Religion Is Still Evil - Richard Dawkins

@CosmicSkeptic Ай бұрын

Get early access to episodes, and get them ad-free, by supporting the channel at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC

@klaxoncow Ай бұрын

Ah, shouldn't have used "2 + 2 = 4" as an example there. Simply because we can be assured of this, as we have the practical applications of mathematics - engineering, technology, physics, chemistry, even finance - and we have machines, in computers, that obey these mathematical rules (and are capable of doing so objectively, without bias or "interpretation"), and it always objectively works out every single time. And, as a programmer myself, I can also add that whenever it doesn't work out - my code is misbehaving - it always invariably, every single time, results from an error in my logic. I review my code over and over, then I realise my dumb mistake, correct it and then, once my logic is in order, it all just works as intended. And perhaps not everyone experiences that secondary bit of proof, unless they code, but the negation, of course, proves the rule. Every time the logic is sound, it works. Every time it deviates, it fails. Invariably. Every single time. 100%. My job is to apply mathematics - in this case, logic is a proper subset of mathematics and, admittedly, most of programming is focused on logic primarily, though I do graphics programming which strays into geometry too - and it's just a pragmatic observable truth that every time the logic is sound, it works, and every time it isn't, it fails. No matter the application, that's always 100% true every single time without exception. Indeed, for me, the reason I know natural selection to be true comes from a completely different place than biology. Genetic Algorithms is where you apply the process of natural selection to a problem and then watch it pragmatically "evolve" an answer for you. We have a population. We apply a form of sexual reproduction. Throw in a sprinkling of mutation. Select for the best answers. Rinse and repeat. And you can see evolution occur. And the thing is I would say that I do not "believe" in natural selection, I know it to be a pragmatic fact. Because when I create this mathematical simulation of its principles, evolution is what fall out the other end. And, in this mathematical realm, I know there's no cheating, nothing up anyone's sleeve, as I wrote the code (but, more than that, I can pause the simulation at any point, look at the data and then manually apply the principles myself - do it by hand, with pen and paper - then verify that this is exactly what the simulation is also doing). This is an isolated mathematical realm. There can be no interference. No cheating. Nothing external can get at it. All that's in that simulation is the principles of natural selection.... and evolution falls out the other end. Now, of course, this only proves the mathematical truth of natural selection. It doesn't confirm that this is what happened in the natural world for us to reach this point. But, well, knowing that natural selection is a mathematical fact, how could it be any other way? The ingredients are there and you can't escape this principle, as it is written in mathematical law itself, so it can't not be there. And, you know, when you delve into the details that biologists give us, it all 100% aligns with this. It's an old joke. If you're good at maths, you become a physicist. If you're okay, then a chemist. If you're not good at maths, then become a biologist. But, humour aside, there's perhaps a truth there that the biologists don't make the mathematical argument. But as an "applied mathematician", this is utterly, utterly convincing to me. Mathematical proof is fact. I don't "believe" in natural selection, I know it to be 100% fact. Indeed, in science, we have theories and theorems. Very, very few things ever reach the status of "theorem", because they require total mathematical proof. And I guess what I'm getting at is that biologists would say "the theory of evolution", but I'd rather say "the theorem of natural selection"... and, from there, natural selection mathematically proven, how else could the world have ended up this way and, its negation, that with all the ingredients there, it would be impossible to avoid it. You can't turn mathematical principles on and off. If the ingredients are there, which they are, then it must necessarily happen. In this sense, I sometimes feel that biologists miss a trick, as they are not as mathematically inclined to see that, from my mathematical perspective, there is no "debate" whatsoever. It is mathematically proven. The only room for debate is just the "fine details" of how this species became that species and so forth. But where the biologists deal in those "fine details" and try to build up, from the evidence, to proof that it's true. I start with the principle - in mathematical form - and show it's fact. Then the evidence must necessarily fall into place - which it does (and where it temporarily doesn't, some more examination reveals our mistakes, which it invariably is. But the principle for me is never in jeopardy by this. A pre-Cambrian rabbit would not jeopardise the principle of natural selection, this has to hold. It must be evidence of gods or aliens messing around with our planet. What's off the table, by the mathematics, is that natural selection is wrong). Perhaps it's just because I have a mathematical mind and that inclination automatically appeals to me. But I do find that the lack of maths disappointing. To me, the perfect route to proof is right there. But biologists don't take it, as they never liked doing sums. Granted, though, if the goal is to convince a general audience, the biologists are doing it right. Maths doesn't convince people who're not mathematically minded, as they often can't follow it to appreciate its conclusions. But it is, to my mind, the vastly better proof here.

@Outlaw-of2lt Ай бұрын

You are appalling scunbag

@davidbanner6230 26 күн бұрын

He would not like to debate much these days.....too many people can see through him....? Evil is also part of the great scheme of things...."from evil can come sweetless and light."..:Danial......

@dscampbells 25 күн бұрын

0:26 I believe that Richard got Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrong here on the reason for why she and he differ… It’s not that Ayaan isn’t concerned about whether Christianity is true like he is, and she is more focused on morality. But it’s that Ayaan has already got past whether Christianity is true in that she already believes and knows it to be true, so she can move on to how the truth of Christianity has the morals that people in all sectors of the world should adopt for the betterment of mankind because those morals are given by a sovereign and perfectly moral God, and they are therefore true and right and good, and every other belief system/set of beliefs is therefore not moral, right, or good for humanity. Dawkins on the other hand, is still grappling with whether Christianity is true or not - he wouldn’t see Christianity as moral until he sees it to be true because he already believes in a (good) standard of morality that doesn’t come from a Christian basis (this attitude is outlined in Proverbs 21:2, 16:2, 30:12 KJV, and Romans 2:14-16 KJV).

@dscampbells 25 күн бұрын

3:18 & 9:27-10:04 - Well couldn’t/wouldn’t the improbable and implausible reason for life be that the Almighty Creator God spoke into existence all of creation giving it life, and mankind being made dead through the trespasses and sins against God of our ancestor the first Adam, and our own trespasses and sins against God since, and mankind being brought back to life by the death, burial, and resurrection of His only begotten Son who He sent to save us from our sins and the eternal damnation that comes as a consequence of them?? That’s very improbable and implausible to the human mind which is carnal and at enmity with God (Romans 8:5-8 KJV) and is therefore unable to comprehend this spiritual reality (as 1 Corinthians 2 KJV explains). However, as Dawkins suggested, the reason is likely very probable, and probable that God did do as is said above (as He attests to in His written word which He has gifted us with, The Bible) because that is the truth of how we all came to be, and this truth will by known by each individual as God reveals to them that truth by His Spirit (as 1 Corinthians 2 KJV says). 3:48-4:10 The problem for mankind being that YOU CAN’T become a Christian just by “preferring it as a more comfortable worldview”, and/or one having the ability to “adopt Christianity just because of its social function”… You can only become a Christian by God electing you to be one - which causes many people (even some professing Christians who don’t believe and/or know that truth) to foam at the mouth because they realise their powerlessness to save themselves and their lives are at the mercy of a God they hate, and a God and faith which they think they can just pick up and drop as and when it’s “convenient” in achieving their selfish agendas, when God commands faithfulness to living unto Him and in His ways continually. 5:43 This ‘suffering built in to the evolutionary system’ that you speak of is not evolutionary, but is the consequence of SIN, passed down from our ancestors, the first Adam - as God explains it to us to be in The Bible.

@happym5717 3 ай бұрын

It's clear Richard has an enormous amount of respect for you as an intellectual Alex. I could honestly listen to you both for hours

@jamqdlaty 3 ай бұрын

You can actually see how it changed since the first interview. Not that Richard didn't respect Alex, but now they're like buddies. ;)

@TheEconomicElder 3 ай бұрын

Really? I thought he was holding in his frustration with Alex's philosophical questions. I felt like Dawkins was trying to steer the conversation to more of hard science, but Alex kept on reverting.

@ArgentavisMagnificens 3 ай бұрын

@@jamqdlaty "a little louder, please!"

@Bossman21D 3 ай бұрын

Don’t worship these men, their knowledge is just as futile as ours, without divine revelation we wouldn’t even have been here to do these conversations. Jesus changed the world and now we aren’t barbaric animals but we are still sinners and need forgiveness, that is of course if we wish to live in God’s presence for eternity.

@davidekdal7190 3 ай бұрын

@@Bossman21DWrong space to turn off your brain. There is time to delete the comment.

@lukej7758 3 ай бұрын

I love to see Dawkins looking great and sounding so eloquent after his stroke. At his age that could’ve taken him entirely out of the game so it’s great to see he has more in him still at the age of 82

@stu1002 3 ай бұрын

Absolutely agree, it's good to see he's made such a good recovery. Answer to prayer! 😂

@TornadoCAN99 3 ай бұрын

'cept for that third button down from top being undone, i'm with you!

@john-ic5pz 3 ай бұрын

it's surely bcuz God is watching over him 😋

@dickyloggins7372 3 ай бұрын

prayer to whom? atheist has no God/s ,but themselves. they think their(human's)wisdom is superior than God/s!. hahaha

@MarlinDarrah 3 ай бұрын

Indeed, Dog was there, watching him. Probably Apollo. @@john-ic5pz

@JimReynolds-dd4fn 2 ай бұрын

Terrific conversation...thank you both, Richard and Alex. I was raised in a Catholic household in Chicago, in the 50s. I imagine that experience had much to do with my existential beliefs today. Common sense and moral questions led me to (and I hate labels) Atheism. Discussing religion and politics is next to impossible now, and they seem to be enmeshed with each other. They blend together now, so it seems impossible to debate politics without religion tossed into the mix.

@user-nj9ru4ef2w 2 ай бұрын

huh. I think athiest morality is absolutely degenerate and repulsive, which hurts because I can't believe in a fairy tale book with a man in the sky. I also don't see how politics is tied to religion at all, although both are frankly completely missing the point, religion in terms of reality and politics in terms of, well, not actually solving any problems.

@karendowney2888 2 ай бұрын

You can't trust a politician who tells you how to pray, or a preacher who tells you how to vote. As evidenced by an irrational belief that Trump is God's chosen one.

@BlacksmithTWD 2 ай бұрын

What do you get when you combine science with politics? (answer: politics) What do you get when you combine religion with politics? (answer: also politics) Once you realize the truth of this rather sick joke, you'll be less naive about it. The problem is not that many people may uphold rather silly ideas. The problems start when silly ideas get enforced within a society. You can't do the latter without politics.

