00:00 Intro 06:44 Faithless Forum And Meeting Shannon Q 07:52 Jack-(CA) | Religious Tolerance Of Other Religions 29:03 Ryan-NY | Atheistic Burden Of Proof...Again 46:33 Linguistie-(UA) | Dreams, Lucid Or Otherwise 56:47 Sain-TX | God's A Dick But I'm OK With It 1:19:55 Jonathan-AZ | Life After Death?
@Ryan G. As a member of a social species if you have an axiomatic belief that your individual survival is dependant on the survival of your group, then yes things can be objectively wrong or right. Any predatory action against your own group is an objectively wrong action. The action itself is objectively wrong. The fuzzy part is how each individual defines their “group” and how strongly each individual holds that axiom. These 2 variables are why morality can seem subjective. Your axiomatic belief is shaped by your social emotions (shame, guilt, empathy, etc.). Some people don’t feel them as strongly as others. Some choose to ignore them. Some people see only those in their tribe or country as their “group”. Others see all of humanity as their “group”. Still others choose to expand their group to include other species (vegans). Objective morality is biologically a part of us. It’s a survival trait
@Dee Bee What about them? Each person gets to decide what they do or don't want to watch based on whatever reasons they decide. Who do you think should be the arbiter of what each individual enjoys?
@@whoneverknow9588 Progress is often impeded by the religious believing they already have the answer. "God." The most stark example that I can point to is the regression of the muslim/arabic peoples. They were at the forefront of astronomy and mathematics. There is a reason we use Arabic numerals. There is a reason so many of our stars/constellations have Arabic names. Then a "prophet" came along and forbid education to the masses and replaced it with religion. Since then, the region deteriorated in knowledge, independent thought, and novel ideas. At the same time they became more devout and ignorant, they also became more permissive of religious violence. They are still struggling to overcome that legacy. It's been centuries. Because they came to think they know the answer to everything. "God."
It is actually human nature to project. In this case, the believer sees thru the eyes of a worshipper. I can certainly see how they see atheism as a "religion". (It's not.)
But you claim that "something" started the big bang? Can you provide proof please? The evidence of the last days is all around us. Watch my video that I may convince you of what times we live in. Bless up
@@imjustchillman "But you claim that "something" started the big bang? Can you provide proof please?" This isn't a science show, and this is a big scientific subject, so nobody here has the inclination nor time to teach you. That being said, just one of the evidence, and there are others, for the expansion of the universe is the microwave radiation that permeates the universe. Now is up to you to go study that.
Plus there is a huge argument that there is actually a theistic privilege in modern society that gives the exact opposite than the caller suggested. Often even for small questions people and society will shame people for asking them even if that person is making sure to be calm and kind while criticizing the idea not the person. Many Non-religious people,in fact, often feel extreme pressure to not fulfill the stereotypes society puts on us in a way even when it could be beneficial to be more willing to discuss these things all while basically even be shammed for simply being a nonreligious person.
Its always fun to see Christians talk about the bible... the verses they agree with wholly, are literal and clear with no possible interpretation... the verses they don't like, now they need to be interpreted. and only interpreted in the way they want it to be.
You know what's even more fun? Watching two christians talking about the Bible. With two, completely different opinion about what the verse says. And both claiming to have "scriptural evidence" to back it up, both proceeding to quote verses and both concluding they're right without actually pointing out the flaw in the other's argument. :D
I once saw a documentary featuring holocaust survivors, and I remember one man said, “When I go to heaven, God has to answer to me and beg my forgiveness.”
Matt leads Jack exactly to the place where Jack deserves to be led and to be made to look like a total jackass: It's called "Let's see how much the christian can deflect and tapdance this time" Just ask any christian a question framed to be answered with a "yes" or a "no" where the true, honest and OBVIOUS answer is not the answer they want to give.
Shannon Q and Matt D are by far my favorite mix of hosts on the Atheist Experience. There are SO MANY GREAT HOSTS!!!! I do however have to note that I really like the interaction between these two. Its always amazing.
It's quite possibly (and sadly) true. I see quite a lot of people in the UK post on social media about how they were spanked as a child and it did them no harm. It gave them the impression it was OK to hit kids! If course it did them harm!
