Julia Sweeney is best known for her four hit seasons on "Saturday Night Liv… Read Full Bio ↴Julia Sweeney is best known for her four hit seasons on "Saturday Night Live" and her most popular character while on that show: "Pat," as well as her critically acclaimed one-person-shows, "God Said Ha!," "In The Family Way," and "Letting Go of God." "God Said Ha!" played on Broadway at the Lyceum theater in 1996 and was released as a Miramax film, produced by Quentin Tarantino, in 1998. "Letting Go of God" has been filmed and will be released later in 2008..

Julia started her acting career out in Los Angeles at The Groundlings Theater, a well known improvisational and sketch comedy company. It was there that she met fellow SNL cast members Phil Hartman and Jon Lovitz, and where "Saturday Night Live" producer Lorne Michaels tapped her for the late-night show. Sweeney spun one of her most popular characters into the feature film "It's Pat" and after leaving Saturday Night Live, and she moved back to Los Angeles. The film was a flop at the box office, but still has a cult following.

Within a matter of months, after moving back to L.A., Julia's brother Michael was diagnosed with cancer, and so was she. Her experiences led her to write and star in "God Said, 'Ha!'" Produced by Quentin Tarantino and released theatrically by Miramax, the film version of the play earned the Golden Space Needle Award for best directing, while Sweeney's recording earned her a Grammy nomination for best comedy album.

Sweeney's second monologue, "In The Family Way" chronicles the adoption of her daughter from China. This show played in New York City at the Ars Nova Theater as well as in Los Angeles at the Groundlings Theater. In the summer of 2006, Julia was asked by the Hollywood Bowl to perform "In The Family Way" with a new original score written especially for her show by Anthony Marinelli, and this was performed by the Los Angeles Philharmonic.
Sweeney's third monologue, "Letting Go of God" ran for ten months to sold out crowds at the Hudson Backstage Theater in Los Angeles, and then also played in New York City at the Ars Nova Theater. This show has earned her the best reviews she has ever gotten for her stage work. This monologue has also been made into a film which will be released sometime during 2008.

In the meantime, Julia has worked as a producing consultant on "Desperate Housewives" and she was a consultant for three seasons on "Sex & the City." She has also worked as an actress in film, in Pulp Fiction, Clockstoppers, Stuart Little, Beethoven 3 & 4, Stuart Saves his Family, Coneheads, among others. In television she has been a series regular on "George & Leo," and "Maybe It's Me" as well as making guest starring appearances on 3rd Rock From The Sun, Frasier, Mad About You and Sex & the City, among others. Julia is originally from Spokane, Washington and she attended the University of Washington in Seattle where she majored in Economics and European History. She currently lives in Los Angeles with her daughter, Mulan.

The Ten Commandments
Julia Sweeney Lyrics

We have lyrics for 'The Ten Commandments' by these artists:

Anka - Hamilton - Nash One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine It's t…
Figgy Duff Come and I will sing you What will you sing me? I…
Johnny Cash Moses led God's children out to find the promised land And…
P.B.K. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 It's the…
The Brothers-In-Law Moses led God's children out to find the promised land And…
The Fugs Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's as…
The Statler Brothers Moses led God's children out to find the promised land And…

We have lyrics for these tracks by Julia Sweeney:

Starbucks She's silver rich, I cannot take no more yeah Don't want…

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

TRACKS

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Most interesting comments from YouTube:

Pedro H. Lima

3y↑1

@Brandon Holton No, it doesn't. The point is not that if a person is religious he or she is by that fact familiar with symbolism or its underlying meaning. The point is no one atheist undertands or can understand the language of symbolism.

Secular education is a degenerate reflex of sacred education, just as profane sciences are a shadow in relation to sacred sciences and projected by the latter. One example of it is that famous atheist author and Ph.D scholar Richard Carrier, a guy supposed to be an expert in ancient world history, said that the Genesis passage about the "waters" bellow and above the firmament was supposed to be understood literally; meaning that there is literally a kind of water reservoir up high; whilst the symbolism involved, albeit in many respects different, has a parallel with a widespread symbolism like that of the river flowing upwards, which no one ever took literally (as far as I'm concerned), or at least never procured a literal meaning from as more important than the allegorical one. The fact PhD guys like Carrier take for granted the inferiority of the religious outlook, or of that of ancient philosophers like Aristotle, says all about their critical thinking. If this is not thinking critically, by secular standards, I don't know what is. A modern English preface on Plato's Timaeus especifically cautions the reader he should think of the allegorical mythology in question as an outdated misguided form of knowledge; and ten bucks says no one atheist ever got outraged at reading it.

The thesis according to which the bible came directly from God, however literally taken, does not imply it was not written by a human. Taking things literally does not necessarily preclude the symbolism meaning, more often it helps it; just as following an etiquette rule literally may help one better grasp its meaning. For instance, there is the etiquette rule that says you should look attentively to someone's eyes while talking to this someone. The meaning of the rule is that you are showing respect by doing such because it shows the inclination to stop what you are up to by focusing on the other (suggesting this other person is important or valued). Similarly when a catechumen takes part in the outward baptismal rite, he is taking in (to one degree or another) an innerly meaning. This, of course, is different from grasping religion in a more or further elevated manner.

Since religion is all about intellectual gratification, religion does give one intellectual superiority. You are projeting upon me the intention to use the swastika example to show off, but this is just a psychologist approach, meaning that you have no evidence this is my intention other than the fact you cannot access my outlook, which is sufficiently signaled by the fact you have no idea what a symbol like the swastika means, and at the same time deems it utterly irrelevant. You wanna talk about rationality: how rational is that? Besides, you falsely implied as certain that I took the symbol as an article of faith, and not a demonstration or self-evident notion; which is the same as implying that if something constitutes a shadow to you, it has to constitute a shadow to others as well. No one atheist understands the inner meaning of anyone traditional symbolism, and you are a perfect illustration of why and how.