@davidbanner6230 17 күн бұрын

All we have to come to terms with our reality is how we interact through our thoughts and perceptions; we think of our intelligence as having some meaning? Then is it possible that it came about without some form of understanding, yet we are so arrogant that we begrudge even that which formed us as having intelligence, nor understanding, even if it is beyond our ability to comprehend it? As for the handing down from primitive ignorant tribes…..well, when you pick up a poisonous insect, isn’t it advisable to be wearing gloves? If our understanding of everything came down to us already prepared, like a Christmas turkey from the local butcher, then there would be no need for science/sifting through the feathers to find some truth? Meaning, perhaps reality has to come to us by garbled ignorance and doubt, for us to sort out? A tree bears fruit because of its struggles, so does the attainment of knowledge ….

@maureenrhysjones4643 2 ай бұрын

The older I grow, the more I love listening to Richard Dawkins. He's looking so well. Great interview, it's nice to listen to an interviewer who's not intent on attacking him. Thank you.

@briansmith3791 2 ай бұрын

Dawkins' new atheism is only training-wheels to get off Religion. Then the real work begins. We have observable evidence for one universe fine-tuned for Life. This demands an explanation.

@Jocky8807 Ай бұрын

Without pressure, i could see clearly how his logic is flawed. With other theist, all I could see is he attacking others. Without the attacks, his argument could not even stand by it self.

@rbaxter286 Ай бұрын

@@Jocky8807 Not nearly as flawed as your posting.

@Jocky8807 Ай бұрын

@@rbaxter286 yeah, they are both very polite. Several things I am quite disagree with him. 1. hirshi Ali (another famous atheist converted to Christian). He said Ali only convert because Christianity is good at holding the fort for other bad forces (like Islam, etc), but not true. That is the first time, Dawkins said religion is good at smth. Before he said religion is only bad. (I have to give credit to Dawkins and Alex for saying those words). 👍👍 Then he said Ali only converted to Christianity because it is good, though she believes it is not true. This is Dawkins putting words on Ali's mouth. She never said that. 🙏 2. 3.

@Jocky8807 Ай бұрын

@@rbaxter286sorry, I have to write many sections as I have to re-listen what he said. Could not remember all at once. 🙏 #2. Of science. This is the first time, Dawkins said Darwin only solved the theory of narutal selection (which I quite disagree). But, scientists does not have a clue how life began nor how universe began (all evidence seems to point other direction). Also, now first time I heard it, Dawkins admit earth is probably the only life in universe. Before he said, there must be plenty of life elsewhere (now he said "stupendously improbable" for life to begin elsewhere, a word I have to remember 😂). Though he draws different conclusion from it. I gave him and Alex credit for that. But, it also show how obnoxious and enmity his view toward a creator was. 🙏 I mean he always presume a creator must be God that demand worship. For scientist, that is not true. Creator is a creator. Somebody design it. The creator does not have to be care about his creation. Earth could a high school project for a super smart alien, that he left in the basement for few years (or few millenia in our time) that he completely forgot about.

@1414141x 3 ай бұрын

Lovely conversation and it was great to see Richard in good health both physically and mentally. He obviously enjoys interacting with Alex.

@shortscenes9338 3 ай бұрын

Bursting with health!

@johnwillman9400 3 ай бұрын

This is the best I have seen Richard since prior to his stroke. He looks vibrant and full of life and I’m all here for it.

@shotgun_blammo 3 ай бұрын

The Alex effect ✊

@cyberbules3085 3 ай бұрын

Stroke?

@shotgun_blammo 3 ай бұрын

@@cyberbules3085 Yeah, google it. Was 2016 I think

@pgsmith22 3 ай бұрын

Rosy red cheeks. Pinched, or an ale with lunch?

@nefaristo 3 ай бұрын

Synapses can perform miracles 😊

@BlakeBake 2 ай бұрын

Great conversation and fun listen.

@triplejazzmusicisall1883 2 ай бұрын

Not by Christian definition, I have always found Richard Dawkins to be such a graceful gentleman. His intellect and intelligence are gigantic. To possess and have developed such an amazing, advanced capacity to think in so many forms including rationally, analytically, scientifically, creatively, and yet maintain such humility is remarkable. He is beyond a national treasure and more a great asset to humanity itself.

@briansmith3791 2 ай бұрын

Dawkins may be some of the things you mentioned, but he lacks the vital quality of compassion. In 'Something from Nothing', in answer to a question on " the belief in a God of many suffering people on Earth, who are clinging on to Life with their fingertips", Dawkins replied, " who cares....." (1hr 39mins).

@maureenrhysjones4643 2 ай бұрын

Well, he is right on that score...who DOES care? And how is it shown? The world as it is tells me that people actually ONLY care about domination and destruction. That is Christian? @@briansmith3791

@robsku1 2 ай бұрын

@@briansmith3791 I would love to see this in context and see what he actually meant to answer with "who cares", because this seems a little too much like failure to interpret what is being said correctly. But I don't know what video you might be talking about - when you say _In "Something from nothing",_ is that the name of the video?

@briansmith3791 2 ай бұрын

@@robsku1 Yeah, 'Something from Nothing' is a KZbin video of a talk with Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. Q&A 1hr 39mins.

@torstenheling3830 Ай бұрын

He’s a petty brain-dead a-hole.

@Benboy1980 3 ай бұрын

Alex is definitely someone skilled in the art of ‘Kao wo tateru’ or ‘saving face’. I’ve noticed he never backs people in to a corner, and always gives them room to change their mind if needs be without being triumphant. He was very good at pulling on the thread of some of Richards arguments and gently asking questions that challenged him (quite fairly). Dawkins was very open to accept that Alex made ‘fair points’ and was happy to revisit and expand on them. Very good interview

@shassett79 3 ай бұрын

As much as it annoys people when Alex doesn't steamroll people in these interviews, this is probably why he's having so much success.

@UltimateIrishRebel 3 ай бұрын

But at the same time, he is steamrolling them by not steamrolling them. It's clear from this interview that Alex is so far ahead of Richard on the topic of religion. Richard comes across as lazy and someone who just says something like "well it's ridiculous and not true so who cares".

@nefaristo 3 ай бұрын

@@UltimateIrishRebelI'm only at 20 min and haven't seen him "ahead" of Dawkins (whatever that means) up to here. Since I have basically the same position and approach towards religions Dawkins has, it's highly unlikely I will spot any weak spot in Dawkins' view. Can you point me to a more specific point?

@Benboy1980 3 ай бұрын

@@UltimateIrishRebel ⁠from what I remember (and I’m new to Alex) I think he specifically studied the classic religions. But I remember Dawkins and Hitchins and Sam Harris (the new atheists) in some pretty epic debates with religious scholars. Dawkins was always pretty frank and blunt in what he thought. I actually loved what he said about Jordan Peterson (whilst I agree with Peterson on many things) his Christian ramblings always seemed like BS to me, and I loved Dawkins calling it out. I find Alex much more ingratiating and forgiving in his style, maybe Dawkins ha la had so many of these chats about religion he just can’t be arsed anymore 😂. I like that Alex can gently bring him back around on certain points though without telling him some of his arguments may seem a tad unreasonable

@vincentcavanagh1784 3 ай бұрын

That's because Alex isn't interested in "defeating opponents," he's interested in progress. Progress comes through understanding people who are different, reaching an understanding with them, even if that understanding is, "We don't necessarily agree on much of anything, but I think you're nice enough," and proposing how to coexist with those opposing ideas.

@craigrelyea9146 3 ай бұрын

Alex, I commend you on conducting an engaging and intellectual discussion while not becoming distracted by that one unbuttoned button on Dawkins' shirt. Mad props.

@habeshalad1728 3 ай бұрын

why did u have to point that out man now i can't stop looking at it...very distracting🤣

@heyya99 3 ай бұрын

He had a stroke so perhaps his dexterity isn't what it once was.

@blorkpovud1576 3 ай бұрын

@heyya99 really? I didn't know that, but now that you've pointed it out, I notice the subtle change in speech.

@kerrinbooth2764 3 ай бұрын

😂😂😂

@kerrinbooth2764 3 ай бұрын

@@habeshalad1728 maybe the button popped off and went into the gutter

@AtamMardes 16 күн бұрын

What's the difference between a cult and a religion? In a cult, there's someone at the top who knows it's all bs. In a religion, that person has died long time ago.

@jarielwilliams9856 6 күн бұрын

Nice one! Although I'd still call christamity an abusive cult.

@soliSchuler 5 күн бұрын

I would argue that people do know what's going on; that religiosity is designed to control people, and they would deliberately create an environment that takes the form of religiosity. I'm sure there are people who actually believe in religion. But there are others who know religion is full of shit, and use it to gain power.

@AGoodBuzz 3 күн бұрын

*_BRILLIANT!!_* 👋👋👋👋👋👋

@hellabella8295 Күн бұрын

I wouldn’t doubt the pope being an atheist.. 😂😂

@coreybakerteachingstudio8858 2 ай бұрын

Good stuff. I love seeing critical thinkers challenging each. Thanx Alex.

@StrangerInAustralia 3 ай бұрын

This is the most engaged and thoughtful I've seen Dawkins in an interview in a very long time. You're doing an amazing job, Alex!

@MarcKremers 3 ай бұрын

Exactly!

