Dr. Stavrakopoulou models what it is to be an empowered woman, articulate, clear, at ease and composed. Yet sadly, so few women follow her example and join in the Q & A at the end - very disappointing to see the Q & A space dominated by male voices, even as a woman is profiled as the guest lecturer!
As someone who was raised into what was once a typical Irish R.C family in London,but at about age 11 or 12 I started to challenge the teachings in the Biblee,so today I'm more Agnostic..So that's my position,but I'm curious can this Prof( who i've only recently become familiar with)really examine this topic objectively when she makes it clear she's an Athiest& wears that badge proudly and visably!..And I feel listening to her talk about the U.S,( just quoting standard MSM BS which I'm fairly confident is based on poor info& research was a little disappointing!
She's saying something important. That it is always WRONG but there's a few degrees of allowance that can be pulled. You can not be an atheist politician. Oh, god. why am i talking to a Jackass Sexist Troll. I'll leave this here though.
Its wrong to be an atheist because of the problem of death for one thing. Because the atheist says I don't know, or worse, asserts that there is no positive afterlife. The right thing to do is to have faith regarding death, that there is some positive afterlife. For example, if you're in a survival situation with other people and you all don't know whether you'll live or die and it appears hopeless, you don't stand up and say, "sorry folks we're screwed", or "I don't know folks". That's nonsense. The RIGHT thing to do is to encourage everyone to have FAITH that they'll make it. And its the same thing in life. We're in a survival situation and we should have and encourage others to have faith regarding death. That there is some positive afterlife. Such as a God of the universe, like Einstein believed, and that there is salvation beyond death.
ChessArmyCommander how do you chose which god to pledge your allegiance to? By picking one, your saying fuck off to the hundreds of religions you don’t believe in. Pascal wagers should be applied to all religions. All religions are wrong is the only honest conclusion for intelligent people.
@@ChessArmyCommander Atheists live their lives not beleiving in an afterlife. In my case, that means I live my life to the full, because I know that this is it. My one chance, My unique path. I want to live as long as possible and achieve the most I can. This sort of concept that atheists are essentially nihilistic and fatalistic is not, in my experience, the norm. I think in fact, that believing in an afterlife, and that there is some great scheme can be extremely counter productive. People who don't believe in an afterlife seem to be less prone to flying aeroplanes into buildings. Faith is not a good path to truth, and is really the reason for believing in something without evidence. I don't hold faith as a virtue, I prefer reason.
+geezzerboy She said she doesn't need comments about her appearance (but yes it's hard not to! Sorry Francesca but you are too attractive to ignore!) - OK I know I said it too!
Bloody brilliant talk. Half inspired me to leave my own PhD in Criminology and begin studying Theology and Ancient Religion. I'd be really interested to know how sexuality is dealt with in theological communities and departments.
Why won't Christians attend your lectures? They are afraid you will say something that shatters their fath. They want to cling to it even if it based on falsehoods.
+Roedy Green - It occurs to me that she may not understand this. Since she's never been religious, she doesn't know what it's like to face that kind of cognitive dissonance.
Largesse1000 - LOL, you angry, bro? And abusive! So very Christian ... not. Religion works so very well, and has no negative side-effects, whatsoever ... 😏 ... 😎👍🏼
Anyone that believes what man or woman tells them about spirituality is just as much a fool as the person trying to persuade them. Common sense tells me to seek my own path to spirituality. After all I am human too. And have the freewill to think for myself! lol You people are fools!!
Albert Einstein - "What separates me from the most so called atheist is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos" - " We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but we only dimly understand these laws - We see ourselves as a little child entering a library filled with books in many languages and does not understand the languages that it is written, but the child knows that someone must have written these books, this it seems to me is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God" - Einstein such a humble man and intelligent man
On the contrary I think for being a good theologian you need to skeptic in order to be imparcial, A theist could be more likely to ignore some facts or make a wrong interpretation of archaeological evidence, maybe because it's against their beliefs... I love you Francesca!!
@@jayd4ever Given that religion and beliefs change over time, obviously the theists reject plenty of "essential" beliefs. The fact one group holds on to the belief and another needs them would seem to denote how essential they are.
@@jayd4ever It's not about 'essential belief', it's about objectively studying the evidence. In the 'Show more' section she has said that she has 'a huge respect for religion'.
Being *told* this or that about what you believe (and don't) is usually an insult. Let that be, Francesca: you're good with what you know, you're educated, competent and articulate enough to explain to *anyone* exactly what you're saying about why you believe what you do... you're a PhD in your chosen field and people should listen to you with open minds. ... and it doesn't hurt that you're a smart and and attractive woman whose presentation style is congenial enough to engage even "non-academics".
I too am an atheist (for over 50 years), but I really don't need don't say so very often... people who know me understand that (or at least they accept it), and people who don't know me are *always* free to tell me what they think about "atheism" in terms that invoke physics, (the basis of *all* science) or in terms of philosophy. Mostly, however... I find myself talking with religious proselytes. Unlike them, I *abhor* the idea that anyone's theology should be more than "spoken, offered... and just ignored without malice by whoever can't see reason in any of it". Am I wrong to treat proselytes this way... I mean, am I totally missing some "magical" connection they have to some universe that's been invisible to me all my life, despite my searches... ... or are there just billions of people who without exception (either) are totally delusional or are simply LYING because everyone they know EXPECTS them to endorse an obvious lie that no one is allowed to deny? Find me a God who understands "his own" created everything as described in the Bible... who nevertheless accepts H. sapiens as presently extant worthy of ... and I'll accept a just God... provisionally. The God I've been taught to understand, believe, accept, OBEY, and WORSHIP is... ... anyone who can read the Bible word-for-word from cover to cover with an open mind (I've done that with 4 Bible versions, a couple of them more than 3 times) *knows* that the Bible's God is nothing but a supernatural uberkiller whose only aim is the entire human world's total domination by one single government, owned by God, and operated by totally unanswerable "clergy". Needless to say, the Christian God as known today would be (if an actual leader of a modern nation) a despicable war criminal in absolutely every aspect described by the UN. Judaism, Christianity and Islam (in that chronological order) literally OWN that God... and to be honest, all three should be summarily put to death after at least half a century of truly honest debate about their irrational tenets and the inconsistencies they foster, their broad-brush hatreds, the cults of *death* they've all spawned "to promote everlasting life". Are so few people smart enough to know a "believe us and live that belief... and we'll own you" con when they see it? :-(
I am a fan of her, and I respect her work. That said, I disagree with her when at 40:00 mark she says (and I'm paraphrasing) "religion doesn't try to do what science does." I would love to ask her if she is familiar with the Young Earth Creationist movement? Christian Homeschooling? The Intelligent Design movement? The Creation Museum? The countless cases of people whose children die because their parents chose prayer over modern medicine? Here in the United States there are countless examples of the religious bootstrapping their faith onto junk-science to manufacturer evidence that their literal interpretation of scripture is factual. Still, I would argue with anyone who says she's the wrong kind of atheist just because she is critical of Dawkins.
+J. Rutger Madison You have to know what is the difference between science and pseudoscience. All those you mentioned like young earth creationist movement? they are pseudosciences because real science rejects the idea of religion.
She says in her talk she has a problem with Rationality, Logic, Reason etc. I wonder what she sees as an alternative to this as an Atheist, because she doesn't say. I have again seen her criticise Rationality on twitter, but she doesn't explain what her criticism is.
Jake Cross How can an atheist question rationality? The only thing I can think of is that maybe over rational thinking can leave us unable to believe things in science like quantum mechanics (which I know nothing about but apparently things can be in two places at the same time, which would question most peoples rationality on a normal scale). Whatever it is, she is wrong to question rationality as elements like things being in two places at one time in quantum mechanics will become rational.
+Deathbyblackhole Well I'm glad you admitted that you know nothing about Quantum Physics Deathbyblackhole (an ironic name considering they are quantum phenomena!) What a lot of people don't appreciate about this 'particle in two places' idea is it's merely a useful model as all science is. There are other interpretations like one the Many Worlds hypothesis. Yes these ideas don't SEEM to be logical but as we don't pretend to really understand them yet we can't say for sure that they are necessarily irrational either. I would say rationality is better than irrationality every time however we have the right to defend what 'rationality' might mean. It can't mean faith if faith is belief without ANY logic or evidence at all. You don't have faith in your wife because you trust SOME (imperfect) evidence before you marry a person.
