We can and have made predictions with evolution. What is confusing to many people is the predictions actually tell us what we should find in the past. This is what makes the fossil record so useful.
What a beautiful interaction with you guys and Charlie. Ultimately, that's what this is all about, right? Getting to the truth and finding out how we get there. Really loved that interaction and your handling of it. LOVE this team for TH.
These hosts have really honed their skills in getting callers to focus on one topic and expose it by not allowing the caller to constantly change the topic. Great “tag team” as their different backgrounds bring the necessary perspective to a call. Thanks!
Too right, it’s almost like they were expecting theist callers to jump from topic to topic, adopting the “let’s try to throw enough 💩” tactic. That would never happen now would it? 😂
That's because the only thing that wouldn't make him angry is if the hosts said "okay, you convinced us. We are no longer atheists". Unfortunately for him it would require compelling evidence and all he had was "bible sez".
About a year ago, someone in the comment section was really Nice and help full giving me information etc. about the DMT hyperspace. I looked into it, and told him that I found it interesting but there were not enough evidence to accept it was really real. After I said that, I had to block him. He went from help full to full on psycho.
People's pet ideas can often be incorporated psychologically into their very identity of self, and thus they feel attacked with the mere negation of their salty sand pillar ideas. Even the Bibles will often bear witness against Bibliolatry.
@@ShutUpWesley that's sound about right for most religious groups. Here let me convince you of my club so that you can come do this with me. Ohhhh you don't believe me. Well Eff you and anything you believe.
In ref to 36:50 - That was basically me. I was studying to become a priest when I was in my mid teens. I read the bible cover to cover. But the more I read it, the less it made sense to me. Moreover, I kept spotting errors and contradiction after contradiction. I kept making excuses for those said errors. Eventually there were so many, I just couldnt make any further excuses anymore and started to properly question my faith. But what mainly got me over the hurdle was the knowledge that there are so many religions in the world, and so many variations of christianity alone. So which religion was the true one? Which version was the true one of christianity. I thought about it some more, and cvame to realize I'm an atheist, because all of that made no sense to me at all. It was fairly long process to completely remove the theistic brainwashing from my head, and that was brough on by conversations with other people. I just kept mentally growing on and on, questioning. Eventually I was unable to believe in this nonsense anymore.
My ADHD absolutely hooked its claws into "Jesus woke on water" before JMike corrected himself to say "walked" I now have this internal movie scene of Jesus waking up on his house boat, thorn crown and all, slowly sliding his feet over the coffee machine and preparing his first mug of the day. He then goes to the deck, watching the sunrise while his coffee steams the air in front his nostrils. Life is good. The best part of waking up...is Folgers in your cup ☕
If he is I really don't understand it. I don't understand why Darth Dawkins people who would listen to his bullshit let alone people who would repeat it.
I like how RJM started with the faux cordiality, wanting to elevate the quality of conversion, then quickly devolving into Christian rage as he’s exposed. Nice work.
Show hosts: "Why are you a Christian?" RJM: "It's a complex web of reasons and evidence that can't be boiled down into a single factor or event; Now tell me *the one reason* why you're atheists!"
reading Daniel Dennett, "From Bach to Bacteria and Back" Wrote about this particular trait "heartbeat". Dennett covered it really well. Charlie is out to lunch.
I think Charlie doesn't realize that the passing down of mutations and traits is not just for those which are advantageous, they are also passed down as long as they are not lethal
@@walnutoil100 The lack of evidence in favor of the proposition and the logical inconsistencies inherent to a god concept (any god concept) form a strong argument against the existence of such a being. If it’s around, it’s hiding. It seems like your religious beliefs bear essentially no relationship to reality. They tell us nothing about reality of any value (outside the possible exception of literary value), and can be safely dismissed, as far as anyone can tell.
Not only that but we tend to know it and understand it better where as they cherry pick and "interpret" passages to mean whatever suits their narrative or what they prefer to believe based on personal "feelz".
@@walnutoil100 The evidence is that your god does nothing that would be consistent with what his described attributes in the bible are. If your god does nothing there is no difference between that and a god that doesn't exist.
RJM cut his feet off to try to keep them from being held to the fire. Looking back through that call he never gave an answer to anything that wasn't just a wild generality, a tap dance, or a random question back at the hosts.
JMIKE displays the problem with the scientism implicit in much of atheism. 52:55 - "People's convictions are independent of the truth. This is basic epistemology". 1:09:10 - "Morality is not objective because its mind dependent." But "reality" is mind dependent in the exact same way as "morality" because we only access "reality" except through our own experiences, which are clearly "mind dependent". Scientific statements are no more "objective" than moral statements, and to think otherwise is to be "theist" - i.e. to make the metaphysical claim that you are in possession of an "objectivity" that you can't demonstrate.
@@jeremybentham3313 No. although on re-reading I do see this comment might appear a bit crackpot. Its hard to keep them brief, but still meaningful. I just question the correspondence theory of truth, which is implicit in JMIKE's responses - its the "basic epistemology" that he mentions. I advocate for a deflationary theory of truth because I think it is valuable to try to extirpate metaphysics as much as possible from our epistemology. Claiming that "truth" is what "corresponds" to reality is metaphysical in the sense that 1. there is no definition here of "correspondence" - its a metaphor that we mistake to be "real". How, for example, are we to know this "correspondence" when we see it as opposed to a statement that appears to correspond to reality but doesn't? 2. " Objective reality" is beyond our purview as our only access to this "reality" is via our experiences. Whatever "reality" is, I have no choice but to understand it as mediated by my experiences. As such, our scientific understanding of "reality" is every bit as "mind dependent" as our morality. To be clear, I don't deny that an external reality exists, or it seems to anyway. I just claim we don't need to define "truth" in relation to that reality, whatever it is. This general idea is Neo-Pragmatism. Claiming otherwise, i.e. the correspondence theory of truth, is "scientism" in the sense that it gives to a particular social endeavor, namely science, a special status in human affairs by making an unsubstantiated metaphysical claim about the "true nature" of reality and our ability to know it.