@davidblack1353 3 ай бұрын

Indeed… and brilliant pushback about William Lane Craig and on Dawkin’s flimsy excuse for choosing not to debate him… if Dawkin’s case against God’s existence is so watertight, why not debate Craig and put him to the sword once and for all?.. I think because we all know that Dawkin’s arguments would barely survive the first round…

@mznxbcv12345 3 ай бұрын

He's right about the modifiable testament, but not the final one The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

@mznxbcv12345 3 ай бұрын

Languages degrade, they do not "evolve". It is a tool for thinking, not communication, it is what separates other lifeforms from humans. The mere fact that translation is even possible underlies a common origin for all languages, orca whales separated from their birth pod are unable to communicate with other whales if they get adopted, they are only able to track the others visually. Classical Arabic has largest phonemic inventories among semitic languages. It has 28 consonants (29 with Hamza) and 6 vowels (3 short and 3 long). Some of these sounds are rare or absent in other semitic languages. For example, - Classical Arabic has two pharyngeal consonants /ʕ/ (ع) and /ħ/ (ح). These sounds are found only in some semitic languages (Hebrew and Amharic), but not in others (Akkadian and Aramaic). - Classical Arabic has two emphatic consonants /sˤ/ (ص) and /dˤ/ (ض) These sounds are found only in some semitic languages (Hebrew and Amharic), but not in others (Akkadian and Aramaic). - Classical Arabic has two glottal consonants /ʔ/ (ء) and /h/ (ه), which are produced by opening and closing the glottis ). Akkadian has lost the glottal stop /ʔ/, while Aramaic has lost both the glottal stop and the glottal fricative /h/. - Classical Arabic has six vowel phonemes /a/, /i/, /u/, /æ /, /e/, /o/, which can be short or long. Akkadian has only three vowel phonemes /a/, /i/, /u/, which can be short or long, while Aramaic has only two vowel phonemes /a/ and /i/, which can be short or long. |Classical Arabic | 28 consonants, 29 with Hamza and 6 vowels; some consonants are emphatic or pharyngealized; some vowels are marked with diacritics | Complex system of word formation based on roots and patterns; roots are sequences of consonants that carry the basic meaning of a word; patterns are sequences of vowels and affixes that modify the meaning and function of a word | Flexible word order, but VSO is most common; SVO is also possible; subject and object are marked by case endings (-u for nominative, -a for accusative, -i for genitive); verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different moods and aspects | | Akkadian | 22 consonants and 3 vowels; some consonants are glottalized or palatalized; vowels are not marked | Similar system, but with different roots and patterns; some roots have more than three consonants; some patterns have infixes or reduplication | Fixed word order of SVO; subject and object are not marked by case endings, but by prepositions or word order; verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different tenses and aspects | | Aramaic | 22 consonants and 3 vowels (later variants have more); no emphatic or pharyngealized consonants (except in some dialects); vowels are not marked (except in later variants such as Syriac) | Simple system of word formation based on prefixes and suffixes; some roots or patterns exist, but are less productive than in Arabic or Akkadian | "Semitic" is just mumbled Arabic, really. Imagine English with a third of its letters removed and simplified grammar. That's Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. For example, combine T and D into just T; there's no need to have 2 letters. The same goes for k, q, c - they should all be c from now on, etc., etc. Arabic is the only corollary to proto-Semitic. In fact, the whole classification of Semitic languages is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning brain. Hebrew, Aramaic, and the rest of these made-up dialect continua only have 22 letters out of the 29 proto-Semitic letters. Arabic has all 29. The difference between Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as the difference between Latin and pig Latin or Italian. "Phoenician" is an Arabic dialect continuum, and not only that, it is pidgin. It is simplified to the point of stupidity. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Arabic would see this clearly. What happened was that Arabic handicapped "scholars" saw the equivalent of Scottish Twitter spelling, with added mumbling due to phonemic mergers (22 letters, not 29), and mistakenly thought they were seeing a different language." Let's start with a simple sentence: ## The house is big Arabic: البيتُ كبيرٌ al-bayt-u kabīr-un Proto-Semitic: *ʔal-bayt-u kabīr-u Hebrew: הבית גדול ha-bayit gadol Akkadian: bītum rabûm Amharic: ቤቱ ገደሉ betu gedelu As can be seen, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (noun-adjective), the same definite article (al-), and the same case endings (-u for nominative). Hebrew and Akkadian have lost the case endings and changed the definite article (ha- and -um respectively). Amharic has changed the word order (adjective-noun) and the definite article (u-). But Arabic is not only similar to Proto-Semitic, it is also pre-Semitic, meaning that it is the original form of Semitic before it split into different branches. This is because Arabic preserves many features that are not found in any other Semitic language, but are found in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. These features include: - The definite article al-, which is derived from the demonstrative pronoun *ʔal- 'that'. This article is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the article n- in Berber and the article p-, t-, n- in Egyptian. - The dual number for nouns and verbs, which is marked by the suffix -ān or -ayn. This number is rare in other Semitic languages, but it is common in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. - The imperfective prefix t- for verbs, which indicates the second person singular feminine or third person plural feminine. This prefix is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the prefix t- in Berber and Egyptian. - The passive voice for verbs, which is marked by the infix t between the first and second root consonants. This voice is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the passive voice in Egyptian and Berber. Finally, a more complex sentence: The letter was written with a pen. Arabic: كُتِبَتِ الرِّسَالَةُ بِالقَلَمِ kutiba-t al-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Proto-Semitic: *kutiba-t ʔal-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Hebrew: המכתב נכתב בעט ha-michtav niktav ba-et Akkadian: šipram šapāru bēlum Egyptian: sḏm.n.f p-ẖry m rnp.t Berber: tturra-t tibratin s uccen Here, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (verb-subject-object), the same passive voice marker (-t-), the same definite article (al-), and the same preposition (bi-). Hebrew has changed the word order (subject-verb-object), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (ha-) and the preposition (ba-). Akkadian has changed the word order (object-subject-verb), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (-um) and the preposition (bēlum). Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing? Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

@mznxbcv12345 3 ай бұрын

Textual criticism in christianity began when the bible was first translated into european vernavular in the 16th century (was translated into Arabic in the 19th century), it reached a professional level around the 19-20th century and is still ongoing today, In Islam however it started in the first century. Unlike the Quran, the hadith are transmitted oral accounts which were written 2-3 centuries after they happened and even in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim there are several narrations of the same hadith due to some people paraphrasing and others forgetting part of it. Most of the hadith are without context, this is not to take from the value of hadith as in practice it was the first serious endeavor of having authentication of the historical record. The hadith are transmitted by way of chains of narration, x heard from y who heard from z that .... took place, a study of who x, who y, and who z were and whether what they are saying is true by checking what others had said about them and whether they had indeed met those who they are purported to have taken the accounts from began and so the first "peer review" mechanism took place, all before the internet in the 2nd and 3rd centuries fo the hijra, which unlike the christian calendar has been continously kept, the current gregorian calendar for example was first instanced int he year 535 CE by Dionysius Exiguus, the 25th of December in addition for example being the pagan holdiay of the roman deirty 'Sol Invictus' is clearly shown in the "Chronograph of 354", the earliest christian calendar predating the current one, but I digress, the writing down of hadith was forbidden by the prophet himself for the aforementioned issue (people forgetting, paraphrasing, taking words out of context) only the Quran was ordered to have been written and linguistically they are too far apart, it is clear that the Matn of the hadith, the substance or the wording was altered as the language used seems to be more modern in many instances (Arabic had not changed in any significant way since the Abbassids, 1200 years ago sound as "modern" as things written in the last 50 years. Arabic is the oldest continuously spoken language in the world, the only possible corollary, chinese, has script which has no relation to the actual language hence why Japanese and old vietnamese use it, event the script itself was only codified in the 1700s in the kangxi emperor's dictionary. A miracle in plainsight blinded by familiarity). Hadith for example has several levels of correctness, from Hasan which means "well" to rejected as pertains to the Matn or the substance of the hadith itself, the "isnad" of the Hadith or the chains of transmission / citation also have varying levels from Marfu' meaning quoted without having actually met any of the people in the transmission chain or a second hand account or Mudalas meaning plagarised from another transmitter of hadith without citing and Marfud meaning outright rejected for various reasons, There is another layer of complexity here called ilm-aa-rijal, the study of the bibilogrophy of those in the chains of transmission themselves and their soundness whether objectively by crosschecking where they lived and whome they met or subjectively by seeing what their peers said about them regarding their character. Those unaware of the aforementioned would not only have not been allowed to cite hadith it would have been a criminal offense and there are hadith which clearly contradict one another and one ought not be citing hadith without knowing all other hadith from the colossal hadith collections that were written, even the earliest hadith collection, Musannaf Abdel Razaq Al-Sanani ( 137-211H / 744- 827 CE) and Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah ( 159H-235H / 775-849 CE). for instance had over 53,000 hadith with their chains of transmissions included has yet to be translated into English . Yes, Bukhari and Muslim are taken the most correct as they had the most narrow criterion, but an enormous study is required before citing either one of them. Later scholars such an Al-Darqutni show that there were mistakes made. I say later here though he is still over a millennium old this seriousness of scholarship was the first endeavor of its kind in human history, what became today known as university degrees started with the institutions giving "ijaza" or certificate t transmit hadith and talk about it , indeed they are the origins of the University system we know today. There are texts from the 800's CE debating whether, if one for example were to take a log of wood that was not theirs, make a column out of it and have it as a foundation of a house, later the original owner of the column comes back and demands the log to be retrieved into his custody and refuse monetary compensation ought the judge comply, tear down the structure and give him the log or ought he enforce a monetary compensation. this was 1200 years. Property rights were taken that seriously, you could not simply handwave it and enforce a monetary compensation as that property in question was not attained by proper channels, hence it' s ownership and how much ought be the compensation for it is judicated by its owner and no one else has the right to, not the governor or even the caliph. Stephen Langton, the writer of the Magna Carta (12th century, contemporary with the crusades for a reason) studied in the university of Paris which archives show had plenty of Arabic treatises in its procession, there can be no question about it being inspired by the "Sharia". This scientific method of studying hadith and jurisprudence was developed and already in practice in the 2nd and third centuries of the hijra (around 800 CE) back when most of europe did not have a written script for their vernacular, enormous encyclopedia such as the 40 volume history of Al-Tabari which, averages 400 pages per volume (and is only one of his works) were written, the only corollary of which in the west would have been the "decline and Fall of The Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons in the 1700s, considered a watershed, a monument of its time, with a span that would have hardly constituted a volume and a half of Al-Tabari's encyclopedia and written a millennium later. Jabir Ibn Hayyan (101-199 H / 721-815 CE) the father of chemistry whose theories (distillation, measurement system, oxidaton, nature of substances, etc) remained dominant until the 18th century. and who was the first to elucidate the scientific method said: "The first thing that is required for anyone who seeks the knowledge of chemistry is that he should work with his hands and experiment, for he who does not work with his hands and does not experiment will not attain any degree of knowledge." Ibn al-Haytham (4th century of Hijra), referred to as "the Physicist" in Europe is famous for the first comprehensive scientific book on optics, before his study of optics and perspective paintings were entirely 2 dimensional, a leap after his treatises and works were translated is visible in how paintings became three dimensional, He discovered integral calculus (physicist, mathematician and astronomer who discovered calculus, Newton often references Arabic in his writings for a reason), is even still argued with today the work "The Enigma of Reason" primarily deals with his arguments. regarding the scientific method he said "The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and... attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency." Over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before.. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from the Qur'an. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger. What started this cognitive revolution, what started this sharp contrast between before Islam and after it, what started the real Enlightenment of humanity? God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

@MikeHowardElectrivire 2 ай бұрын

So proud of you man. Been watching this channel for years and now you're talking to Richard Dawkins himself. Congrats!

