We have a cat who lives with us. She rules the roost. Whenever she wants food we give her it. She can come and go as she pleases. For 10 years she has always come back. She sits on my lap whenever I sit down and comes to bed at the same time as us for cuddles. Cats are in no way comparable to slaves. I can't say the same for caged animals or dogs or horses etc. but cats choose if they want to stay or not. If you don't provide as well as a neighbour would, you'll lose your cat to the better home.
No need to apologise, we all have our own stupid people. The difference between stupid people from the Netherlands speak two languages (pretty well) whereas those from the UK [Britians (sic) and Little Enganderlers] are barely literate. So sorry we’re leaving the EU. While I’m here can I ask if you saying “Dutch people” is the same as some Brits saying “English” when the mean British (English, Welsh, Scottish, orbNorthern Irish)?
@@thomascarroll9556 Your not the only one sorry we are leaving the EU I've spent the last 6 years touring round Europe in a Moterhome and found wonderful warm generous, hospitable people in every EU country. Coming out the EU has destroyed my way of life. And yes you could say the little Englanders are responsible. The read more button isn't working on your comment so I'm not sure of your meaning.
@@thomascarroll9556 I'm not sure. Dutch is just what we are. Are there other names for people from The Netherlands? Netherlanders? Netherlandese? And we're sorry to see you go. I thought we had a good thing going on.
Matt:"this is the definition of the no true Scotsman fallacy" Omni:"that's not the 'true' definition" Paul:"Did you just no true Scotsman the no true Scotsman?"
NO true practitioner of religious discussion denies they're a religionist. The exception is the King of such practitioners, Matt Dillahunty, who effectively schools his opponents with his call in show forgetting that in the real world he's not a judge.
Kudos to Marius. Instead of doubling down when he realized his position was not tenable, he said, "I don't know. I'll think about it". Honestly, that is all any of us can do.
@@Boomer22z 1. The calls are screened. 2. If they're plants or not, Dillahunty isn't allowing enough time to develop a line of reasoning let alone a single deductive proof for *GOD* and the conflicting dogma how they aren't deductions. 3. They could all be plants. 4. The show is not educational as mandated by the organizations by laws, I think it's fraud, he's exploiting his position on the show to make a living by it. 5. Matt doesn't have any education, so it could only come from the believers in *GOD.* 6. Matt gets that part wrong, he claims he's a "positive atheist & anti-theist." Theists are people who believe in *GOD* not gods, idols and deities. 7. the callers and the hosts aren't even talking about the same subject. Whatever, I'm not married to the callers, I don't watch or listen to any of this, I've heard and read it millions of times before. I'm listening to Framptom live, _Baby I Love Your Way._ I've listened to matt say a few dozen things in 5 minutes, "Hi, you're on the air." Only half of that is meaningful. He doesn't care about the people he needs to run his show, the callers. That's why I said they might all be plants. I'm at least a fairly rational person and I'd only call if I wanted to make myself famous and that's the same reason why *GOD* haters claim they're better than priests who rape children, it's the *GOD* haters only claim to fame to say in essence, "Being Holy means raping children." How could that _not make them cum?!_ At least a few of you are looking for and hoping in the best humanity has to offer, but I'm an expert in the subject matter and can't really find anyone who has the same amount of serious time studying as I do. Dillahunty's Bible is all worn out but he read it all the time with a religious axe to grind.
The fact that Matt has to convince a black man (aka Marius) that slavery is wrong shows just how deep the rabbit-hole of religion can warp the human mind. Unbelievable!
Religion is only a convenient source to attribute our faulty thinking. Behind that, it's our emotions that drives it. We feel fear & hated, & thus it is ok to enslave. If we didn't have religion to justify it, we would find some other means.
@Black Sun Obelisk Yup, your page gives you a good idea of who you are. You had atheistic views. Which sounds like an android trying to interact with humans but the interaction software v1.3 was glitching out so it came off as uncanny valley. Are you even old enough to talk to strangers online?
@@Eyrie007 Before I even start, I wanna point out that on July 9th, 2018 LeBron James officially signed with the Los Angeles Lakers as was tweeted from Klutch Sports and in vast news articles. From July 9th, 2018 to the death of Kobe Bryant on January 26th, 2020 is exactly 81 Weeks (UNREAL). Game 6 numbers - Played on 10/11 'Father-Daughter Day'... 'Sunday' = 21 , 10 + 11 = 21 , "LA" = 21 , 'Kobe' = 21 , "Lakers" = 21 , Anthony Davis is going for his 21st playoff win, LeBron can get his 21st win all time vs Jimmy Butler, it's 21 days from heat coach Erik Spoelstra's Birthday on 11/1, it's the Heat and the Lakers' 21st post season game this year, the Heat played 73 regular season games the 21st prime. It's also exactly 287 full days after LeBron's last bday on 12/30/19. "Father-Daughter Day" = 287 , It's 287 months after Kobe played his first game on 11/3/1996... yeah another 113 for Kobe amongst the hundred we already know. 287 days is 41 weeks, 10+11+20 = 41 , 'Kobe Bryant' = 41 & dead at 41 , 'King' = 41 , Lakers are 4-1 in the Black Mamba Jerseys and 'Mamba Jerseys' = 41 , Lakers can get their 41st win all time vs Heat, Lakers played their 41st game vs Orlando (where the bubble is) and lost 119-118, 237 points "LeBron" = 237 . October 11th is also 259 days after Kobe's death, 'The Black Mamba' = 259 , "Seventeen Championships" = 259 . That number 259 is also 37 weeks, 'Bryant' = 37 , 'Chosen One' = 37 , 'Lakers' = 37 , 'Seventeen' = 37 , Kobe was 37 when he retired. LeBron's first game as a Lakers was on 10/18/2018. From that day 10/18/18 until tmrw 10/11/2020 is 23 Months 23 days. And 10/11 tmrw leaves 81 days left in the year. The Bubble is played in Orlando, Florida which is on the 81st Meridian. '"Father-Daughter Day" = 172 , LeBron would get his 172nd playoff win. "Father-Daughter Day" also = 82 , tomorrow is Frank Vogels 82nd playoff game as head coach. Mamba Jerseys' = 131 as does "Championship" . 131 the 32nd prime, Lakers 32nd Finals appearance. From Kobe's 2/24 Funeral until tmrw is exactly 33 weeks full Span. Kobe/Mamba/LeBron/James/NBA Finals... all = 33 . But YES it would be insane if they won tmrw in Game 6
Nadir has actually debated with AronRa before. I knew his voice sounded familiar. Good to see he’s embarrassing himself on the Atheist Experience as well.
Nadir will take that clip, post it on his channel, and title it "Matt Dillahunty refuses to debate me AGAIN", and then add himself dissecting the call like, "see, he refuses to answer my questions" and "he's afraid to answer because he knows the Koran is RIGHT" This is his MO, he built his entire Muslim apologist channel by insisting that atheists only pretend not to know who he is when they refuse his debate challenges on Twitter.
Sydney V. That’s the exact same feeling I had he was going to do. He goes around demanding debates, and when they refuse for whatever reason or do not respond, he labels them a “coward” and pretends like he’s won. He did the same thing to Apostate Prophet, who was also on Aron’s debate, and he set Nadir straight. Nadir knew he fucked up. What a clown.
Nadir will follow his usual script and make a statement that Matt Dillahunty is afraid to debate him because he knows the Quran's scientific miracles are true. What Nadir doesn't seem to understand is that after his numerous embarrassing debates with Harris Sultan, AP and Aron Ra, no one takes him seriously.
Even If you don't know anything about black holes. You probably understand that the caller didn't know anything about black holes and wanted a god there somehow.
Inigo Montoya You're leaving it in the coffee too long. If it's well made and fresh, just a second or two brings out a rich flavor to biscotti. Trust me.
Alienshade I think the caller was just demonstrating the typical theist exaggerated faith in pronouncements from authority figures. He was so nonplussed that Matt would not accept something he claimed "a scientist said." Theists will just never understand that it's not about who says a thing - it's about what is said and the evidence, math or logic (rational thinking) that backs it up.
Every day when I get home I have to ask my cat if I may come in 🤣. She blocks the way so she knows how to treat her slave. I'm the one whi6has to work feed her serve her everything she wants. I'm the slave she's the mistress
scientists might say "logic breaks down in a black hole" as a colloquialism, but what they actually mean is conventional physics breaks down in a black hole
Jelmer never seemed to get the point that both Paul and Matt tried to make. Scientists aren't saying that "the laws of logic" literally break down in a black hole, but that the laws of _physics_ break down. It really shouldn't have been so difficult to get that point across, let alone meet a brick wall every time they tried to help him out. That dude is a black hole of an interlocutor, if one could be so generous to even call him an interlocutor.
@@MidlifeCrisis82 A skeptic is someone who employs skepticism as part of their epistemology. So... yes. Being skeptical of skepticism is part of being a skeptic. Being skeptical of something doesn't mean you think it's false. It just means you hold the confidence in your beliefs proportional to the evidence suggesting that it is true.