The problem that I have with ppl like RJM is 1.They always throw in the "well you didn't study enough" (Spoiler : In the eyes of ppl like this you will NEVER have studied enough UNTIL you agree with them) 2.They need the bible to proof the bible /god (aka you start with 'the bible is true and we will fit everything to make my claim sound true ' ) 3. They start to shout when they feel that they don't get their way 4. They always do the "yes, but " escape! 5.Different 'cults' all read the bible in a different way and they ALL claim that THEIR version is correct! This should be impossible! 6.They use names like "sister/brother /friend / mate ect" to pretend to be nice while what they mean is "screw YOU! AH!, HOW DARE YOU TO DISAGREE) I could go on but I want to listen to the next caller ;)
RJM's preamble about not talking past each other and being polite I already knew he would be a hot head and not listen! Perfect example of a theist hypocrite 🙄
It might even be accidental rather than purely strategically self-serving, given that emotions and the outbursts/responses they can foster are often so hard to control... Then again, hypocrisy is usually accidental since hypocrisy implies you are not lying about what you preach, otherwise we would use the word liar instead of hypocrite.
I think Charlie was trying to argue that a model that includes causal explanation is better than a descriptive model. I think Galileo's discovery of the path of a projectile showed a descriptive model is sufficient and beneficial, and holding out for a causal argument can be a hindrance to progress.
I think theists like Meshulam are morally bankrupt. Look at his argument he says we should be moral because god will punish us if we aren’t. Then goes on to say how can an atheist being moral. Which means he can think of no reason why he wouldn’t rape and murder, other than he’ll be punished by god. From my position I don’t want to rape and murder, not because I’ll be punished. But because on a selfish level I don’t want to live in a society where I can be raped and murdered, so I work towards a society where if someone does that we (the rest of society) will punish them. BUT even more I really wouldn’t want to because I have empathy for other people. I feel bad for people that have suffered those things, and I wouldn’t want to cause that suffering in others.
Callers like RJM are why yelling at people to show the evidence or go away. And then hanging up is the way to go. This is why matt yells at people. Look at how many minutes he took away from other callers. All he does is dodge, and try to throw the burden of proof on people not present on the show. Do it the Christian way or your wrong is his whole call.
It does show the rest how freaking dishonest and rude these people are. I can imagine there is a good number of 1st time theist viewers who are immediately DONE with apologists.
@El Taffy ya, I was just trying to point all he has as a standard for what is true is his particular sects' views on the Bible. It's not actually a rational standard. And this standard is what he uses to shoot down reason.
Characteristics detrimental to fitness have a tendancy to dissapear - characteristics without any effects on fitness cannot be predicted using the assumptions of natural selection.
Charlie, Nature selects for Surviveability not perfection. The sound of a thumping of heart has no negative effect on surviveability, therefore it IS selected for. For example of a heart thumped so loud that a predator could hear it then it would absolutely result in a selective pressure to change. Its the same reason that vestigial traits exist and junk DNA exists, because without a selective pressure to change or a random mutation, useless traits can continue to be passed on. Vestigial structures are an example of this and are a major part of the Darwinian evolution. You are actually confirming the theory by identifying seemingly useless traits that are passed on. I'm not sure something like a thumping heart is relevant to Darwinian evolution. Its a characteristic like an animals shadow, but if you want to consider it a phenotype then Natural selection still applies.
@@bandito_burrito vestigial organs are part of natural selection. Because it shows that having organs that aren't really needed anymore aren't selected against when you get "lesser" versions of them. It would be expected with natural selection.
@@bandito_burrito what Darwin thought doesn't actually matter over a hundred years later. Natural selection is one of the major driving forces behind the theory of evolution. And your argument (charlie's argument, I honestly think you are the same person) doesn't really do anything to poke holes in it. And it is the best explanation.
@@bandito_burrito unsubstantiated? Not really. I feel they are substantiated. And I mean, Natural selection is one of the major driving forces, this is as close to "proven" as you're going to get. Is it the only driving force? No, but its hands down a major one.
It was interesting that T2 trait was incidentally selected for by T1 being a product of the natural selection he objected to. Incidental traits are precisely why we have so much garbage and so many blatant, obvious design flaws. All of that shit is exactly the sort of slop one would expect in evolved critters.
I find it interesting that what theists claim their god wants, always seems to coincide with what the theist wants. Plus: There is no reason to think that a god wouldn't be an asshole.
I think the caller, RJM, would failed to recognize that atheism is the neutral position on religions and that he takes a positive position with his religion that requires a conviction. The atheist position is simply clear of false claims that are supposed to be above questioning. It's like we're empty-handed and he's carrying something and he's saying "why are you carrying that?" to us (atheists)
Charlie-TX has been doing the rounds of the shows lately and is just a right tosser. Charlie's last call was to Matt on The Hang Up w/ Matt Dillahunty feat. Arden of Eden 10.13.21 He is the third caller and is at the 53:37min mark.
So Charlie’s call criticised evolution by natural selection. He doesn’t deny that evolution occurs, that allele frequency’s change. But natural selection isn’t the only mechanism for evolution. Others include non-natural selection (selective breeding), sexual selection, random mutation, genetic drift etc. But the whole evolution debate is utterly tedious. If natural selection isn’t true that doesn’t prove there is a god, and if natural selection is true It doesn’t prove there isn’t a god. Plenty of Christians in the world accept evolution by natural selection.
@@ookeekthelibrarian I was debating a creationist recently who had a lot to say about Christians/ theists/ atheists which all centred on evolution. I said the majority of Christians in the world accept evolution, and not all atheists accept evolution. So evolution has nothing to do with Christianity or atheism. It’s just kind of a problem for the minority of Christians that are young Earth creationists. But even then the like of Ken Ham and the Creation Institute accept some form of evolution. They don’t like to call it evolution, they prefer adaption. But they claim there was just 7000 kinds of animals on Noah’s Ark. Who “adapted” and changed into all the different species since the flood they say happened 4000 years. Basically there only problem is time. They can’t accept evolution over millions of years, when they believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
@@JarlGrimmToys , The whole Young Earth Creationist movement is bollocks, I'm 54 and all my schooling was done at private Marist Brothers colleges, except for the first 3 years. That was done by the Nuns (feacking hate Nuns) the first day at the Brothers school, the Head steps up and starts his speech; "Young men we are here to teach you How to think, Not what to think. First thing you need to known (holds up a bible) Men this book is Never to be taken literally. If anyone tells you it should don't listen to them, they have been taught what to think and gentleman they are Wrong." I said to a mate next to me, "I'm going to like this place" I have found the best way to derail any Young Earth Creationist is to mention Australia. All of Aussie is a sod you to god, from the animals like the Monotremes, all the plant life (I like to point to the Boaba tree). Even the natives, the Aboriginal Australians became genetically isolated 58,000 years ago, tens of thousands of years before other ancestral groups, making them the world’s oldest civilization. Plus as an Aussie it's fun to see how they have fits trying to get Aust to fit into their world.