Why does it matter whether atheists can interpret symbols correctly? I have a better one: why does it matter in Plato's allegory of the cave whether the prisoners were freed or not?

PS: I'll leave the link to a book I've written concerning precisely this sort of thing https://theguideofthepostcataclysmiccatholic.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-guide-of-post-cataclysmic-catholic_22.html

Brandon Holton

@Pedro H. Lima You realize that the majority of atheists were originally religious, don't you? By your own logic, that would entail that religious people don't understand symbolism either, which nullifies your entire argument.

You also, seemingly, fail to understand that it is not religion that gives us our ability to think contextually, poetically, or rationally. These things come with education. It's no coincidence that the statistics routinely show that atheists are more likely to have advanced degrees than are people of faith. What does that say? It say, at least, this: Atheists are more likely to have a better fundamental grasp of how to think and read critically, and how to interpret scholarly literature like the Bible. This includes understanding abstract and complicated things like symbolism.

In addition, to argue that religious people, in general, have a better grip on symbolism demonstrates that you either associate yourself exclusively with educated religious people -- which are not the majority -- or that you're completely oblivious to the world in which you live. I'm not sure from which country you are, but here in America, 75% of Christians (and 25% of Americans) believe the Bible should be taken literally (that is, everything in it is directly from God and should be treated as such), according to Gallup and Pew Research polls, as of 2017. So 75% of American Christians, it would appear, have no understanding of symbolism or its role in scripture. The same research groups showed that 83% of Muslims in America believe the Quran should be taken literally. So, you do the math. Of the "big three" religions in the US, the majority of members in two of them seem to not understand or be able to interpret their own religion's texts symbolically -- and that would, conceivably, include literal symbols (for lack of a better phrase). I think it's safe to say, to with a small margin of error, that those percentages would be higher in countries with less educated populations.

Your religiosity does not give you any form of superiority here, educational or intellectual, and it would be wise to not inject yourself into a discussion and provide only the same, repetitive, irrelevant argument -- especially one as meaningless as "Can you regurgitate the meaning of the Swastika that I have accepted as correct, and of which I know more about than you do?" It's a pathetic attempt to phish and show off to a group who simply doesn't care. Regardless of its symbolic meanings in Hinduism, Buddhism, or Jainism, the Swastika's purpose during World War II changed the way we perceive the symbol permanently, and that's just the way it is. Lose your cocky argument style. It's bad form, and it makes people not want to converse with you (I assume this was part of your goal, however, since it doesn't appear to me that you came here to discuss things rationally; but rather, to talk down to others).

But while I'm here, I suppose, I should posit to you a question: why does it matter whether atheists can interpret religious symbols "correctly"? We're atheists. We diverged from those things for a reason, and it would seem fruitless to go back because one guy in the YouTube comment section tried to make us feel inferior about our knowledge of something that simply doesn't matter.

Tim King

8y↑2

By the way, for those who don't know, Richard Dawkins features a story form Julia in one of his books. A famous story now.

Exceprt from THe God Delusion:

"Chapter 9 quotes the comedian Julia
Sweeney’s tragi-comic story of her parents’ discovery, through
reading a newspaper, that she had become an atheist. Not believing
in God they could just about take, but an atheist! An ATHEIST?
(The mother’s voice rose to a scream.)"

Carmel Pule'

Richard Dawkins in Conversation with Julia Sweeney both entered an imaginary mind state through the use of language, which is no different from any religion or drug trafficker/user, or an emotional artistic concept. Let us see what language is and what it does for the human mind. Nothing in language form, be it written or spoken is real, apart from the noise it makes and the engineering structure in the printing, wherever it may be, electronic or paper. When we write or utter the sound, " Woman" or a "boat", these are just sound utterings in nature and not the real thing. Irrespective of how much we write and talk about "women", the amalgamation of many words can never produce a child as that is something that a real live woman can do, even in silence and unseen. So, all that Dawkins and Sweeny are doing is creating artificial hallucinations/illusions in their own minds, and the language sounds are titillating the minds of the audience.

No matter what they say, the speakers in this video are living in an unreal imagined space bounded by their own minds, a space where it does not need much effort to live, away from the toil of real life. It does not take too much effort to see that Julia Sweeny is acting like Mickey Mouse, with her voice and her show-off antics, clearly meant to those movements one expects from an entertainer on the stage, again acting his life away to titillate people in the audience. I do not see any difference between Julia and Jesus as far as public attention is concerned. However, while Julia wants to entertain the public with language and symbolic illusions, I do believe that Jesus meant to create an illusion so that the Romans would start to Fear a Power that is higher than what they had in their Empire, while the suffering people and those in pain, being crucified and being taken to the Coliseums to be killed by the tigers and lions, then those mind hallucinations about super energy could help them create hope and faith in their own minds.

As far as Richard Dawkins is concerned, he realized the weakness of human beings and their " belonging" feelings and so he found a nice public niche how to exploit people with his language sermons and his written work, which did increase his net wealth to about $10 million, all done through seeking popularity and vociferous and projecting language symbols and illusions in people's mind. Even if the illusions and symbols that are created through language, refer to the real world, they are still symbols while residing in language, spoken or written form. This is the language game and its illusion that Dawkins is playing and he is laying it very well. It is the weak audience that is so gullible to follow him. Those who know the beginning of languages would know how powerful languages are to create emotions, even though poetic license, which in a way, Dawkins uses as he is a born gentleman and knows well the psychological recipe of the human entertainment soup, to make money out of his popularity. Humans do not like to live in a materialistic world and Dawkins, not unlike Jesus and Julia, does use language to attain their practical aims.