@briansmith3791 2 ай бұрын

Outside of Biology, Dawkins is a fool. He has lived in a bubble all his life and has no idea of the real world. He praised the warmonger John McCain as a "good man", has "no sympathy" for Julian Assange and supports Israel even as it carries out a genocide. I doubt very much much if Alex shares Dawkins' views on these things.

@briansmith3791 2 ай бұрын

Alex is twice the man Dawkins is.

@JH-ji6cj 2 ай бұрын

@briansmith3791 you really put the fanatic into fan right there.

@briansmith3791 2 ай бұрын

@@JH-ji6cj it’s not that I’m a big fan of Alex, although I believe he’s concerned with truth. It’s that I’m not a fan of Dawkins ; he’s a good scientist but lives in a bubble and has little idea of the real world.

@JH-ji6cj 2 ай бұрын

@@briansmith3791 well, as a 'fan' of Alex myself, calling Alex twice the man of Dawkins because you have a dislike of Dawkins' personality is quite the definition of extreme hyperbole.

@aaronjclarke1973 17 күн бұрын

Fascinating conversation. Thanks for uploading. ❤❤❤

@evadeflow 2 ай бұрын

This is _so_ good, such a wonderful discussion-thank you!!

@griffoncs6431 3 ай бұрын

I left the Mormon church after believing it for 32 years, and I think I'm less afraid of death now than I was as a Mormon. The Mormon church is obsessed with death, and they live their lives planning for it and making sure they're good enough to live with not only God, but their loved ones as well. It's an incredible amount of stress to carry around for your entire life. Leaving the church has made me realize that even though life is still hard, I can just enjoy living, and learning, and spending time with family while I'm alive. A Mormon believes that they will go on to have even more children and create worlds and educate people who didn't believe in God while they were alive, or spend eternity regretting every choice they ever made on earth... But now as an atheist I just think of my eventual death as a well deserved rest.

@RathwulvenBushcraft 3 ай бұрын

Hey brother/sister (unsure....) - I am happy that you, too, have finally achieved true and genuine freedom. I mean it when I say that I want to congratulate you: You not only liberated yourself from the shackles of abusive, religious people in power who control the minds of people they brainwash from early age - you also acquired the freedom of thought, opinion and living your life. So happy for you, mate. Welcome to the enlightenment! I wish you nothing but happiness!

@RathwulvenBushcraft 3 ай бұрын

@@kiddytube3915 How about you take your delusion back into your own four walls where you can play with it as much as you want and leave this person alone with your dogmatic threats and intimidations? Thanks.

@rumpelstilzchen4369 3 ай бұрын

Hi, I just want to send you some greetings. You are not alone. It took me 34 years to exit the same church lol. Those years are not entirely wasted. At least noone can bedazzle me with silly words from a religious text now. And I am quite happy with the decisions I made in the past; some of them were quite healthy. I wish you all the best and I am happy to have read your words!👍👍

@sadderwhiskeymann 3 ай бұрын

@@kiddytube3915 -proof? -trust me bro 😂

@dthomas9230 3 ай бұрын

@@RathwulvenBushcraftIt gets better all the time for those that are now allowed to think for themselves. Mark Twain's "Letters From the Earth" is great. Satan writes back to heaven about this thing earth that was made from him and the other angels. Then, "Oxford Dictionary of The Bible". Abortion is supported in the bible. The punishments were often sacrifice a ram, for sin, and others that sound like a sin,but a different category. Twain quoted the bible in conversation with a preacher who said he wants to emulate God. "So you want to push grandma down the stairs" or some paraphrased action of God, who is a sonuva bitch through the whole thing. BTW, Noah's tale was lifted from the Sumerians 5000 years earlier.

@mariofierro9994 3 ай бұрын

I am a christian, I chose to watch this immediately after your discussion from nine months prior with william lane craig. Admittedly I had reservations against clicking on this video, I am so happy now that I did. You did such an honest interview with william lane craig, asking the most prodding questions against the christian world view but far more respectfully than anyone else I have ever seen, and then did exactly the same toward proffesor dawkins. You have presented the christian arguments in the most honest manner I have ever seen someone who was not themself a christian and this is also the most respectfully I have ever seen professor dawkins respond. Thank you both ever so much for this delightful interview.

@theharshtruthoutthere 3 ай бұрын

We live in a BIBLICAL world, where masons rule and where BAAL - lucifer, the master of masonry is worshipped and praised to this day and CHRIST is rejected by many. GOD give us different languages, just to stop us from finishing the building of the tower of BABEL. If the tower of BABEL was never build, the language of man would have stayed the same. /whatever was the language in which mankind speak in those days). GOD give us languages of different kind, not religions. Man made up religions. Religions are our own fantasies and imaginations. Therefore, souls, lets seek CHRIST, not religions. No verse given in bible, which calls us to become “religious”. Bible has verses which say: REPENT AND BORN AGAIN! Matthew 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

@TheJimbo1791 3 ай бұрын

@@theharshtruthoutthere Breathe.

@wokeLina 3 ай бұрын

Thanks for showing how these conversations do more to comfort fascists than challenge them. Alex isn't changing minds, he's just platforming a washed up bigot.

@mofopeolaleye8187 3 ай бұрын

@@theharshtruthoutthere Hella brainwashed, fam. Wtf is a mason even? 💀

@MegaPeedee 3 ай бұрын

I would say "politely respond', rather than 'respectfully'. There is no good reason to respect something that has been so harmful historically, and the harm Christianity does today. I am a victim of Christianity, destroying my happiness, both physically and mentally.

@GoogleIsTooInvasive 2 ай бұрын

Alex, your calm and kind demeanor is exemplary - I will try to emulate you when I find myself in a similar situation

@stephenbouchelle7706 2 ай бұрын

An excellent conversation. Most of the proponent-of-atheism videos on YT are snippets and one-liners. Alex and Richard are really exploring the ideas. Thank you.

@supersaiyanzero386 12 күн бұрын

You definitely werent around in 2007-2012 then lol

@fangley4128 3 ай бұрын

I'm a member of the Oxford Union and attend debates every week (was lucky enough to meet Alex last term), and I have to agree that debates there are much more performative than truth seeking exercises. They make enjoyable theatre, but the live audience don't generally care for new opinions or points of view. I also agree with Dawkins on points of information - they are exclusively used for members to interject their own view into a debate which does further add to the performance and detract from the truth seeking.

@josmith9662 3 ай бұрын

Once did a Chineses sanctioned tour of a Tibetan monestry and got the monk debate show. Lots of self body slapping. Send a team over, I dont think language or content mean much anyway

@platcrab4890 3 ай бұрын

I actually disagree with this. I used to think that debated were a waste of time because it's just an argument but conversations like these are only really constructive when you are relatively in the same sphere of thinking and already understand each other. Proper debates with candidates who understand the best arguments for their side and are also seasoned at debating then you can get a pretty good idea of the thought processes behind different points of view and whoever is more convincing tends to be pretty obviously correct logically. This idea that the convincing power of an argument only comes from the theatre of the presentation is rarely true in my experience listening to debates, at least ones that are done correctly and moderated well, etc.

@d.Cog420 3 ай бұрын

Doesn't the theatre of it speak volumes to 'the truth'? Assuming there is an actual attempt at the thing not just a display of feathers and babbling ego.

@mznxbcv12345 3 ай бұрын

He's right about the modifiable testament, but not the final one The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

@mznxbcv12345 3 ай бұрын

Languages degrade, they do not "evolve". It is a tool for thinking, not communication, it is what separates other lifeforms from humans. The mere fact that translation is even possible underlies a common origin for all languages, orca whales separated from their birth pod are unable to communicate with other whales if they get adopted, they are only able to track the others visually. Classical Arabic has largest phonemic inventories among semitic languages. It has 28 consonants (29 with Hamza) and 6 vowels (3 short and 3 long). Some of these sounds are rare or absent in other semitic languages. For example, - Classical Arabic has two pharyngeal consonants /ʕ/ (ع) and /ħ/ (ح). These sounds are found only in some semitic languages (Hebrew and Amharic), but not in others (Akkadian and Aramaic). - Classical Arabic has two emphatic consonants /sˤ/ (ص) and /dˤ/ (ض) These sounds are found only in some semitic languages (Hebrew and Amharic), but not in others (Akkadian and Aramaic). - Classical Arabic has two glottal consonants /ʔ/ (ء) and /h/ (ه), which are produced by opening and closing the glottis ). Akkadian has lost the glottal stop /ʔ/, while Aramaic has lost both the glottal stop and the glottal fricative /h/. - Classical Arabic has six vowel phonemes /a/, /i/, /u/, /æ /, /e/, /o/, which can be short or long. Akkadian has only three vowel phonemes /a/, /i/, /u/, which can be short or long, while Aramaic has only two vowel phonemes /a/ and /i/, which can be short or long. |Classical Arabic | 28 consonants, 29 with Hamza and 6 vowels; some consonants are emphatic or pharyngealized; some vowels are marked with diacritics | Complex system of word formation based on roots and patterns; roots are sequences of consonants that carry the basic meaning of a word; patterns are sequences of vowels and affixes that modify the meaning and function of a word | Flexible word order, but VSO is most common; SVO is also possible; subject and object are marked by case endings (-u for nominative, -a for accusative, -i for genitive); verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different moods and aspects | | Akkadian | 22 consonants and 3 vowels; some consonants are glottalized or palatalized; vowels are not marked | Similar system, but with different roots and patterns; some roots have more than three consonants; some patterns have infixes or reduplication | Fixed word order of SVO; subject and object are not marked by case endings, but by prepositions or word order; verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different tenses and aspects | | Aramaic | 22 consonants and 3 vowels (later variants have more); no emphatic or pharyngealized consonants (except in some dialects); vowels are not marked (except in later variants such as Syriac) | Simple system of word formation based on prefixes and suffixes; some roots or patterns exist, but are less productive than in Arabic or Akkadian | "Semitic" is just mumbled Arabic, really. Imagine English with a third of its letters removed and simplified grammar. That's Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. For example, combine T and D into just T; there's no need to have 2 letters. The same goes for k, q, c - they should all be c from now on, etc., etc. Arabic is the only corollary to proto-Semitic. In fact, the whole classification of Semitic languages is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning brain. Hebrew, Aramaic, and the rest of these made-up dialect continua only have 22 letters out of the 29 proto-Semitic letters. Arabic has all 29. The difference between Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as the difference between Latin and pig Latin or Italian. "Phoenician" is an Arabic dialect continuum, and not only that, it is pidgin. It is simplified to the point of stupidity. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Arabic would see this clearly. What happened was that Arabic handicapped "scholars" saw the equivalent of Scottish Twitter spelling, with added mumbling due to phonemic mergers (22 letters, not 29), and mistakenly thought they were seeing a different language." Let's start with a simple sentence: ## The house is big Arabic: البيتُ كبيرٌ al-bayt-u kabīr-un Proto-Semitic: *ʔal-bayt-u kabīr-u Hebrew: הבית גדול ha-bayit gadol Akkadian: bītum rabûm Amharic: ቤቱ ገደሉ betu gedelu As can be seen, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (noun-adjective), the same definite article (al-), and the same case endings (-u for nominative). Hebrew and Akkadian have lost the case endings and changed the definite article (ha- and -um respectively). Amharic has changed the word order (adjective-noun) and the definite article (u-). But Arabic is not only similar to Proto-Semitic, it is also pre-Semitic, meaning that it is the original form of Semitic before it split into different branches. This is because Arabic preserves many features that are not found in any other Semitic language, but are found in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. These features include: - The definite article al-, which is derived from the demonstrative pronoun *ʔal- 'that'. This article is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the article n- in Berber and the article p-, t-, n- in Egyptian. - The dual number for nouns and verbs, which is marked by the suffix -ān or -ayn. This number is rare in other Semitic languages, but it is common in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. - The imperfective prefix t- for verbs, which indicates the second person singular feminine or third person plural feminine. This prefix is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the prefix t- in Berber and Egyptian. - The passive voice for verbs, which is marked by the infix t between the first and second root consonants. This voice is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the passive voice in Egyptian and Berber. Finally, a more complex sentence: The letter was written with a pen. Arabic: كُتِبَتِ الرِّسَالَةُ بِالقَلَمِ kutiba-t al-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Proto-Semitic: *kutiba-t ʔal-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Hebrew: המכתב נכתב בעט ha-michtav niktav ba-et Akkadian: šipram šapāru bēlum Egyptian: sḏm.n.f p-ẖry m rnp.t Berber: tturra-t tibratin s uccen Here, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (verb-subject-object), the same passive voice marker (-t-), the same definite article (al-), and the same preposition (bi-). Hebrew has changed the word order (subject-verb-object), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (ha-) and the preposition (ba-). Akkadian has changed the word order (object-subject-verb), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (-um) and the preposition (bēlum). Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing? Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