Why the HELL does Charlie keep calling into atheist shows to discuss something that would be more appropriate to present to an evolutionary biologist? I'm really sick of people like that
Fascinating hearing callers like Charlie call in multiple shows with the same script. They tried this exact concept on The Line I believe in the last couple of days. The response was essentially the same... call the scientific community if you have problems with the scientific method.
RJM talks about a "plethora of evidence" supporting the truth of the Bible, but refuses to give a single concrete example, and when he's finally backed into a corner it's just more nonsense about subjective personal experience. If you listen to the beginning of the call, you can hear him shuffling through his script pages. I'd hate to see how badly he would have done off-the-cuff.
He is another of the - lots of weak evidence = sufficient to accept the claim - brigade. And atheist misinterpretations lead to disbelief. If you understand the bible - it is proof of its claims.
I'm not sure about the point Charlie from Texas was trying to make? In his own example of co-existing treats, we can definetily determine that the one that give a survival benefit is that the heart pump oxygen and nutrients to the muscles, not the thumping sounds. We can experimentally control this by restraining movements of some mice and see if the heart sounds scare predators away and have other mice equipped with noice extinguishers and see how many manage to flee from predators and a control group of unrestrained mice with unaltered heart sounds and we see which group do as well as the control group. And EVEN THOUGH we might not be able to isolate one single trait as the only or even main trait (for example, a fur give both a survival advantage in cold and also a survival advantage as a camouflage,) so this coexisting traits both give a survival advantage... and I don't understand how two advantages in the same structure would be in any way detrimental to the evolution theory? Rather the opposite, if there is two or more survival advantages stacked, then the trait would have an even stronger selection pressure favouring them.
RJM is one of many examples of why I find religions to be frustrating. The willful ignorance, the inability to answer honestly, asking reasonable questions that can be tested, and just being lead into a idiot idea or groups of other moronic people just for the sake of belonging, is utterly contemptible to hear.
@@walnutoil100 Atheists are just people. They come in smart through to stupid. All you or any god believer has to do is provide evidence for god and you are done. Give people proof of god up to the standard of proof for electricity and no one needs to be stupid again. Go for it.
@@walnutoil100 Nah, he discribed YOU. You pull the same 🐂💩 and even more. As usual it's another buybile thumper with no self reflection or just plain ole dishonest about oneself.
That was the best show I've seen in a long time! Charlie in tx, tried to disprove science with bad science, then ADMITS HE'S BEING DISHONEST! "oh I'm just trying to get people to doubt science so I can introduce them to my religion " Then goes straight back to being DISHONEST! An atheist philosopher said blah blah blah about biology? Really? Just sad dude. RJM, classic. Favourite call of the day. Says he's listened to all the shows, then acts like a parody of all the worst callers combined. Fallacious Arguments, keeps dodging questions, gets angry at the hosts while being completely ignorant . Just the best! 😂😂😂 Jewish guy, listen to your call again. The hosts were so patient with you, and you didn't listen to a single thing they said.
OMFG please please test time limits on some of these? Like 5-10 minutes tops. Charlie's call was PAINFUL. I mean most callers are but almost half an hour to say NOTHING with the slowest discourse ever... it is just a literal waste of time.
Completely disagree. Talk heathen and even Atheist Experience are at their best when they can really shine a light on why someone is not being reasonable. Instead of just saying someone is unreasonable and hanging up on them. I don't think either option is going to change many minds of the person on the phone. But I think the former has more option to change the minds of people who would otherwise agree with them. And it certainly makes the hosts not look like douchebags to people who don't already agree.
We shouldn’t assume there were other good callers on the line. The hosts have explained before that they sometimes spend too long on bad calls because there are no other theist callers.
I feel like the defeater to Charlie's problem is the simple correction of: "It's not survival of the fittest, it's non-survival (to reproduction) of the least fit." Once you realize that traits that aren't detrimental to survival are passed on, it doesn't matter if a trait just isn't beneficial. As for the issue of outside information, that's either irrelevant or already taken into account by the definition of fitness. As for it not having explanatory capabilities, do tell that to the virologists and other biologists who rely on it for their professions.
Can't blame Matt for cussing out and hanging up on people like RJM. I can imagine after like 20 years of just asking "what do you believe and why?" and just getting preaching and bullshit back is frustrating and wasting time. You can't word salad a god into existence. That will never convince a true skeptic. Compelling evidence needs to be more then feelings and personal experience claims of the supernatural that can not be demonstrated.
For Hole-E babble fans: "I'm glad you like a book. I'm glad anyone is reading these days. But just because you like something in a book, doesn't mean you get to have it in real life. That is what crazy people do." - Patton Oswalt
@RJM - the reason we can reject the Bible is Adam & Eve, Noah's Flood, the Exodus - none of these are really supported and are contrary to the expected evidence. The miracles crap for Jesus, also, no reason to accept them.
You’re certainly wrong, then. It’s not DD. It’s a guy I encountered on TikTok and invited to call the show after he made a video saying he wanted to talk to atheists.
Charlie's misconceptions about the mechanisms of evolution were explained perfectly by Matt 4 days earlier. Instead of taking those corrections and thinking about where his faults lay. He just calls in to a different show to repeat the same misunderstandings.
RJM was really disingenuous with his opening comment about not wanting to get into a slanging match, he would not answer questions, and he would constantly resort to asserting his own religious views without backing them up with evidence. MUST TRY HARDER!!
Charlie has been making the rounds with the same script and none of the hosts or shows have bought it. Can anybody tell what was the definition of insanity again?
Best thing is, *every host* tells him that if his grievances are of a scientific nature, he should take it up with scientists, and yet he *never* does, which only showcases his dishonesty. He doesn't really care about the science, he just wants to poke holes into Evolutionary Theory as a way to prop up his theology.
Not much different then flat earthers. They don't understand that just because we don't know everything does not mean we don't know anything. That is the reason we have experts in different fields. The apologists like flat earthers are just looking for "gotcha" moments.