I do not think that one needs to bring religion and Gods into this. Jesus was a good man, who saw the cruelty of the Romans and the sufferings of the people around him. He had only the language power to create a psychology that would frighten the Romans and help those in pain and in accepting the sufferings with faith and hope, when they are close to death and way down so low when they live. Jesus did not speak to entertain and titillate the crowd, he spoke to give them hope and faith, while Dawkings and Julia, especially fluttering Julia, speaks to entertain their audience. Jesus did not play a social language game but Dawkins and Julia are playing a socially selfish language game, riding on the back and exploiting their audience and cashing in good profit.

Considering the sufferings of people in the past, one wonders if we could see the origins of religions as someone needed to write a particular verbal sonata to help those who needed mental relaxation. A Sonata is a vague term, with varying meanings depending on the context and time period it was written. It represents the principle of composing large-scale musical works no different than deriving a good God. It was applied to the fundamental methods of organizing, interpreting, and analyzing situations and depicting the music for them. Like the musical styles of sonatas, the styles of most religions have changed since the early era, but in general, sonatas and religions still try to maintain the same public mental needs.

Jeanine 🦋

Albert Einstein used the word "god" exclusively in the metaphorical sense. THe following are excerpts from a letter he wrote in 1954 to Eric Gutland from Princeton as follows:

"... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.
... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them".
Einstein letter continued:
"In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one.
(Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator”. ... Therefore, God is just the sum of all the substances of the universe. God is the only substance in the universe, and everything is a part of God.)
And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes
Yours, A. Einstein"

All comments from YouTube:

Salvador Gonzalez

7y↑21

I love to hear Richard Dawkins. He helps me feel very secure in my belief, or lack thereof. He totally opens his audiences eyes to the fact that religion is bogus.

Donna West

5y↑34

Great conversation between two wonderful people! Love Julia Sweeney’s bubbly personality and Richard Dawkins’ lovely calm demeanor!

GREG FREEMAN

2y↑1

I followed Richard Dawkins briefly on Twitter but stopped when his tweets became very angry and hostile. It's hard to connect that person with the one sitting on the stage. I thought he was doing more harm than good by insulting people.

Michele Bruno

5y↑27

"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."--Douglas Adam
Thank you so much Julia. I swear you and I had very similar journeys. I think I may tell my family to watch this if they ask how I lost my faith. You pretty much captures my story in a nutshell.

Counterclockwise Emu

5y↑84

“What sign are you??”
“Im a do not disturb sign”

Omg I’m gonna have to use that in real life 😂

Patrick Kirby

I dig the personality traits of zodiac signs.. I know I know ..

Nacho Man

Sadly it doesn´t work in german :(

Mr2TIMOTHY4V2

Yahuah is not into signs - astrology - he said do not worship the stars he created. Wake up.

Janny Meerstadt

me too! do not know how it translates into Dutch though...

Scott Wallace

8y↑15

What a great meeting of great minds. Thanks, Julia and Richard.

Jevon Frost

4y↑5

Thank you Richard and Julia, so much love amongst atheist here on the internet it’s helping me in a difficult time of my life ❤️

Joe p

4y↑2

I really enjoy hearing these experiences of realization and coming to reason (or out of faith, away from god, etc.). I was fortunate enough to not be 'given' religion as a young, impressionable child. I sort of discovered science and reason and philosophy through books and study, or even curiosity. I would read and study science and also learn the history of the world and religion and religious belief/history. I was able to develop my mind with critical thinking by comparing religion and science on my own. I think it's a privileged position I had, and I want to salute and congratulate those of you who had to be drawn out from desert revelations through sheer will and a fighting spirit. You had a fight and I think that's wonderful. Let reason prevail. Reason prevails.

showmebear

5y↑12

The freedom that you feel when you finally "let go" as Julia so beautifully addresses, is the most amazing sense of clarity and contentedness I've known. Education and curiosity will set you free.

Anita Reason To Believe

4y↑1

I do not have the ability to let go of an almighty power in the spectrum of life (the kind we don't understand as life) that has something to do with how the cosmos runs and knows about us on this pale blue dot

Sandra

5y↑13

"Good rule in life was to never argue with Christopher Hitchens." - Richard Dawkins. Yes!

PJM

7y↑13

I really appreciate that they disagreed so much, it made for a much more lively and productive discussion than the one I anticipated

Hakan Karaağaç

9y↑15

Ty. professor dawkins. I cant believe the transformation ive went trough, but im glad i came out as an atheist. Years of internal conflict.. gone.

Cherie Cullum

5y↑3

richard dawkins is an intelligent man that can see fact from fiction

Shamrock

9y↑233

I was in a café when a man sitting next to me berated me for reading Richard's 'The Ancestor's Tale' because Richard Dawkins knew nothing of philosophy or theology. I told him the book I was reading is a science book and not about religion and did he mean 'The God Delusion' by the same author. He said 'yes that's the one'. He said it was a very bad book, poorly written and argued. I said I had not read it, had he? He said 'no, a well respected friend had told me about it'. I rest my case.

Angus Davies

4y↑1

@Jevon Frost I wasn't aware I came with a manual.

Jevon Frost

@Angus Davies you have never read your own instruction manual on how you are supposed to live your life,

Sean Jones

Shamrock, there are times when I am reminded that we are all just intelligent, talking monkeys and some of us are more intelligent on a specific issue than others. The gentleman you are referring to is just part of a very large group that tends to NOT do their homework and their actions are evidence of this.

William Peterson

I was fortunate enough to hear Richard Dawkins on Science Friday when he was on a book tour for "The Ancestor's Tale". I really had not known of him before, but he was SO kind and nice to the call-in audience. I was very impressed! I also agree with his points in "The God Delusion" and we are fortunate to have had him in the public eye. I saw him in Boulder CO with friends and was very fortunate to have heard him in person.

24 More Replies...

N H

8y↑24

I LOVE THIS! An inspiring pair.

Adrian D

Yasssss. I was so excited when this popped up in my suggestions. Love these two! I'm a huge fan of both, and a "strident naturalist" myself, hahah. What a great conversation. Truly inspirational!