I find it interesting that during the Q&A - several of the questioners used the word "force". Religion or humanist organizations being a force for good or bad. In some ways - I think humans recognize that any form of human organization - results in similar kind of thinking - a hive mind of sorts - and this results in a force being exerted in the world. So I think religions have churches, priests and holy scripture to get followers to focus their thinking and energy to a certain kind of thinking - to give over their personal power and put energy into creating a force... and in some ways we create these power structures or forces by surrendering our person power/energy over to an organization.
within 10 mins of her presentation she states that she has received death threats because she's an atheist woman but in the summary is states in quotes that she describes herself as "an atheist with huge respect for religion". why would you have "respect" for something that has a dogma that says killing someone for disagreeing with you is decreed by god.... ....and then she states that she's relatively safe where ever it is she lives in the UK. for a professor she projects a palatable naivete via a few things she stated in the first 20mins. just a slight criticism but it's cool that she actually dedicated sincere study in this area so that she can confront religious zealots from a point of knowledge.
+ian philip In the video she does explicitly state that she studies in this area because she likes it an not to confront the religious from a point of knowledge. As for respect i believe she is capable of divorcing the religion itself from the actions of some of its adherents.
I totally agree. In another video she comments that Richard Dawkins is trying to pit religion vs atheism. But religion is dangerous on it's own. She thinks that religion and atheism can hold hands. What a bunch of bull. But I do like her research on the Bible.
It can be a certain unchangeable mistake to be one and spiritually discover a death that they didn't know that it is the consciousness of being alive as we understand as most humans. The Bible says though it is better than knowing the lord and choosing the devil and those self destructive ways purposely against God. So in the gift already here that grace is given while a hope to discover the lord and way to father God of maker of heaven and earth covers those who are just not sure. I personally choose to always believe in Jesus and God with the holy spirit within me. The good is GOD'S GLORY THAT COMES FROM ME. I just said that to any reading wonder about me personally. Hoping all works out for everyone.God bless
With all due respect to the profesor, it is funny how she downplays her beauty. She mentions that she was young, and talked a lot, and they liked her... but of course her looks did not factor into it.. :-) She is amazing and her talks are super interesting.
Ur are Definitely not a Buddhist. But u understand how to take time out and some might call meditate. But she perform meditation without having to mediate.
When you are right about something , you either just move on, or you just get stuck forever reminding yourself and others, to the point of 'ok enough already'. Francesca seems horribly stuck. On the other hand, Hitchens (was) incredibly versatile, always interesting and never failed to reach deep. I think Francesca does well when debating on biblical and religious topics, she is brilliant, and articulate. But the question is 'where do we go from here?' Hithchens, Harris, Dennet and others fill that void. Francesca just leaves you stranded at atheist.
Probably because she's not really trying to persuade anyone she's right and they're wrong. She's just saying "I trained in a field that's mainly populated by the religious, but I'm not a believer. You can accept my expertise or not (but really, you'd just look stupid trying to contradict me). Other than that, follow your own path, as long as it doesn't hurt others (including animals)."
mmmmm , is this criticism of her colleagues happening in the 21first century in Great Britain , where x religions are tolerated and defended , where sharia is allowed , where one can wear a niqab in the streets . Well , well ,well what an open minded society you live in .
If I were Dr. Stavrakopoulou, I wouldn't bother checking in with Richard Dawkins' Twitter feed. Dawkins has a brilliant mind, but there are certain applications he should stay away from.
+RickySTT I agree, Dawkins is a great scientist and philosopher, but he's become a preacher, ramming atheism down the throats of anyone he can, just like bible bashers do.
+Wayne Hieatt Dawkins is definitely an outstanding scientist, & a terrific science writer, but he is not a philosopher at all, which is why he often makes weak arguments when he strays outside his field. This leaves him vulnerable to attacks by charlatans like W L Craig & other apologists who would be reduced to cattle feed by the more rigorous critiques from serious philosophers of religion. As u note, Dawkins has become a hectoring polemicist & should really stick to what he excels at -- popularizing & championing the value of a scientific understanding of nature & the centrality of evolutionary ideas within it.
It is a pity that she criticizes Dawkins in public because it weakens the fragile position of atheism . Dawkins and others have been ridiculed and criticized just because they say to be atheists . Still now they are confronted with people who tell them they are " lesser humans" because they refuse to believe in a superior being that can do " things" like f.e. fly to heaven on a winged horse. After undergoing silly remarks and stupidities for decades , there comes a point where one has had it and sometimes becomes to be a bit rude towards " believers" .
+tempiodelgusto I agree. It's just fine for the Bible to say 'The fool has said in his heart that there is no God' & yet atheists are told they mustn't say people who believe a snake can talk are stupid! What's good for the goose is good for the gander! I can handle being called a fool but the God Squad can't!
+Peter Christou How can pointing out that there's no verifiable evidence for any god claim ever 'fundamentalism' then? If he's wrong all that would need to happen is for someone to prove him wrong!
I like Francesca a lot, but I'm pretty sure the CORRECT definition of "atheist" means nothing other than a simple rejection of the theistic proposal. I might use "assertion(s)" here, but assertions are supposed to be under the implication of having evidence that scales with the claims, hence the rejection. All else is not atheism, imho, and this is silly.
trooperJac i don't think it is a bad thing either, i like that she is doing her own thing, what i got from what she said she doesn't want to belong to anything she views as too extreme to her
I like your work. Still, your critique of Richard Dawkins is laughable. I think you are avoiding socialogically difficult topics concerning religion to reinforce your nice-atheist image. Why do I think that? You clearly have not studied Dawkins' work as you misrepresent it. You should learn from him instead of avoiding difficult topics. You can still be intellectually nice.
When people use the phrase theological truth, I just laugh. The definition of theology is not the study of truth, it's the study of religious faith, which was created by humans. Faith is based on belief, it is not based on facts. People who confuse beliefs with facts are ignorant. The god concept originated in the human mind. That makes it fictional, an invention, not real. The god concept is no more factual than Harry Potter, Narnia, or Middle Earth. There are myriad reasons why humans invented god and continue to believe in such antiquated rubbish. It is interesting to study but I would not bother getting a degree in theology. I could not stand being surrounded by a bunch of religious believers who have been indoctrinated into believing irrational ideas and who hold an inaccurate view of the world.
While I do agree it can at times be unsettling to see Dawkins and others be condescending and disrespectful toward other's religious views, I also believe what they're doing is absolutely vital in securing equal rights (legal and social) for atheists in certain parts of the world. Someone has to speak out, they have to do it eloquently and convincingly, because if atheists simply lie down and accept being relegated to the fringes of society, things will never change.
John Smith While I do understand your perspective, I wouldn't personally take such a hard line stance. I'm sure neither of us would truly support taking away people's freedom of religion--that freedom is the only thing that's kept me from being burned at the stake for being an atheist. I'm going to postulate that you're using "religious beliefs must be eradicated" as a turn of phrase, implying that all people must learn to be rational and think logically--reject ignorance--at which point religion will either disappear or evolve into something better. That would be a statement I would endorse =)
No matter how rude the New Atheists are they cannot begin to approach the damage religion has caused. Also their manner is created as direct response by the level of sheer ignorance religion creates.
While it is important to respect all people I see no reason to respect their beliefs. How many Catholics or Anglicans for instance respect the beliefs of Scientologists. Similarly do these same religious people not act in condescending ways to Scientologists. All religions including Scientologists are based on the complete lack of proof. How many of the religionists respect atheism. Every day their leaders get up in the morning and push their religion. Dawkins does no different except he uses science and fact based language. It seems that the religious argument is you can be an atheist if you wish but just be quiet about it.
While yes sometimes the tone of people like Dawkins and Hitchens is incendiary that really doesn't take away the merit of the things they've said and not only is it understandable that they speak this way, it pales in comparison to the pain and suffering caused by the things they speak out against.
I find many people just pay lip service to religions, usually the ones they are born into. Most have no clue about the rules they are meant to follow, or how their lives would be if they lived under strict religious rules. The fact many of these religions are being publicly outraged and attacking shows they are losing the long term battle on faith. The same way older gods died off, the notion of a single god who you pray and interferes in your life will too. I think people will still have spiritual beliefs, just not human shaped who hear your prayers to win the lotto. The only reason religions respect each other is because one doesn't have enough power to suppress the other. Look at most of the majority Islamic countries. Other countries with longer histories where there are large disparate religious groups have learned to live together because they realise no one can win and in the process they will simply destroy what has been built.
Her presentation would better be called, "When it is wrong to *let it be known* that you are an atheist." If you are an atheist in a country where you can be punished for being an atheist, then it would be prudent to hide your lack of belief in any gods, but it is silly to suggest that one should start believing in a god they don't believe in, because that is obviously impossible.
I dunno. Religion is based on irrational suppositions. If you are clouded by them, such as a creator god that you believe you know something about, then it seems you are compromised at the start.
One way to explain yourself is to say "Some people study ancient Greece, or ancient Sumeria. I study ancient Judea. You don't have to immerse yourself in the religion of a culture to study the culture."