We need to pass a law that states, "No teaching of any religion to any child, no child under the age of 18 should be allowed in any religious building. You can teach children about religions but not involve children in any religious practices" I would love to know just how many people become religious when they are not raised as religious...I bet not that many.
Matt did not take this up with Jack, but Jack's claim that "all verses need to be interpreted" is typical "Special magical meaning" bullshit. In other words, you are not smart enough to read it and understand it, you need someone with special knowledge to tell you what it means. So basically, it doesn't matter what it says, it matters what we say it says and if you're one of us you'll understand. If you're not one of us, then you can't understand. You can literally make anything mean anything you want with that logic. There's no way to prove that wrong since you can "interpret" it to mean anything you want, even if it is irrational and illogical. Complete phoeey.
"Cold is hot because I say it is, and if you say it's not, that's because you don't understand it." Sentences like the above is the logical result of the method of thinking by these people: everything can be the opposite of what it actually is when you say it is, because you can justify anything when you use assertion. It's why argument by assertion is a logical fallacy.
Some of the so-called prophesies also fall into that area of ‘explanation’. As do the strained attempts to fit imprecise biblical statements into some form of early scientific revelation.
@@noel090909 Yeah she really did. I really hate it when people speak passive aggressively to try to show how much better they are while making derogatory statements they walk back as soon as they get called out.
'jack' is the canadian catholic that has called in under many pseudonyms and given us such enlightening nuggets as "Cockroach brains prove God" and telling us that he used to be an Inner Circle(TM) Atheist.
Though he quit (or was asked to leave?) The Inner Circle,he retains certain perks. Adjudication ofmainstreamness being one. Also, he figures Matt is disqualified from MSA.but,if anyone isInner Circle,, it's Matt .
Shannon Q, your laughter is infectious. I'm 65 today.. I tried to call the show for the first time as an atheist but not in enough time to make it. This show is awesome and I never miss show. Keep it up.
1:28:00 - I love the addition of Shannon Q to this show. Her scientific background works perfectly for discussions of the soul, duality, etc. If anything good came from COVID it was to facilitate the guests here who would otherwise rarely made their way to Austin.
@phosphorescent wave is she though? I hadn't noticed. Like a Catholic rosary, or something small. A Maltese cross? Can you give me a timestamp so I can see this, because honestly I did not notice.
@phosphorescent wavecool. Why do you think she has it? I don't know a whole lot about her. Do you think she is a secret Methodist infiltrator to the ACA? Or could an accessory hold significance as something other than a religious symbol? You should call in and ask her. Really get to the bottom of it.
@phosphorescent wave I still wear my crosses on occasion. One was given to me by my grandmother when I was an infant and the other I inherited from my other grandmother when she died. They have sentimental value to me. It might be similar for Shannon. Either it was a gift or she just likes the look would be my guess. I understand she's active on twitter, you could try asking there if you want a direct response without calling long distance.
I grow more and more convinced that "Jack" is actually "Canadian Catholic" after listening to this call and comparing it against the two CC calls. Voice/diction sounds very close, he's a vocal and ardent Catholic in Canada, same stubborn pig headedness, passive aggressiveness, illogic, condescension, and even gets hung up on by Matt for basically the same reason. There very well might be even more commonalities a more observant person would notice.
To Ryan, most of what you would call the Old Testament was written in the 5 century BCE. The earliest photo Hebrew was about the 10 century BCE. Moses story occurred about the 14 century BCE. So moses of the story could not been the author of the book, it talks about his death and his tomb. The NT was written by unknown authors, and the Bible that you follow was created by committee.
@Dregoth good thing the wise people of the bible left us a detailed description of what means to be a slave (wheter they want to call it servant or not)
Hey @David ANewman !! i see you created another account after your last one got banned. Nice try, too bad that slavery as described in the bible is still inmoral, regardless of how many other people also had slaves or how much you want to play around with the definition of slavery. A real god should never have to endorse slavery.
@David ANewman Nope, even if you could actually defend "intelligent thought processes" (whatever that means) it wont change the fact that slavery as described in the bible is still inmoral, regardless of the excuses you could present for your inmoral god.
@David ANewman Irrelevant, even if it were true that "the OT was cutting edge morality superior to any the world has ever seen", the fact that it endorses slavery (as defined in that same OT) makes it an inmoral piece of shit. At this point your defense is just 'everyone was as inmoral as god', sadly that still doesnt make slavery moral. If that is the best you can give, then sorry but your inmoral god is just an inmoral piece of shit. And a real god should never have to endorse slavery.