@@northernlight8857 his usage of examples in particular. He and TJump don’t agree on a lot, granted. Although the examples given any the terminology are quite similar. More so than that of cosmic skeptic v Dillahunty for eg.
I have no idea why RJM even bothered calling in if he can't present a single argument or evidence. It sounded like a sloppy attempt to shift his Burden of Proof.
The different branches of science that support evolution are not just people "saying" it is true or based on "beliefs". It means the science and work that they do each confirm the theory and find no evidence contradicting it or any reasons to doubt. If anything contradicting is found then that goes through the peer reviewed scientific process and corrections are made if need be. Not quite the way god beliefs work. Evolution and creationism are not 50/50 competing scientific theories. One is a well backed up scientific consensus and one is a religion based on an old book of myths.
Mesh figures since we lack god belief and his morals depend on his god, atheists have no basis for morality. He further figures that, if we were consistent, we'd be miserable AND immoral. But since we have options, we cam choose wellbeing as our foundation. He must obey a stern commander out of gratitude, fear, respect.. We get the product of selecting action based on wellbeing. Which world sounds more moral? Less grim?
can someone explain what they mean by recognition that someone is a "sinner". this term mystifies me because it is so subjective. who is determining what"sin" is? oh the believers determine it. got ya
57:41 "That two letter English word that start with a G." Ten seconds into the call and I'm already lost. It's obviously a derogatory term or slur, else he would've said it. Does he mean gay, but doesn't know to write it...? I've no clue.
To Meshulam and his definition of moral.... I want everyone to brush their teeth. I think everyone SHOULD brush their teeth. Therefore brushing your teeth is moral? Immediately putting this into effect in real world examples shows the flaw in thinking from the get go. It shows just how confused some people are about morality when they want to make it this big complicated epic thing that a god commands. When your basis of morality is supernatural, it's no wonder you have a fuzzy understanding when it's not clear cut obvious dilemmas. This is why religion will never and can never further our collective ability to be better human beings.
An interesting thing about debates featuring Jews is that they use a version of the Old Testament (OT) that is considered original compared to all New Testament (NT) versions of the OT. Especially in Israel where they can read it as is from the Torah itself. Jews are very insistent on making sure they aren't subjected to the telephone game. We don't know 100% if any and how much it may have changed over time but from my experience, all copies are extremely consistent. That being said, when debating, most people have the knowledge of the OT as written by any number of Christian or Catholic denominations. I can't point out all the differences because there are too many but I suggest anyone who's curious check out a translated Torah with cliff notes. Not to say they dont use the same fallacious arguments that all Theists use, they totally do. I never bought into it but it is an interesting read. Also, this Jew wasn't very knowledgeable in his own religion.
This is a phenomenal episode!
I really like these two! First time I have watched!
I like to say morality is not a noun it's a verb. It's the action of DECIDING what to do when your actions may cause harm.
I love it when the caller has "over thought" their 🐂💩 arguments
JMike, you are great. I love your patience and intellectual thinking.
And great hair!
*Demonstrable facts build a better tomorrow....*
We can and have made predictions with evolution. What is confusing to many people is the predictions actually tell us what we should find in the past. This is what makes the fossil record so useful.
What a beautiful interaction with you guys and Charlie. Ultimately, that's what this is all about, right? Getting to the truth and finding out how we get there. Really loved that interaction and your handling of it. LOVE this team for TH.
These hosts have really honed their skills in getting callers to focus on one topic and expose it by not allowing the caller to constantly change the topic. Great “tag team” as their different backgrounds bring the necessary perspective to a call.
Thanks!
Too right, it’s almost like they were expecting theist callers to jump from topic to topic, adopting the “let’s try to throw enough 💩” tactic. That would never happen now would it? 😂
LOVE THE SHOW GUYS!
43:41 Host asks very direct question.
RJM: Why start there derp derp dodge dodge dumb dumb dumb.
Love how callers like RJ start off calmly then they get angry when they realise the hosts aren’t buying their bullshit! 😂
That's because the only thing that wouldn't make him angry is if the hosts said "okay, you convinced us. We are no longer atheists". Unfortunately for him it would require compelling evidence and all he had was "bible sez".
About a year ago, someone in the comment section was really Nice and help full giving me information etc. about the DMT hyperspace. I looked into it, and told him that I found it interesting but there were not enough evidence to accept it was really real. After I said that, I had to block him. He went from help full to full on psycho.
@@ShutUpWesley Sounds about right…
People's pet ideas can often be incorporated psychologically into their very identity of self, and thus they feel attacked with the mere negation of their salty sand pillar ideas. Even the Bibles will often bear witness against Bibliolatry.
@@ShutUpWesley that's sound about right for most religious groups.
Here let me convince you of my club so that you can come do this with me.
Ohhhh you don't believe me.
Well Eff you and anything you believe.
In ref to 36:50 - That was basically me. I was studying to become a priest when I was in my mid teens. I read the bible cover to cover. But the more I read it, the less it made sense to me. Moreover, I kept spotting errors and contradiction after contradiction. I kept making excuses for those said errors. Eventually there were so many, I just couldnt make any further excuses anymore and started to properly question my faith. But what mainly got me over the hurdle was the knowledge that there are so many religions in the world, and so many variations of christianity alone. So which religion was the true one? Which version was the true one of christianity. I thought about it some more, and cvame to realize I'm an atheist, because all of that made no sense to me at all. It was fairly long process to completely remove the theistic brainwashing from my head, and that was brough on by conversations with other people. I just kept mentally growing on and on, questioning. Eventually I was unable to believe in this nonsense anymore.
These two killed it!
Good job guys.
My ADHD absolutely hooked its claws into "Jesus woke on water" before JMike corrected himself to say "walked"
I now have this internal movie scene of Jesus waking up on his house boat, thorn crown and all, slowly sliding his feet over the coffee machine and preparing his first mug of the day. He then goes to the deck, watching the sunrise while his coffee steams the air in front his nostrils. Life is good. The best part of waking up...is Folgers in your cup ☕
*Jesus Woke on the Water*
Coming to a theater near you this holiday season
Love the conversation- What are the best arguments from theists? None......totally agree.