If someone didn’t hear all of Jelmer’s calls … His (absurd) reasoning is as follows: He tried in the past to carve out a special hole for his God by saying there is is third option between ‘existing’ and ‘non-existing’, he called a ‘paradoxial state’. Of course he would need to demonstrate that possibility, which he can’t. So what he tried this time was to suggest that if Matt isn’t absolutely sure about logic holding up in a black hole, he can’t rule out those crazy ideas about logic.
I nearly swallowed my toothbrush laughing when Matt said "When my grandmother died, she became an inanimate object. Is it ok for me to own her then?" :'D Best laugh all week. Much love guys, keep up the great work!
I mean, some folks take their deceased pets to a taxidermist and turn them into end tables and whatnot, could get some good mileage out of the old gal. "Yeah, granny passed a few years back, but she is a coffee table now, she looks so happy now that she isn't in agonizing pain all the time... well that, and the taxidermist made her face stay that way..."
@Jim Merrilees Eh, I love him. I think tough love is the best (and maybe only) approach that will penetrate the layer after layer of fallacies some people have buried themselves in.
if she became an inanimate object upon death, then in life she was an animate object. so granny was an object when she lovingly made objects for your birthday? this feels objectionable on multiple levels but I can't fully articulate why
More Paologia! He's fantastic to have around. Love his energy and attitude. Come back again Paul. The people love you. I love you, and you're very appreciated.
Someone's willingness to die for a belief is not proof that the thing is true. It is just very strong evidence that they are convinced it is true. It does not get us any closer to knowing if the event took place.
Tidy Up Fairy! I’m very confused..when he makes the cartoon of himself and does a voice over, are you saying that he does his own voice..with his own ass..or like...is the cartoon of his face..like.. really of his ass? I’m sorry, I totally think your joke is a disaster pal. Rooting 4 u tho 😘
@Lorenza Semaj McCoy Jr. Thats wrong.... No where does it say Satan killed Jobs family. Job 1:11,12 Satan answered the Lord: *Put forth "YOUR" hand now, and touch all that he has and he will curse you to your face. *And the Lord said to Satan: All that he has is in YOUR power; only upon him put NOT forth YOUR hand. ------>So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord. **You assume it was Satan that killed Jobs family. The only truely thing that Satan can be guilty of is Job 2:7. *Satan went from the presence of the Lord and smote Job with "sore boils" from the sole of his foot unto his crown.
@Lorenza Semaj McCoy Jr. II'm no historian either..... However, 15 years ago, I too blamed Satan for the death of Jobs family, until my eyes were open to actually "read with understanding". And since then, I haven't been able to blame him, for what Ive been "told". I began using some of the Atheist ways (if you will) to come to truth. And now I need proof, Satan is the Evil one. And I really haven't been given any "proof" from the bible. Crazy uh?
@@miguelalfaro-deux5792 If you accept their definition and accept the premise that most people operate under that definition, then yes I would be guilty of No True Scotsmanning the No True Scotsman fallacy. However, no part of their definition includes an appeal to purity (the other name for the No True Scotsman fallacy) so I reject it.
@@en-voguepugh3472 Very possible. But I can't change my mind until someone points out the flaw in my thinking. There simply isn't an appeal to purity in changing your definitions. There has to be something more to the fallacy (or else we have to agree it's inaptly named, which I would be fine with).
Really hope Paul does this again. He was the first TH-camr I followed after losing my faith, and I will never take for granted the clusterfuck of terror and grief I was spared because Paul took the time to articulate the losses and map out some ways for finding secular meaning and purpose.
@@thecentralscrutinizer Well "Hollander" would only apply to people from two specific provinces. Namely the ones from Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland. As to why we are callled Dutch and not Netherlanders... I think that had something to do with the British. Back in the day we got lumped in with the Germans or the "Deutsch" as they call themselves.. and I guess that sort of stuck in a way.
@@curious5661 Funnily enough, germans are called after various germanic tribes in various languages. Even Deutsch is just a nickname invented by the Italians in medieval times derived from the Teutonic tribe.
When a physicist says logic breaks down in a black hole they're talking about classical physics breaking down to quantum mechanics. Normal people won't understand what that means so they use the colloquial term for logic not the mathematical definition.
@@markburch6253 yeah I've never heard one say that either but popular science authors tend to use colloquialisms to explain stuff rather then the actual scientific terms like a research paper would. So maybe he read that or heard it somewhere and misconstrued it.
@@Sylosis333 I agree 100%. But the problem is that people don't take the time explain exactly what happens. Theories come with equations. At the point of a singularity some quantities go to infinity while others go to zero. Infinity times infinity equals infinity. Infinity plus 1 equals infinity. Once infinity is introduced into an equation the equation becomes unworkable. Not to mention multiplying and dividing by zero. This is a simple and easy to understand explanation. Rather than saying "the physics break down" what we should be saying is "some quantities go to infinity and once that happens the equation becomes unworkable". It's not that the laws of physics break down, it's that the math in the equations become unworkable. If we take the time to explain that simple concept theists might stop saying things like Jelmer said.
@@markburch6253 but we do have equations to define singularities it's called quantum mechanics. The swarzschild metric and schroedinger equations are used. It's still logical but the confusion probably comes from illogical being confused with counterintuitive.
I’m worried about Omniskeptic. That was one of the most torturous calls in tAE history. I can’t tell if he understood the correction in the first 2 minutes but decided to double down and spew nonsense for the next 15 minutes to try to save face, which only made things worse. Very odd person.
The problem was, like so many callers like this, he wouldn't LISTEN. He just waited his turn to talk and didn't process what was being said as he thought he'd worked out some "gotcha" and so he wouldn't accept a simple, simple point. And yes, it was fucking BRUTAL to listen to, one of the most agonizing I've heard in a VERY long time.
I truly don’t get how people still use that as evidence. It’s hard to understand how someone even remotely interested in these topics doesn’t know the countless stories of people dying for beliefs.
Jim Merrilees You’re missing the point - it was a rhetorical question. It was an example showing that just because early Christians died for their beliefs, that doesn’t make their beliefs true
This confusion is getting silly. No human owns a cat. We pay money, or are approached by a feral cat. Then the cat decides to give us the honor of owning us. No human is worthy of owning a cat, but it is right and proper for cats to own humans. Maaaah!
Excellent insight from Paul on the free will issue! Even if we want to consider our choices to be the product of influences, we can always work to influence the influences.
Jelmer is confusing Newtonian physics with Quantum physics and trying to apply them to philosophy, and he mixes all this with the possibility of the existence of God. Ugh
so according to Jacob the apostles that died to support their faith are “martyrs” and shining examples of high virtues. How about those burnt at the stake for heresy, apostasy, witchery or simply for proposing a scientific truth not shared by the Bible like say Giordano Bruno? The strong side decides who’s to commend and who’s to condemn in an authoritarian based society that includes dictatorships and Religion based regimes.
@Rod Loucks What did she say, to make the high priests believe she was a virgin? As far as I know, nothing is written of "cirrcumcision done to females" (FGM), within the bible. So, at that time in history, how could she prove she was a virgin? How could she prove she didnt commit adultry? She was promised to Joseph. And Joseph was considering putting her away (finding her guilty). How could a 14 year old pregnant girl be saved from "death by stoning", which was the punishment for adultry according to Jewish law. Her life is a miracle.
@Rod Loucks Do you know, a male, just laying naked in between a femals legs has actually gotten females pregnant? WITHOUT having penetration. Therefore, two naked virgin children (male and female) laying together could bring about pregnancy in the female, while both remain virgins. It's been scientifically proven.
Marius obviously knows nothing about cats. My cat is the boss. She decides when I wake up in the morning. Yesterday it was 5 am, this morning 4.30 am. Cats aren't owned by anyone.
Just caught up with this show with Matt and Paulogia. Excellent, as usual. The long discussion with Jelmer about logic inside black holes - and how the guys tried to straighten him out - set me thinking. And I want to suggest a different approach. Logic deals with language, not reality. The clue's in the name. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences - though any use of language must follow the rules of one logic or another. Logic deals with what can be said consistently, without contradiction. So, of course, the rules of logic apply in any descriptive context, including descriptions of the reality inside black holes. That observed physical regularities do or seem to break down there is irrelevant. Jelmer was making a fundamental mistake, and I'm not sure if Matt and Paul's response didn't compound it. The point is, outside language, reality isn't linguistic, so it isn't logical. The truth isn't out there, any more than falsehood is. And in reality, outside language, there can be no logical contradictions - 'speakings-against'. The idea that features of reality conform to our ways of describing them - and therefore the rules of classical logic (identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle) - gets everything back to front. It mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. People excepted, things don't identify, name or describe themselves. No worries if this doesn't interest anyone. But if it does, I'd be grateful for any thoughts.
In EVERY episode, the most, most frustrating thing is callers NOT LISTENING. If you're considering calling in, this advice is your one take-away: if you ask a question, or make a statement, STOP TALKING AND LISTEN. If you interrupt constantly, you're an asshole, 1, and two, you are NOT HEARING. It is assinine to interrupt and an indication you do NOT wish to learn anything, let alone shift your understanding.
Jelmer is the guy who you’ve just met who gets weird with you when you said nothing insulting at all. He’s the guy that makes any conversation awkward. 🤣🤣 Imagine inviting this guy to a night of drinking. It would be a horrendous night.