I want to thank all the commentators (no matter how annoying or off point) who mentioned something other than her looks, like something relevant to the major topics she discussed (academia, fair criticism, articulations of atheism, articulations of religion, humanism, etc.). Given her discussion about women in academia and her experience with male commentary on her irrelevant clothes and looks, I get a sense that the commentators focusing on her looks (particularly the crude comments) are just here to troll in order to relieve their frustrated, defiant, chauvinistic sides. I wish they'd learn how to develop some character and respect. Thank you Francesca for a stimulating discussion of atheism in academia.
Isn't that so her looks are only one part of her . The scholarly mind of hers is rational and unbiased. However being attractive whether a man or a woman has its advantages people are more inclined to listen to someone who is good looking that's why Bernie sanders didn't become president.
As an atheist, I can engage in theological and spiritual conversations; I can even talk with my Christian friends about their lives in context of their religion and help them see deeper into their lives in light of theological and Philosophical views, and even sometimes help them grow deeper in their faith, and they all struggle to understand that I'm not a Christian nor believe in gods. One pastor I speak to was wondering if I was even an atheist because I could help this one Christian student understand this pastor's theological analyses. Somehow, they thought that you could only be "awakened" by God to delve into theological matters. Christians didn't understand that I love Religion and theology. I'm a big fan of spirituality, theology etc and not believe in any gods whatsoever.
Geez, it's just comprehension mostly. If the pastor can't help his student understand, why is he even teaching? They are fascinating stories in the same way Greek myths are - doesn't mean we believe in the Greek gods.
The vicar in my neighbouring village describes himself as an agnostic and says his wife calls herself an atheist. He chose to be an Anglican vicar because with the job comes trust from the people in the local community whereby he can best help them to face life's common tragedies as they occur.
She reminds me of the way Bertrand Russell was treated by the New York board of higher education in 1940. He was employed to teach mathematics and logic, but when it was discovered that he had unauthodox opinions about religion and morals, a campaign to remove him from his post started and he wasn't allowed to teach. Ten years later he was awarded the Nobel prize for literature.
Claiming that Feminist values makes one a good Atheist is as senseless as saying that what makes one a good Feminist is to adopt secular values. Furthermore, she doesn't understand what Feminism is, mistaking simple renaissance values for a political ideology. This just goes to show that expertise in one area does not a critical thinker make.
Arrogance? This from the manner of peon that so believes the universe cannot exist without them in some way that they'll believe any fairy-tale about an afterlife. For what is heaven but the conceptual host for pure narcissism?
No one is interested in reality more than I, Katherine Daniel. I simply don`t think something can come from nothing. Which essentially leads me to think that there must be something ( if there is anything ). In short, if you exist and I exist then something must exist. God is the very definition of that which must exist. Do you think something can come from nothing ? If you do, then I see no reason how you can think that God cannot. If something can come from nothing then anything can come from nothing. Not only that - it will. This includes God. But I do not think something can come from nothing. I shall think it when someone produces something from nothing. In the meantime I am forced to think that there must be something.
Steve DL Simple question. Where did this god come from. If something cannot come from nothing, then god had to be created. And since we have no way to define the something that create the universe, how can you define that something? No one can know that something. To try to define it is pure nonsense.
Hi James. It does not follow that `if something cannot come from nothing, then god had to be created.` Simple Propositional Logic will tell you this. I couldn`t agree with you more when you say that `...since we have no way to define the something that "create" the universe.... no one can know that something.` Do you think that something / anything can come from nothing ?
Hi, James. It does not follow that `if something cannot come from nothing, then god had to be created.` A simple examination of the existential and universal quantifiers of Propositional Logic might satisfy you. Therefor I ask you : Do you think something can come from nothing ?
If you're told by a teacher you're going to hell for not believing in the Gospels isn't that hate speech? Should they be allowed to say that? Do we allow that kind of speech because we're used to it or because of power dynamics?
I have been an atheist all my life don't believe in "god(s)". But when I look and listen to Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou: I know this is what a godess should look like :-) (sigh)
@@thecoderofyoutube It's bc she doesn't traffick with theologians...the point being, theologians pretend to be historians, while Francesca, a historian who is expert at rebuffing theological priority over actual history, throws their pretenses back in their faces. Thankfully the world is nudging toward the view that theology and history are, indeed, two totally distinct fields of endeavor. Cheers!
Ironically, Francesca doesn't like the New Atheists, but I like her because she's an Atheist Feminist. There's no such thing as New Atheism (to me), just Atheism.
+David Hore I agree with the activism; one can only put up with so much religion in politics, etc. But I've never understood the need for the Atheism+ label. Were it not an issue of epistemology, I wouldn't use the word atheist at all.
Interesting point on segregation around education and it’s negative aspects while talking /working at Oxford? Only one woman asked a question and not one working class voice in that group! How’s that for segregation in education. Good talk though?
I wouldn't consider myself atheist, I also wouldn't strictly tie myself to a single religious identity, and I'm DEFINITELY not Christian. So as a fellow student of religions/theology coming from an outsider perspective (raised irreligious too), I have to say her stories from school sound horrible, I'm proud to say the field (or maybe just where I'm studying) is a lot more accepting. Trying to prosthelytize in class (even if only by peer pressure) would definitely NOT be accepted in any classroom I've been in, lol.
I am a Christian and completely agree with what she says. Most religious people in western countries seem to be fundamentalist Jesus said himself judge not least yes be judged you will be judged as you judge others. The information she gives is very informative and shows how perspective of the authors have altered people's views. What is wrong with most people that read the bible is most people are taught a narrative of the meaning of all the stories instead of just independently taking a neutral perspective to get Gods point of view. Most people I know have a political not a religious narrative and rationalize prejudices against others so I can appreciate what she says.
I am an atheist, yet was a former Christian, and also a female. With all that said, I completely agree with you not just Francesca's views, but your point of view, as well. Thank you.
True (a least 15mths ago)... but I'm almost 60, and she'll *clearly* be just as hot 11 hears hence (at age 40) as she is today. Thing is...the love of my life (since mid-1973) is a theoretical and experimental molecular biologist old enough to be this woman's mother (and still hot)... in fact, her oldest step-grand-daughter is heading for a Master's degree if she stays the course. Does age even fucking *matter?*???
Spirituality is a survival tool against insignificance and the terror of mortality,there has been no bigger obstacle to the concept of diverse spirituality than death denying religion.The objections to new atheism are bogus, it encourages spiritual diversity within the realms of the natural world and encourages humanity to accept mortality with grace and humility.
Tosh Manta Some new atheists - one personal favourite is Sanal Edamaruku, a rationalist who fled India after disproving one too many miracles - are especially fond of encouraging and fostering our tradition of spirituality. Give him a look if you haven't seen him talk before. And thanks for watching!
Exeter AHS Thanks for the tip,he is a brave man and a bit of an eye opener with regards to India and its treatment of atheists/rationalists. The religion of Jesus became a religion about Jesus,my favourite is Bart Ehrman.
Tosh Manta No problem! And For Bibilical Historians, a couple favourites of mine personally are Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald - especially Fitzgerald for 'Nailed', a very simple exposition of the historical position that Jesus is not historically justified.
Sunyata Carrier has got a little better with his presentation,either way i am more convinced by evidence than class. It is no skin off my nose if Jesus existed or not,if he did he was just another mortal.
She is an inspiration to me who come from a long scary and fearful about Christianity. Atheism is an beacon of clearity in a world full of fear and hate.
There are levels to this. Christopher Hitchens is arguably the best debater that's ever represented atheism in my lifetime. Francesca is imho the best academic atheist, of my lifetime. The New Atheist label isn't an atheist thing, it's a derogatory label applied by mostly the religious. It's disappointing in a way, that she acknowledges and uses the term. "New Atheism" arose due to those of us that have been saying the same things for centuries who eventually gained a voice. I've been an atheist for 40+ yrs, actively owning it for 35, and I've never changed my stance. I wasn't an aggressive nasty atheist when I started, and I'm not now. My opinions became "militant" when religious ppl labeled me militant after atheists began getting traction and publicity. It's an abuse of language that's done quite often by religious ppl. Rant over. Francesca is absolutely amazing, my favorite truly academic representation of any person (not just an atheist) and a gift to the world. Brilliant person. Peace
Sorry to comment so late, but I was heartened (and shocked) to hear you say that Shakespeare is not only for the English! Do you know how many English people have asserted (or mumbled) that it is an utter abomination before the Lord for any American ever to perform Shakespeare in public, because they can’t successfully pull off a 20th or 21st-century posh accent like that of the bard himself?
"When It's Wrong To Be An Atheist" When you have the wrong reasons. e.g. "I survived cancer. God saved me" If you do that you are downplaying the roles of medical science and the doctors who treated you in favor of an imaginary character who gave you the illness in the first place (because nothing happens without god, right?) How many people could say god saved them from cancer 100 or even 50 years ago? Not many. If it's difficult for you to think that the progress in medical science and the willingness of god to cure a high percentage of people with cancer is not a coincidence, then it's OK to remain an atheist.