Unondwayza Uyashinga

5y↑14

Delightfull! We need more of this!

Robert Tisch

3y↑2

Great conversation from a great combination! Sweeney and Dawkins were so good together!

Raubhautz

8y↑2

I really enjoy listening to Richard Dawkins in all these documentaries and debates found online. Wish I could catch Richard in California, live.

Inglorious Basterd

5y↑8

Being a "Blasphemer" myself, it was far from a bumpy ride and much more a comfortable confirmation that all that I feel about this subject is nail on the head right.Btw, my cats are also non believers in "Religious dogma" though it could be because they just don't belive in dogs but anyway I have gotten more love and TRUTH from two cats than I could ever get from "religion".

Hippie Dachshunds

7y↑84

I'm dismayed at the number of negative comments regarding Julia Sweeney. She's a brilliant woman and Dawkins is clearly a fan of her one woman show, Letting Go of God. She contributes a great deal to the conversation here.

Space Ghost

@Gnawer Shreth But people generally DON'T criticize men in the same reflexive way they do women. THAT is the actually point. The fact that you conveniently ignore it proves the point further.

Gnawer Shreth

4y↑3

Gotta love the victimhood culture of today, eh? Something criticizes an individual woman and automatically it must be about sexism, being scared of strong women and what have you. lol
No one would give a shit if those same people had criticized a man. It'd just be assumed to be personal taste and nothing else, but as soon as it's about a woman it just has to be sexism because reasons...

GoatAmongSheep

4y↑4

SINCE I COULD BE ONE OF THOSE,...WHO THINKS NEGATIVELY OF MS SWEENEY...your interpretation of brilliant differs from mine. I had never seen or heard anything of her before this unlucky day. She contributes a great deal more to the conversation than is needed, and at a decibel level that is not appreciated.

Gav G

4y↑2

She might be a brilliant woman but that doesn't mean people can't find her bloody annoying

chewyjello1

5y↑4

I find her laughter genuine and refreshing!

5 More Replies...

DX Newington

8y↑60

Loved Julia Sweeney, she's a bubbly, cheerful soul and helped keep the show fun and lively.

TJmusic24

4y↑1

Name Deplume I think you’re right , I think the commenter wasn’t really meaning “soul” , I read it as a “person”, it’s a turn-of-phrase.

Name Deplume

5y↑2

@Whole Shebang Although most often used as a religious reference in modern times, a soul is not necessarily a religious term. In philosophy, it is anything with life energy, emotional feelings, or consciousness. I believe we can agree that those apply to Ms. Sweeney.

Name Deplume

@Whole Shebang I thought the same thing, but perhaps our life energy is a soul of sorts - just not in a religious way.

Whole Shebang

5y↑1

"Person," not "soul." This is a talk between two atheists about atheism - why define Ms Sweeney using a religious term?

Lluvia CH

4y↑3

I just love Julia's energy so much 😭

Edgar Carpenter

6y↑9

Ms Sweeney made a lot of valid points. Until there are easily accessible secular organizations which fullfill all of the non-religious but important church functions in people's lives, churches, synagogues, temples and mosques will continue to be popular institutions.

She was presenting facts about how attending church supports church-goers that Dawkins really doesn't have a valid response for. He says some of the same things, but often dismisses the secular functions of churches etc out of hand, as easily replaceable, without acknowledging their extreme importance to church-goers.

GoatAmongSheep

I live in Canada where religion is slowly dying, thankfully. Maybe my generation had higher IQ or better teaching? The new immigrants, on the other hand are more involved with their own personal bat-shit crazy cult behaviors (such as turbans). This was supposed to be the country where you could escape religion....

Jevon Frost

I'd defend Dawkins by saying he has helped setup and supports organisation that support fellow atheists. The lack of community outside of religion is a problem that I hope can improve but I think it needs an awakening to overcome religions almost monopoly on those aspects. Maybe if we all wore symbolic jewellery? 😁

Jwb52z

That's one of the problems with "experts" in a field of science or in academia. They disregard how people feel.

Hedra Kemal

8y↑5

We need to see more of you Dr. Dawkins, more more pls! Keep the wheel turning, wishing you long life :)

Naomi Kitsune

8y↑1

I just wanted to let you know that you are an awesome guy, and whenever I get hateful religious people denying science, I usually just send them your videos =^.^=

Amy Bean

5y↑2

I ❤️ both of these thoughtful and beautiful people and celebrate a world that includes them ☮️

Louise Haley

5y↑4

I love hearing Richard Dawkins doing an American accent.

Tim King

8y↑5

A very nice talk. I found Julia's ideas to be thought provoking and good for debate. Richard certainly enjoys her company and discussing her ideas. Well done.

Jennifer Grove

8y↑1

When I was in Christian Science Sunday School, I think I was about 10 when I questioned why there were so many other religions.

My teacher was so kind and thoughtful when trying to answer me. And he answered me honestly by saying something along the lines of how no one knows for certain which religion is the true religion. They may very well all be wrong. But the religion of Christian Science after much deliberating seemed to be the one that made the most sense to him.

I don't know if that was a good answer or a very dangerous one.

Mark Daniel Patureau

5y↑2

Hillarious! Love both of these icons!

Thomas H

9y↑157

The key to the atheist movement is similar to what religions have relied on for years. We need to raise our children to be critical thinkers and don't pass on supernatural myths. If that means you need to outwardly claim to be 'Catholic' or whatever, that is fine; just don't indoctrinate the children. Religion will evaporate exponentially especially with resources like the internet.

Bo Smith

@Jane Garner One of the broad views of religion as a definition that I've often appreciated is: a way that one lives one's life. In that sense, everyone has a religion. Another quote that I have often appreciated , that may have been from Jesus is: be a disciple unto yourself. And lastly, I really appreciate what the dalai lama has to say about his religion. "Kindness is my religion."
Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Bo Smith

@Hakan Karaağaç well said. I think there is a saying from the Jesuits something to the effect of "give me the boy to age 7 and I'll give you the man.