Caller timestamps with descriptions and possible spoilers. 7:20 Jelmer: You cannot rule out gods because nobody knows the deal with the inside of black holes. 28:53 Marius: Matt is wrong about a piece of text that Marius doesn't know until it is read. 48:08 Omniskeptic: It's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy when you describe your criterion as "refining" the definition instead of "changing" it. 1:07:20 Jacob: A religious movie said martyrs can't be liars, so I believe ten [no, wait, two] of the apostles. 1:24:16 Shannon: Someone once wrote, "People are gods", therefore people are gods. 1:30:12 Nadir: My book is divine because I can't think of, nor accept, natural explanations. 1:36:30 Jeff: If there's no free will, how can we hold people responsible for their actions? [Cough-the same way-cough.]
That was most certainly not my argument. My argument was that when you change it, you have to appeal to purity using words like "pure", "true", "actual", "genuine", "real" etc. Sometimes you can change a definition dishonestly from one premise to the next via equivocation fallacy, other times you merely reject your original claim and change your definition. But to commit a NTS fallacy, you have to attempt to change your definition with an appeal to purity. Changing it isn't itself enough.
Matt is my ambassador of quan. He is so fair and has more patience than people allow, think how many of these discussions he's been through with so many people that tap dance around answering the question asked instead of answering what he asks for. Hat off to you Matt, you are respected and loved by more people than you will ever know.
The exodus 21 guy i expected him to be one of the quacks that would still hold a belief that it's ok because the bible says so, but he actually conceded his position. Maybe theres hope in him yet.
Paul and Matt, you guys absolutely nailed the conversation with Jeff about free will. People will be held responsible for their actions as a practical necessity to keep our societies functioning. There's no other justification for punishing criminal behavior.
I actually don’t think he’s completely right about it. Under his answer, there isn’t any moral accountability at all. Rather, it is just a deterrent to stop people from wanting to do bad things, but that’s a different thing than moral accountability. With his answer, he must believe that there is no need for accountability. There is only a need for a deterrent, but that’s not accountability or culpability
@@Matthewsmusic1000 isnt moral accountability and laws/punishments as deterrents the same thing, only different by time? Moral accountability refering to past events, and deterrents to future events?
@@jcs56 when it comes to moral accountability and moral deterrence, they are different because of the purpose and reasoning behind their implementation. Punishment in order to hold someone accountable for their actions and punishment to correct their behavior are two different things. If the only reason we punish is to correct behavior, then there really is no such thing as punishment for moral accountability, just for deterrence. Deterrence is not the same thing as accountability or culpability, as it implies an essence of blame. But if someone could not have done otherwise, then how is it moral to punish for blame. How can they be held accountable. We can attempt to fix the problem, but not hold them accountable for the existence of the problem.
@@Matthewsmusic1000 thanks for explaining! Isnt the goal deterrence? Society would prefer bad things not happen. I see the humanist goal as they are taken out of society and hopefully "fixed". Many things may not be fixable so there will be some long stays.. But the goal for all people is to not be taken out of society because of their actions, hence they may be less likely to do the crime. I'm wondering if moral accountability needs to be a factor?
I wish they talk more about the case against the resurrection. I find it fascinating. After all, that is the primary reason why many people believe and base their belief on.
I love when callers say shit like, I haven't been able to get a sentence out! All indignantly. They completely fail to understand that if they are getting interrupted, it's because they're already wrong. If you want to say a full sentence, don't be wrong three words in.
Omniskeptic: Melts down when anyone disagrees with him, shuts the conversation down, won't let the person speak, quits listening even when the caller, in this case, is presenting his understanding in a reasonable way. Matt would benefit from steelmanning what a caller is saying instead of just flying off the handle and cutting them off.
The whole point of the "no true scottsman" fallacy is that you can't disassociate someone's self identity merely because, as a member of that same group, you disagree with a specific behavior..the caller is missing the point entirely of the fallacy.
@A Light in the Dark the Yorkshire Ripper did what he did after being told to by God. He killed 13 and tried to murder a further 7. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, however this was rejected by the trial judge even though the prosecution was willing to accept this plea. He was found guilty on all charges and was sentenced to 20 life sentences with a mini um imprisonment of 30 years before parole could be considered. The High Court in 2010 increased his sentence to mean he would die in prison, after he was deemed fit enough to leave Broadmoor Secure Hospital.
The only way you can know that mathematics has broken down you must be using an "unbroken" logical axiom(s). That if the axiom(s) was faulty you couldn't know (reason that) the math failed. Why is that so hard?
And then there was that Gödel fellow who did to my take on math what Einstein did to my take on physics. Curved space, curved space, how can I possibly understand that? How can 1 + 1 = 2 etc. possibly be extended into contradiction? Such things I fear will remain forever beyond my understanding.
And "Christian" apologetics is a failed dumpster fire of contradictions, inconsistencies and erroneous, disingenuous, fallacious arguments and special pleading which isn't even taken seriously by most reputable biblical scholars and theologians.
@Black Sun Obelisk atheism is not “a LiE“ it’s is simply not convinced of any of the worlds god claims that are put forward.. is not believing in Santa Clause “A LiE” too? 🤣
Omniskeptic is using the "argument from nuh uh" to refute his incorrect assertion about the no true Scotsman, and it's pretty hilarious. So rude about getting more chances to be publicly wrong. 🤣😂🤣
Scientists have said that the laws of physics as we know them might not apply at the singularity in a black hole. That doesn't mean the laws of logic are violated.
The answer to the last question so simple. If you think you should 'choose' not to punish someone for their crimes because you don't believe in free will, then you have a problem. You cannot possibly make that choice.
Technically the question was about no free will with politicians--but we couldnt discuss that on this show so we went with criminal punishment instead lol. Similar in some ways I suppose.. I learned a few good points.
Jelmer: "You're totally irrational if you claim to know what's going on in the centre of a black hole". Also Jelmer: "I claim to know what's going on in the centre of a black hole".
I love slavery arguments. Here is an answer to the cat question. Can wr say that it is objectively moral to own a cat? No. But owning a cat and a slave are not the same thing. Owning a cat is basically committing yourself to the care of another animal. We do not generally beat our cats or force them to work for us. All they have to do is be companions.
@@oskarfabian5200 I guess you dont "make" a cat work for you in this scenario, but lots of farms keep a few cats to keep the population of rats, mice and whatever other invasive rodent you might have trouble with, down.
@@Uhdksurvhunter but even having a cat on a farm doing what is natural to it isn't slavery in the least. I've had cats and from experience, you dont own cats... they own you. 🤣🤣 Plus, you can't help but fall in love with them when you know how they show you love and trust. My cats have always been very happy cats. That aside, pets are good for you anyway. They lower stress levels and create a sense of awareness in your attitude. Nuff said.
For the opening caller, the thing that "breaks down" at singularities like the center of a black hole is not laws or logic, but the mathematical theories that describe behavior. Nothing is actually "broken", we just reached a point that the math can no longer explain. It's a limitation of the _model,_ not a fundamental crack in math or logic themselves.
Hi, God here. Though I could have left compelling evidence of my earthly adventures, and answer now any questions you have until you are satisfied, I did not and will not. The reason is because of a metaphysical thing called *Mysterious Ways ®*. There, now you know. So, I would require a lot of human preaching and make belief, just like every other god that do not exist. And you know they do not exist because other gods also answer prayers with yes (if the thing happens), no (if doesn't), or maybe (if does not happen but you want it to happen eventually) instead of using my Mysterious Ways ®! Glad to have cleared this one out! Love me ...or else! Big G.
I think my cat would disagree with the premise that I own him rather than the other way round. He allows me to feed him and in return he leaves dead mice outside the back door for me in case I get peckish too.
@@AC-gb7do And why would we use something like Louisiana Hot Sauce instead of something decent like Sriracha? If we are going to make something spicy, it might as well taste good too.
Why does not anyone ask the question "why would a God 'want' something?" Would a God be so weak that it would succumb to its own feelings? And a God even having feelings itself is a total non-logic cuz those feelings be controlling the all powerful,. Meaning that a God is fallible to its own feelings. Weak God i would say.
I mean, if god created everything, and then wants something, why can't he make that thing they want and save themselves time? God must be really stupid to depend on his own creation to provide that for him. weak and stupid methinks...
@@lawrenceasto1325 . Spent my life in sales and marketing. The advice I would give him if he existed, is to show himself to everybody, In order to get maximum believers that he so desperately pleads for in the Bible.
Marius was being especially telling in the idea that atheist morality requires an appeal to nature fallacy, that evolution in any way dictates morality in terms of principles rather than it being an observation of the diversity of life and how it came about. I've heard this shtick enough that it becomes grating that I can see the dishonest tactic which tries to paint theism as preferable because it has an authority to appeal to, as if that's why we should behave morally instead of fact-based observations about well being and human flourishing at large.
What struck me about his illogic about "humans and cats are both evolved animals, we own cats,why not humans?" is pretty basic. The 'ownership' idea in reference to pets is a cultural one, not factually correct. THIS culture condones the buying and selling of animals because the concept is biblical, and a lot of the attitudes largely seen as normal are also biblically based. I agree with Matt about "stewardship" and the responsibility in caretaking regarding animals.