@Dregoth I would say dont invest yourself too much with little david, he knows his god is a complete inmoral piece of shit. As a defense mechanism, david created a caricature of his imaginary friend, so he can delude himself into beliving that this inmoral god is not the same as his original one. That is basically the reason why he can defend the atrocities of the bible without feeling any guilt. And yes david, you admitted this in our conversation about pearl harbor, that was a fun one.
There is more to this world than you think there really is. Jesus is real and his teachings as well. Many cases of schizophrenics aren't based on natural physical psychological disorder but is a result of torments, confusion and conscience pricking by the evil ones that set up traps for them.
@ frost mourne wow how'd you know? What's your thoughts on the big one tho? They are led by satan not really knowing what they do .... or they know and just pure evil ?
It's hard not to. "Jack" is Canadian Catholic. I've never watched this show, but boy, this dude is all over Reddit. He even has his own special nickname that he really, really hates
Religious moderates are taught to be tolerant of other religions because they all have a mutually beneficial interest in not having holes poked in their reasoning. If Christians spend too much time poking holes in Islam for example, people will eventually realize that those holes can be found in Christianity and all other theistic religions as well. This risks burning the entire religious power structure to the ground.
Very well said. That's literally what made me first question my religion in highschool. I read a book, written by a Christian author, meant to show the flaws in other religions, while proving it's own truth. However, it only served to show me the errors that each of these religions possessed could also be found in the fundamentals of Christianity.
Exactly. When someone challenges a Mormon on the implausibility of his faith, a response is often "well, regular Christianity is just as implausible." They don't seem to get why that isn't a defense of Mormonism. And why two implausibilities don't make a plausibility.
Best episode ive seen in MONTHS IMO Not saying that other episodes werent good but this was excellent. The theists were scary at times today. I admire a couple of the theists for being honest....even if scary.
@Roger Edgerton Yes many do, but literal slavery has fallen out of fashion much more so and is illegal. I'm not surprised that it can be justified by the bible nor that there's still fundamentalists who rivet their moral code strictly to the Christian Scripture. I'm only dismayed by how much more COMMON this apologist attitude is regarding enslavement of people! I was raised in one of those "costal elite" states thatRed blooded Americans like to resent and mock. And I never heard anything like this growing up until I moved around.
@Deo Gratias haha a)slavery IS illegal and therefore police deal with it on our behalf, b) if you need convincing that owning another person as your property is immoral then your worldview is fucked up. How is enslaving someone demonstrating and love for your fellow man? You're a troll or a moron or a sociopath.
@Deo Gratias so who says your Bible determines the moral code plenty of cultures denounced slavery without a God and without your God. You can't claim that the Bible is both the source of morals that allow it and the reason for abolishing slavery. I can set a moral standard without recourse to a Bible based on any parameter I set within my worldview, and so long as another person agrees to the same premise we have our moral code. Starting with the basis that our well-being is the only true purpose in life, it is easy to agree that anything deleterious to the well-being of another is therefore wrong in our eyes. You do not need a God for that. Your God doesn't actually care what you do in your life, the Bible even says your life is a waste, it's only purpose is to determine whether or not you you go to heaven or hell by following a lot of vague and contradicting rules. If you think those rules allow you to treat someone as property and beat them, and that is what your God wants or allows you to do, fuck your God. That's no moral compass that's just you being a slave to its whims to massage its ego.
"Why is eating poison wrong? Just 'cos I'll die?" Conversations with people like him are best done in front of an audience, because he's not being helped here, but his obvious ignorance and immorality could educate others.
That's just how "morality" works. I mean take for example the conversation Shannon and Matt had with Ryan; Shannon and Matt didn't substantiate their prescriptive moral claims in that call. They merely expressed their repulsion to the concept of slavery and stated that Ryan shouldn't have a wife, and as Shannon put it, "God forbid a child." But they never substantiated a foundation for their prescriptions. There are power hierarchies in the universe, and entities with superior power to other entities will force those inferior entities to act in accordance with their will or ability. That may be a civilization which allows slavery, wherein the slave owners have the superior power over the slaves, or it might be a civilization in which slavery is made illegal, in which the governing authority has superior power over the population, and thereby prevents slavery from occurring in the civilization.