@bigzed7908 3 ай бұрын

I am do happy to see Alex getting to this point in his life. It's been wonderful folowing his journey throughout the years. Congrats Alex! I am a few years younger than you, but God damn (😉) you are one hell of an inspiration.

@NiklasMX 2 күн бұрын

Thank you. Great conversation.

@I.Wallivs 2 ай бұрын

It's fantastic that despite the generational gap such a topic for inquiry and discussion can be conducted in such a comfortable and affable manner, immense respect for what perceive top be somewhat of a living hero of Alex' and Dawkins enjoying the company and poking fun (respectfully) at someone he deems to be refreshing and pleasant to hold such discourse with. Could easily be a few pints in a boozer scenario. Alex has a great register throughout his videos to probe, coax and nurture conversations to avenues befitting of the subject matter.

@hutagishi 3 ай бұрын

Christian here. I just wanted to say that I loved watching you guys and hearing your perspectives. Alex, you have a grace about you that is appreciated in these types of heavy discussions. I hope you never lose that.

@rodneyharrington5049 3 ай бұрын

Did you listen to anything either one of them said, or just look at their mannerisms?

@hutagishi 3 ай бұрын

@@rodneyharrington5049 I did indeed watch the whole thing. I don't take offence since I find them educational.

@StaceyMcDonald 3 ай бұрын

I completely agree! I’m a Christian as well and enjoy listening to these conversations! I don’t agree with Alex’s conclusions (or Dawkins’) but respect his lines of questioning greatly. And agree that Alex has a certain grace about him in his discussions with others. It deepens my own faith to think through these same questions and I appreciate anyone who delves deeply into these ideas.

@PjotrII 3 ай бұрын

Same here from another Christian.,.. I have respect towards Alex!

@shuvision576 2 ай бұрын

How can you be a Christian and listen to these discussions and not feel like a complete idiotic fool. No offence intended maybe a bit harsh but It just doesn't really make sense to me how you could listen to pure logic and sense explaining away your beliefs and then go away and still be a theist?

@legogoku7425 3 ай бұрын

Excellent conversation Alex. Good questions, interesting answers!

@93MrFerre 2 ай бұрын

So refreshing to have someone like Alex interviewing him. We really get into the details and specifics here. I love how fast paced this is.

@PAWiley 2 ай бұрын

I agree. I'm hearing thoughts and perspectives about science, origins, design and direction and aspects from a vantage that is entirely new for my brain, and I've listened to scores upon scores of hours of Dawkins and a handful of contemporaries. Not sure I'm really getting anywhere new... yet. Nonetheless, it is refreshing and compelling enough to impress me beyond my normal levels of appreciation, though the normal levels indeed rest at a height.

@markp3722 2 ай бұрын

Yeah, always good to hear a nasty bigot interviewed. Dawkins doesn't deserve to be platformed.

@stevenj9970 Ай бұрын

Keep living a long healthy life, Mr. Dawkins...your voice is SO needed

@helencheung2537 Ай бұрын

Why?

@stevenj9970 Ай бұрын

@@helencheung2537Why are you SO dense?

@andybannister8543 3 ай бұрын

A really excellent and thoughtful conversation; Alex is growing into an ever more natural and confident interviewer. Well done on asking challenging questions and pushing back - but doing it in a winsome way. Really found this a fascinating dialogue.

@newtonbelieved 3 ай бұрын

Dawkins lost all his credibility with a billion people when he tried to take on astrology. He should have chosen his battles more carefully. If you check the word 'God' on Google trends, you will see that the search has INCREASED since 2004. In other words, Dawkins has not made any effect on the world, neither Harris or the other two horsemen, Hitchens, and all the kings men. All failed in their attempt to destroy religion. They should rather focus on getting religions to tolerate each other. Naive Aries lost the plot 30 years ago.

@qwertydog9795 3 ай бұрын

inventor of the word "meme" decades before its common usage. legend

@ihatespam2 3 ай бұрын

One of the lesser achievements.

@Nikkska 3 ай бұрын

Really? Wow, I had no idea!

@JacarandaMusic 3 ай бұрын

In 1976, The Selfish Gene.

@zaibian7 3 ай бұрын

Woke is a meme, and being atheist makes Richard Dawkins firmly part of the woke mob the right hate so much. I think he may be getting older and grumpier and possibly a little senile. It happens to us all eventually.

@JDT101 3 ай бұрын

The fact he invented would by definition mean he used it before it became common. 'Invented the wheel before people had cars - bravo!'

@annimalasenko7326 Ай бұрын

That was a great show🎉 it was informing and really funny here and there XD

@dirtysprite_ 2 ай бұрын

I really love seeing how much Richard respects Alex, it’s so warming.

@ohdehhan 3 ай бұрын

Love listening to both of these guys. Great conversation😊

@KytexEdits 3 ай бұрын

I cannot explain how pleasant it is to listen to two people discussing a topic both while speaking in a super relaxed tone. Mostly cause you respect each other and don't argue loudly, but also you both seem to just have very relaxed styles of speaking.

@DrDeuteron 3 ай бұрын

yes, it's called "Being normal". We're just conditioned by unhinged liberals ranting on TV, devices, the presidential podium, and the NYTs Op/Ed page to expect the worst.

@ilanguest3885 2 ай бұрын

A legend, and a legend loading. Thoroughly enjoyed this conversation

@Rat-King27 2 ай бұрын

Is there anywhere to watch this debate they mentioned? The Oxford union one.

@shmick6079 3 ай бұрын

Interviewing Dawkins would certainly be an intimidating task for someone so much younger and less experienced, but you’ve handled it well and also kept him engaged. A great conversation, well done.

@dantheman4838 3 ай бұрын

The adoration for Dawkins is baffling to me. I know he speaks in a calm and well spoken English accent but people grossly over state his intellectual level. His arguments against religion are so juvenile and bad faith that it seems like he stole them from an angry teenage atheist in an RE class. That’s why Dawkins has been stumped by almost every intelligent religious person he ever debated.

@shmick6079 3 ай бұрын

@@dantheman4838 stumped by ridiculousness perhaps.

@dantheman4838 3 ай бұрын

@@shmick6079 Stumped by logical arguments for believing in a creator. I only recently watched a debate between Dawkins and a scientist named John Lennox, who happens to be religious. I was genuinely shocked by how incapable Dawkins was at logically defending his world views against a scientist more intelligent than himself. I almost felt sorry for Dick.

@shmick6079 3 ай бұрын

@@dantheman4838 that was laughable. There is no argument against nonsense.

@MrSaemichlaus 3 ай бұрын

This was a deeply engaging, yet very easy conversation to listen to. Nobody trying to win the argument for winning's sake, just an honest attempt to find a common ground.

@joseph-jg2ie 3 ай бұрын

John Lennox destroyed any valid claims made by Dawkins years ago, Its foolishness at this point. Even Ayaan had enough.

@theseustoo 3 ай бұрын

@@joseph-jg2ie Rubbish! Dawkins soundly defeated Lennox in a live debate... and then Lennox went away, and, like the chess-playing pigeon, created a straw-man to 'prove' that Dawkins was actually a secret believer and claimed 'victory'! Lennox is not only wrong, but dishonest!

@GladysAlicea 3 ай бұрын

If only all politicians and "diplomats," who've seem to have lost the artful form of civil discourse and different ideas, to come to a beneficial negotiating stance, then humanity would be that much better and lead to improved social contracts and lives. The direction we're headed in now is the way of WEF, and that can only lead to disaster.

@mikejacobs7464 3 ай бұрын

They’re both atheists!! Of course there won’t be any pushback from opposing points of view!

@Powerhaus88 3 ай бұрын

@@rapidrhinos2254 Leave it up to creationist stooges to make up strawman fallacies like a common leftie feminist.

@markhumke9349 2 ай бұрын

Nice show. Thank you !

@somebody7070 2 ай бұрын

I was born and lived in a eastern European country so I was bread in Orthodox Christianity and I deeply believed in God but around 13-15 I realized God is fictional and felt a huge relief. Living with Christian belief made me miserable, I was afraid of most things, afraid of having a "ungodly" thought , afraid of death and of living in sin. There's so much happiness in a life without any kind of God.