@@MCodger And also, there's recognition that because of their lesser cognitive capacity that we, in terms of a society that values life and the variation that pets offer in companionship alongside human relationships (which doesn't require Christianity in the slightest, much as some would try to claim like with Western culture at large) The fundamental problem with Christianity is defending obedience and submission as a virtue in all senses and even advocating that it is moral to do so, God the master to its slaves in Christ effectively, a motif that likely manipulated African slaves in America during those unpleasant times people try to act like were all happy fun and innocent (rather than gross violations of human rights)
RE: First caller The principles of Logic are not mere presuppositions, they are self-evident and undeniable. Their very denial involves there use. Logic is much more than a presupposition.
Hmm, is that correct? Didn't Matt say that logic IS a presupposition? I understand that their denial involves their use but isn't that still being presupposed? You have to start with something as a presupposition, right? Since Matt agrees we can't be "certain" of anything (as in 100% absolutely certain)? I'm not saying I'm right but I don't think it can be stated as definitively as you've done here.
OmniSkeptic:"Why does everyone but me not understand the no true Scotsman fallacy?" Matt:"You don't understand the no true Scotsman fallacy" OmniSkeptic:"no u"
And I don't think people should be eating or owning any animals either vOv (I don't own my cat. I couldn't bear to see her in the miserable condition she was, so I cared for her, fed her, took her to the doctor and then she moved in, and we look after each other.)
Stephen Pearson He used to appear on these threads as “Dr” James Powers, he has another alias, but he is so insignificant, I can’t recall it. He is an arrogant, boastful clown with absolutely nothing of any import to impart. Strangely, he doesn’t know the difference between “desert” and “dessert”, and he once replied to my question on comparative religions by writing, “sorry, but the man-made litanies and traditions of religion are man made”! He also uses punctuation marks in a very strange and puerile manner. He is a waste of skin.
Jim Merrilees Yes, very good Jim! Actually, rereading my comment I realised that it might help to put it in context. I know that you’re around here a lot so you’ve probably had dealings with him too. He tries to big himself up, calling people “kid” and “you’re lucky I’m here to educate you” etc. In this particular case, after his usual pontificating and sermonising, he wrote:- “here, take this w/ you for desert”. I never let him forget it, perhaps that’s why he’s not around here so much anymore.
I have "owned" several cats. I'm pretty sure I was their slave.
THANK YOU - I was thinking the same as I looked at my cat who was clearly thinking of ways he could eat me if I died.
My dogs are my companions. I acquired them from my niece. I don’t beat them and they could leave but they don’t. We all love each other.
Stasia Flonase that’s because dogs domesticated us (at least) 30,000 years ago and have housetrained most of us.🐕🐩🦮🐕🦺
We have a cat who lives with us. She rules the roost. Whenever she wants food we give her it. She can come and go as she pleases. For 10 years she has always come back. She sits on my lap whenever I sit down and comes to bed at the same time as us for cuddles. Cats are in no way comparable to slaves. I can't say the same for caged animals or dogs or horses etc. but cats choose if they want to stay or not. If you don't provide as well as a neighbour would, you'll lose your cat to the better home.
@Bruce Wayward yeah you are missing out a lot, but if it was a joke it's pretty funny 😆
On behalf of most Dutch people: we'd like to apologise for Jelmer.
We have Jelmar like people in the UK on behalf of the human race I apologise for them.
No need to apologise, we all have our own stupid people. The difference between stupid people from the Netherlands speak two languages (pretty well) whereas those from the UK [Britians (sic) and Little Enganderlers] are barely literate.
So sorry we’re leaving the EU.
While I’m here can I ask if you saying “Dutch people” is the same as some Brits saying “English” when the mean British (English, Welsh, Scottish, orbNorthern Irish)?
@@thomascarroll9556 Your not the only one sorry we are leaving the EU I've spent the last 6 years touring round Europe in a Moterhome and found wonderful warm generous, hospitable people in every EU country. Coming out the EU has destroyed my way of life. And yes you could say the little Englanders are responsible.
The read more button isn't working on your comment so I'm not sure of your meaning.
@@thomascarroll9556 I'm not sure. Dutch is just what we are. Are there other names for people from The Netherlands? Netherlanders? Netherlandese? And we're sorry to see you go. I thought we had a good thing going on.
@@loki6626 Always
Matt:"this is the definition of the no true Scotsman fallacy"
Omni:"that's not the 'true' definition"
Paul:"Did you just no true Scotsman the no true Scotsman?"
Love you, Paul
I like how the subtitles don’t include Matt’s cusses.
@@chrlpolk The system filters out useless conjectures, Matt's cursing because of his lack of education.
NO true practitioner of religious discussion denies they're a religionist. The exception is the King of such practitioners, Matt Dillahunty, who effectively schools his opponents with his call in show forgetting that in the real world he's not a judge.
@@NyxSilver8 only someone with no true education would call Matt someone without education XD
Kudos to Marius. Instead of doubling down when he realized his position was not tenable, he said, "I don't know. I'll think about it". Honestly, that is all any of us can do.
Very few of us can do that. As I am never wrong I don't have to. Lol
Yes and he should have been given more credit by the hosts for doing so.
@@Boomer22z credit for being rational? He didn’t get hung up on. That’s his credit.
parametalhead no credit for being honest. It’s rare and should be praised when seen
@@Boomer22z 1. The calls are screened. 2. If they're plants or not, Dillahunty isn't allowing enough time to develop a line of reasoning let alone a single deductive proof for *GOD* and the conflicting dogma how they aren't deductions. 3. They could all be plants. 4. The show is not educational as mandated by the organizations by laws, I think it's fraud, he's exploiting his position on the show to make a living by it. 5. Matt doesn't have any education, so it could only come from the believers in *GOD.* 6. Matt gets that part wrong, he claims he's a "positive atheist & anti-theist." Theists are people who believe in *GOD* not gods, idols and deities. 7. the callers and the hosts aren't even talking about the same subject.
Whatever, I'm not married to the callers, I don't watch or listen to any of this, I've heard and read it millions of times before. I'm listening to Framptom live, _Baby I Love Your Way._ I've listened to matt say a few dozen things in 5 minutes, "Hi, you're on the air." Only half of that is meaningful. He doesn't care about the people he needs to run his show, the callers. That's why I said they might all be plants. I'm at least a fairly rational person and I'd only call if I wanted to make myself famous and that's the same reason why *GOD* haters claim they're better than priests who rape children, it's the *GOD* haters only claim to fame to say in essence, "Being Holy means raping children." How could that _not make them cum?!_
At least a few of you are looking for and hoping in the best humanity has to offer, but I'm an expert in the subject matter and can't really find anyone who has the same amount of serious time studying as I do. Dillahunty's Bible is all worn out but he read it all the time with a religious axe to grind.
The fact that Matt has to convince a black man (aka Marius) that slavery is wrong shows just how deep the rabbit-hole of religion can warp the human mind. Unbelievable!
Religion is only a convenient source to attribute our faulty thinking. Behind that, it's our emotions that drives it. We feel fear & hated, & thus it is ok to enslave. If we didn't have religion to justify it, we would find some other means.
No, just more evidence to prove that the Stockholm syndrome is true.
Neil of Longbeck not entirely correct. Stockholm syndrome is between hostage & captor. Marius is not a hostage.
@@audience7264 his religion is the captor.
Neil of Longbeck interesting point
Hi Jelmer.
The laws of logic make even more sense in the centre of a black hole.
See, we can all just make shit up.
@Black Sun Obelisk
No, I’ve beaten all those arguments.
Silly girl.
@Black Sun Obelisk then why do you wait over 19 hours?
@Black Sun Obelisk Yup, your page gives you a good idea of who you are.
You had atheistic views. Which sounds like an android trying to interact with humans but the interaction software v1.3 was glitching out so it came off as uncanny valley.
Are you even old enough to talk to strangers online?
@Black Sun Obelisk
Great, give us your ONE argument.
Don’t embarrass yourself.
Go!
@Black Sun Obelisk
Still waiting for your best argument.
Go lady!
You can delete it later when we embarrass you.
Listening to another black man justify slavery in the bible in 2020 makes my head hurt.
I am not black and I completely agree! It's just so damn frustrating!
are we still having the slavery debate when its been debunked
@@francismanalese7337 These knuckleheads don't even read their own holy book. It's sad.