DeltaXY

If atheism becomes trendy their is a risk of people converting simply to be fashionable or not mocked by their friends or family members who became atheist by logical deductive reasoning.
The level of education overall - of the masses; not a pejorative term here - is bad.
Even if you're a software engineer or a lawyer, if you're little to un- educated in critical thinking, basic science, you're are not well armed in today's society.
And by science, I don't mean a bunch of random things to learn by heart. STOP learning the names of planets.. kind of useless!
I mean understanding the experiments which prove a few basic physical principles and the process by which science is done (and that includes the meaning scientists assign to the word "Theory", which by the way CANNOT be applied to string/brane or loop quantum gravitiy IDEAS. Yet.🤞)

Jane Garner

5y↑1

Al Excellent point, with which I entirely agree: atheism is not the opposite of religion. I think the terms used re: such matters are very important, & while I don’t want to seem pedantic over this issue, I strongly believe that use of the proper terms is imperative in any serious discussion. It’s not merely a matter of using the language properly...that’s really a different subject usually. In order to discuss issues such as religion or ethics or any important subject, one must first define the terms being used.
As you point out, Buddhism is also a religion. So are many other such views religions: Islam, as well as many less well known religions. I can’t speak knowledgeably enough about Buddhism to compare it to the various Native American religions, but fairly often Native religions are compared to Buddhism, with claims made that there are more similarities between traditional Native spiritual views & Buddhism, particularly with the Buddhism developed in Japan into Zen. Being of native ancestry myself & having been brought up with traditional native views of spirituality & of life in general, & having studied the traditional spiritual views of many native peoples for some 40 years now, I’ve found many serious problems with how Native spiritual views are explained & analyzed by specialists & scholars as well as by others. I don’t claim to represent the views of any particular native people; I am sure many individuals would disagree with my views & in fact claim my views are not native views. I would not presume to speak for any person or any people, as I’m only one person & have no right to speak for any native people. However, I think my views are a valid criticism of how Native spiritual views (aka religions) are usually presented by non-natives.
Mainly, I’m speaking of the Native spiritual views of known Indian peoples prior to colonization, prior to contact with Euro-Americans (direct or indirect contact), because from the 1490s on, alien religious views have been forced on every Indian people of the Americas. Often Indians were forcibly converted to Christianity, both Roman Catholic & Protestant sects, in every area of the Americas. Finally it is becoming better known to the general public what was done to natives in the US & Canada by the residential schools of the 19th & 20th c., but few non-natives know much about the many methods used to eliminate Native spirituality & replace it with Christianity. This is nothing less than cultural genocide, & it continues into the present.
Perhaps the major problem I have with how Native spiritual views are often presented in literature by specialists & scholars is that native views (religion) are presented as similar to Christianity. Usually, non-native authors write of native “gods”, even though specialists in this field have generally agreed for several decades now that no known native people recognized gods/deities. (This is re: precolumbian peoples, of course.) While using the term “god” is more convenient in referring to the various sacred forces recognized by native peoples (Quetzalcoatl, Coatlicue, Tlaloc, Selu, the Sacred Twins, etc), the term is worse than misleading. As Inga Clendinnen explains in “Aztecs: an Interpretation”, there is no indication that the pre-contact Aztecs viewed these as deities, that Quetzalcoatl & Tlaloc, etc, were seen as sacred natural forces, not deities. As she further states, no known native people (pre-contact) is known to have recognized deities. (Clendinnen, a leading scholar in this field, is herself a Christian, as she states herself.)
Because I’ve studied the language & the extant literature of the Aztec-Mexica, as well as what has been written about them, I’m using this culture as an example. With re: to the currently accepted standard of interpretation of classic Nahuatl to English, as taught in most if not all universities, the Nahuatl term “teo” is, depending on the term to which it is attached, is translated as “god” or as “sacred”. “Teo” is not equivalent to a noun; rather it is used more like a modifier. When attached to certain Nahuatl terms, it is translated as (for example) “precious metal”. It can be translated as “sacred excerement”, its more literal meaning, for it refers to precious metals which are in the earth. Thus, it can be literally translated as “sacred excrement of our mother/earth”. However, regardless of how “teo” is used, it does not mean “god”, yet students are taught to translate it as “god”. This is only a small part of how non-natives have colonized native languages & concepts.
The real problems arise when one tries to explain Native spiritual views, for English (& other Euro. languages) do not contain terms appropriate for important native concepts. Native views of religion & of sex/gender are particularly difficult to explain in English. For example, “nature “ has radically different meanings in native languages from meanings in English. In English, many limitations in views are built within the language.
I’m sorry, this is much too verbose, and I’ve not explained the most rudimentary problems. But if traditional native spiritual views were taught starting in public schools, maybe it would at least offer some alternative ways of thinking & seeing. After all, for many millennia we had complex views of the world that didn’t include orthodox beliefs. Our religions (if indeed these may be defined as religion in the western sense) did not include deities, doctrines, dogma, faith, etc. Vine Deloria’s revised edition of “God Is Red: a Native View of Religion” offers an interesting comparison of native religions & Christianity, and as a critique of Christianity it exceeds Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not A Christian.” It explains the native views very well, better than any other one source I know of, and it could offer needed spiritual views that might help change the destructive western (Christian) views now dominating western society. And without doctrine or dogma or the rest.

Sandra

Yep - I'm a nanny and I showed my 3 year old today the beginning of earth on Nat Geo (highly recommend). Documented millions of years before dinosaurs came into being. He loves dinosaurs, so it's an easy in. :)

22 More Replies...

Lung*68

6y↑21

damn you made a priest cry! lol. God bless this lady she's fun to listen to

TyDie85

6y↑307

When someone says "lost their faith". It just sounds like youre missing something. How about we call it "gaining reality" instead lol.