@Phelan I'm familiar with Matt's position on secular morality. That doesn't change anything. I'm pointing out how it's ironic when the atheists are challenging the theist caller, accusing them of merely providing their subjective feelings in regard to their belief in God, yet Matt and Shannon's response to the "morality" of the concept of owning and beating slaves was merely emotional, with them merely expressing their subjective repulsion to the concept. I'm not claiming "might makes right", for two reasons: 1. "Might makes right" is a specific concept that refers to how the powerful entities in these hierarchies dictate to other people what they want, thereby making it "right", and other people agree that what they are dictating is "right". I don't agree with using the term "right" there, at least I don't think it's an accurate use of language, because it's an equivocation of what people believe are objective standards. Might doesn't make "right", might gets what it wants. 2. I'm not claiming that "might makes right" is an objective standard, because of the misnomer. That said, it is evidently the case that might is what determines how civilizations work, in this regard. I already thoroughly explained my position, so attempting to oversimplify it into the phrase "might makes right", is not only unnecessary, but also misrepresentative.
@Phelan That's not a contradiction; I said _their response,_ and I was referring to the conversation they were having in the video. You are either extremely dense, or you are making a straw man in a failure of an attempt to make it seem like I offered a contradiction. "...to each and every caller?" I neither said, nor implied, anything about "each and every caller", that is you trying to inflate the situation with rhetoric. I was specifically referring to their response in this instance. They didn't say anything like "refer to my videos on this", they didn't reference any specific label of a moral system, they simply responded with disgust. That said, they're subjective moral system, at least Matt's, is based on their subjective emotional and biological preferences. If you start with your foundational desires and goals, and then try to work some sort of moral system from that, you are starting with your foundational preferences for the system, which are subjective. So, even if they did argue from that kind of moral system, they would still only be objecting based on their subjective preferences. I was specifically referring to how they _responded_ on this call, but either way, we get to the same greater point. In regard to your comment about "might makes right", even if I was explaining that "might makes right" is how things work, which isn't exactly the case based on my previous response to you, I wouldn't necessarily be "advocating" for it. This is another example of you injecting some sort of concept into what I'm saying, which has nothing to do with anything I've actually said. As for how that last paragraph you're referring to is relevant to morality, the point is there is no objective morality; it hasn't been demonstrated. And subjective morality is nothing more than people having their own individual preferences for things, and attempting to leverage their power in order to form the world to their liking, whether that power takes the form of persuasive speech, or physical force.
@Phelan Wow, so many issues to address. “Okay, my question there was a bit hyperbolic, for which I apologize. Sorry, I thought you’d be able to recognize that.” “So, let me rephrase it - “each and every caller that starts talking about morality”. 1. I _did_ recognize that it was hyperbolic, which is why I responded how I did, and which is subsequently why you are responding to my response about that. So, I don’t know why you are under the impression that I was not able to recognize that, when you are demonstrating that you recognize that I recognized that. Smh 2. Are you sorry for being hyperbolic _because_ there is a problem with being hyperbolic (inaccuracy, dishonesty, etc.), or are you sorry for being hyperbolic because you think I wasn’t able to recognize that (even though you know I recognized that, because you have responded to my recognition of it)? Smh 3. The addition of “that starts talking about morality” doesn’t change the point, as this topic is specifically about morality, so it would only make sense in that regard. 4. You have also disregarded my further points about referring to other videos, or referencing a specific moral system by name. 5. Yes, it would behoove them to substantiate their claims, whenever they make claims, or at least refer to the substantiation of them. 6. You have also disregarded my point that even if they referred to some moral system, they would still be making claims from their subjective preference, and so my point still stands, as that was my main point with all of this (I thought you’d be able to recognize that). “Extremely shortsighted or extremely dishonest.” 1. You haven’t demonstrated it is “extremely” anything (more rhetoric by way of hyperbole). Also, a single claim is either dishonest or not; there are not gradations. 2. It’s not shortsighted, because my point was about what they did for this call. I wasn’t talking about any other calls. Your insistence to make it about other calls is your preference, but that is irrelevant to my point. You are now trying to focus on some red herring pedantry. In _this_ call they merely responded with unsubstantiated words of disgust, and that was what I was commenting on. I have since further explained how, at least for Matt’s claims of a moral system otherwise, they don’t go much further. If I want to talk about a specific instance, you can claim it’s “shortsighted” because I’m not talking about “every single instance” of that thing, but that is irrelevant. 3. It’s not dishonest at all. Again, I was talking about this specific instance. I truly wasn’t referring to anything else, so there was nothing dishonest about it. “No, but thanks for demonstrating you don’t understand secular morality.” This entire response from you is simply a dodge. I have watched _all_ of Matt’s videos on this topic. You assuming I’m ignorant, and then not providing any argument, is simply dodging. You have chosen to cowardly avoid engagement with the substance of my points. Secular Morality, in general, is all based on individual preferences. One cannot start the process of choosing a moral system without subjective preference.