@@Eyrie007 Before I even start, I wanna point out that on July 9th, 2018 LeBron James officially signed with the Los Angeles Lakers as was tweeted from Klutch Sports and in vast news articles. From July 9th, 2018 to the death of Kobe Bryant on January 26th, 2020 is exactly 81 Weeks (UNREAL). Game 6 numbers - Played on 10/11 'Father-Daughter Day'... 'Sunday' = 21 , 10 + 11 = 21 , "LA" = 21 , 'Kobe' = 21 , "Lakers" = 21 , Anthony Davis is going for his 21st playoff win, LeBron can get his 21st win all time vs Jimmy Butler, it's 21 days from heat coach Erik Spoelstra's Birthday on 11/1, it's the Heat and the Lakers' 21st post season game this year, the Heat played 73 regular season games the 21st prime. It's also exactly 287 full days after LeBron's last bday on 12/30/19. "Father-Daughter Day" = 287 , It's 287 months after Kobe played his first game on 11/3/1996... yeah another 113 for Kobe amongst the hundred we already know. 287 days is 41 weeks, 10+11+20 = 41 , 'Kobe Bryant' = 41 & dead at 41 , 'King' = 41 , Lakers are 4-1 in the Black Mamba Jerseys and 'Mamba Jerseys' = 41 , Lakers can get their 41st win all time vs Heat, Lakers played their 41st game vs Orlando (where the bubble is) and lost 119-118, 237 points "LeBron" = 237 . October 11th is also 259 days after Kobe's death, 'The Black Mamba' = 259 , "Seventeen Championships" = 259 . That number 259 is also 37 weeks, 'Bryant' = 37 , 'Chosen One' = 37 , 'Lakers' = 37 , 'Seventeen' = 37 , Kobe was 37 when he retired. LeBron's first game as a Lakers was on 10/18/2018. From that day 10/18/18 until tmrw 10/11/2020 is 23 Months 23 days. And 10/11 tmrw leaves 81 days left in the year. The Bubble is played in Orlando, Florida which is on the 81st Meridian. '"Father-Daughter Day" = 172 , LeBron would get his 172nd playoff win. "Father-Daughter Day" also = 82 , tomorrow is Frank Vogels 82nd playoff game as head coach. Mamba Jerseys' = 131 as does "Championship" . 131 the 32nd prime, Lakers 32nd Finals appearance. From Kobe's 2/24 Funeral until tmrw is exactly 33 weeks full Span. Kobe/Mamba/LeBron/James/NBA Finals... all = 33 . But YES it would be insane if they won tmrw in Game 6
Any black person that subscribes to Christianity ought to slap themselves silly.
Nadir has actually debated with AronRa before. I knew his voice sounded familiar. Good to see he’s embarrassing himself on the Atheist Experience as well.
Nadir will take that clip, post it on his channel, and title it "Matt Dillahunty refuses to debate me AGAIN", and then add himself dissecting the call like, "see, he refuses to answer my questions" and "he's afraid to answer because he knows the Koran is RIGHT"
This is his MO, he built his entire Muslim apologist channel by insisting that atheists only pretend not to know who he is when they refuse his debate challenges on Twitter.
Sydney V. That’s the exact same feeling I had he was going to do. He goes around demanding debates, and when they refuse for whatever reason or do not respond, he labels them a “coward” and pretends like he’s won. He did the same thing to Apostate Prophet, who was also on Aron’s debate, and he set Nadir straight. Nadir knew he fucked up. What a clown.
I’d like to see that debate - talk about a mismatch
Nadir will follow his usual script and make a statement that Matt Dillahunty is afraid to debate him because he knows the Quran's scientific miracles are true. What Nadir doesn't seem to understand is that after his numerous embarrassing debates with Harris Sultan, AP and Aron Ra, no one takes him seriously.
@@DocBree13 Check out AronRa’s TH-cam channel. Nadir’s debate with Apostate Prophet on Scientific mistakes in the quran is also there
No scientist has ever said LOGIC breaks down inside a black hole. Its PHYSICS that breaks down.
@Al Gore Rhythm True
Biscotti breaks down in black coffee.
Even If you don't know anything about black holes. You probably understand that the caller didn't know anything about black holes and wanted a god there somehow.
Inigo Montoya You're leaving it in the coffee too long. If it's well made and fresh, just a second or two brings out a rich flavor to biscotti. Trust me.
Alienshade I think the caller was just demonstrating the typical theist exaggerated faith in pronouncements from authority figures. He was so nonplussed that Matt would not accept something he claimed "a scientist said." Theists will just never understand that it's not about who says a thing - it's about what is said and the evidence, math or logic (rational thinking) that backs it up.
No one actually owns a cat. Cats allow us to live with them. as humans we just pay the bills and buy the food
Every day when I get home I have to ask my cat if I may come in 🤣. She blocks the way so she knows how to treat her slave. I'm the one whi6has to work feed her serve her everything she wants. I'm the slave she's the mistress
Spoken like a cat slave. My master is calling now I mean meowing
Cats have the “staff”. 😂
Cats are cognitively impaired Gods
I’ve found all cats are prey for my dog.
scientists might say "logic breaks down in a black hole" as a colloquialism, but what they actually mean is conventional physics breaks down in a black hole
Jelmer never seemed to get the point that both Paul and Matt tried to make. Scientists aren't saying that "the laws of logic" literally break down in a black hole, but that the laws of _physics_ break down. It really shouldn't have been so difficult to get that point across, let alone meet a brick wall every time they tried to help him out. That dude is a black hole of an interlocutor, if one could be so generous to even call him an interlocutor.
@@FakingANerveI'm really curious to find out what the words are in his native language, because this could totally be down to a translation error.
No true skeptic would have so much trouble understanding the no true Scotsman fallacy.
haha clever
He is an omni skeptic. He is skeptical of his own skepticism.
@@MidlifeCrisis82 Every good skeptic is. Skepticism is a methodology, not a conclusion.
@@omniskeptic794 that's not a true skeptic.
@@MidlifeCrisis82 A skeptic is someone who employs skepticism as part of their epistemology.
So... yes. Being skeptical of skepticism is part of being a skeptic. Being skeptical of something doesn't mean you think it's false. It just means you hold the confidence in your beliefs proportional to the evidence suggesting that it is true.
Ah! The irresistible magical charms of a black hole! I don't understand science, therefore God! :D
Not just science but he doesn't understand what listening comprehension means.
Jesus is lord
@@Consistency00 Go back to school
Even in quantum mechanics are some things not logical, but true. And not logical means we don´t know why and how some laws are working.
@John McKay Yep!
If someone didn’t hear all of Jelmer’s calls … His (absurd) reasoning is as follows:
He tried in the past to carve out a special hole for his God by saying there is is third option between ‘existing’ and ‘non-existing’, he called a ‘paradoxial state’. Of course he would need to demonstrate that possibility, which he can’t. So what he tried this time was to suggest that if Matt isn’t absolutely sure about logic holding up in a black hole, he can’t rule out those crazy ideas about logic.
I nearly swallowed my toothbrush laughing when Matt said "When my grandmother died, she became an inanimate object. Is it ok for me to own her then?" :'D Best laugh all week.
Much love guys, keep up the great work!
I mean, some folks take their deceased pets to a taxidermist and turn them into end tables and whatnot, could get some good mileage out of the old gal. "Yeah, granny passed a few years back, but she is a coffee table now, she looks so happy now that she isn't in agonizing pain all the time... well that, and the taxidermist made her face stay that way..."
@Jim Merrilees Eh, I love him. I think tough love is the best (and maybe only) approach that will penetrate the layer after layer of fallacies some people have buried themselves in.
if she became an inanimate object upon death, then in life she was an animate object. so granny was an object when she lovingly made objects for your birthday? this feels objectionable on multiple levels but I can't fully articulate why
I love how CONFIDENT Omniskeptic is that everyone except for him is wrong about a commonly used phrase.
Because he was right. He argued badly. But he was right. Matt's definition of the fallacy is esoteric.
@@jefflimausa He really, really wasn't. And that wasn't even really his argument?
His point was that there is a difference between clarifying a definition vs changing it. Or at least that's what I gathered. @Omniskeptic Am I wrong?
@@jefflimausa Nope. Omni was wrong.
@@jefflimausa he was wrong, and you're wrong about him being right. Cheers!
Paul is one of, if not the best, counter-appologists on TH-cam. Thanks for doing the show!
More Paologia! He's fantastic to have around. Love his energy and attitude. Come back again Paul. The people love you. I love you, and you're very appreciated.
Someone's willingness to die for a belief is not proof that the thing is true. It is just very strong evidence that they are convinced it is true. It does not get us any closer to knowing if the event took place.
True. People like that aka martyrs are found in many religions.
@@tanjavankessel9842
Hence why Martyrdome isn't reliable as evidence.
@@guytheincognito4186 Exactly!
It's weird hearing Paulogia's voice coming out of his actual face.
@Tidy Up Fairy! I don't think it's him talking from the derriere buddy
Tidy Up Fairy! I’m very confused..when he makes the cartoon of himself and does a voice over, are you saying that he does his own voice..with his own ass..or like...is the cartoon of his face..like.. really of his ass? I’m sorry, I totally think your joke is a disaster pal.
Rooting 4 u tho 😘
@Lorenza Semaj McCoy Jr.
Who did the Devil kill?
@Lorenza Semaj McCoy Jr.
Thats wrong....
No where does it say Satan killed Jobs family.
Job 1:11,12
Satan answered the Lord:
*Put forth "YOUR" hand now, and touch all that he has and he will curse you to your face.
*And the Lord said to Satan:
All that he has is in YOUR power;
only upon him put NOT forth YOUR hand.
------>So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.
**You assume it was Satan that killed Jobs family.
The only truely thing that Satan can be guilty of is Job 2:7.