Everything Dr Stavrakopoulou does is awesome, her book God: An Anatomy is amazing. But! After all these years I am still baffled how well meaning atheists misunderstand Richard Dawkins’ position on religion. The guy wrote whole books on the poetry of reality. He does not reduce human experience to only the “rational”, he just thinks anything that is flatly irrational should not dictate public policy. Also religion *does* directly conflict with science when it makes claims about how the world was made, where life comes from, and whether God intervenes in the world with miracles. Sure there may be some ways religions don’t conflict with science but Dawkins is concerned with the ways it does conflict. Why do so many smart people trip up on this distinction?
Ah, uhhmm, eh. The advantage of being atheist in this case is that there is no bias in the research, but the disadvantage might be a too technical relationship to symbolism that *might* hamper the understanding of the religious scribes.
It's wrong if it is not what you actually believe. It is wrong where it is a purely emotional reaction to being mistreated by a certain faith community. I'm a Catholic. Functionally, I think almost everyone is an agnostic (unless they have had some kind of personal revelation which most people don't get). Since they don't **know**. It's faith in there being a God or (realistically) a faith in there being no God. Every human being has a right to believe or not. But it is inference based on facts and faith in a conclusion.
I grew up in a family where my father was openly anti-religious. I didn't understand why he was so openly against religion - and couldn't within that environment - because I wasn't allowed to study religion. So as an adult I took on a quest to study religions. I have studied Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Shintoism. And I did this to understand why different religions conflict with each other. And after all of this - I can openly say - that I am not against religion for religious people. But I am against people of any religion stating that any other person of another religion is wrong for having a different belief. And I am for human rights and secularism. I think human rights should be above religious rights. But also if you are religious and have a certain belief - the freedom to follow your own faith is a human right and you shouldn't be persecuted for having a faith different to others - as long as the way you practice that belief/faith doesn't infringe on another person's belief/faith. And I am pretty much an Atheist... And being an Atheist doesn't stop me from loving people of faith.
It's wrong to be an atheist the same as when it's wrong to be a theist. It's wrong when one becomes a sectarian. It is understandable and even justified when it is a result of defense. But the lines between defense and offense become quickly indistinguishable. Atheism and theism can both be pluralistic. In the current world, it is of the most utmost importance for pluralist atheists and theists to be united in their desire to live in a pluralist society.
I almost lost faith in Mathematics, after a series of bad experiences. I'm trying to build it up again . I used to love math. I wish I had a professor like Professor Stavrakpoulou teaching me about the Bible and its history and everything. By believing in it , you just suck all the fun out of it. Let's enjoy the bible, and math too. Though I believe in the latter.
Love Francesca and this video is one of her best. The only issue I have with it, is the use of the term "Atheism". There is no such thing atheism and there never can be. An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of god. That is it. There is no other requirement to being an atheist. The belief does not inform a person’s decision making processes in anyway. It doesn’t tell how to behave or what they can or can't do. It doesn’t tell them what to or what not to eat. Who they can marry or have sex with. It tells them nothing about how to go about their daily lives. As an atheist, you can be the most intelligent person on the planet or the least intelligent. You can be the nicest or most evil person. You can be, logical/illogical, rational/irrational, you could even be very spiritual and still not believe in god. If you wrote a book about being a good atheist, you would only need five words in it, “Do not believe in god”. If you succeed at this then you are the best atheist possible, because no other attribute, you have is relevant to being an atheist. You can be a doctor or a homeopath, an astronomer or astrologer, you can be and/or believe anything else you want. The only requirement is that you do not believe in god. If you really want to, you could even follow the teachings of the bible, but every time you came across the word “god” you simply substitute “unknown process”, “unknown entity”, or you could simply change it to Jesus. You could just believe the bible was written by humans and Jesus was an incredible human being, the son of Mary and Joseph, and god played no part in any of it.
If you had a course on Scientology would you want it taught by a Scientologist? If you had a course on Moonies should it be taught by a Moonie? If you had a course on the People's Temple group should it be taught by a member of the People's Temple?
Oh thank God...or whatever...I thought we we wouldn't disagree. What Dawkins says is, believe what you want. Just don't impose your stupid belief on the rest of us. And yes of course it's fair to say that people are stupid for believing complete nonsense.
Unfortunate that the audio was so poor for the questioners... Ironic that some folks who purport to be atheist canonize the holy trinity of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, and become threatened when any of them are challenged.
There are lots of beautiful women around, but very few who are as intelligent as Dr Stavrakopoulou. Her attitude is wonderful, and not gender based that I can detect. She is a scholar with an unpopular point of view. I admire her for that. And for standing up and stating it. I wish there was more of her on You-Tube. More TV documentaries. I want to hear her opinion of the New Chronology, David James and David Rohl, et al.
@C K Pari This was your BEST example? There is so much wrong with you. I have made an attempt to discuss a few topics with you. You have shown yourself to be uninterested in actual facts and do nothing more than make uneducated assumptions. There's no helping you.
Yes, atheists deciding who's atheist or not is hilarious, or needing to be informed on the bible to really be atheist. Seems to be more an American thing where "communities" form.
Its never wrong to be an atheist. The good Dr. is confusing wrong and illegal. Just is it is illegal to be gay in Uganda, but it does not necessarily wrong. It is wrong to mutilate the women’s genitalia, however, it is legal in certain countries.
pretension0 We filmed this event on the 2nd of March, 2015 at the University of Exeter. Let us know if you have any other questions! And our society facebook page is available here: facebook.com/groups/ExeAHS
Massive respect for this brilliant woman.
Dr. Stavrakopoulou models what it is to be an empowered woman, articulate, clear, at ease and composed. Yet sadly, so few women follow her example and join in the Q & A at the end - very disappointing to see the Q & A space dominated by male voices, even as a woman is profiled as the guest lecturer!
What was the ratio of men to women in the audience? 5 to 1 or 10 to 1 would be an obvious explanation.
As someone who was raised into what was once a typical Irish R.C family in London,but at about age 11 or 12 I started to challenge the teachings in the Biblee,so today I'm more Agnostic..So that's my position,but I'm curious can this Prof( who i've only recently become familiar with)really examine this topic objectively when she makes it clear she's an Athiest& wears that badge proudly and visably!..And I feel listening to her talk about the U.S,( just quoting standard MSM BS which I'm fairly confident is based on poor info& research was a little disappointing!
It's never WRONG to be an atheist. It's just sometimes inconvenient.
Ralph Clark She sounds like most of the dumb bitches you meet at bars
She's saying something important. That it is always WRONG but there's a few degrees of allowance that can be pulled. You can not be an atheist politician. Oh, god. why am i talking to a Jackass Sexist Troll. I'll leave this here though.
Its wrong to be an atheist because of the problem of death for one thing. Because the atheist says I don't know, or worse, asserts that there is no positive afterlife. The right thing to do is to have faith regarding death, that there is some positive afterlife. For example, if you're in a survival situation with other people and you all don't know whether you'll live or die and it appears hopeless, you don't stand up and say, "sorry folks we're screwed", or "I don't know folks". That's nonsense. The RIGHT thing to do is to encourage everyone to have FAITH that they'll make it. And its the same thing in life. We're in a survival situation and we should have and encourage others to have faith regarding death. That there is some positive afterlife. Such as a God of the universe, like Einstein believed, and that there is salvation beyond death.
ChessArmyCommander how do you chose which god to pledge your allegiance to? By picking one, your saying fuck off to the hundreds of religions you don’t believe in. Pascal wagers should be applied to all religions. All religions are wrong is the only honest conclusion for intelligent people.
@@ChessArmyCommander Atheists live their lives not beleiving in an afterlife. In my case, that means I live my life to the full, because I know that this is it. My one chance, My unique path. I want to live as long as possible and achieve the most I can. This sort of concept that atheists are essentially nihilistic and fatalistic is not, in my experience, the norm. I think in fact, that believing in an afterlife, and that there is some great scheme can be extremely counter productive. People who don't believe in an afterlife seem to be less prone to flying aeroplanes into buildings.
Faith is not a good path to truth, and is really the reason for believing in something without evidence. I don't hold faith as a virtue, I prefer reason.
Beautiful, intelligent, and an atheist; it doesn't get much better than that.
+geezzerboy
You said it!
+geezzerboy I totally love her!!
+geezzerboy She said she doesn't need comments about her appearance (but yes it's hard not to! Sorry Francesca but you are too attractive to ignore!) - OK I know I said it too!
And Greek ;-)
But she hasn't passed on her intelligent/beauty genes to her children, which is a little tragic.
Bloody brilliant talk. Half inspired me to leave my own PhD in Criminology and begin studying Theology and Ancient Religion. I'd be really interested to know how sexuality is dealt with in theological communities and departments.
