+Roedy Green Well said.

I was fascinated by the Iliad and the oddessy

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.

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.

+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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

+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!!

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.

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.

+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!

+EdD5 where there is a bit of car crime 'nd that's about it.

+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'.

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 ?

Jealous.

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

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 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.

Thanks. Keep you sexism to yourself.

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? :-(

..."You're going to Hell because you've read the gospels..." etc. Easy reply: "No I'm not - I could repent at any time..." The out that christians always give themselves anyway.

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.

Lead the way!!!

Shiva Ashrafzadeh I seem to remember Professor Stavrakopoulou talking about the political motivations for some of the Bible stories in Bibles Buried Secrets for the BBC. This is why the stories aren't necessarily historically factual. They were told to create a political movement.(Probably has a lot to with why Moses and King David are thought to be fictional.)

Absolutely, but political motivations or, as I mentioned, the late and contradictory nature of (some) Biblical material doesn't preclude historical intentions: the authors could very well have intended their audience to view their stories as historical. The issue isn't whether or not the stories are "historically factual" but rather whether they were "meant to be written as history."

@C K Pari Truth is never wrong. Facts and evidence support my position while your position is supported by indoctrination and lies. Logic!

+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.

@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

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.

This location is outside the canaanite empire and may indicate that the empire was larger in its founding, the canaanite gods fought here

Ugarit is a town in the north of canaan

If the canaanites occupied memphis it is possible the occupied giza and built the spyhnx which is a lion that was altered to have a pharoahs head, it doesnt match the egyptian theme as lions arent part of egyptian culture but i bet they are in canaan and if they are then you know that the sphynx is of the old canaanite empire

+DoorknobHead You already stole the late great Christopher Hitchens from us - find your own intellectuals!

+Exeter AHS ::) Noted.

+DoorknobHead there is more discrimination in the uk to Christians than atheists

The act of crashing some planes into some buildings has had a profound contemporary impact on the world, as seen on this side of the pond. It seems that social problems associated with Islamist immigrants from majority Islamic areas may have had profound impact of the European side of the pond. I think the Western world in general has had to reawaken to the "mother lode of bad ideas" contained within the major Islamist texts. Likewise, but to a lesser extent, many atheists in the Hollywood side of the pond are beginning to come out and join the conversation and are openly discussing what a bad ideas all religious principles and thinking represent. Discrimination against Muslims and atheists is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of a clash of diametrically opposed worldviews. When humans have fervorous opinions about how to understand reality, blood will be spilled and harms towards individuals and groups will be promulgated, because humans after all are just animals, with animal emotions and animal biases that will make them act like the violent, unfairly discriminatory animals that they are from time to time. In uncertain times, stereotypes might be the output of a biologically programmed set of hardware routines that aid in the protection and survival of the individual and group. This biology may set a default position of fear and aggressive action towards perceived threats. The default aggressive biological component may be a part of why atheism and Muslims face emotional instead of intellectual intercourse with those that oppose their position. It will work itself out artificially and naturally, but there will be ugliness. Humans can be ugly, and they often are.

***** there is too Muslim as well but also to Christians now by some people

+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.

+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.

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?*???

zodiac and the goetia