Boire pour finir

@Pedro H. Lima more multitudinous of a problematical declaration; most notably, atheists, whom you confront are not of what you believe; by most, do you mean gone? "symbolism of power" is what you've ignited, which I am genuinely sure, more abruptly, no atheist as I being one, has encountered someone declaring the swastika as a 'symbol of power' if anything I wish for them to not...

Pedro H. Lima

3y↑1

Brandon Holton

Freeda Peeple

Think of it as losing a bad habit

57 More Replies...

drshellking@gmail.com

5y↑3

Ten or so years ago, the openly secular campaign among other things was a catalyst for me to not only come out about being a non believer but to also finally relocate from the Bible Belt to California. I couldn’t be happier.

Dave Hagstrom

2y↑1

This video really hurts.
I LIVE in Rochester,
And I find out Dawkins came here 6 months AFTER this happened.
It was a chance to meet a hero.

Sandra

5y↑2

I had to stop 30 minutes in and see her show. It was GREAT!

Jenoye Stewart

6y↑2

I was studying theology but I didn't finish the degree when I started learning the errors of the SDA church. Then I started to think critically about the philosophy religion employs and I realized that it literally hedged believers in from examining critical opposition to the christian and religious worldview. However, living in Jamaica and with the prevalence of religious views around, I have not and cannot come out openly as being atheist. What I need to know is if the clergy project is for me as well?

Done Dennison

5y↑3

Fellowship means a lot to me. I like that aspect within an atheist group. I wish we could have a bunch of atheist "sites" that anyone could go to to connect with others the same way that people of faith can go to the local church.

Jevon Frost

4y↑2

Same here ❤

Omega

I saw someone ask Richard in an interview what star sign he was, there was a pause and a long stare then he said, "are you serious" and burst out laughing.

KlausM54

9y↑15

In school I had a chemistry teacher who was really pedantic about the way you would describe a chemical or physical process. He didn´t want you to say "the water molecules want to stick together". His determination seemed somewhat over-ambitious back then, but I guess that way of thinking helped me to some more profound understandings of complicated processes. After all, the implication of purpose behind the natural existence lead to the idea of an allmighty god in the first place.

Tim King

+rationalmartian Exactly

rationalmartian

9y↑9

+KlausM54
More teachers should be pedants. Especially in the sciences, maths, engineering etc. Woolly language can certainly be problematic.

GREG FREEMAN

I wish I could recall what moved me away from religion. It was in middle school that these thoughts started to germinate and grow. My family was never very religious, we only went to church once, and the subject was never discussed (along with many others), so it was not a traumatic experience. I guess I believed in god at one time, before, to quote George Carlin, I reached the age of reason. Over the subsequent decades I began to read up on the subject. I started with Nietzsche and then Darwin and getting around to Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Evolution seemed a more plausible explanation for our existence. As Julia Sweeney noted in her one-woman play that the human eye is not the miracle of design the Creationists would like us to believe. I doubt they're only regurgitating information they've heard without looking into the subject themselves. It's the type of ignorance science abhors. Science does not have all the answers and does not claim to. Despite the primitive conditions Darwin had to work under his theories are still regarded as more right than wrong. It will probably never be discovered what set of circumstances moved one species to become the humans we know today. The roots of our ancestral tree run very deep. I'm fine with what we know. I'm more concerned with our future,especially as we become a more violent species.

I briefly followed Dawkins on Twitter but stopped when his tweets became very angry and hostile. It's a shame that such an articulate person is reduced to childish insults. This is no way to win converts. Once you've called a person stupid, especially when directed at an individual, it closes all lines of communication. Even if they are being insulting there is no reason to follow them down into the mud.I

I love her show and wish something like it existed when I was having similar doubts. She tells her story from faithful to faithless in a manner than anyone can understand and it never feels as if we are being lectured to. It's like having a chat with your aunt. Even through personal hardships she seems to remain true to her beliefs. Some might experience a relapse and call upon god to get them through a crisis. Christian mythology has been so deeply embedded in our minds that it has become a mass neurosis.

I don't regret the path I have chosen....but I'm not obnoxious about pushing my own beliefs on another person. If they ask me I will give them an honest answer, without ever feeling morally superior to them. In the end neither know what happens to us before and after we exist. We are bookend by two great mysteries that even the wisest individuals to ever walk the Earth have solved.

DelaneWazHere

8y↑3

As someone who was raised in an Anglican school, it's probably the only form of Christianity I can respect.
Mind you, it's primarily due to their passiveness.

Cesar Oscar

Two Greats of humanity!

Ann Ford

The working chemistry (no pun intended) between these two is wonderful; both a compliment and a contrast.

Self-Law

Never get tired of listening to richard.

Tim King

8y↑2

Cristal Villalba

Queria legendas em PT :/

Edward Yang

5y↑13

It is a sad thing when a culture can only survive based on superstition or lies.

Toni

Superstition only comes from ignorance however so you should feel pity. The lies are another thing altogether.

soloflyer1007

That "spiritual" sense that Dawkins talks about is how I feel...it's possibly the incorrect word, but I feel the best that I can conjure....for the feeling of awe in my body when I experience the amazing things science offers us. I'd love a different word, but even as a scientist, it's the closest I can think of for the feeling ....

Toni

How about "Perfect calm" It suits me. It's the way Dawkins seems to take things most of the time.

Karthika G S

Two hilarious people 😍

Darkangelcali

8y↑1

Oh my Darwin, that voice Dawkins made!

Andrea Diamond

Wow Julia. Your faith journey seems never ending. I love your Bubliness. Richard, thank you for helping me wake up.