@Phelan “Emotional judgement” Where did I claim anything about “emotional judgement”? I said they merely expressed their repulsion. You really have a problem with misrepresentation. “…since _you_ claim to know about and understand their explanations of secular morality…” I said I am familiar with Matt’s claims. I was specific about this, on multiple occasions. “…claiming they made an emotional judgement is a massive contradiction.” 1. Again, a contradiction is not “massive” or “small”, or any size. Something is either a contradiction or it is not. That is basic logic. 2. Again, I did not claim they made an “emotional judgement”. That is a straw man you have made. I specifically said that they merely expressed their repulsion to the concept, in this specific call. This has nothing to do with what they state about their positions elsewhere, as I was commenting on what they did _in this call,_ not making an assertion about them in general. It was about _how they handled the call. _You_ are attempting to make claims about my intentions, and you are simply wrong. I have not lied about anything. “No, I did address that - by pointing out that you obviously either didn’t watch or didn’t understand any of the available explanations of secular morality.” This doesn’t negate my point. You disregarded, or didn’t understand, the relationship to the concept. When I pointed out that you _disregarded_ my point, I was specific; I didn’t claim that you didn’t address _anything_ is said there, I explained that you disregarded how they would still be making claims from their preferences, specifically. This is yet another example of you misrepresenting what I have said. “… my statement about your dishonesty wasn’t even one bit hyperbolic…” 1. You still have not demonstrated any dishonesty, and I have not been dishonest; this is just making false claims about my state of mind, without substantiation. 2. Again, you used the phrase “extremely dishonest”, and as I have explained, a claim on _one_ point is either honest, or it’s not (p or -p); there are no gradations here. So, not only was your claim hyperbolic, it was incoherently hyperbolic. “If you want to continue this conversation, I expect you to show _some_ shred of basic decency and admit that you were blatantly dishonest.” As I have thoroughly explained, I was not dishonest, and you have failed to demonstrate that I was. You are simply making false/confused accusations of me, and using that to avoid actually engaging with the substance of the points I have made. You are dodging. Any selection of a moral system starts with subjective preference. You are either attracted to, or repulsed by moral concepts/a moral system. You either find them preferable or not.
1:21 - that was exactly what made me an atheist. My Christian grandfather got Alzheimer's and his personality changed. Was is personality not part of his soul? My divinity teacher told me that his mind would be restored in heaven but I didn't buy it. And if so, why would God be so cruel to him and his family?
Yeah that one is important. Matt once said: When a person gets brain trauma and forgets who he loves (and how to walk etc etc) and ALSO forgets their own religion and end up believing in a totally new religion; what happens to their claimed soul? Do they get 2 souls? Does 1 soul go dormant and just wait for the person to relearn everything? Does the soul also get hurt? It makes no sense at all. Plus now that we understand where and how the brain stores memories (including of people's faces etc) then after death they couldn't see their loved ones, because that part of the brain would be dead and decaying! Exactly similar (but worse) as brain trauma victims! When it comes right down to it. The more science uncovers, the further God claims recede. Even epilepsy does not mean you are demon possessed anymore LOL God changed his mind on that too. And natural gays, AND marriage, and it goes on and on and on and on and on. Glad you Recovered From Religion :)
Prisoners of war were routinely slaughtered by having their heads bashed in. I don't know if you'd call it a sacrifice or a statement of power. When does ritualised thuggery become religious worship?