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Ай бұрын

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

@somebody7070 Ай бұрын

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 yeah you're not gonna change my mind bro, I'd didn't even read it so move on

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Ай бұрын

@@somebody7070 Ok this is coming from a good place God through the Holy Spirit has shown me several things relating to the afterlife with the purpose of convincing people like yourself. Stuff like Heaven and Hell, Angels, and evil Spirits the Lord Jesus (not worthy at all), a miracle happened to me that saved my life (thank you God) & so much more. I am more than happy to give further details.

@galaxychar 28 күн бұрын

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Your personal belief in a miracle occuring in your life is not convincing for anyone else and is also not justification for this particular religion having any evidence or truth to it, when you think of the world’s existence outside of yourself. I don’t know what you think you will achieve by attempting to convert atheists in youtube comment sections with anecdotes.

@somebody7070 27 күн бұрын

@@galaxychar THANK YOU !!!! SOMEBODY SAID IT 👏👏👏👏

@Lysande0815 3 ай бұрын

Wonderful discussion, it is clear to see you both respect each other and enjoy the discourse. It is such a pleasure to listen to and gives much food for thought. Among many such thoughts one came to mind, that when you look at Richard's eyes you seee his sort of grandfatherly or village elder grace and kindness emanating through his smiles and earnestness alike, even while he's stating something is appalling (and therefore probably making many people angry), it comes from a place of an honest almost innocent heart and mind, rather than a righteous or like he himself denounced behaviors of "condescening" attitude. The man is a living legend and I am so glad you had this chat with him to remind us that open discussions for the sake of truth seeking are possible.

@craigfowler7098 3 ай бұрын

Great to see a fascinating and intelligent discussion on KZbin

@giocatore_83 Ай бұрын

Proverbs 14:1

@maya-dd7qo 2 ай бұрын

fantastic video i’m so glad you’ve reached this point to be able to have a discussion with richard dawkins !!! alex, i’d love to hear you delve into the motivations for a lot of christians, which isn’t the literal content words of the ‘biblio corpus’ but the ‘true’ religion (as my christian mum says) which is not what man has made it to be-war, prejudice, slavery etc,- but essentially using God as a guide for living as kindly as you can. surely if this is someone’s perspective, we can encourage some connection to a mythical God.

@dennisearle 2 ай бұрын

Great to see Mr Dawkins looking so well. I'm glad that he mentions the fact that we still cannot explain the orgin of the self-replicating molecule. That was the main question that I was left with after I finished reading the Selfish Gene. I wonder if Artificial Intelligence will speed up the quest for an answer to the origin of that first self-replicating molecule?

@dulls8475 10 күн бұрын

The logical answer is God. The fact that you are waiting for another mind to solve it shows the very basic truth of God.

@dennisearle 10 күн бұрын

@@dulls8475 well. When u can prove the existence of this God, let me know.

@TejanoTigre 3 ай бұрын

I don't know if it's something about his complexion or his general demeanor, but Dawkins looks better here than he did a few years ago. You really get the best out of him. Fantastic interview with two of the greatest minds of their respective generations.

@joshmastiff1128 3 ай бұрын

@cameroncameron2826atheism perpetuated thought crimes? I think you are a bit too deep in mud

@richyrich6099 3 ай бұрын

@cameroncameron2826What are you on about? Lol

@Rpagsis1 3 ай бұрын

Greatest minds? Lol...Dawkins has been dismissed time and time again....

@TejanoTigre 3 ай бұрын

@@Rpagsis1 By whom? Theologians?

@hubmibcarlson961 3 ай бұрын

@@TejanoTigre Philosophers who actually know their thing. Even atheists will cringe if you rely on his book "The God Delusion" to justify atheism of condemnation of religion. He got into a field he had little to no mastery of

@loriw2661 3 ай бұрын

Great questions Alex!

@TheBestOfSweden 2 ай бұрын

It’s great to see that he’s still active!

@craighart9278 26 күн бұрын

Great discussion. Thanks.

@ATOJAR 3 ай бұрын

Richard Dawkins is a national treasure and deserves a Knighthood.

@DB-qw6xq 3 ай бұрын

What for? Most of what he says is bullshit!

@jorgecosta3631 3 ай бұрын

Porquê?

@RumHam5570 3 ай бұрын

Imaginary title given by a monarchy that shouldn’t exist.

@artstrology 3 ай бұрын

an award from a king who heads a church,...how curious,.. @@RumHam5570

@RR-sp3ey 3 ай бұрын

The monarchy believe they were chosen by God. Richard doesn't need it.

@dark1021 3 ай бұрын

Saw you via Dawkins a little bit ago. Have to admit you are very intelligent and respectful when having conversations and debates. Very respectable!

@diniedebrouwer9883 2 ай бұрын

Thank you Alex for your most refreshing and easy to understand interview with Richard Dawkins. My favourite scientist

@Ark_bleu 2 ай бұрын

1:03:19 The smug irony in Alex’s “ Well that’s true. “- I felt that.

@stonepaintertim 3 ай бұрын

was great to hear this discussion, during these times of sorting through so many perspectives

@arttusiukonen9790 3 ай бұрын

Alex is an amazing interviewer and it shows especially when he is given an equally bright guest. Very enjoyable listen. Not sure I have listened to a more high-level, vigorous or tough conversation on the utility of religion ever before.

@Jay-ft3xh 3 ай бұрын

You have no clue who or what Dawkins has done.

@RD-kz4wr 3 ай бұрын

It's two atheists in an echo chamber. Silly responses. Truth was already debated with alex and his response was "I don't agree".

@roems6396 3 ай бұрын

@@RD-kz4wr If you’re claiming that Christianity is “truth” then you have no clue what you’re talking about.

@Calactic 2 ай бұрын

I could not agree more with Dawkins perspective on Peterson's approach to discussing religion. Jordan has a tendency to articulate a plethora of nonsensical ideas seemingly to convey a sense of integrity and veracity.

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Ай бұрын

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

@Calactic Ай бұрын

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Then why does the bloke need you to go around on KZbin comments preaching him. Lol stop embarrassing your religion.

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Ай бұрын

@@Calactic Maybe God loves you so much He doesn't want you to be separated from Him forever so He sends people like myself to reach people like yourself who otherwise wouldn't be reached, choose Heaben not Hell by choosing Jesus today come back

@Calactic Ай бұрын

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Uh but I was "reached" a litany of times. I was indoctrinated into your religion as a child. Every time you zealots come to me preaching your fiction it only lessens the incentive for me to revert. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I came to you promising eternal bliss if you only believe in Harry Potter and eternal damnation if you don't just because it gives me some personal respite. Be better.

@luispinheirodosmontes7219 27 күн бұрын

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363If god exists, I wonder what he thinks about you going around on KZbin talking for him, as some kind of PR assistant. 🤦‍♂️

@jankriz9199 2 ай бұрын

You two gentlemen are a delight to listen to.

@41linestreet 3 ай бұрын

In a meta way, this interview is still happening. Wonderful episode, loved every minute!

@griefwnl7641 3 ай бұрын

haha, jp is a funny guy

@milesprowr 3 ай бұрын

It's still vigent after millennia for a good reason: - Don't eat animal grease (cholesterol) Leviticus 7:23 - Don't eat scale-less fish (mercury) Deuteronomy 14:10 - Don't marry close relatives (genetic issues) Leviticus 18:6 - Don't eat pork (trichinosis disease) Leviticus 11:7 . Don't eat vermin (rabies, plague, etc) Isaiah 66:17 - Stay away from the dead (contagion) Numbers 19:11 - Wash with running water (pollution) Leviticus 15:13 - Bury human waste (cholera) Deuteronomy 23:13 - Avoid seminal emissions (STD's) Leviticus 15:16 They didn't know why they ought to obey these things and they didn't have the technology to come up with them, they just were told to avoid them, despite that other cultures did and enjoyed such things because they made more sense to them than invisible issues, which caused them to think that they were a weird and probably superstitious people. And the experience they had when they were told to obey these things was so powerful, that they did not only obey them, but they also taught their descendants to obey them too for millennia, until relatively recently it was known why. For other comandments given to them, things like quantum physics still remain a mistery, however the predicted things coming to be all at once today just corroborate more. He who commanded these things to them definitely knew more, before and better than anyone else. And the ones that thought themselves to be wiser paid the price, it was their choice.

@MrSaemichlaus 3 ай бұрын

For the short remainder of my conscious day, the archetypes portrayed in this interview will constitute the metaphysical substrate of my ethos.

@ericreed4535 3 ай бұрын

@@milesprowrweak 🥱. It's just being observant and seeing patterns. Results based learning. Horrible reasoning imo.

@milesprowr 3 ай бұрын

@@ericreed4535 You're just coping, I can tell by the emote. If you were right, then a lot of people wouldn't had passed away for millennia because of ignoring these things. Like, not too long ago, when people didn't wash their hands in hospitals, before the microscope was invented; before Mendel's discoveries (a catholic friar btw), etc. So, no, can't deem any reasoning as being horrible if we don't reason at all. Proof > rhetoric.

@NZZN666 3 ай бұрын

Really good interview, wish it was longer!

@ahmederfan8983 2 ай бұрын

Thank you Mr Dawkins for all the light you have shed, even in the darkest corners of the world where you would not expect free spirits to be struggling. We all love you Sir.

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Ай бұрын

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

@user-ow5ul4mn2g 2 ай бұрын

Alex you are incredibly elegant. I very much enjoy your conversations. Can someone please refer me to an explanation of evil in the context of science?

@Papaconstantopoulos 3 ай бұрын

Solid interview Alex, congratulations :) Since you cover philosophy and thought experiments in so many videos, I'd love to see some videos more in the Dawkins wheelhouse, i.e. wrestling against modern spiritual arguments using with what we know about the natural world and evolution that debunks creation and the supernatural. Personally and for many others including Dawkins, this is the primary reason we hold our world view, and it may continue convincing people who have never been exposed to these specific examples of natural history, especially people who weren't here for the discussion taking place in the 2000's. I think new videos like these would be a great addition to your channel, and of course make for great discussions that you can explore and try to dismantle in your signature style. Love you man!

@realDonaldTrump420 3 ай бұрын

Neither of these people have studied religion. How can you even ask the question without acknowledging the astrological origins of religion. Nothing solid about these fools who don't know the history or content of religion.

@Guerry78 3 ай бұрын

As one who was here for the debates in the early 2000s, and as a Christian, I would love nothing more than to go back to the Dawkins approach! Literally the easiest objections to deal with. It’s very clear that Dawkins has never attempted to understand what the Bible is communicating on its own terms. “Evolution disproves God” is comically idiotic.