In the Bible God constantly changes his mind
My life was changed 25 years ago when I got divorced and it changed for the better no God needed
You might wanna change you picture to something that shows your love for Satan! Or how evil you as a non believer are... From an fellow atheist
RJM has been listening to DD, and thinks, here's a load of bs, I'll try it on these guys! The minute he brought up "world view " blew it
If he is I really don't understand it. I don't understand why Darth Dawkins people who would listen to his bullshit let alone people who would repeat it.
@@Tovec8 because when your control on your own life is small, you’ll cling to anything that’ll make you feel like you’re in control.
@@CronoXponowell put. It's a result of their own inadequacies
I like how RJM started with the faux cordiality, wanting to elevate the quality of conversion, then quickly devolving into Christian rage as he’s exposed.
Nice work.
He’s like the AMWAY representative who gets angry when YOU see through the bullshit that THEY fell for.
In the traditional manner
Show hosts: "Why are you a Christian?"
RJM: "It's a complex web of reasons and evidence that can't be boiled down into a single factor or event; Now tell me *the one reason* why you're atheists!"
one reason is ...because RJM can't demonstrate the truth of his web of alleged reasons
Right? I thought the same thing.
You are so weak that you rely on another human being to determine something that you should determine for yourselves?
Aren’t you embarrassed by that?
@@drumptydumpty1540 What exactly is that supposed to mean?
@@CteCrassus It’s part of an ongoing conversation
Morality is objectively subjective.
...9:00...Kenneths face is all of us...
reading Daniel Dennett, "From Bach to Bacteria and Back" Wrote about this particular trait "heartbeat". Dennett covered it really well. Charlie is out to lunch.
So tired of theists claiming that athiests can't be moral.
Excellent hosts this week. Book this dynamic duo again!
RJM sounded a lot like Darth Dawkins who's gone by many other names.
A bit, but with a pronounced Boston accent
Thought the same
There are a few out there using the same script. At this point I think they are only out to annoy the hosts and have very little concern about truth.
Probably one of his followers that are not smart enough to see through the bull
I thought the same, but it's a little different and i don't think Darth could disguise his voice that much.
Whoever was responsible for the comedic text is the MVP!!
I think Charlie doesn't realize that the passing down of mutations and traits is not just for those which are advantageous, they are also passed down as long as they are not lethal
RJM most of us became atheist because we clearly researched the Bible and Bible history very thoroughly. I did non stop research for 10plus years.
So what evidence is there that god does not exist?
@@walnutoil100 The lack of evidence in favor of the proposition and the logical inconsistencies inherent to a god concept (any god concept) form a strong argument against the existence of such a being. If it’s around, it’s hiding. It seems like your religious beliefs bear essentially no relationship to reality. They tell us nothing about reality of any value (outside the possible exception of literary value), and can be safely dismissed, as far as anyone can tell.
Not only that but we tend to know it and understand it better where as they cherry pick and "interpret" passages to mean whatever suits their narrative or what they prefer to believe based on personal "feelz".
@@walnutoil100 The evidence is that your god does nothing that would be consistent with what his described attributes in the bible are. If your god does nothing there is no difference between that and a god that doesn't exist.
@@walnutoil100 Prove we need evidence to show that a god does not exist.
RJM cut his feet off to try to keep them from being held to the fire.
Looking back through that call he never gave an answer to anything that wasn't just a wild generality, a tap dance, or a random question back at the hosts.
RJM sounds a lot like Richie from Boston...
RJM should be the poster child for confirmation bias and circular reasoning.
I am sure special pleading could be tossed in as well.
Science is not a theory,it is a method we utilize to uncover facts
JMIKE displays the problem with the scientism implicit in much of atheism.
52:55 - "People's convictions are independent of the truth. This is basic epistemology". 1:09:10 - "Morality is not objective because its mind dependent."
But "reality" is mind dependent in the exact same way as "morality" because we only access "reality" except through our own experiences, which are clearly "mind dependent". Scientific statements are no more "objective" than moral statements, and to think otherwise is to be "theist" - i.e. to make the metaphysical claim that you are in possession of an "objectivity" that you can't demonstrate.
Scientism? Are you a flat earther?
@@jeremybentham3313 No. although on re-reading I do see this comment might appear a bit crackpot. Its hard to keep them brief, but still meaningful.
I just question the correspondence theory of truth, which is implicit in JMIKE's responses - its the "basic epistemology" that he mentions.
I advocate for a deflationary theory of truth because I think it is valuable to try to extirpate metaphysics as much as possible from our epistemology. Claiming that "truth" is what "corresponds" to reality is metaphysical in the sense that
1. there is no definition here of "correspondence" - its a metaphor that we mistake to be "real". How, for example, are we to know this "correspondence" when we see it as opposed to a statement that appears to correspond to reality but doesn't?
2. " Objective reality" is beyond our purview as our only access to this "reality" is via our experiences. Whatever "reality" is, I have no choice but to understand it as mediated by my experiences. As such, our scientific understanding of "reality" is every bit as "mind dependent" as our morality.
To be clear, I don't deny that an external reality exists, or it seems to anyway. I just claim we don't need to define "truth" in relation to that reality, whatever it is. This general idea is Neo-Pragmatism. Claiming otherwise, i.e. the correspondence theory of truth, is "scientism" in the sense that it gives to a particular social endeavor, namely science, a special status in human affairs by making an unsubstantiated metaphysical claim about the "true nature" of reality and our ability to know it.
The problem that I have with ppl like RJM is
1.They always throw in the "well you didn't study enough" (Spoiler : In the eyes of ppl like this you will NEVER have studied enough UNTIL you agree with them)
2.They need the bible to proof the bible /god (aka you start with 'the bible is true and we will fit everything to make my claim sound true ' )
3. They start to shout when they feel that they don't get their way
4. They always do the "yes, but " escape!
5.Different 'cults' all read the bible in a different way and they ALL claim that THEIR version is correct! This should be impossible!
6.They use names like "sister/brother /friend / mate ect" to pretend to be nice while what they mean is "screw YOU! AH!, HOW DARE YOU TO DISAGREE)
I could go on but I want to listen to the next caller ;)
I wanted them to ask, “how much did you study Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism before you rejected them?”
RJM's preamble about not talking past each other and being polite I already knew he would be a hot head and not listen! Perfect example of a theist hypocrite 🙄
It might even be accidental rather than purely strategically self-serving, given that emotions and the outbursts/responses they can foster are often so hard to control... Then again, hypocrisy is usually accidental since hypocrisy implies you are not lying about what you preach, otherwise we would use the word liar instead of hypocrite.