@@kayb9979 If war alone constitutes ritual sacrifice, then all warring nations would have to be considered to be practicing human sacrifice. But, not all warring nations even have a national belief in a deity. These victims of ancient Egyptian wars were not "sacrificed" "to a God." There was no idol to whom they were offered, or placed before when they were killed, to demonstrate that any such thing occurred. There were many cultures anciently that did engage in ritual human sacrifice, and left clear relics of this practice, Egypt, however, was not one of them.
Some People don't realize that most non believers have no problem with what people choose to believe. This whole thing comes down to the separation of church and state, at least for me anyway. Again I don't care what anyone chooses to believe, but when they start infringing on other people's freedoms with those beliefs we have a serious problem.
Some religious people seem to have it in their head that not being able to show intolerance to others is somehow intolerant to them. They think that science disproving something they believe or someone not accepting it equates to intolerance for their religion. It’s honestly pathetic.
Remember that religions like Christianity and Islam set themselves up as fundamentally above secular law. There is that tension which exists, whether it always manifests itself or not. The effect of this is that such religious people believe they have an inherent right to impose their beliefs and views on society, and often that it is the morally right thing to do. You really can make a great analogy between religion and a virus.
@@JesusChrist-og6rb And it is funny that Christianity has done that, since their very own savior said to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" (meaning government and the like). Christians basically treat Christianity as an all-you-can-eat buffet. Pick what you want, ignore the rest because it can't possibly matter because it doesn't agree with me.
@@Diviance Indeed. It's all my fault of course. Well, I didn't think people would be stupid enough to actually believe any of it. I was just shooting the breeze most of the time. Anyway, back to overseeing Coronavirus - keep the mole in the hole!
Ryan starts off talking about intelligent design and complexity, then talks about people of another religion sacrificing babies, then objective morality, then finding Jesus at his "lowest point" and being "filled with the Holy Spirit". It really sounds like he's a Poe just going down a laundry list of common reasons theists give for believing in God.
Has Jack been watching Fox News? He seriously sounds like he was about to go on a rant about the War on Christmas. Also, Deuteronomy 13:6 “Oh. So that’s the problem, right?” Edit: Ryan was worse.
Agreed. I think he got an education. I think he got affected. Probably never heard people talk like that before. I suspect he is reevaluating his beliefs.
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, he never renounced his faith and the pulpit celebrated his birthday till 20. April 1945 where it still could. According to Catholicism he is in heaven and enjoying the spectacle of sinners being punished in hell.
@iAnarchist No, that's part of german history but you are right, it is very close to the Hitch. Yet the Hitch was close to being wrong about the German Helmets in the Franco Tomb Chappel the depictions are of the Helmets from Francos personal guards. He chose those as gesture of thanks to the german massacre of Guernica.
Ryan said older religions were bad because they advocate sacrificing babies, but I suspect he would justify it if they kept him on the line. It's ok if it's what god wants....blah blah blah
I disagree. The worst thing about people like Jack is they can never, ever, EVER, admit they were wrong. Which explains why they believe so many wrong things.
@@Leafsdude_ Kinda the same thing. People who don't admit their wrong often justify that position by claiming their a victim. Most often on my Political Channel, when I try and challenge someones belief in the comment section, I do so by posing a question that makes them rethink their belief, but doing so often means they have to change their belief, and they don't want to do that. So what they do is claim I'm being Mean, or I'm angry, or they tell me to calm down, and go on this Wild Ass Fit about how mean I am, just so they can avoid having to openly rethink their narrative in the context I provided. I even had one guy go as far as to try and get me Banned from TH-cam. It was really funny.
Dude's a troll that has called in many times under many names. Andrew, Canadian Catholic, etc. etc. He's the one who said that he was a member of the 'Atheist Inner Circle" He knows he's the dishonest one.
Do you remember the star ship Enterprise had 'deflecor shields'? That what Christian's have in their brain to deflect reason, it just never gets through.