@LeatherStrapsofMomo 3 ай бұрын

@@realDonaldTrump420 Alex has a degree in philosophy and theology from St. Johns college at Oxford University.

@andradas9688 3 ай бұрын

@@realDonaldTrump420 what a pathetic comment. They don't have to have a "degree" on religion to debate about it. Get a life.

@rational.skeptic 3 ай бұрын

@@realDonaldTrump420 What do you mean by 'neither of them studied religion'? Alex has a degree in theology. Now, that makes your statement appear flawed in many ways, doesn't it? Who's the fool now? lmao

@hyp77 3 ай бұрын

A great conversation between two of my favorites. Thank you Alex.

@Mary-Mar 2 ай бұрын

Alex, would you interview Elaine Pagels? I have the feeling it would be the opposite of this conversation with the great thinker and philosopher, Richard Dawkins, but a non-traditional view on religion informed by her study of the Gnostic Gospels.

@sot11cat 2 ай бұрын

Modesty, virtue, ethos, genius, knowledge and great literacy: Dawkins!

@scrock8621 3 ай бұрын

What a conversation. Thank you Alex, thank you Richard. Thank you for trying to find answers to some of the biggest questions known to man. We may never know how life has come about or why we’re here, but who cares when the journey to improved understanding looks like this.

@ahmadjamalmughal47 3 ай бұрын

Absolutely loved it. Thank you for bringing him on Alex.

@forgetaboutit1069 3 ай бұрын

Interesting, your comment was posted within 15 minutes of an hour long talk. Do you listen 4x speed so they sound like chipmunks? But YT only allows 2x speed. Or did you just not watch it?

@WayneLynch69 3 ай бұрын

'In 75 years, avowedly genocidally atheistic Communism was responsible for 100 million deaths.' "The Black Book of Communism" (Harvard Univ. Press) 'WWI & WWII & 20th century wars combined caused the death of 158 million people.' ("Encyclopedia of Wars, Vols. I-III" )... NONE of the principals of those wars had even a tincture of religious fervor in advancing their plans; Churchill/Roosevelt/Hitler/Stalin/Tojo/Wilhelm/Clemenceau/George/Wilson.... WTF!? The Bible can't be relied upon for a tenth the deaths caused by secularism in the 20th century ALONE?!? But it certainly is guilty of licensing the smarmy, supercilious, oh so sexy self-aggrandizement of "New Atheism", and that eats sh%tt

@danielmcfarland-lawson6477 3 ай бұрын

@@forgetaboutit1069he already knew he was gonna love it, it’s Richard Dawkins!

@forgetaboutit1069 3 ай бұрын

@@danielmcfarland-lawson6477 sure but at least be honest when you fanboy regardless of what is actually said

@daelaenor 3 ай бұрын

@@forgetaboutit1069 I've checked; 4x speed isn't enough for chipmunk pitch.

@joelsommers 2 ай бұрын

Loving this conversation. Just for example, the realization of what Dawkins is intimating around the 10:00 mark makes Alex laugh with intellectual delight. He is an avatar for all of us viewers. Such a fantastic dialogue.

@samdg1234 2 ай бұрын

Your timestamps don't work.

@joelsommers 2 ай бұрын

@@samdg1234 Hey! Yes thank you, I've fixed them. :)

@samdg1234 2 ай бұрын

@@joelsommers Thanks for fixing them. *"Alex laugh with intellectual delight."* I'm not so certain. Sounds similar to me saying I bought 10 tickets to my son's school raffle, so my chances of winning are almost certain. Haven't I left out a very important variable? A variable that I'd expect a 12 or 13-year-old to be able to see with the most rudimentary of training in math. Or maybe no training - it is so obvious. I recall Dawkins did the same thing in his interview with Piers Morgan. Check out ~ 36;15 here, "Richard Dawkins vs Piers Morgan On Religion and Gender | The Full Interview" What is Dawkins leaving out and what are both Alex (here) and Piers Morgan (there) letting him get away with?

@MrPedala94 2 ай бұрын

Audio is really great. Almost annoying how perfect it is because I;m not used to the crispness

@djbrady 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for this interview. I’ve read several of Richard Dawkins’s books and seen him speak a couple of times. In 1995, when I was 19, I asked Richard Dawkins whether he thought the propensity for humans to have religious faith is an evolved trait. I don’t recall his exact answer, however, I remember feeling disappointed in a somewhat non-committal answer. Ever since then, I’ve looked out for his comments on this matter. Your interview is the very first time that I have heard Richard Dawkins agree that the propensity for religious faith appears to be a characteristic of humans that has evolved through natural selection. It’s taken nearly thirty years but you have inadvertently given me the response I was looking for. Thank you!

@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce 3 ай бұрын

Imagine having respect for a child molester like Dawkins

@robsku1 2 ай бұрын

Pretty neat :)

@djbrady 2 ай бұрын

@@quenky1Exactly, he used to fudge the answer, perhaps concerned that it appears to validate religion at some level (at least in the eyes of believers). Of course, it does the opposite, and I’m glad to see Dawkins being clear on this topic.

@michaelmullenfiddler 3 ай бұрын

Wow. That "laws of literature" thing (which i guess you were using to describe an error of thinking, perhaps a flaw in logic, or what did you call it: a categorization error) that was pretty brilliant

@avx4281 Ай бұрын

Very enriching discussion. Thank u both. Dr. Dawkins rocks.

@Hooz97 2 ай бұрын

Terrific work of highlighting the relevance of considering sin and understanding why religion is believed. Despite Dawkins seeming to wave it away, you did an incredible job of stringing the conversation together and underlining that points importance- honestly seems like a blind spot for dawkins to not admit that even an atheist could see the predisposition towards sin- or to at least engage more in that line of thinking

@alexavtrvoats2635 3 ай бұрын

The fact that Richard said is not his obligation to bring confort to the reality of death is amazing, he demonstrates he is centered and balanced. Also he embraced the idea of pleasure for the collective and not to torture ourselves with the inevitability of our finitude; trying to not be selfish or cynical despite the enigma of the after life. Living with dignity and having the certainty that science works. Cool stuff.

@briansmith3791 3 ай бұрын

Dawkins said something like your first sentence before. In 'Something for Nothing' Q&A (1hr39m), he answered a question on "the belief in God of people who are suffering, hanging on to life with their fingertips...", by saying, "Who cares what you feel like, who cares what feels good, who cares what makes you feel comforted, who cares what helps you sleep at night, what matters is what's true". Not so cool, i would think.

@rorybessell8280 3 ай бұрын

@@briansmith3791Doesn't matter if it's not cool, whether something exists is only determined by whether it's true, it's not the job of the person who argues that it isn't true to comfort those who are uncomfortable with such an idea. Feelings are personal so it is up to the person with the feelings to figure out how to find comfort with the truth. A pretty simple way is to practice awareness and to sit with the idea for an extended period of time. It will become comfortable enough evemtually

@dthomas9230 3 ай бұрын

@@briansmith3791There is no life after death. Souls are only in your head and in the minds of those who took the time to put you in their memory because you effected them. 10 commandment are BS. You only need 3 rules. 1) don't hurt anybody, 2) help whoever you can whenever you can 3) have fun

@dthomas9230 3 ай бұрын

@@rorybessell8280 God doesn't exist and never has. Jesus was real but not divine, so Christianity is a farce. Secular atheist Democracies are more Christian than America. American Christians seek revenge and their leader says he has never asked for forgiveness because he has never done anything wrong. Grabbing women by the pussy is allowed when you're a star, and Christians agree.

@npanic628 3 ай бұрын

@@dthomas9230 Loved the 3 rules bit. I would perhaps try to add a fourth one: seek love in whatever you do and in the people that surround you.

@STR82DVD 3 ай бұрын

Great discussion. I'll be using this in my class. Thank you.

@PjotrII 3 ай бұрын

If using in class, please fact check Dawkins claims about the Midianites story Judges 6 and 7 compared to stories about Jupiter, Apollo and Thor (that he claims is about the same at 48:00-). If one can´t see the difference, one is certainly not into historical analysis. One is most likely based upon history with some spices that were COMMON in that time (1200-1350 BC) in all history writing, with a made up myth story about ancient Gods. Read yourself Judges 6, 7 (shortly: Midianites were in conflict with the Israelites. They lived in the mountains, when they planted crops, the enemy came and tried to destroy it. (quite a normal way to hinder Israelites - the enemy from getting food). God says he will help the Israelites. Then Gideon (Israel) defeats the enemy.) This event may be from around 1210-1350 BC.. in that time all history was written differently than today (which I hope Dawkins knows), so when analysing a text one should take that into account. While one can´t make a 100% objective series of events, the stories most often have a core, on which some spices are added. But in the stories of (Apollo) it is not written as history with some spices, but like this. If Dawkins can´t see the difference, I urge him not to try to claim knowledge in historical writings. Here are myths about Apollo From the DAY he was born, Greek god Apollo led a life of adventure. He was the son of Zeus and his mistress, the Titaness Leto. When Zeus’s jealous wife Hera found out about the pregnancy, she punished Leto, forbidding her from giving birth on land, and sending the deadly Python to chase her away. Leto found refuge on the floating island of Ortygia. Hera then forced Eileithyia, the goddess of childbirth, to prolong Leto’s labor for an agonizing 9 days. Eventually Leto gave birth to twins: Artemis, and her twin brother Apollo. Thus the great Greek god Apollo entered the world, fully grown, carrying a golden sword. The island around him burst into life, filled with lush plants, fragrant flowers and beautiful music. At just four DAYS old, Apollo went on a hunt to avenge the Python who had tormented his pregnant mother. With his handy bow and arrow, he hit the Python and killed it instantly, while the nymphs of Delphi cheered him on. The Python’s mother Gaea, meanwhile, was deeply angered. So much so, she told Zeus to banish Apollo to Tartarus.

@STR82DVD 3 ай бұрын

@@PjotrII A fable is not a fact. Let's focus on facts please.