*Satan went from the presence of the Lord and smote Job with "sore boils" from the sole of his foot unto his crown.
@Lorenza Semaj McCoy Jr.
II'm no historian either.....
However, 15 years ago, I too blamed Satan for the death of Jobs family, until my eyes were open to actually "read with understanding".
And since then, I haven't been able to blame him, for what Ive been "told".
I began using some of the Atheist ways (if you will)
to come to truth.
And now I need proof, Satan is the Evil one. And I really haven't been given any "proof" from the bible.
Crazy uh?
Omniskeptic: "I am amending the definition. Pray I don't amend it further."
I can be pedantic, but I found him insufferable.
Gotta love a good Star Wars joke.
The problem with stupid people is that they don't realise that they are stupid. Omniskeptic is even far stupider than that.
rageofheaven Darth Vader, you big meanie!!!
Simon McElvanney he did say he felt ridiculous after being shown.
Jelmer can’t find his point because it’s on top of his head^
Fuck that's funny.
matt: so here's what a no true scotsman is
omniskeptic: but that's not a TRUE no true scotsman
So that idiot pulled a no true scotsman on the definition of a no true scotman. hahahahaha but Matt was the idiot.
@@miguelalfaro-deux5792 If you accept their definition and accept the premise that most people operate under that definition, then yes I would be guilty of No True Scotsmanning the No True Scotsman fallacy. However, no part of their definition includes an appeal to purity (the other name for the No True Scotsman fallacy) so I reject it.
@@omniskeptic794 Yeah you were right about the definition. Matt needs to understand fallacies better and stop misattributing.
@@omniskeptic794 dude i think you misunderstand the no true scotsman.
@@en-voguepugh3472 Very possible. But I can't change my mind until someone points out the flaw in my thinking. There simply isn't an appeal to purity in changing your definitions. There has to be something more to the fallacy (or else we have to agree it's inaptly named, which I would be fine with).
Really hope Paul does this again. He was the first TH-camr I followed after losing my faith, and I will never take for granted the clusterfuck of terror and grief I was spared because Paul took the time to articulate the losses and map out some ways for finding secular meaning and purpose.
As a Dutch person I would like to apologize for Jelmer.
Why are they called dutch and not netherlanders or hollanders?
@@thecentralscrutinizer Well "Hollander" would only apply to people from two specific provinces. Namely the ones from Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland. As to why we are callled Dutch and not Netherlanders... I think that had something to do with the British. Back in the day we got lumped in with the Germans or the "Deutsch" as they call themselves.. and I guess that sort of stuck in a way.
@@curious5661 thanks, I had a feeling it had something to do with the Germans but wasn't sure
As a Canadian, I’d like to apologize for Omniskeptic.
@@curious5661 Funnily enough, germans are called after various germanic tribes in various languages. Even Deutsch is just a nickname invented by the Italians in medieval times derived from the Teutonic tribe.
I like Paulogia. He's pretty intelligent. I like how he can come at an argument from a different angle than Matt.
When a physicist says logic breaks down in a black hole they're talking about classical physics breaking down to quantum mechanics. Normal people won't understand what that means so they use the colloquial term for logic not the mathematical definition.
Physicists don't say LOGIC breaks down.
@@markburch6253 yeah I've never heard one say that either but popular science authors tend to use colloquialisms to explain stuff rather then the actual scientific terms like a research paper would. So maybe he read that or heard it somewhere and misconstrued it.
@@Sylosis333 I agree 100%. But the problem is that people don't take the time explain exactly what happens.
Theories come with equations. At the point of a singularity some quantities go to infinity while others go to zero.
Infinity times infinity equals infinity. Infinity plus 1 equals infinity. Once infinity is introduced into an equation the equation becomes unworkable. Not to mention multiplying and dividing by zero.
This is a simple and easy to understand explanation. Rather than saying "the physics break down" what we should be saying is "some quantities go to infinity and once that happens the equation becomes unworkable".
It's not that the laws of physics break down, it's that the math in the equations become unworkable. If we take the time to explain that simple concept theists might stop saying things like Jelmer said.
@@markburch6253 but we do have equations to define singularities it's called quantum mechanics. The swarzschild metric and schroedinger equations are used. It's still logical but the confusion probably comes from illogical being confused with counterintuitive.
That's very true.
I’m worried about Omniskeptic.
That was one of the most torturous calls in tAE history.
I can’t tell if he understood the correction in the first 2 minutes but decided to double down and spew nonsense for the next 15 minutes to try to save face, which only made things worse.
Very odd person.
I think he was having trouble grasping the idea that maybe, just maybe, he was wrong and they were right.
The problem was, like so many callers like this, he wouldn't LISTEN. He just waited his turn to talk and didn't process what was being said as he thought he'd worked out some "gotcha" and so he wouldn't accept a simple, simple point. And yes, it was fucking BRUTAL to listen to, one of the most agonizing I've heard in a VERY long time.
The vocal fry on it's own was unbearable.
It’s like logic escapes him and script takes over.
Travis Breazile which I bet you’re super skilled at doing, right Travis?
I don't know about anyone else, but I will NEVER get tired of Matt debating slavery.
Many people at Jonestown and Heaven's Gate were willing to die for their beliefs, right? Is that compelling evidence that their beliefs were true?
I truly don’t get how people still use that as evidence. It’s hard to understand how someone even remotely interested in these topics doesn’t know the countless stories of people dying for beliefs.
Fun fact: there is still a living active member of heaven’s gate
excellent point
Jim Merrilees You’re missing the point - it was a rhetorical question. It was an example showing that just because early Christians died for their beliefs, that doesn’t make their beliefs true
@Jim Merrilees Go back to your My Little Ponies, whinebag.
This confusion is getting silly.
No human owns a cat.
We pay money, or are approached by a feral cat.
Then the cat decides to give us the honor of owning us.
No human is worthy of owning a cat, but it is right and proper for cats to own humans.
Maaaah!
Excellent insight from Paul on the free will issue! Even if we want to consider our choices to be the product of influences, we can always work to influence the influences.
First caller was confused with language. He heard “logic breaks down” instead of the “laws of science break down” at black holes
Laws of PHYSICS break down
He was truly another moron in an endless series of morons that have dared to challenge the almighty Matt.
I think all the callers were confused with language
Did you find it funny the first time Matt mentioned his penis and the guy didn't react at all?
Locutus D'Borg thank you!
Jelmer is confusing Newtonian physics with Quantum physics and trying to apply them to philosophy, and he mixes all this with the possibility of the existence of God. Ugh
He is just an immigrant !
This show reached it's lowest point with Nadir...........I'll get my coat.
Isn't the caller Nadir the same guy that debated Apostate Prophet and kept on saying the interpretation of Arabic is wrong?
@Pretty Paul Roma Nineteen thumbs up. I've made it twenty.
I remember him Arguing with Aron Ra too and making an ass of himself
🤦♀️nice dad joke 😁
so according to Jacob the apostles that died to support their faith are “martyrs” and shining examples of high virtues. How about those burnt at the stake for heresy, apostasy, witchery or simply for proposing a scientific truth not shared by the Bible like say Giordano Bruno? The strong side decides who’s to commend and who’s to condemn in an authoritarian based society that includes dictatorships and Religion based regimes.
Jesus is lord
@Rod Loucks
What is a miracle, is the fact Mary (mother of Jesus) wasn't found guilty and stoned to death for adultry, according to Jewish Law.
@Rod Loucks
She was pregnant.
@Rod Loucks
What did she say, to make the high priests believe she was a virgin? As far as I know, nothing is written of "cirrcumcision done to females" (FGM), within the bible.
So, at that time in history, how could she prove she was a virgin? How could she prove she didnt commit adultry? She was promised to Joseph. And Joseph was considering putting her away (finding her guilty).
How could a 14 year old pregnant girl be saved from "death by stoning", which was the punishment for adultry according to Jewish law.
Her life is a miracle.
@Rod Loucks
Do you know, a male, just laying naked in between a femals legs has actually gotten females pregnant? WITHOUT having penetration.
Therefore, two naked virgin children (male and female)
laying together could bring about pregnancy in the female, while both remain virgins.
It's been scientifically proven.
Marius obviously knows nothing about cats. My cat is the boss. She decides when I wake up in the morning. Yesterday it was 5 am, this morning 4.30 am. Cats aren't owned by anyone.
Lol, yeah... I thought I was training my cat not to attack people, turns out I was getting trained to give belly rubs on demand 😂
Marius was a breath of fresh air!
Answered questions and seems intent on some self reflection.
Just caught up with this show with Matt and Paulogia. Excellent, as usual.
The long discussion with Jelmer about logic inside black holes - and how the guys tried to straighten him out - set me thinking. And I want to suggest a different approach.
Logic deals with language, not reality. The clue's in the name. Other discourses deal with reality, such as the natural sciences - though any use of language must follow the rules of one logic or another.
Logic deals with what can be said consistently, without contradiction. So, of course, the rules of logic apply in any descriptive context, including descriptions of the reality inside black holes. That observed physical regularities do or seem to break down there is irrelevant. Jelmer was making a fundamental mistake, and I'm not sure if Matt and Paul's response didn't compound it.