Ellee Soares

5y↑2

Alguém legende em Português por favor

Volodymyr Zelenskyy

6y↑34

The voice of Mr Richard Dawkins is so satisfying 😍😍😍

Krotesk

2y↑1

I adore it aswell he speaks very gentle and elegant. :D

Long Term Care Experiences - Birgit Apitius

5y↑2

For me, science can answer "how" and religion tries to answer "why". One audience member put it quite well. "Why is not a relevant question" He said quote: "There is no why"

Sandra

Yep. Definitely. I think Lawrence Krauss said something like that in an interview.

shula may

If a student asks you: my faith says one thing and science says another, I think the best thing to do is not to begin refuting their faith, but to begin going over HOW science got to its conclusions about this particular subject. Because when you go down to the root of the evidence, you both have a common language. Even religious people don't argue with what they see with their eyes. It would take time and require their curiousity, but if they see the process their view of the world would become much less simplistic.

Jevon Frost

I've started to feel like this. Science has open arms to anyone to discover their own truths. When you look to science for answer you find a beauty that religion cannot describe. The most beautiful thing that will ever exist is a sentient being accepting there will always be unknowns, accepting it but still striving to know more.

Rodrigo Santos

7y↑15

Shes amazing!! Watch "Letting go of god"

Hjalmar An Craite

8y↑3

Dawkings for president.

Enrique

9y↑25

professor dawkins,
I sincerely hope you come to Amsterdam so i can see you in person at a maybe a lecture. I hope to one day be able to attend one of your marvellous interviews or lectures.

Klaas de Boer

Enrique Gesta, In that case, Richard Dawkins coming to Amsterdam, In y part of Amsterdameven Islam seems to be in rapid decline, he should talk about about homeopathy and other kinds of obvious bullshit.

Kent Purdy

Dawkins is a treasure.

Wouter Lucas

nogod yes he needs to come to the netherlands

msm

that would be great indeed!

Maddix

9y↑2

Maaaaaaarvellous

Eric Taylor

8y↑2

1:15:00 I would tell her to say this: When faced with two possible explanations, consider the evidence. More important than considering the evidence that supports one idea or the other, consider the evidence that REFUTES one idea or the other.

Warren NZ

My story is the same as Richard's. Brought up mildly Anglican, got to the Age of Reason and kicked God out of my life. I don't think either of my parents believed in God, my Mother certainly didn't. My Dad only went to Church because he liked to sing.

Wildman Samurai

Excellent, thanks for the upload.

Matthew Singh-Dosanjh

4y↑1

Hitchens was right about Iraq, the likes of Sweeney and Dawkins were utterly wrong. I've yet to come across an informed, educated, insightful and analytical person that opposed the liberation of Iraq.

Z A

Dawkins mentioned, at the beginning, his resource for clergy who find themselves atheists. I've personally met 1000+ who are just that. Most were young priests just starting out, knowing they didn't believe, and many knowing they are gay, but who went forth anyway simply because it was a job. Some did so from expectations of family. Some used it to explain why they were to remain unmarried. Some because they thought it was an easy secure job. I've never met a priest who sincerely believes the virgin birth, the Flood, or other scientific absurdities. Not saying there aren't any.

kris best

5y↑1

Interesting talk, both well informed.

Eric Taylor

8y↑7

16:20 I grew up Mormon. At one point we had a missionary (who are called "Elder") named Bishop and a Bishop (head of a ward) named Elder. so we had Elder Bishop and Bishop Elder.

bonnie43uk

9y↑60

That's my evening sorted. Should be an interesting chat. Enjoyed 'Letting go of God' and obviously 'The God delusion'.

Sandra

5y↑1

can't wait!@Adrian D

Adrian D

Two of my favorites. I absolutely loved the actual God Delusion book. Another spectacular book by Dawkins is " The Greatest Show on Earth", for those who have the insatiable hunger I have for the fact of Evolution. Ohhh, such a mind-blowing, fascinating book!

bonnie43uk

9y↑1

@BellCurve Yes indeed, "Go forth and bartend".

BellCurve

+bonnie43uk I wish! Bartending - doing, you know, God's work.

Mike Public

7y↑3

Every good social action performed by a religious organization can be performed by a secular organization, but without the superstitious baggage.

Barbara Annen

Starts at 4:00

Louise Haley

Many times people question Richard Dawkins about the issue of animal rights yet they always seem to skirt around the morality of Vivisection.
I wonder how our professor comes to terms with the horrors inflicted on animals in the name of science and does he have any regrets regarding any of animals he might have experimented on himself ?
I’d love to know how he reconciles his love of science and support for medical research & vaccines etc with his concern for animal welfare.
And what does he think about organizations like Physicians for Responsible Medicine who try to find alternatives to the use of animals in the lab, or PETA with their claim that the results of animal experiments cannot be extrapolated to people ?

Scott Wallace

5y↑1

Julia and Richard are treasures.

Carmel Pule'

Pete Conrad

Nonsense. You just didn’t understand what they were saying and are upset.

Last Strike Studios

Dawkins leaving people speechless talking about memes.

Bob Hogg

Thank you for the introduction, bringing up the house lights and the roving microphones for questioning and the book signing in the secret room where Richard Dawkins won't stop until the book signing is over, Robin Glummner. BTW Glen is hot for you, Robin. Yes, you, Robin Glummner.

Howard Skeivys

5y↑1

God bless the likes of Julia and Richard. I wish I had awoken to their, years ago.

Sandra

heh? lol

V Grof

This was well worth watching. Entertaining, if nothing else.

HectorPicardo

Apparently, if you've ever been classed as a catholic in your life, no matter how long ago you became an apostate, an atheist or an anti-theist, you can never officially "leave" the church. They will still count you, at least statistically, as a catholic. You cannot be "unbaptised"! Sucks, huh?

cycoklr

I lost my religion in 1961, kept it to myself. I still enjoy the social aspect of church activities like weddings, baptisms, potlucks, community feeding programs, etc. I just don't do the worship part. I only share my atheism on a "need to know" basis. I guess that makes me a covert atheist.

TyDie85

6y↑1

You had me at blasphemy xD

sylvia seri

4y↑6

Even though Julia says she is atheist, she still hasn’t let go of religion.