@PjotrII 3 ай бұрын

@@STR82DVD Exactly my point! Fables are fables, history again is history. And Ancient history is ancient history, and must be read in that way. When Pharao Ramesses attacked the Hittites and it´s king Muwatalli, in Kadesh, the most plausible outcome is that it was a draw. But as Ramesses returned home, he wrote about the war, but depicted himself as a strong hero (who alone on the field slew 100 enemies), and caused a great victory. ** Well this is how history was written back then - real events, the battle at Kadesh, some real data, 4 divisions from the Egyptian side,,, but then as history was written, you add a little spice... the king was alone on the battlefield, slew 100... well that detail was not true, nor the great victory... but the rest is mainly real history. We happen to know this as we also have the Hittites description of the war. When you compare for example how the war with Midianites is described, it is in the same style of (the Egyptian - Hittite war). The fables / myths about Apollo are written in a totally different style, genre, not in a historic way. Even Alex basically points out about Judges, the historical perspective. That is different from let´s say Genesis.

@rodmartin-nl8ns 2 ай бұрын

Great interview what was it about

@pinheirolegendas1386 2 ай бұрын

very good one, thanks from brazil

@PaulVanderKlay 3 ай бұрын

Wow! This is an amazing conversation on a variety of levels. Congratulations!

@arono9304 3 ай бұрын

TLC present!

@anthonyharty1732 3 ай бұрын

48 years have gone by since Richard wrote the book The Selfish Gene. WOW!!!!!

@judithpratt 3 ай бұрын

I'm currently rereading it!

@PazLeBon 3 ай бұрын

oh shush :( i read it 38 years ago , sighhhh

@roems6396 3 ай бұрын

@@PazLeBon Feeling old?

@Highlanderz85 3 ай бұрын

He should have spent the last 48 years in prison for child molestation

@PaulClark-vz2pu 3 ай бұрын

@@Highlanderz85glad someone finally said im still not over what he done to me to this very day

@richardtomlinson2063 Ай бұрын

Awesome watch, and an awesome job. Looks absolutely stunning.

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Ай бұрын

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

@Venturai Ай бұрын

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 The fact that you felt the need to repeat this (and several times, at that) betrays your insecurity.

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Ай бұрын

@@Venturai I'm pretty sincere I’m for you not against you. Jesus is not some bad Person to Believe nor is He made up (look at all the attention He gets). He is not a hypocrite either. He practiced what He preached. He is Loving but also Just; So, He will punish sinners like any just judge would. But followers of Jesus are exempt because the precious Blood of Jesus atones for their sins.

@Venturai Ай бұрын

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Iron Man and Batman get plenty of attention also, and they're made up too. I don't go around handing out blank pieces of paper, you want to cut it out?

@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 24 күн бұрын

@@Venturai God through the Holy Spirit has shown me several things relating to the afterlife with the purpose of convincing people like yourself. Stuff like Heaven and Hell, Angels, and evil Spirits the Lord Jesus (not worthy at all), a miracle happened to me that saved my life (thank you God) & so much more. I am more than happy to give further details.

@kendrickjahn1261 10 күн бұрын

It's such a pleasure to be able to say that I existed to listen to Richard Dawkins. In a mad world, it's good to at least recognize this gift.

@_.Sparky._ 3 ай бұрын

Such a lovely discussion - the mutual respect is tangible ❤

@rationalmuscle 3 ай бұрын

Thanks Alex. Another great conversation!

@C0mm0nS3ns3 2 ай бұрын

Thanks Richard for still speaking up

@user-fv8rd2zl6y Ай бұрын

Thank you...More !!!!!!!

@rileystewart9165 3 ай бұрын

Though I am a Christian, I love Richard Dawkins. I'm very glad to see he has had a very good recovery from his stroke, however many years ago that has been now. Good tidings and wishes from me. Stay healthy and vigilant for the truth.

@elvenkind6072 3 ай бұрын

What make you love Dawkins so much? I think he's a bitter, extremely patronizing and intolerant old man, with what must be some kind of trauma connected to Christianity he have experienced in his life, hat make him extremely hateful and insulting toward anyone with a honest faith in Jesus, and it's clearly not religion, but Christianity that trigger him. I recommend "I Don't Believe in Atheists" by Chris Hedges, that explain very well the phenomena of "New Atheism", and all those people all around on internet in special that just love to behave like school yard bullies, have nothing reasonable or friendly to say, but have as their greatest joy to spew out blasphemy, and considering themselves as great intellectuals because of it. And people like Dawkins and the late Hitchens are the idols of people like that, that suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Anyway, curious to hear what you have to say.

@BloatedHeffa 3 ай бұрын

Wow a christian who doesn't issue warnings of burning in hell to nonbelievers is a rarity. Good tidings and wishes to you as well.

@CidersAndReligiousCrusades 3 ай бұрын

I love Dawkins 💙 In spite of him being wrong His put downs so jovial His quasi-sinister Oxford drawl - the quintessence of English condescension "If you would prefer another target, a military target, then name the system"

@davidrexford586 3 ай бұрын

@@BloatedHeffa many Christian’s don’t run around telling other people they will burn in Hell.. what I find startling is some atheists push their beliefs upon Christians and do what they claim Christians do.. we all travel through this world by ourselves and must contend with what we believe.. or not and shouldn’t force others to believe what we believe.

@masonwright7700 3 ай бұрын

You’re not a true Christian

@SoldatDuChristChannel 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for pressuring Richard on the whole WLC thing, been a long time coming he answered for that, i'm also glad to see you stood your ground on defending his character.

@highroller-jq3ix 3 ай бұрын

Does Craig actually have any?

@roems6396 3 ай бұрын

Craig is a fraud. He clearly understands logic and fallacies. He accuses others of using logical fallacies, but ignores that every single one of his arguments contain logical fallacies. He’s just bilking Christians out of their money.

@andreweagleton8879 3 ай бұрын

Well it’s theatre. Dawkins knows that and didn’t get to be the world’s most famous atheist by accident. WLC is or was a tremendous debater really a different class. That doesn’t mean his arguments are correct. Sam Harris surely lost in their head-to-head. Dawkins argument that WLC believes something atrocious whereas nice Christians are happy to say children getting cancer is God’s will was unpicked rather nicely. Of course WLC could easily have damaged Dawkins’ reputation. The risk was too high.

@SoldatDuChristChannel 3 ай бұрын

@@andreweagleton8879 I understand your points I think. Unfortunately it is theatre, and for that reason one could argue Harris won on the basis of theatre, because his was an emotionally charged argument, as appose to a rigid factual one. Craig won that debate argument wise but failed to win the audiences hearts.

@highroller-jq3ix 3 ай бұрын

@@SoldatDuChristChannel What "rigid factual" arguments stand behind the Christian god proposition? The facts are that children die, regularly, in horrible and excruciating ways. The fact is that Craig tried to defend heinous biblical text endorsing infanticide based upon a fanciful notion of infant heaven.

@adrianfbird 2 ай бұрын

Most entertaining 🤘🏿

@blackwolfe638 2 ай бұрын

For Me, it's become a parallel between "why do people believe this?" and "why are people stupid?"

@fabianmckenna8197 Ай бұрын

My mother-in-law was not stupid but deeply religious and believed until the day she passed away that she would be reunited with her long dead husband in heaven. Brought up in Church of Scotland and attended regularly until dementia removed her knowledge of everything and everyone she had ever known and loved. By that time, all of her friends and family were dead leaving a very small funeral absolutely devoid of her local church congregation and minister.

@giocatore_83 Ай бұрын

One of the problems with atheism is they assume because they supposedly have not seen evidence there is none.

@Jocky8807 Ай бұрын

I mean the atheist have no shred of evidence of life anywhere else. Could not prove it could be done. Have seen some universe and there are no life. Have zero proof it could be done. They both acknowledge that it is super duper unlike to happen by itself. 🙏 🙏 And yet believe it could happen no matter how improbable. And believe it could happen somewhere else. I think they really got much bigger faith than the theist. 😂😂😂

@jackietreehorn5561 27 күн бұрын

Religion does do good in times of strife to people... although I don't believe I'm not going to force my opinion on anyone

@harryscarry6064 3 ай бұрын

Has anyone watched Richard Dawkins doing those lovely science presentations for children decades ago. The sweetest man. He became forthright for a time but was compelled to. Please look at those videos. So lovely

@ShellacScrubber 3 ай бұрын

A bloody wonderful conversation Alex and Richard !!!!

@trashvomitstudios 3 ай бұрын

If you mean by a convolution of cliché for the duped.

@AbbasAli-ci9vc 2 күн бұрын

Loved it

@sarahgreen238 2 ай бұрын

34:04 Christopher Hitchens' debates were one of the major things that introduced me to and helped me through my religious deconstruction. Sure, he was charismatic, but his arguments just made so much more sense to me logically than the opposing side. And, at the end of the day, I couldn't deny my own logical thoughts

@johns1625 5 күн бұрын

I discovered him in 2011 and I still watch his debates today. He was one of a kind.

@Simon-T. 3 ай бұрын

When you pushed back against some of the things Richard said, he admitted you had a fair point and then re-examined his own thought. The difference between this and Christopher Hitchen's approach is why I am much more inclined to listen to Richard. Another great interview Alex.

@DJWESG1 3 ай бұрын

The latter being a credited scholar with a lifetime of achievement, th3 former being a paid shill for the establishment.

@AngelVivaldi 3 ай бұрын

Beautiful conversation,

@Chardonbois 2 ай бұрын

Richard clearly enjoyed his chat with Alex and they show mutual respect and admiration. A great discussion.

@scottothegreat 2 ай бұрын

Alex is incredibly thoughtful and asked great questions

@sulljoh1 3 ай бұрын

I really enjoyed that. I wish it went on for 4 hrs

@a_lucientes 3 ай бұрын

I always enjoy your conversations/interviews with Richard Dawkins. He has always been correct in stating that the question of God existence is not only a scientific question but a very important. This cop out that religion has traditionally been given as being completely outside the domain (or 'magisterium') of science is ridiculous,, given the implications of the claim that an omnipotent deity is responsible for the universe and everything in it.

@mn5499 3 ай бұрын

Not really is god is immaterial to some degree than it would be beyond the remit of science.

@festeradams3972 3 ай бұрын

Glad you added magisterium "if you've ever seen, or read the Golden Compass, most religions would consider it, absolutely Utopia, if the magisterium ruled absolute control, and making sure the general populace is not given the burden of actually thinking for themselves and weighing independent evidence.

@thomasjeffersun 3 ай бұрын

@@festeradams3972cucks want one being to be all powerful instead of just higher dimensional beings living peacefully

@TBOTSS 3 ай бұрын

Dawkins had his chance against William Lane Craig but brave Sir Richard ran away. Rowan Williams also took him apart as did Keith Ward and John Lennox.

@David-cm4ok 3 ай бұрын

@@TBOTSS I need to watch those. I’ve only ever seen him play with believers. It’s never even close.