The point is, outside language, reality isn't linguistic, so it isn't logical. The truth isn't out there, any more than falsehood is. And in reality, outside language, there can be no logical contradictions - 'speakings-against'.
The idea that features of reality conform to our ways of describing them - and therefore the rules of classical logic (identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle) - gets everything back to front. It mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. People excepted, things don't identify, name or describe themselves.
No worries if this doesn't interest anyone. But if it does, I'd be grateful for any thoughts.
In EVERY episode, the most, most frustrating thing is callers NOT LISTENING.
If you're considering calling in, this advice is your one take-away: if you ask a question, or make a statement, STOP TALKING AND LISTEN. If you interrupt constantly, you're an asshole, 1, and two, you are NOT HEARING. It is assinine to interrupt and an indication you do NOT wish to learn anything, let alone shift your understanding.
Why don't pastors admit they're wrong? Simple..it's bad for business.
Jelmer is the guy who you’ve just met who gets weird with you when you said nothing insulting at all. He’s the guy that makes any conversation awkward.
🤣🤣
Imagine inviting this guy to a night of drinking. It would be a horrendous night.
30:02 the African-American man from Alabama asks Matt to define slavery...😳
As a black person it is infuriating. Having to deal with these people some in my family makes me want to just go live somewhere isolated.
Caller timestamps with descriptions and possible spoilers.
7:20 Jelmer: You cannot rule out gods because nobody knows the deal with the inside of black holes.
28:53 Marius: Matt is wrong about a piece of text that Marius doesn't know until it is read.
48:08 Omniskeptic: It's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy when you describe your criterion as "refining" the definition instead of "changing" it.
1:07:20 Jacob: A religious movie said martyrs can't be liars, so I believe ten [no, wait, two] of the apostles.
1:24:16 Shannon: Someone once wrote, "People are gods", therefore people are gods.
1:30:12 Nadir: My book is divine because I can't think of, nor accept, natural explanations.
1:36:30 Jeff: If there's no free will, how can we hold people responsible for their actions? [Cough-the same way-cough.]
That was most certainly not my argument. My argument was that when you change it, you have to appeal to purity using words like "pure", "true", "actual", "genuine", "real" etc. Sometimes you can change a definition dishonestly from one premise to the next via equivocation fallacy, other times you merely reject your original claim and change your definition. But to commit a NTS fallacy, you have to attempt to change your definition with an appeal to purity. Changing it isn't itself enough.
@44:57 when Matt says "Who are you gonna call ?" ... Am I the only one who wants to sing "Ghostbusters!" :D
You can own a pencil, and you can beat it as long as it still writes for a day or two.
Does it matter if its a mechanical pencil?
I’ve beaten my pencil to the nub.
I’m sorry..I’ll see myself out.
@@judyives1832 mechanical pencils are a highly evolved species.
@@AC-gb7do I'm pretty sure my pencil used to scream when I beat it. It seems to be used to it now.
@@AC-gb7do you'll have to get stoned for that.
I like how Jelmer laid out the groundwork for why he failed right at the beginning. Very sneaky.
I apologise for the dutch guy. Most us dutch people are not even religious.
He was that one rotten tulip
@Magical Chemical Daddy what?
@Magical Chemical Daddy How do you know?
@Magical Chemical Daddy No calvin, your god doesnt exist. And that is ok.
@@whynottalklikeapirat - He doesn't know anything. He just talks shit and calls people "creature".
Matt is my ambassador of quan. He is so fair and has more patience than people allow, think how many of these discussions he's been through with so many people that tap dance around answering the question asked instead of answering what he asks for. Hat off to you Matt, you are respected and loved by more people than you will ever know.
The exodus 21 guy i expected him to be one of the quacks that would still hold a belief that it's ok because the bible says so, but he actually conceded his position. Maybe theres hope in him yet.
Ya , rock on, three cheers for Marius xD
Marius should have quickly answered "Ghostbusters" right after Matt asked "Who ya gonna call?"
I totally said Ghostbusters out loud when Matt said that! There is only one answer to the question "Who are you going to call?"
Who didn't think that!
At the 45:00 mark who else said "Ghostbusters" is response to Matt's question?
Paul and Matt, you guys absolutely nailed the conversation with Jeff about free will. People will be held responsible for their actions as a practical necessity to keep our societies functioning. There's no other justification for punishing criminal behavior.
I appreciated the insight.. My algorithm improved. Lol
I actually don’t think he’s completely right about it. Under his answer, there isn’t any moral accountability at all. Rather, it is just a deterrent to stop people from wanting to do bad things, but that’s a different thing than moral accountability. With his answer, he must believe that there is no need for accountability. There is only a need for a deterrent, but that’s not accountability or culpability
@@Matthewsmusic1000 isnt moral accountability and laws/punishments as deterrents the same thing, only different by time? Moral accountability refering to past events, and deterrents to future events?
@@jcs56 when it comes to moral accountability and moral deterrence, they are different because of the purpose and reasoning behind their implementation. Punishment in order to hold someone accountable for their actions and punishment to correct their behavior are two different things. If the only reason we punish is to correct behavior, then there really is no such thing as punishment for moral accountability, just for deterrence. Deterrence is not the same thing as accountability or culpability, as it implies an essence of blame. But if someone could not have done otherwise, then how is it moral to punish for blame. How can they be held accountable. We can attempt to fix the problem, but not hold them accountable for the existence of the problem.
@@Matthewsmusic1000 thanks for explaining! Isnt the goal deterrence? Society would prefer bad things not happen. I see the humanist goal as they are taken out of society and hopefully "fixed". Many things may not be fixable so there will be some long stays.. But the goal for all people is to not be taken out of society because of their actions, hence they may be less likely to do the crime. I'm wondering if moral accountability needs to be a factor?
Paul's "oh no" at 1:36:something ... priceless!
This was great! Two of my all time favorite atheist voices together! ❤
I wish they talk more about the case against the resurrection. I find it fascinating. After all, that is the primary reason why many people believe and base their belief on.
I love when callers say shit like, I haven't been able to get a sentence out! All indignantly. They completely fail to understand that if they are getting interrupted, it's because they're already wrong. If you want to say a full sentence, don't be wrong three words in.
Paul, you were an absolutely awesome cohost! Please cohost the show again soon!
Omniskeptic: Melts down when anyone disagrees with him, shuts the conversation down, won't let the person speak, quits listening even when the caller, in this case, is presenting his understanding in a reasonable way.
Matt would benefit from steelmanning what a caller is saying instead of just flying off the handle and cutting them off.
So good to see @Paulogia in this one-great dynamic and counterpoint with Matt!
The whole point of the "no true scottsman" fallacy is that you can't disassociate someone's self identity merely because, as a member of that same group, you disagree with a specific behavior..the caller is missing the point entirely of the fallacy.
We don't fully understand the science of black holes. Therefore we cannot mathematically model them.
The laws of physics work perfectly inside of a singularity. What might not hold up is human understanding of the laws of physics.
@@markburch6253 In essence - what I said. You were more concise/precise.
Its definitely the first time a conversation disappeared down a black hole.
NO ONE has ever murdered for jesus? WTF. That Besus and false.
@A Light in the Dark the Yorkshire Ripper did what he did after being told to by God. He killed 13 and tried to murder a further 7. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, however this was rejected by the trial judge even though the prosecution was willing to accept this plea. He was found guilty on all charges and was sentenced to 20 life sentences with a mini um imprisonment of 30 years before parole could be considered. The High Court in 2010 increased his sentence to mean he would die in prison, after he was deemed fit enough to leave Broadmoor Secure Hospital.
The killer of John Lennon did
Paul! The most wholesome of them all 💕💕💕 This amazing man doesn't get enough recognition..
Paul laughing at Marius when he replied with the cat response 😂
The only way you can know that mathematics has broken down you must be using an "unbroken" logical axiom(s). That if the axiom(s) was faulty you couldn't know (reason that) the math failed. Why is that so hard?
Thank you!
And then there was that Gödel fellow who did to my take on math what Einstein did to my take on physics.
Curved space, curved space, how can I possibly understand that?
How can 1 + 1 = 2 etc. possibly be extended into contradiction?
Such things I fear will remain forever beyond my understanding.
The sad thing is that Nadir and his comrades seem to be about 20 years behind Christians in the apologetics human centipede
And never ever moving forward. I have not seen even one impressive Islamic apologist!
And "Christian" apologetics is a failed dumpster fire of contradictions, inconsistencies and erroneous, disingenuous, fallacious arguments and special pleading which isn't even taken seriously by most reputable biblical scholars and theologians.
@@digbycrankshaft7572 i thought human centipede summed that up alreafy 😁
"If that's the case, why don't Christians go around saying "We made a mistake...." Hahahahaha! !!! When has a Christian EVER done that?
I know a Christian who admits they made a mistake, when they stopped burning heretics!