Just acting like the god of the bible. He is a “true Christian “. And all the worse for it. Twat. Yeah name calling, it’s the least I can do
My sentiments exactly!!
I guessed his preamble was BS by the tone of his voice.
RJM to hosts: "What do you disbelieve...and why?"
A little sad that Kenneth is taken.
Thanks for standing up for reason in a world severely lacking of it Kenneth n' Mike! Oh and congrats Kenneth!!!
I think Charlie was trying to argue that a model that includes causal explanation is better than a descriptive model. I think Galileo's discovery of the path of a projectile showed a descriptive model is sufficient and beneficial, and holding out for a causal argument can be a hindrance to progress.
Kudos for the Hare Krishna example.
The book of Harry Potter. (RJM, was just silly)
Just realised that JMike would make an awesome vampire 🧛♂️
I think theists like Meshulam are morally bankrupt. Look at his argument he says we should be moral because god will punish us if we aren’t. Then goes on to say how can an atheist being moral. Which means he can think of no reason why he wouldn’t rape and murder, other than he’ll be punished by god.
From my position I don’t want to rape and murder, not because I’ll be punished. But because on a selfish level I don’t want to live in a society where I can be raped and murdered, so I work towards a society where if someone does that we (the rest of society) will punish them.
BUT even more I really wouldn’t want to because I have empathy for other people. I feel bad for people that have suffered those things, and I wouldn’t want to cause that suffering in others.
Charlie called into axp and Matt already explained to him that poking holes in evolution does not impact atheism in any way
RJM was more slippery than KY jelly on a wet dolphin.
😅 nice analogy
When you hear preamble like RJM it's going to be good 🙈😂 ,
Callers like RJM are why yelling at people to show the evidence or go away. And then hanging up is the way to go. This is why matt yells at people. Look at how many minutes he took away from other callers.
All he does is dodge, and try to throw the burden of proof on people not present on the show.
Do it the Christian way or your wrong is his whole call.
@El Taffy I would say that RJM is part of the Growing number of christians who are trying to turn back the hands of time to the 1700's.
It does show the rest how freaking dishonest and rude these people are. I can imagine there is a good number of 1st time theist viewers who are immediately DONE with apologists.
@El Taffy Oh yeah. They want like dark ages theocracy. What a horrible idea.
@El Taffy ya, I was just trying to point all he has as a standard for what is true is his particular sects' views on the Bible. It's not actually a rational standard. And this standard is what he uses to shoot down reason.
@@CyberBeep_kenshi theists rarely turn on other theists I doubt it has any impact on them at all except to further reinforce their beliefs.
Characteristics detrimental to fitness have a tendancy to dissapear - characteristics without any effects on fitness cannot be predicted using the assumptions of natural selection.
RJM exhibiting classic fallacy of composition and doesn’t see how that’s a problem.
Charlie,
Nature selects for Surviveability not perfection. The sound of a thumping of heart has no negative effect on surviveability, therefore it IS selected for. For example of a heart thumped so loud that a predator could hear it then it would absolutely result in a selective pressure to change. Its the same reason that vestigial traits exist and junk DNA exists, because without a selective pressure to change or a random mutation, useless traits can continue to be passed on. Vestigial structures are an example of this and are a major part of the Darwinian evolution. You are actually confirming the theory by identifying seemingly useless traits that are passed on. I'm not sure something like a thumping heart is relevant to Darwinian evolution. Its a characteristic like an animals shadow, but if you want to consider it a phenotype then Natural selection still applies.
@@bandito_burrito vestigial organs are part of natural selection. Because it shows that having organs that aren't really needed anymore aren't selected against when you get "lesser" versions of them. It would be expected with natural selection.
@@bandito_burrito what Darwin thought doesn't actually matter over a hundred years later.
Natural selection is one of the major driving forces behind the theory of evolution. And your argument (charlie's argument, I honestly think you are the same person) doesn't really do anything to poke holes in it. And it is the best explanation.
@@bandito_burrito unsubstantiated? Not really. I feel they are substantiated.
And I mean, Natural selection is one of the major driving forces, this is as close to "proven" as you're going to get. Is it the only driving force? No, but its hands down a major one.
It was interesting that T2 trait was incidentally selected for by T1 being a product of the natural selection he objected to. Incidental traits are precisely why we have so much garbage and so many blatant, obvious design flaws. All of that shit is exactly the sort of slop one would expect in evolved critters.
@@bandito_burrito I mean, if you want to put forth an actual argument, I may respond, but you aren't.
I find it interesting that what theists claim their god wants, always seems to coincide with what the theist wants. Plus: There is no reason to think that a god wouldn't be an asshole.
Oh no, it's darth!😊
I think the caller, RJM, would failed to recognize that atheism is the neutral position on religions and that he takes a positive position with his religion that requires a conviction. The atheist position is simply clear of false claims that are supposed to be above questioning. It's like we're empty-handed and he's carrying something and he's saying "why are you carrying that?" to us (atheists)
RJM: Darth Dawkins, Boston Edition
Charlie-TX has been doing the rounds of the shows lately and is just a right tosser.
Charlie's last call was to Matt on The Hang Up w/ Matt Dillahunty feat. Arden of Eden 10.13.21
He is the third caller and is at the 53:37min mark.
So Charlie’s call criticised evolution by natural selection. He doesn’t deny that evolution occurs, that allele frequency’s change. But natural selection isn’t the only mechanism for evolution. Others include non-natural selection (selective breeding), sexual selection, random mutation, genetic drift etc.
But the whole evolution debate is utterly tedious. If natural selection isn’t true that doesn’t prove there is a god, and if natural selection is true It doesn’t prove there isn’t a god. Plenty of Christians in the world accept evolution by natural selection.
Lets face it even the Vatican gave up the fight against evolution back in 1950.
@@ookeekthelibrarian I was debating a creationist recently who had a lot to say about Christians/ theists/ atheists which all centred on evolution. I said the majority of Christians in the world accept evolution, and not all atheists accept evolution. So evolution has nothing to do with Christianity or atheism.