Toni

She's pretending.

Screenplaywriter

The priest cried because he was grieving the death of God. He believed in and loved God so much that he gave his entire life for God and in the end even for just the hope of God, so Julia's words were painful for him to hear as he was already realizing it but hadn't quite faced it.

Victor U

I've admired Richard Dawkins a long time, but I'd like him to shake himself loose of the notion that religion equals theism. The great, enduring, successful example of nontheistic religion is Buddhism. And as Julia Sweeney points out, even in theistic congregations religion is about a lot of things beside God. A religion is a systematic way of expressing and developing a view of reality, whether individually or communally, and addresses itself to personal, including moral, development, and sometimes the development of a calm, centered perspective on life and oneself. It uses recitations (or prayer), music, chanting, meditation, homilies/addresses, readings, and discussions. Religious congregations also address the welfare of their communities. I grew up in the theistic, dogmatic, and authoritarian Roman Catholic tradition, but for over 40 years I have adhered to the God-optional and noncreedal tradition of Unitarian Universalism. There are also Ethical Culture societies and humanist groups, though the UUs have a lot more congregations on the ground. I also admire the Humanistic Judaism movement, where the call to prayer has been revised to "Hear, O Israel, all humanity is one." Love that!

Juli Grlee

5y↑1

Men bond over doing things eg. working in the back yard on a car. Women bond over creating things for the group. These are stereotypes but we all need something to bond over. I personally would bond over someone who like to read and can talk to me about what they are reading and listen to me about what I am reading and be able to share books by mutual agreements.

Steve Aitch

7y↑46

blasphemy is a victimless crime

Winston Smith

Wow

Frank Day

Blasphemy is the devil's blank cheque.

Un Usuario

5y↑4

Not if you're a blasphemous person in a theocratic country..

The Time Is Nigh

5y↑2

I love that.

Sam Dyer

3y↑2

Richard speaks a sentence
Julia right....right....right....right.....right...right....

Trisha Yamada

Confession. Omg. The stress of having to confess some grave sin. I was a little kid. What could little ole me have done to me offensive to some all powerful god? So when we were forced to go to confession, I’d go to the restroom and not come out till confessions were over. This stuff is just so ridiculous.

Tamara Tami Tam

5y↑2

Wow, I just lost a great deal of respect for JS due to her encouraging the promotion of people staying in religion and perpetuating a lie. Smh

Raiom Sarmento

It would be interesting a debate between an astronomer one "astrologer" (I wrote astrologer in quotes because this belief is not logical). Many people believe that the stars are determining our character.

Bill Scannell

I have to say, my heart sank a little when she said he was 'strident'--STILL with that bullshit, and from an ally he obviously likes so much? I bet his did, too. Boy, once someone acquires a label, it sticks, deserved or not. The only time I ever even hear that word is when it is used to describe Dawkins! He has never struck me that way, particularly during this chat, in which he never even approached 'frustrated'.

Edwin Luciano

8y↑3

46:50 Julia, my dear, the same can be said about popular music or professional sports. Rock concerts raise money for good causes and professional sports team are involved in all sorts of charities. Steven Colbert raised a great deal of money on his cable show but I think it's spurious to say late night shows or celebrity status push people to behave better. I think there are also many people involved in the music or sports business who clearly aren't fantastic human beings. I don't think what motivates people to be involved with their church is all that different from what motivates them to be in a band or the basketball team.

Quantum Axe

8y↑1

+Edwin Luciano wasn't that a typical rant from an SJW? i was not surprised that she said what she did because as she had already said it in the beginning, her atheism was not really a result of critical thinking and scepticism.

Jeanine 🦋

Ray W

That's the most interesting commentary(!), that is, a major theory of mine has been that with the enormity and heinousness of the global Catholic Church sexual abuse crisis, no cogent and logical person can actually believe that the Catholic Church heirarchy ITSELF believes there is a retributive God.
My main theory is that since the time of early scientists -- Bruno (burned at the stake by the Catholic Church!), Copernicus, Galileo, and later especially Darwin, the Catholic Church -- very educated and erudite -- knew that its gig was up and then decided on issues of manipulation and control (what religion is) they decided to keep up their schtick.

BlueOceanBelow Lives

Aw yes. This is gonna be good!

Anthony Davis

4y↑3

It just struck me why some people are complaining about Julia Sweeney: she sounds exactly like Mickey Mouse.

Nathaniel Davis

3y↑3

Man this lady’s drugs really kicked in about 2/3rds of the way through this lol

Laura Indira

5y↑4

I love Julia however I don't agree with " changing from within." In my experience the Catholic Church has been very harmful. Anti gay, anti women's choice ,the guilt thing, molesting priests, etc
How can one be part of donetuthat is doing such damage? To me it's like saying I am part of the kkk but I am not racist, it's just cultural . That's y I left I could not be part of a religion that is doing so much harm. Especially if you don't believe in the myths of catholicsm, than y align yourself with them.

kay

It’s fear of “what will grandma say”, and the grandma actually doesn’t care; but what will her friends say?!

Laura Indira

Waltham1892 aw thanks. 🌷🌿

Waltham1892

5y↑3

"I am part of the KKK but I'm not a racist, its cultural..."

I'd never heard it put that way; brilliant!

Edric Lainard Aga-in

what a coincidence, I became atheist at 17 too.

Quantum Axe

8y↑11

'whether it is true or not, that's like the least interesting thing'.
thanks for saying that Julia, because now i won't have to waste my mind or time on your ideas.
i think and hope that when people leave their religion it is for the sake of truth not for emotional reasons.

Quantum Axe

@charles madison yes, they do and many leave for the same, albeit a very bad reason.

charles madison

8y↑4

+Quantum Axe Quantum, perhaps emotional reasons are why people stay trapped in the superstitious nonsense of religion? Actual truth is the least of their concerns ... this becomes obvious when one attempts to have a rational discussion with one of them.