I hope you did leave and go and study what you wanted to.
Theology is Criminology, no matter you're theist or an atheist.
@@yodel1b782 I hope not. It's all very interesting, but we need people to do meaningful stuff in the real world hear and now.
Why won't Christians attend your lectures? They are afraid you will say something that shatters their fath. They want to cling to it even if it based on falsehoods.
+Roedy Green - It occurs to me that she may not understand this. Since she's never been religious, she doesn't know what it's like to face that kind of cognitive dissonance.
Largesse1000 - LOL, you angry, bro? And abusive! So very Christian ... not. Religion works so very well, and has no negative side-effects, whatsoever ... 😏 ... 😎👍🏼
Anyone that believes what man or woman tells them about spirituality is just as much a fool as the person trying to persuade them. Common sense tells me to seek my own path to spirituality. After all I am human too. And have the freewill to think for myself! lol You people are fools!!
Albert Einstein - "What separates me from the most so called atheist is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos" - " We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but we only dimly understand these laws - We see ourselves as a little child entering a library filled with books in many languages and does not understand the languages that it is written, but the child knows that someone must have written these books, this it seems to me is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God" - Einstein such a humble man and intelligent man
On the contrary I think for being a good theologian you need to skeptic in order to be imparcial, A theist could be more likely to ignore some facts or make a wrong interpretation of archaeological evidence, maybe because it's against their beliefs... I love you Francesca!!
+teban67 an atheist could reject some essentials belief because they are atheistic as well
As Baji said, this strikes both ways.
@@jayd4ever Given that religion and beliefs change over time, obviously the theists reject plenty of "essential" beliefs. The fact one group holds on to the belief and another needs them would seem to denote how essential they are.
Well anyone can put a biased interpretation on archaeological finds...Von Daniken anyone?
@@jayd4ever It's not about 'essential belief', it's about objectively studying the evidence. In the 'Show more' section she has said that she has 'a huge respect for religion'.
Brilliant lecture!
It's never wrong to be an atheist! What she means is that sometimes it's inconvenient to admit it.
i get that it is always WRONG, in the sense, against all society, which is GOD RULED.
luckily it's only third world countries where a god still ''rules'' .
I'm not sure I'd put being hacked to death down as an inconvenience.
very interesting talk, thanks for sharing.
I would add to Ms Stavrakopoulou's list; "why would you want to study criminology when you're not a criminal?".
Great Talk! Thanks for sharing.
Really good talk - Francesca is such an excellent speaker.
Thank you so much.
Beautiful
Being *told* this or that about what you believe (and don't) is usually an insult. Let that be, Francesca: you're good with what you know, you're educated, competent and articulate enough to explain to *anyone* exactly what you're saying about why you believe what you do... you're a PhD in your chosen field and people should listen to you with open minds.
... and it doesn't hurt that you're a smart and and attractive woman whose presentation style is congenial enough to engage even "non-academics".
I too am an atheist (for over 50 years), but I really don't need don't say so very often... people who know me understand that (or at least they accept it), and people who don't know me are *always* free to tell me what they think about "atheism" in terms that invoke physics, (the basis of *all* science) or in terms of philosophy.
Mostly, however... I find myself talking with religious proselytes. Unlike them, I *abhor* the idea that anyone's theology should be more than "spoken, offered... and just ignored without malice by whoever can't see reason in any of it".
Am I wrong to treat proselytes this way... I mean, am I totally missing some "magical" connection they have to some universe that's been invisible to me all my life, despite my searches...
... or are there just billions of people who without exception (either) are totally delusional or are simply LYING because everyone they know EXPECTS them to endorse an obvious lie that no one is allowed to deny?
Find me a God who understands "his own" created everything as described in the Bible... who nevertheless accepts H. sapiens as presently extant worthy of ... and I'll accept a just God... provisionally.
The God I've been taught to understand, believe, accept, OBEY, and WORSHIP is...
... anyone who can read the Bible word-for-word from cover to cover with an open mind (I've done that with 4 Bible versions, a couple of them more than 3 times) *knows* that the Bible's God is nothing but a supernatural uberkiller whose only aim is the entire human world's total domination by one single government, owned by God, and operated by totally unanswerable "clergy".
Needless to say, the Christian God as known today would be (if an actual leader of a modern nation) a despicable war criminal in absolutely every aspect described by the UN. Judaism, Christianity and Islam (in that chronological order) literally OWN that God... and to be honest, all three should be summarily put to death after at least half a century of truly honest debate about their irrational tenets and the inconsistencies they foster, their broad-brush hatreds, the cults of *death* they've all spawned "to promote everlasting life".
Are so few people smart enough to know a "believe us and live that belief... and we'll own you" con when they see it? :-(
I am a fan of her, and I respect her work. That said, I disagree with her when at 40:00 mark she says (and I'm paraphrasing) "religion doesn't try to do what science does." I would love to ask her if she is familiar with the Young Earth Creationist movement? Christian Homeschooling? The Intelligent Design movement? The Creation Museum? The countless cases of people whose children die because their parents chose prayer over modern medicine? Here in the United States there are countless examples of the religious bootstrapping their faith onto junk-science to manufacturer evidence that their literal interpretation of scripture is factual. Still, I would argue with anyone who says she's the wrong kind of atheist just because she is critical of Dawkins.
+J. Rutger Madison You have to know what is the difference between science and pseudoscience. All those you mentioned like young earth creationist movement? they are pseudosciences because real science rejects the idea of religion.
If only Fransesca would acknowledge and accept she could be one of the most important voices of the future....please
She says in her talk she has a problem with Rationality, Logic, Reason etc. I wonder what she sees as an alternative to this as an Atheist, because she doesn't say. I have again seen her criticise Rationality on twitter, but she doesn't explain what her criticism is.
Jake Cross How can an atheist question rationality? The only thing I can think of is that maybe over rational thinking can leave us unable to believe things in science like quantum mechanics (which I know nothing about but apparently things can be in two places at the same time, which would question most peoples rationality on a normal scale). Whatever it is, she is wrong to question rationality as elements like things being in two places at one time in quantum mechanics will become rational.
+Deathbyblackhole Well I'm glad you admitted that you know nothing about Quantum Physics Deathbyblackhole (an ironic name considering they are quantum phenomena!) What a lot of people don't appreciate about this 'particle in two places' idea is it's merely a useful model as all science is. There are other interpretations like one the Many Worlds hypothesis. Yes these ideas don't SEEM to be logical but as we don't pretend to really understand them yet we can't say for sure that they are necessarily irrational either. I would say rationality is better than irrationality every time however we have the right to defend what 'rationality' might mean. It can't mean faith if faith is belief without ANY logic or evidence at all. You don't have faith in your wife because you trust SOME (imperfect) evidence before you marry a person.
This title is soooo wrong. It should be titled: When It's Wrong To Admit You Are An Atheist. Being an atheist is never wrong.
@C K Pari Truth is never wrong. Facts and evidence support my position while your position is supported by indoctrination and lies. Logic!
Can somebody please tell me what she says at 8:29? It sounds like where there's a bit of "car crowing." If that's correct, what does it mean?
+EdD5 where there is a bit of car crime 'nd that's about it.
Wow. Thanks. I just entered her name to see if she had anything new. Yes, I spelled her name correctly.
I find it interesting that during the Q&A - several of the questioners used the word "force". Religion or humanist organizations being a force for good or bad. In some ways - I think humans recognize that any form of human organization - results in similar kind of thinking - a hive mind of sorts - and this results in a force being exerted in the world.
So I think religions have churches, priests and holy scripture to get followers to focus their thinking and energy to a certain kind of thinking - to give over their personal power and put energy into creating a force... and in some ways we create these power structures or forces by surrendering our person power/energy over to an organization.
i love her
@C K Pari you must be a Christian to say that
Or just a believer
🤣🤣🤣
For your kind she is always wrong
And you are always right
within 10 mins of her presentation she states that she has received death threats because she's an atheist woman but in the summary is states in quotes that she describes herself as "an atheist with huge respect for religion". why would you have "respect" for something that has a dogma that says killing someone for disagreeing with you is decreed by god....
....and then she states that she's relatively safe where ever it is she lives in the UK. for a professor she projects a palatable naivete via a few things she stated in the first 20mins.
just a slight criticism but it's cool that she actually dedicated sincere study in this area so that she can confront religious zealots from a point of knowledge.
+ian philip In the video she does explicitly state that she studies in this area because she likes it an not to confront the religious from a point of knowledge. As for respect i believe she is capable of divorcing the religion itself from the actions of some of its adherents.
I totally agree. In another video she comments that Richard Dawkins is trying to pit religion vs atheism. But religion is dangerous on it's own. She thinks that religion and atheism can hold hands. What a bunch of bull. But I do like her research on the Bible.
