and scientifically corroborated points on the wellbeing of men. No policy maker is interested in such arguments. Women are suppressed and are the victims. And that narrative must be propoagated to the rest of the citizens - at all times and by all means necessary (!) Also, feminists only want the advantages. Are they also shouting to be admitted to the army? Of course not, only the jobs that limit risks and increase their own salary are of interest. And if they cannot outcompete men, then just ask for quota, which are a form of 'equity'. Even more than that, the feminist religion is so important that our societies need gender mainstreaming and gender budgetting. It is hypocritical and a form of moral grandstanding that is missing the point. For next panel, one could invite Richard Reeves and others to come up with a common vision for men and women to have a more positive impact on societies. It makes absolutely no sense to keep talking about feminism; women in the West have all rights they want and are ideolised. Feminism is exhausted (and exhausting) and it must stop.

i think she was just being politically correct converting from islam to atheism and than to christianity

She said a lot of words but not single real argument for her statement

She's confused. Not psychologically stable.

She is beginning to sound like Trump...Christianity driven out of schools and universities. So much for the First Amendment.

So ignorant of history. The origins of western civilisation are to be found in pagan Greece and Rome, not the New Testament.

Christianity was also spread and imposed violently, initially by the Roman empire.

Choosing to believe something doesn't make it true. It sounds more like an act of desperation.

Gibberish.

Mark Twain once said that ''having faith is believing in something that you just know ain't true.'

'There is something'...what is this 'something?

Why are they clapping? This is nonsense.

Illusions can make you feel good...like thinking you have won the lottery when in fact you haven't. So sad such an intelligent, brave women has succumbed to another version of what she left behind.

islam to atheism to Christianity, give me a break, who is she kidding, seriously, woman needs to chill

Damn, i thought that was Doug...shiz

Um, I the the pedophilia had a lot to do with the fall in believers

Nothing but double talk and fluff...she isn't anything special, just cute and babbling with no point. She didn't say anything of substance.

Comparison is the thief of joy, they are all great for their own reasons.

Mary Harrington is unbelievably irritating good lord

Evolution is 🐒 → 🦁 😆

The reason is Atheism is not logical, it lacks a holistic understanding of the world, it's a simple fact

You can't mock Richard because he provides nothing other than doubt.

I can understand why Dawkins feels so let down. A smart, articulate, beautiful woman that was an ex muslim has some kind of awful breakdown and uses religion to help herself recover. I love her but I feel as though she is maybe not quite as smart as I once thought.

Ayaan is not someone I respect or recognise as an important speaker, thinker or a public figure in general. She’s an imposter.

Atheism Is Going Out Of Fashion!" and becoming MAINSTREAM. RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING

I believe the USA will be far behind the rest of the world in respect of believing in an imaginary friend. The dogma in America is rife. One day maybe they will pull their heads out of their religious arse holes.

Simply put, "look before you leap." You have to stop and think before deciding to go over the precipice of the cliff. I don't believe enough of us actually think even before we open our mouths. That thought and that pause can make all the difference in the world. Introspection is thought within. Slowing down and considering a point or issue or yourself and what you believe.

rent seeking behavior

Jesus is king

Oh, Alex, are you blissfully unaware of the current character of the SCOTUS vis a vis what ‘the founding fathers wanted?’ 😖

I genuinely cannot follow this supposed distinction between the propositional and the non-propositional. When he says (paraphrasing), “No, it’s not propositional, it’s about whether it’s powerful or not, whether it works or not!” how is that not an implicit proposition as to ‘it works!’ or ‘it does NOT work?’

Vervaeke is condescending AF. Maybe protesters see a problem and want it fixed. FFS 🤦🏼

I need evidenced-based beliefs and faith, belief without conclusive proof, to function and flourish. Both have their place. My belief that my drive to work will be safe is based on evidence and faith. How meaningful is faith that a good friend is innocent despite the evidence? Might we explore both faith-based belief and evidenced-based belief with schoolchildren, without omitting or denigrating either as wholly invalid? Maintain separation of church and state by presenting the possibility of faith as valid rather than a faith as valid? Might it help if we asked ourselves and social justice warriors what we accept on fact or faith, open to the possibility that both may be valid?

This is what thoughtful provocative conversation looks like. We would all be wise to take some notes.

Is it unfashionable to disbelieve in leprechauns?

Here is a question for Hirisi - which religious country would she like to move to ?? Difference in quality of life between secular nations and theocratic nations alone tells you what is best for humanity- Secularism. Only “useful religion “ if any , would be the one which is not organised , which is not institutionalised , which is not publicly displayed in public places , which is confined to privacy of your home and which has no role in nation building , National policy , education , laws and regulations . You can believe in what you want - just keep it within your home .