It’s just kind of a problem for the minority of Christians that are young Earth creationists. But even then the like of Ken Ham and the Creation Institute accept some form of evolution. They don’t like to call it evolution, they prefer adaption. But they claim there was just 7000 kinds of animals on Noah’s Ark. Who “adapted” and changed into all the different species since the flood they say happened 4000 years. Basically there only problem is time. They can’t accept evolution over millions of years, when they believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
@@JarlGrimmToys , The whole Young Earth Creationist movement is bollocks, I'm 54 and all my schooling was done at private Marist Brothers colleges, except for the first 3 years.
That was done by the Nuns (feacking hate Nuns) the first day at the Brothers school, the Head steps up and starts his speech;
"Young men we are here to teach you How to think, Not what to think. First thing you need to known (holds up a bible) Men this book is Never to be taken literally.
If anyone tells you it should don't listen to them, they have been taught what to think and gentleman they are Wrong."
I said to a mate next to me, "I'm going to like this place"
I have found the best way to derail any Young Earth Creationist is to mention Australia.
All of Aussie is a sod you to god, from the animals like the Monotremes, all the plant life (I like to point to the Boaba tree).
Even the natives, the Aboriginal Australians became genetically isolated 58,000 years ago, tens of thousands of years before other ancestral groups, making them the world’s oldest civilization.
Plus as an Aussie it's fun to see how they have fits trying to get Aust to fit into their world.
Why the HELL does Charlie keep calling into atheist shows to discuss something that would be more appropriate to present to an evolutionary biologist? I'm really sick of people like that
The problem with the court room analogy is that it's not one claim, it's thousands of claims being made.
Exactly, a court rooms don't determine FACT, they determine guilt under very specific circumstances...Its a bad analogy from the ground up
Courts also can't consider spectral evidence so even that falls apart
Fascinating hearing callers like Charlie call in multiple shows with the same script. They tried this exact concept on The Line I believe in the last couple of days. The response was essentially the same... call the scientific community if you have problems with the scientific method.
RJM talks about a "plethora of evidence" supporting the truth of the Bible, but refuses to give a single concrete example, and when he's finally backed into a corner it's just more nonsense about subjective personal experience. If you listen to the beginning of the call, you can hear him shuffling through his script pages. I'd hate to see how badly he would have done off-the-cuff.
Bonus point for use of the word "plethora" though.
He loves using "plethora".
That's a tell.
He's been on before. And uses plethora.
A lot
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@JayJay-two Does he use a plethora of plethora?
@@ShutUpWesley he does indeed
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
He is another of the - lots of weak evidence = sufficient to accept the claim - brigade. And atheist misinterpretations lead to disbelief. If you understand the bible - it is proof of its claims.
24:13 why do you think there is capital T truth?
I'm not sure about the point Charlie from Texas was trying to make?
In his own example of co-existing treats, we can definetily determine that the one that give a survival benefit is that the heart pump oxygen and nutrients to the muscles, not the thumping sounds.
We can experimentally control this by restraining movements of some mice and see if the heart sounds scare predators away and have other mice equipped with noice extinguishers and see how many manage to flee from predators and a control group of unrestrained mice with unaltered heart sounds and we see which group do as well as the control group.
And EVEN THOUGH we might not be able to isolate one single trait as the only or even main trait (for example, a fur give both a survival advantage in cold and also a survival advantage as a camouflage,) so this coexisting traits both give a survival advantage... and I don't understand how two advantages in the same structure would be in any way detrimental to the evolution theory?
Rather the opposite, if there is two or more survival advantages stacked, then the trait would have an even stronger selection pressure favouring them.
RJM is one of many examples of why I find religions to be frustrating. The willful ignorance, the inability to answer honestly, asking reasonable questions that can be tested, and just being lead into a idiot idea or groups of other moronic people just for the sake of belonging, is utterly contemptible to hear.
wow you just described atheists
@@walnutoil100 Atheists are just people. They come in smart through to stupid. All you or any god believer has to do is provide evidence for god and you are done. Give people proof of god up to the standard of proof for electricity and no one needs to be stupid again. Go for it.
@@walnutoil100
Nah, he discribed YOU.
You pull the same 🐂💩 and even more.
As usual it's another buybile thumper with no self reflection or just plain ole dishonest about oneself.
@@walnutoil100 prove he described atheists
@@walnutoil100 prove you are not an idiot.
RJM should listen to Pinecreeks “Flying Man”
That was the best show I've seen in a long time!
Charlie in tx, tried to disprove science with bad science, then ADMITS HE'S BEING DISHONEST!
"oh I'm just trying to get people to doubt science so I can introduce them to my religion "
Then goes straight back to being DISHONEST! An atheist philosopher said blah blah blah about biology? Really? Just sad dude.
RJM, classic. Favourite call of the day. Says he's listened to all the shows, then acts like a parody of all the worst callers combined. Fallacious Arguments, keeps dodging questions, gets angry at the hosts while being completely ignorant . Just the best! 😂😂😂
Jewish guy, listen to your call again. The hosts were so patient with you, and you didn't listen to a single thing they said.
I agree, that was great. "Fun with Fallacies"...
Lying for Jesus, that's allowed right, the bible doesn't say anything about lying....right?.....Right???
@@KeatrithAmakiir There are so many contradictions you can cherry pick it to say almost anything you want.
He was not dishonest tho, he was just wrong
I was going to make a comment that this was one of the best episode's in a while, but you beat me to the point.
OMFG please please test time limits on some of these? Like 5-10 minutes tops. Charlie's call was PAINFUL. I mean most callers are but almost half an hour to say NOTHING with the slowest discourse ever... it is just a literal waste of time.
Completely disagree. Talk heathen and even Atheist Experience are at their best when they can really shine a light on why someone is not being reasonable. Instead of just saying someone is unreasonable and hanging up on them. I don't think either option is going to change many minds of the person on the phone. But I think the former has more option to change the minds of people who would otherwise agree with them. And it certainly makes the hosts not look like douchebags to people who don't already agree.
We shouldn’t assume there were other good callers on the line. The hosts have explained before that they sometimes spend too long on bad calls because there are no other theist callers.
RJM: my tv is the most popular one so what comes out of it must be true ....no additional testing required
Regarding Charlie: You can challenge science? Scientists do that for breakfast.