Reminder that religions and religious people are not monolithic or uniform in... well, in literally any sense at all.
It can be a certain unchangeable mistake to be one and spiritually discover a death that they didn't know that it is the consciousness of being alive as we understand as most humans. The Bible says though it is better than knowing the lord and choosing the devil and those self destructive ways purposely against God. So in the gift already here that grace is given while a hope to discover the lord and way to father God of maker of heaven and earth covers those who are just not sure. I personally choose to always believe in Jesus and God with the holy spirit within me. The good is GOD'S GLORY THAT COMES FROM ME. I just said that to any reading wonder about me personally. Hoping all works out for everyone.God bless
Lots of platitudes & assertions, but why should anyone believe any of it is actually true?
With all due respect to the profesor, it is funny how she downplays her beauty. She mentions that she was young, and talked a lot, and they liked her... but of course her looks did not factor into it.. :-) She is amazing and her talks are super interesting.
It would be interesting to read that odd open letter she refers to after the 35min mark.
For "Wrong" read "Inexpedient".
Fixed.
Ur are Definitely not a Buddhist. But u understand how to take time out and some might call meditate. But she perform meditation without having to mediate.
It is wrong to be an atheist... when gods do exist.
But usually, it is just fine.
When you are right about something , you either just move on, or you just get stuck forever reminding yourself and others, to the point of 'ok enough already'. Francesca seems horribly stuck. On the other hand, Hitchens (was) incredibly versatile, always interesting and never failed to reach deep. I think Francesca does well when debating on biblical and religious topics, she is brilliant, and articulate. But the question is 'where do we go from here?' Hithchens, Harris, Dennet and others fill that void. Francesca just leaves you stranded at atheist.
Probably because she's not really trying to persuade anyone she's right and they're wrong. She's just saying "I trained in a field that's mainly populated by the religious, but I'm not a believer. You can accept my expertise or not (but really, you'd just look stupid trying to contradict me). Other than that, follow your own path, as long as it doesn't hurt others (including animals)."
Religious people is not stupid. Because they don’t know what stupid is. Let me be the stupid one. Religious people sometime talks too much
God, she's gorgeous!
@C K Pari I agree, I don't agree with her opinions but that's normal between me and women! The 'God' before 'she's beautiful 'was a subtle sarcasm.
mmmmm , is this criticism of her colleagues happening in the 21first century in Great Britain , where x religions are tolerated and defended , where sharia is allowed , where one can wear a niqab in the streets . Well , well ,well what an open minded society you live in .
If I were Dr. Stavrakopoulou, I wouldn't bother checking in with Richard Dawkins' Twitter feed. Dawkins has a brilliant mind, but there are certain applications he should stay away from.
+RickySTT I agree, Dawkins is a great scientist and philosopher, but he's become a preacher, ramming atheism down the throats of anyone he can, just like bible bashers do.
+Wayne Hieatt Dawkins is definitely an outstanding scientist, & a terrific science writer, but he is not a philosopher at all, which is why he often makes weak arguments when he strays outside his field. This leaves him vulnerable to attacks by charlatans like W L Craig & other apologists who would be reduced to cattle feed by the more rigorous critiques from serious philosophers of religion. As u note, Dawkins has become a hectoring polemicist & should really stick to what he excels at -- popularizing & championing the value of a scientific understanding of nature & the centrality of evolutionary ideas within it.
😍
She is spot on about Richard Dawkins. The dude understands religion the same way that Stevie Wonder understands colour.
Star Lah lmaooo
It is a pity that she criticizes Dawkins in public because it weakens the fragile position of atheism . Dawkins and others have been ridiculed and criticized just because they say to be atheists . Still now they are confronted with people who tell them they are " lesser humans" because they refuse to believe in a superior being that can do " things" like f.e. fly to heaven on a winged horse. After undergoing silly remarks and stupidities for decades , there comes a point where one has had it and sometimes becomes to be a bit rude towards " believers" .
tempiodelgusto Atheism is stronger than one man! Looking where humanism is going in the future is something we hope to cover in some later videos.
+tempiodelgusto I agree. It's just fine for the Bible to say 'The fool has said in his heart that there is no God' & yet atheists are told they mustn't say people who believe a snake can talk are stupid! What's good for the goose is good for the gander! I can handle being called a fool but the God Squad can't!
+Peter Christou How can pointing out that there's no verifiable evidence for any god claim ever 'fundamentalism' then? If he's wrong all that would need to happen is for someone to prove him wrong!
+tempiodelgusto I thought she was originally part of that group of the new age atheists
How does she know she will always be an atheist ?
I like Francesca a lot, but I'm pretty sure the CORRECT definition of "atheist" means nothing other than a simple rejection of the theistic proposal. I might use "assertion(s)" here, but assertions are supposed to be under the implication of having evidence that scales with the claims, hence the rejection. All else is not atheism, imho, and this is silly.
30 minutes in, and I'm still waiting to hear when it's wrong to be an atheist.
Did you not listen? I’m 3 minutes in and she’s outlining when it’s wrong to be an atheist in context.
She seems to have a bit of a martyr complex.
trooperJac i don't think it is a bad thing either, i like that she is doing her own thing, what i got from what she said she doesn't want to belong to anything she views as too extreme to her
+trooper Jac... martyr complex? Hardly. I don't know what your standards of evidence are, but apparently they' not like mine.
I, I, ME,ME
Yes you are a “wrong” kind of atheist.
I like your work. Still, your critique of Richard Dawkins is laughable. I think you are avoiding socialogically difficult topics concerning religion to reinforce your nice-atheist image. Why do I think that? You clearly have not studied Dawkins' work as you misrepresent it. You should learn from him instead of avoiding difficult topics. You can still be intellectually nice.
She said she wants to bring down god lol good luck with that
When people use the phrase theological truth, I just laugh. The definition of theology is not the study of truth, it's the study of religious faith, which was created by humans. Faith is based on belief, it is not based on facts. People who confuse beliefs with facts are ignorant. The god concept originated in the human mind. That makes it fictional, an invention, not real. The god concept is no more factual than Harry Potter, Narnia, or Middle Earth. There are myriad reasons why humans invented god and continue to believe in such antiquated rubbish. It is interesting to study but I would not bother getting a degree in theology. I could not stand being surrounded by a bunch of religious believers who have been indoctrinated into believing irrational ideas and who hold an inaccurate view of the world.
While I do agree it can at times be unsettling to see Dawkins and others be condescending and disrespectful toward other's religious views, I also believe what they're doing is absolutely vital in securing equal rights (legal and social) for atheists in certain parts of the world. Someone has to speak out, they have to do it eloquently and convincingly, because if atheists simply lie down and accept being relegated to the fringes of society, things will never change.
John Smith While I do understand your perspective, I wouldn't personally take such a hard line stance. I'm sure neither of us would truly support taking away people's freedom of religion--that freedom is the only thing that's kept me from being burned at the stake for being an atheist.
I'm going to postulate that you're using "religious beliefs must be eradicated" as a turn of phrase, implying that all people must learn to be rational and think logically--reject ignorance--at which point religion will either disappear or evolve into something better. That would be a statement I would endorse =)
No matter how rude the New Atheists are they cannot begin to approach the damage religion has caused.
Also their manner is created as direct response by the level of sheer ignorance religion creates.
While it is important to respect all people I see no reason to respect their beliefs. How many Catholics or Anglicans for instance respect the beliefs of Scientologists. Similarly do these same religious people not act in condescending ways to Scientologists. All religions including Scientologists are based on the complete lack of proof. How many of the religionists respect atheism. Every day their leaders get up in the morning and push their religion. Dawkins does no different except he uses science and fact based language. It seems that the religious argument is you can be an atheist if you wish but just be quiet about it.
While yes sometimes the tone of people like Dawkins and Hitchens is incendiary that really doesn't take away the merit of the things they've said and not only is it understandable that they speak this way, it pales in comparison to the pain and suffering caused by the things they speak out against.
I find many people just pay lip service to religions, usually the ones they are born into. Most have no clue about the rules they are meant to follow, or how their lives would be if they lived under strict religious rules.
The fact many of these religions are being publicly outraged and attacking shows they are losing the long term battle on faith. The same way older gods died off, the notion of a single god who you pray and interferes in your life will too. I think people will still have spiritual beliefs, just not human shaped who hear your prayers to win the lotto.
The only reason religions respect each other is because one doesn't have enough power to suppress the other.
Look at most of the majority Islamic countries. Other countries with longer histories where there are large disparate religious groups have learned to live together because they realise no one can win and in the process they will simply destroy what has been built.
Her presentation would better be called, "When it is wrong to *let it be known* that you are an atheist." If you are an atheist in a country where you can be punished for being an atheist, then it would be prudent to hide your lack of belief in any gods, but it is silly to suggest that one should start believing in a god they don't believe in, because that is obviously impossible.
svanhoosen Her title is a little catchier though, don't you think?