@Black Sun Obelisk atheism is not “a LiE“ it’s is simply not convinced of any of the worlds god claims that are put forward.. is not believing in Santa Clause “A LiE” too? 🤣
The only place where we are certain that logic breaks down is in the center of Jelmer's brain
1:28:57 - Something about the way Matt says "I love that question" just feels really good
Omniskeptic is using the "argument from nuh uh" to refute his incorrect assertion about the no true Scotsman, and it's pretty hilarious. So rude about getting more chances to be publicly wrong. 🤣😂🤣
The “argument from nuh ah”. 🤣👏👏
One of the strangest calls ever.
And it just got worse with every passing minute.
It would have been less embarrassing if he just hung up and ran.
Scientists have said that the laws of physics as we know them might not apply at the singularity in a black hole. That doesn't mean the laws of logic are violated.
Jelmer obviously came up with this gotcha question without discussing it with anyone first, who could have pointed out the flaw pretty quickly.
The answer to the last question so simple. If you think you should 'choose' not to punish someone for their crimes because you don't believe in free will, then you have a problem. You cannot possibly make that choice.
Technically the question was about no free will with politicians--but we couldnt discuss that on this show so we went with criminal punishment instead lol. Similar in some ways I suppose.. I learned a few good points.
There were a couple theists that were able to be honest on this show. At least there is that.
Jelmer: "You're totally irrational if you claim to know what's going on in the centre of a black hole".
Also Jelmer: "I claim to know what's going on in the centre of a black hole".
Lol!!
I love slavery arguments. Here is an answer to the cat question.
Can wr say that it is objectively moral to own a cat? No.
But owning a cat and a slave are not the same thing. Owning a cat is basically committing yourself to the care of another animal. We do not generally beat our cats or force them to work for us. All they have to do is be companions.
Imagine making a cat work for you.
@@oskarfabian5200 I guess you dont "make" a cat work for you in this scenario, but lots of farms keep a few cats to keep the population of rats, mice and whatever other invasive rodent you might have trouble with, down.
@@Uhdksurvhunter but even having a cat on a farm doing what is natural to it isn't slavery in the least.
I've had cats and from experience, you dont own cats... they own you. 🤣🤣
Plus, you can't help but fall in love with them when you know how they show you love and trust. My cats have always been very happy cats.
That aside, pets are good for you anyway. They lower stress levels and create a sense of awareness in your attitude.
Nuff said.
I'm pretty sure my cat doesn't know I own it
A quote of Marge's from the "Mom" TV series, "You don't own cats, you love them."
Two of my favourite atheists together!! ☺️👍🏼
For the opening caller, the thing that "breaks down" at singularities like the center of a black hole is not laws or logic, but the mathematical theories that describe behavior. Nothing is actually "broken", we just reached a point that the math can no longer explain. It's a limitation of the _model,_ not a fundamental crack in math or logic themselves.
It's not mathematical theories which break down it is physical theories described by mathematics which break down.
@@digbycrankshaft7572 Fair enough, though this appears to be a distinction without a difference when it comes to the point I was making.
I LOVEDDDD the part about the no true scottsman falacy. Learned something new and had a great laugh in the process 😁
"Can you name something that doesn't exist?"
A rational theist. :)
"General" Relativity suggests that logic does not break down inside a black hole. But we don't know the forces that exist there.
Can you get a bigger discount from the general in the black hole?
Hi, God here.
Though I could have left compelling evidence of my earthly adventures, and answer now any questions you have until you are satisfied, I did not and will not.
The reason is because of a metaphysical thing called *Mysterious Ways ®*.
There, now you know.
So, I would require a lot of human preaching and make belief, just like every other god that do not exist.
And you know they do not exist because other gods also answer prayers with yes (if the thing happens),
no (if doesn't),
or maybe (if does not happen but you want it to happen eventually) instead of using my Mysterious Ways ®!
Glad to have cleared this one out!
Love me ...or else!
Big G.
I think my cat would disagree with the premise that I own him rather than the other way round. He allows me to feed him and in return he leaves dead mice outside the back door for me in case I get peckish too.
Such a spicy episode - I'm loving it!
After this show I have 2 questions:
1. Are there any scotsmen?
2. Where do we stand on Louisiana hot sauce on porridge?
Where do we stand on porridge on Louisiana hot sauce? Why would we stand on porridge?
1. No the Picts were driven out by the Gaels. So no true unless they're blue.
2. Corn meal porridge yes.
As a Louisiana native that enjoys hot sauce on everything, I can affirm #2 as being just fine
I got this...
1. yes
2 I am more of a Cholula man myself, but you do you. lol (I had to run to my kitchen to make sure I spelled Cholula right) ;)
@@AC-gb7do
And why would we use something like Louisiana Hot Sauce instead of something decent like Sriracha? If we are going to make something spicy, it might as well taste good too.
Why does not anyone ask the question "why would a God 'want' something?" Would a God be so weak that it would succumb to its own feelings? And a God even having feelings itself is a total non-logic cuz those feelings be controlling the all powerful,. Meaning that a God is fallible to its own feelings. Weak God i would say.
what question are you answering?
I mean, if god created everything, and then wants something, why can't he make that thing they want and save themselves time? God must be really stupid to depend on his own creation to provide that for him. weak and stupid methinks...
"What does God need with a starship?"
The mere fact that God needs people to worship him and he gets pissed when they don't, tells me he isn't perfect.
@@lawrenceasto1325 . Spent my life in sales and marketing. The advice I would give him if he existed, is to show himself to everybody, In order to get maximum believers that he so desperately pleads for in the Bible.
Marius was being especially telling in the idea that atheist morality requires an appeal to nature fallacy, that evolution in any way dictates morality in terms of principles rather than it being an observation of the diversity of life and how it came about.
I've heard this shtick enough that it becomes grating that I can see the dishonest tactic which tries to paint theism as preferable because it has an authority to appeal to, as if that's why we should behave morally instead of fact-based observations about well being and human flourishing at large.
What struck me about his illogic about "humans and cats are both evolved animals, we own cats,why not humans?" is pretty basic. The 'ownership' idea in reference to pets is a cultural one, not factually correct. THIS culture condones the buying and selling of animals because the concept is biblical, and a lot of the attitudes largely seen as normal are also biblically based. I agree with Matt about "stewardship" and the responsibility in caretaking regarding animals.
@@MCodger And also, there's recognition that because of their lesser cognitive capacity that we, in terms of a society that values life and the variation that pets offer in companionship alongside human relationships (which doesn't require Christianity in the slightest, much as some would try to claim like with Western culture at large)
The fundamental problem with Christianity is defending obedience and submission as a virtue in all senses and even advocating that it is moral to do so, God the master to its slaves in Christ effectively, a motif that likely manipulated African slaves in America during those unpleasant times people try to act like were all happy fun and innocent (rather than gross violations of human rights)
Your crew is awesome!
"Daddy - can I play with Grandma ?" - "Hands off the coffin !!!"
We have a saying in the black community..."All skinfolk ain't kinfolk" Marius is who we talk about.
I'm sorry, it was painful
RE: First caller
The principles of Logic are not mere presuppositions, they are self-evident and undeniable. Their very denial involves there use. Logic is much more than a presupposition.
Hmm, is that correct? Didn't Matt say that logic IS a presupposition? I understand that their denial involves their use but isn't that still being presupposed? You have to start with something as a presupposition, right? Since Matt agrees we can't be "certain" of anything (as in 100% absolutely certain)? I'm not saying I'm right but I don't think it can be stated as definitively as you've done here.
Ross Carlson
No, they are not a part of any argument or system of thought. They are “how to think” not “what to think,” they are tools.
Ross Carlson
And Matt is wrong about certainty.
OmniSkeptic:"Why does everyone but me not understand the no true Scotsman fallacy?"
Matt:"You don't understand the no true Scotsman fallacy"
OmniSkeptic:"no u"
Marius, thanks for the nice demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect, good on you!
And I don't think people should be eating or owning any animals either vOv
(I don't own my cat. I couldn't bear to see her in the miserable condition she was, so I cared for her, fed her, took her to the doctor and then she moved in, and we look after each other.)
That first guy was the definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Matt, you will be remembered like people remember Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, you are Genius.
Warning: troll on the loose using the name 'never ending party ' on today's talk heathen. They may jump to this episode of atheist experience.
It has before.
Yes, he's a huge fan! :D
He 'watches' every episode.
If only he could listen...
Stephen Pearson
He used to appear on these threads as “Dr” James Powers, he has another alias, but he is so insignificant, I can’t recall it. He is an arrogant, boastful clown with absolutely nothing of any import to impart. Strangely, he doesn’t know the difference between “desert” and “dessert”, and he once replied to my question on comparative religions by writing, “sorry, but the man-made litanies and traditions of religion are man made”! He also uses punctuation marks in a very strange and puerile manner. He is a waste of skin.
If only he was brave enough to call in!
Jim Merrilees
Yes, very good Jim! Actually, rereading my comment I realised that it might help to put it in context. I know that you’re around here a lot so you’ve probably had dealings with him too. He tries to big himself up, calling people “kid” and “you’re lucky I’m here to educate you” etc. In this particular case, after his usual pontificating and sermonising, he wrote:- “here, take this w/ you for desert”. I never let him forget it, perhaps that’s why he’s not around here so much anymore.
Paul did a fanatic job. Great cohost.
Love both of your comments.. smart people!
Another excellent show, thank you!