I feel like the defeater to Charlie's problem is the simple correction of: "It's not survival of the fittest, it's non-survival (to reproduction) of the least fit." Once you realize that traits that aren't detrimental to survival are passed on, it doesn't matter if a trait just isn't beneficial. As for the issue of outside information, that's either irrelevant or already taken into account by the definition of fitness. As for it not having explanatory capabilities, do tell that to the virologists and other biologists who rely on it for their professions.
Can't blame Matt for cussing out and hanging up on people like RJM. I can imagine after like 20 years of just asking "what do you believe and why?" and just getting preaching and bullshit back is frustrating and wasting time. You can't word salad a god into existence. That will never convince a true skeptic. Compelling evidence needs to be more then feelings and personal experience claims of the supernatural that can not be demonstrated.
Seems like Charlie did some schooling
For Hole-E babble fans: "I'm glad you like a book. I'm glad anyone is reading these days. But just because you like something in a book, doesn't mean you get to have it in real life. That is what crazy people do." - Patton Oswalt
@RJM - the reason we can reject the Bible is Adam & Eve, Noah's Flood, the Exodus - none of these are really supported and are contrary to the expected evidence.
The miracles crap for Jesus, also, no reason to accept them.
I'm certain that RJM is Darth Dawkins
You’re certainly wrong, then. It’s not DD. It’s a guy I encountered on TikTok and invited to call the show after he made a video saying he wanted to talk to atheists.
Charlie's misconceptions about the mechanisms of evolution were explained perfectly by Matt 4 days earlier. Instead of taking those corrections and thinking about where his faults lay. He just calls in to a different show to repeat the same misunderstandings.
Charlie from Texas. What's your new theory about how we came to be, if it's not the evolution theory???
RJM just could not grasp what they was saying, not even a little.
Did Charlie call from space?
All of the evidence against most criminals could be considered to be "correlated" to those found guilty.
FFS when are theists going to understand that disproving evolution DOES NOT prove their god exists. Evolution is a separate thing entirely.
Just like trying to prove your Mum didn't leave the presents under the tree is not going to prove that Santa is real!
"Aha! Your TV doesn't work, which is proof that my Time Machine does."
Who's that being funny with the little comments in the lower third throughout the show? I'm here for it. 😅😅😅
RJM was really disingenuous with his opening comment about not wanting to get into a slanging match, he would not answer questions, and he would constantly resort to asserting his own religious views without backing them up with evidence.
MUST TRY HARDER!!
This is the best they've got otherwise they would have come up with something better after 2,000 years.
RJM sounds like William Lane Craig
Charlie has been making the rounds with the same script and none of the hosts or shows have bought it. Can anybody tell what was the definition of insanity again?
Yep he sure has. You might notice that there is a person making comments by the name of {curtain} , I'm 99.99% sure that is Charlie.
Best thing is, *every host* tells him that if his grievances are of a scientific nature, he should take it up with scientists, and yet he *never* does, which only showcases his dishonesty.
He doesn't really care about the science, he just wants to poke holes into Evolutionary Theory as a way to prop up his theology.
@@CteCrassus Notice how he never answer directly,he only "makes clarifications"
Not much different then flat earthers. They don't understand that just because we don't know everything does not mean we don't know anything. That is the reason we have experts in different fields. The apologists like flat earthers are just looking for "gotcha" moments.
@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 It is no coincidence that the *vast* majority of Flat Earthers are religious fundamentalists.
J Mike sounding a lot like T Jump
How and why? They dont see eye to eye on several things.
@@northernlight8857 his usage of examples in particular. He and TJump don’t agree on a lot, granted. Although the examples given any the terminology are quite similar. More so than that of cosmic skeptic v Dillahunty for eg.
I have no idea why RJM even bothered calling in if he can't present a single argument or evidence. It sounded like a sloppy attempt to shift his Burden of Proof.
The different branches of science that support evolution are not just people "saying" it is true or based on "beliefs". It means the science and work that they do each confirm the theory and find no evidence contradicting it or any reasons to doubt. If anything contradicting is found then that goes through the peer reviewed scientific process and corrections are made if need be. Not quite the way god beliefs work. Evolution and creationism are not 50/50 competing scientific theories. One is a well backed up scientific consensus and one is a religion based on an old book of myths.
There's a plethora of reasons why I won't present evidence for my claims.
Jmike cant cut his hair, that would dissolve the Rasputin vibes
Mesh figures since we lack god belief and his morals depend on his god, atheists have no basis for morality.
He further figures that, if we were consistent, we'd be miserable AND immoral.
But since we have options, we cam choose wellbeing as our foundation.
He must obey a stern commander out of gratitude, fear, respect..
We get the product of selecting action based on wellbeing.
Which world sounds more moral? Less grim?
Meshulam kindergarten level moral philosophy is quite painful
Why is the first caller so loud, compared to the hosts?
Or is it just JMike who is low on volume?
Anyhow, something is off with the sound.
can someone explain what they mean by recognition that someone is a "sinner". this term mystifies me because it is so subjective. who is determining what"sin" is? oh the believers determine it. got ya
57:41 "That two letter English word that start with a G." Ten seconds into the call and I'm already lost. It's obviously a derogatory term or slur, else he would've said it. Does he mean gay, but doesn't know to write it...? I've no clue.
To Meshulam and his definition of moral.... I want everyone to brush their teeth. I think everyone SHOULD brush their teeth. Therefore brushing your teeth is moral? Immediately putting this into effect in real world examples shows the flaw in thinking from the get go. It shows just how confused some people are about morality when they want to make it this big complicated epic thing that a god commands. When your basis of morality is supernatural, it's no wonder you have a fuzzy understanding when it's not clear cut obvious dilemmas. This is why religion will never and can never further our collective ability to be better human beings.
An interesting thing about debates featuring Jews is that they use a version of the Old Testament (OT) that is considered original compared to all New Testament (NT) versions of the OT. Especially in Israel where they can read it as is from the Torah itself. Jews are very insistent on making sure they aren't subjected to the telephone game. We don't know 100% if any and how much it may have changed over time but from my experience, all copies are extremely consistent. That being said, when debating, most people have the knowledge of the OT as written by any number of Christian or Catholic denominations. I can't point out all the differences because there are too many but I suggest anyone who's curious check out a translated Torah with cliff notes. Not to say they dont use the same fallacious arguments that all Theists use, they totally do. I never bought into it but it is an interesting read.
Also, this Jew wasn't very knowledgeable in his own religion.
RJM sounds like EF