+svanhoosen
Absolutely agree. I don't think she thought it thru.
+Exeter AHS Yes it is, and just as valid.
I dunno. Religion is based on irrational suppositions. If you are clouded by them, such as a creator god that you believe you know something about, then it seems you are compromised at the start.
One way to explain yourself is to say "Some people study ancient Greece, or ancient Sumeria. I study ancient Judea. You don't have to immerse yourself in the religion of a culture to study the culture."
+Roedy Green Well said.
I was fascinated by the Iliad and the oddessy
I want to thank all the commentators (no matter how annoying or off point) who mentioned something other than her looks, like something relevant to the major topics she discussed (academia, fair criticism, articulations of atheism, articulations of religion, humanism, etc.). Given her discussion about women in academia and her experience with male commentary on her irrelevant clothes and looks, I get a sense that the commentators focusing on her looks (particularly the crude comments) are just here to troll in order to relieve their frustrated, defiant, chauvinistic sides. I wish they'd learn how to develop some character and respect. Thank you Francesca for a stimulating discussion of atheism in academia.
Isn't that so her looks are only one part of her .
The scholarly mind of hers is rational and unbiased.
However being attractive whether a man or a woman has its advantages people are more inclined to listen to someone who is good looking that's why Bernie sanders didn't become president.
Dawkins doesn't say religious people are stupid. He says their beliefs are stupid.
Which they are
i agree although I get what she's saying
therefore they are stupid
Don't pretend that there is a measurable difference in the semantics.
Distinction without a difference.
As an atheist, I can engage in theological and spiritual conversations; I can even talk with my Christian friends about their lives in context of their religion and help them see deeper into their lives in light of theological and Philosophical views, and even sometimes help them grow deeper in their faith, and they all struggle to understand that I'm not a Christian nor believe in gods.
One pastor I speak to was wondering if I was even an atheist because I could help this one Christian student understand this pastor's theological analyses. Somehow, they thought that you could only be "awakened" by God to delve into theological matters.
Christians didn't understand that I love Religion and theology. I'm a big fan of spirituality, theology etc and not believe in any gods whatsoever.
Geez, it's just comprehension mostly. If the pastor can't help his student understand, why is he even teaching?
They are fascinating stories in the same way Greek myths are - doesn't mean we believe in the Greek gods.
God is real.Jesus is real and the Lord is coming soon.
The vicar in my neighbouring village describes himself as an agnostic and says his wife calls herself an atheist. He chose to be an Anglican vicar because with the job comes trust from the people in the local community whereby he can best help them to face life's common tragedies as they occur.
I love listening to her and her debates.
Damn she's hot.
She reminds me of the way Bertrand Russell was treated by the New York board of higher education in 1940. He was employed to teach mathematics and logic, but when it was discovered that he had unauthodox opinions about religion and morals, a campaign to remove him from his post started and he wasn't allowed to teach. Ten years later he was awarded the Nobel prize for literature.
Claiming that Feminist values makes one a good Atheist is as senseless as saying that what makes one a good Feminist is to adopt secular values. Furthermore, she doesn't understand what Feminism is, mistaking simple renaissance values for a political ideology. This just goes to show that expertise in one area does not a critical thinker make.
Nothing I haven't heard before: the people that believe in invisible friends are DREADFULLY threatened by the mere presence of somebody that does not.
Arrogance?
This from the manner of peon that so believes the universe cannot exist without them in some way that they'll believe any fairy-tale about an afterlife. For what is heaven but the conceptual host for pure narcissism?
No one is interested in reality more than I, Katherine Daniel.
I simply don`t think something can come from nothing. Which essentially leads me to think that there must be something ( if there is anything ).
In short, if you exist and I exist then something must exist. God is the very definition of that which must exist.
Do you think something can come from nothing ?
If you do, then I see no reason how you can think that God cannot. If something can come from nothing then anything can come from nothing. Not only that - it will. This includes God.
But I do not think something can come from nothing. I shall think it when someone produces something from nothing.
In the meantime I am forced to think that there must be something.
Steve DL Simple question. Where did this god come from. If something cannot come from nothing, then god had to be created. And since we have no way to define the something that create the universe, how can you define that something? No one can know that something. To try to define it is pure nonsense.
Hi James.
It does not follow that `if something cannot come from nothing, then god had to be created.`
Simple Propositional Logic will tell you this.
I couldn`t agree with you more when you say that `...since we have no way to define the something that "create" the universe.... no one can know that something.`
Do you think that something / anything can come from nothing ?
Hi, James.
It does not follow that `if something cannot come from nothing, then god had to be created.`
A simple examination of the existential and universal quantifiers of Propositional Logic might satisfy you.
Therefor I ask you : Do you think something can come from nothing ?
If you're told by a teacher you're going to hell for not believing in the Gospels isn't that hate speech? Should they be allowed to say that? Do we allow that kind of speech because we're used to it or because of power dynamics?
We're all atheists regarding all of the discarded Gods throughout history. I'm simply going one God further.
I have been an atheist all my life don't believe in "god(s)". But when I look and listen to Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou: I know this is what a godess should look like :-) (sigh)
+xerox1959 Yeah!! the atheist's god bless her!!
I could listen to her all day...while staring.
Ron Burgandy
I could eat chips out of her knickers....while listening to her lectures too.
C K Pari Literally what are you talking about?
@@thecoderofyoutube It's bc she doesn't traffick with theologians...the point being, theologians pretend to be historians, while Francesca, a historian who is expert at rebuffing theological priority over actual history, throws their pretenses back in their faces. Thankfully the world is nudging toward the view that theology and history are, indeed, two totally distinct fields of endeavor. Cheers!
Ironically, Francesca doesn't like the New Atheists, but I like her because she's an Atheist Feminist. There's no such thing as New Atheism (to me), just Atheism.
+David Hore I agree. I dislike talk of "New Atheism" - it's pointless.
+David Hore I thought she was a new age atheist
+Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius “Hemu Rawal Domitian” Julian Venizelos Nalwa
New Age Atheist?
+David Hore
I agree with the activism; one can only put up with so much religion in politics, etc. But I've never understood the need for the Atheism+ label. Were it not an issue of epistemology, I wouldn't use the word atheist at all.
Interesting point on segregation around education and it’s negative aspects while talking /working at Oxford? Only one woman asked a question and not one working class voice in that group! How’s that for segregation in education. Good talk though?
I wouldn't consider myself atheist, I also wouldn't strictly tie myself to a single religious identity, and I'm DEFINITELY not Christian. So as a fellow student of religions/theology coming from an outsider perspective (raised irreligious too), I have to say her stories from school sound horrible, I'm proud to say the field (or maybe just where I'm studying) is a lot more accepting. Trying to prosthelytize in class (even if only by peer pressure) would definitely NOT be accepted in any classroom I've been in, lol.
I am a Christian and completely agree with what she says. Most religious people in western countries seem to be fundamentalist Jesus said himself judge not least yes be judged you will be judged as you judge others. The information she gives is very informative and shows how perspective of the authors have altered people's views. What is wrong with most people that read the bible is most people are taught a narrative of the meaning of all the stories instead of just independently taking a neutral perspective to get Gods point of view. Most people I know have a political not a religious narrative and rationalize prejudices against others so I can appreciate what she says.
I am an atheist, yet was a former Christian, and also a female. With all that said, I completely agree with you not just Francesca's views, but your point of view, as well. Thank you.
*Why are almost all these comments about her looks? How about we focus on her character, intelligence, academic credentials, intentions and conduct?*
Jealous.
god she's beautiful
And she is like 40 years old. She's one hot woman
True (a least 15mths ago)... but I'm almost 60, and she'll *clearly* be just as hot 11 hears hence (at age 40) as she is today.
Thing is...the love of my life (since mid-1973) is a theoretical and experimental molecular biologist old enough to be this woman's mother (and still hot)... in fact, her oldest step-grand-daughter is heading for a Master's degree if she stays the course.
Does age even fucking *matter?*???
Spirituality is a survival tool against insignificance and the terror of mortality,there has been no bigger obstacle to the concept of diverse spirituality than death denying religion.The objections to new atheism are bogus, it encourages spiritual diversity within the realms of the natural world and encourages humanity to accept mortality with grace and humility.
Tosh Manta Some new atheists - one personal favourite is Sanal Edamaruku, a rationalist who fled India after disproving one too many miracles - are especially fond of encouraging and fostering our tradition of spirituality. Give him a look if you haven't seen him talk before. And thanks for watching!
Exeter AHS Thanks for the tip,he is a brave man and a bit of an eye opener with regards to India and its treatment of atheists/rationalists.
The religion of Jesus became a religion about Jesus,my favourite is Bart Ehrman.
Tosh Manta No problem! And For Bibilical Historians, a couple favourites of mine personally are Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald - especially Fitzgerald for 'Nailed', a very simple exposition of the historical position that Jesus is not historically justified.
Exeter AHS
I wasn't convinced by Carrier but Fitzgerald is more persuading,perhaps Jesus never existed.
Sunyata
Carrier has got a little better with his presentation,either way i am more convinced by evidence than class.
It is no skin off my nose if Jesus existed or not,if he did he was just another mortal.
She is an inspiration to me who come from a long scary and fearful about Christianity. Atheism is an beacon of clearity in a world full of fear and hate.
There are levels to this. Christopher Hitchens is arguably the best debater that's ever represented atheism in my lifetime. Francesca is imho the best academic atheist, of my lifetime. The New Atheist label isn't an atheist thing, it's a derogatory label applied by mostly the religious. It's disappointing in a way, that she acknowledges and uses the term. "New Atheism" arose due to those of us that have been saying the same things for centuries who eventually gained a voice. I've been an atheist for 40+ yrs, actively owning it for 35, and I've never changed my stance. I wasn't an aggressive nasty atheist when I started, and I'm not now. My opinions became "militant" when religious ppl labeled me militant after atheists began getting traction and publicity. It's an abuse of language that's done quite often by religious ppl. Rant over.
Francesca is absolutely amazing, my favorite truly academic representation of any person (not just an atheist) and a gift to the world. Brilliant person. Peace
Excellent!
Sorry to comment so late, but I was heartened (and shocked) to hear you say that Shakespeare is not only for the English! Do you know how many English people have asserted (or mumbled) that it is an utter abomination before the Lord for any American ever to perform Shakespeare in public, because they can’t successfully pull off a 20th or 21st-century posh accent like that of the bard himself?
"When It's Wrong To Be An Atheist" When you have the wrong reasons. e.g. "I survived cancer. God saved me"
If you do that you are downplaying the roles of medical science and the doctors who treated you in favor of an imaginary character who gave you the illness in the first place (because nothing happens without god, right?)
How many people could say god saved them from cancer 100 or even 50 years ago? Not many. If it's difficult for you to think that the progress in medical science and the willingness of god to cure a high percentage of people with cancer is not a coincidence, then it's OK to remain an atheist.
Francesca is what I store if I have a hard drive. She’s will be in my compassionate heart of mind
Everything Dr Stavrakopoulou does is awesome, her book God: An Anatomy is amazing. But! After all these years I am still baffled how well meaning atheists misunderstand Richard Dawkins’ position on religion.
The guy wrote whole books on the poetry of reality. He does not reduce human experience to only the “rational”, he just thinks anything that is flatly irrational should not dictate public policy.
Also religion *does* directly conflict with science when it makes claims about how the world was made, where life comes from, and whether God intervenes in the world with miracles. Sure there may be some ways religions don’t conflict with science but Dawkins is concerned with the ways it does conflict. Why do so many smart people trip up on this distinction?
Ah, uhhmm, eh. The advantage of being atheist in this case is that there is no bias in the research, but the disadvantage might be a too technical relationship to symbolism that *might* hamper the understanding of the religious scribes.
It's wrong if it is not what you actually believe. It is wrong where it is a purely emotional reaction to being mistreated by a certain faith community.
I'm a Catholic. Functionally, I think almost everyone is an agnostic (unless they have had some kind of personal revelation which most people don't get). Since they don't **know**. It's faith in there being a God or (realistically) a faith in there being no God.
Every human being has a right to believe or not. But it is inference based on facts and faith in a conclusion.
I grew up in a family where my father was openly anti-religious. I didn't understand why he was so openly against religion - and couldn't within that environment - because I wasn't allowed to study religion.
So as an adult I took on a quest to study religions. I have studied Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Shintoism. And I did this to understand why different religions conflict with each other.
And after all of this - I can openly say - that I am not against religion for religious people. But I am against people of any religion stating that any other person of another religion is wrong for having a different belief.
And I am for human rights and secularism. I think human rights should be above religious rights. But also if you are religious and have a certain belief - the freedom to follow your own faith is a human right and you shouldn't be persecuted for having a faith different to others - as long as the way you practice that belief/faith doesn't infringe on another person's belief/faith.
And I am pretty much an Atheist... And being an Atheist doesn't stop me from loving people of faith.
It's wrong to be an atheist the same as when it's wrong to be a theist. It's wrong when one becomes a sectarian.
It is understandable and even justified when it is a result of defense. But the lines between defense and offense become quickly indistinguishable.
Atheism and theism can both be pluralistic. In the current world, it is of the most utmost importance for pluralist atheists and theists to be united in their desire to live in a pluralist society.
I almost lost faith in Mathematics, after a series of bad experiences. I'm trying to build it up again . I used to love math. I wish I had a professor like Professor Stavrakpoulou teaching me about the Bible and its history and everything. By believing in it , you just suck all the fun out of it. Let's enjoy the bible, and math too. Though I believe in the latter.
Love Francesca and this video is one of her best. The only issue I have with it, is the use of the term "Atheism".
There is no such thing atheism and there never can be. An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of god. That is it. There is no other requirement to being an atheist. The belief does not inform a person’s decision making processes in anyway. It doesn’t tell how to behave or what they can or can't do. It doesn’t tell them what to or what not to eat. Who they can marry or have sex with. It tells them nothing about how to go about their daily lives. As an atheist, you can be the most intelligent person on the planet or the least intelligent. You can be the nicest or most evil person. You can be, logical/illogical, rational/irrational, you could even be very spiritual and still not believe in god. If you wrote a book about being a good atheist, you would only need five words in it, “Do not believe in god”. If you succeed at this then you are the best atheist possible, because no other attribute, you have is relevant to being an atheist. You can be a doctor or a homeopath, an astronomer or astrologer, you can be and/or believe anything else you want. The only requirement is that you do not believe in god. If you really want to, you could even follow the teachings of the bible, but every time you came across the word “god” you simply substitute “unknown process”, “unknown entity”, or you could simply change it to Jesus. You could just believe the bible was written by humans and Jesus was an incredible human being, the son of Mary and Joseph, and god played no part in any of it.
If you had a course on Scientology would you want it taught by a Scientologist? If you had a course on Moonies should it be taught by a Moonie? If you had a course on the People's Temple group should it be taught by a member of the People's Temple?
Oh thank God...or whatever...I thought we we wouldn't disagree. What Dawkins says is, believe what you want. Just don't impose your stupid belief on the rest of us. And yes of course it's fair to say that people are stupid for believing complete nonsense.
Unfortunate that the audio was so poor for the questioners...
Ironic that some folks who purport to be atheist canonize the holy trinity of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, and become threatened when any of them are challenged.
There are lots of beautiful women around, but very few who are as intelligent as Dr Stavrakopoulou. Her attitude is wonderful, and not gender based that I can detect. She is a scholar with an unpopular point of view. I admire her for that. And for standing up and stating it. I wish there was more of her on You-Tube. More TV documentaries. I want to hear her opinion of the New Chronology, David James and David Rohl, et al.
Thanks. Keep you sexism to yourself.
"bollocks to him" I loved that, you tell him Francesca. I also love it when says human species is not above other non-human species.
They only have higher concussions only if they know how to become a human being
@C K Pari Give me your best example and I will go watch it.
@C K Pari This was your BEST example? There is so much wrong with you. I have made an attempt to discuss a few topics with you. You have shown yourself to be uninterested in actual facts and do nothing more than make uneducated assumptions. There's no helping you.
Yes, atheists deciding who's atheist or not is hilarious, or needing to be informed on the bible to really be atheist.
Seems to be more an American thing where "communities" form.
Its never wrong to be an atheist. The good Dr. is confusing wrong and illegal. Just is it is illegal to be gay in Uganda, but it does not necessarily wrong. It is wrong to mutilate the women’s genitalia, however, it is legal in certain countries.
Good talk but the volume is super low. Maybe my phone speakers just suck though.
Is it wrong to be a communist in a fascist state. No! but you are not stupid enough to tell someone who is a fascist. Like sen. Joseph McCarthy.
A bit of a click-bait title. She means illegal or unsafe .”Wrong” implies immoral or mistaken
Does anyone know the filming date of this video...?
pretension0 We filmed this event on the 2nd of March, 2015 at the University of Exeter. Let us know if you have any other questions! And our society facebook page is available here: facebook.com/groups/ExeAHS
What this is about is not a person's belief, but systemic religion.
I am training myself to say, "Oh Goodness!" when I see Francesca Stavrakopoulou instead of "Oh My God!".
I love this woman.
I thought this was going to be a speech on what would provide justification for theism from the atheist perspective. Still very interesting.
Anyone stop and wonder how come humanists do no good?