Atheism is just the absence of theism. Theism is the belief that a god exists. So A-theism, is without theism. Without the belief that a god exists. Absence of theism. Thats it. Q: Do you believe that a god exists? Any answer to this question other than “yes”, makes you an atheist, by definition. If you say you’re unsure, not convinced yet, withholding judgement, don’t think you have enough information about the concept to decide either way, those are all answers that would not fall under the category “yes”, so they all fall under atheism. Being unsure, still makes you an atheist. It means you are not yet convinced enough to say “yes” definitively, so you remain in disbelief until you have more information. That may be agnosticism as far as what you can possibly know about generally, but as far as a belief that a god exists, you would still be absent from actually holding that particular belief. An agnostic, is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. There is no third option. If you think you are an agnostic and are also not an atheist or theist (cough mcrae cough) then you are basically saying you are both: absent theism (not a theist) and are also not an atheist (absent theism). A = A person who believes that god exists. You are either A, or not A. What is the third option? Negative atheism is not believing that a god exists. Positive atheism is believing that no god exist. Positive atheism, would be a subset of negative atheism: ALL positive atheists are necessarily negative atheists, but not conversely.
Caller "JACK" is a repeat caller who went by "Canadian Catholic." He's a part of the dissfunctional DISCORD discussion groups with all the faux-logic verbal fightclub apologist people like Mr.Batman, Darth Dawkins, etc etc. He thinks that he thinks at a much higher level than he actually does. The boy is a mess.
I came on here to see if SJ Thomason had misquoted Matt on here as she has on Twitter. Matt seems to be popular viewing among the 3rd tier of TH-cam apologists.
Are you kidding, I'm harmonising like I'm part of the band :D I love that we get to hear more of it in the outro lately... the words there are so poignant. Much respect for Shelley Segal!
I was gonna guess they only seem polite because they mostly get believers or people questioning, but very far from actually abandoning the faith. Though I guess it could also be a case of using polite language is not the same as being polite.
This episode was responsible for probably the most surreal twitter exchange I'd seen in a while. SJ Thomason misrepresented Matt's position and he was "defended" (sorta) by Steve McRae of all people. SJ admitted she was in error, but of course didn't take down the tweet. Hahaha.
On the moral argument If a christian says that morality depends on god and that I don't have the right to decide about moral values I answer "You are right. Thank you! Now I can do whatever I want. Maybe I should harm as many people as possible" The face after this is always funny to watch. Their face then seems to say : Holy .... this man is sick and I should've never said anything
Possibly not the best answer because they could be totally expecting that from an atheist. Many churches teach that to their followers. I do hope most religious followers won’t really believe that, that they will hear the sarcasm, and that your response could show them the flaws in their thinking, but I don’t know, some people really do buy into what they’ve been told about atheists.
Have been seeing Shannon as a co-host a few times now. She is an excellent addition to the ACA hosts. The only thing making me notice she hasn't done this for years was her genuine shocked reaction to the guy who thought owning and beating slaves is ok!
I absolutely love watching these two hosts. Be safe and Great job again guys. I enjoyed listening to the Sain caller and how he still believes after acknowledged his cognitive dissonance and still believes in this monster god.... It baffles me. I guess like many, the beliefs run deep in their core and is difficult to emancipate themselves from it. It's like worshipping Ted Bundy....
It's amazing how Sain agreed with everything Matt said and yet still doggedly held onto his beliefs. I guarantee, if Sain was being 100% honest he would admit that he can't lose belief because that would mean losing living an eternal half-life in another dimension.
I love when bible thumpers bring out "well it was in the new testament" like the new testament was "written" not long ago, like in the 70s or 80s. It all takes place in the same time period (though traditional Jewish Canon and history is certainly older than the classical time period of the Hellenistic Mediterranean or Classical Rome). The Christians, while certainly persecuted up to a point by older institutions and religions, perhaps most famously so by the Roman Empire during its early years of inception, had already dominated or at least shared more than half of the political influence within Rome after Constantine made the famous turn around as early as the 3rd century CE. And you know what?? They were just as bad as the pagan Romans before them (bad is relative term though). They did the same persecution that to this day, they still bitch about it being done to them, what with the colosseums and Nero (Nero was an astronomical asshole hated by everyone, and possibly had syphilis or some kind of brain dementia brought on by a disease, which basically explains why he went batshit crazy). But nobody ever mentions pagan persecutions during the waning years of the Roman Western Empire. The Bible clearly has doctrines or teachings that make it, for the time in which it was written, an imperative to both spread the "word of god" and to reject any alternative notions that threaten the Christian canons validity. Its basically Judaism turned into a New Age concept during between the periods of 500 BCE to 300 CE, with many of the same original beliefs, but a more unified and simpler, fulfilled (on claims of Jesus being the messiah that had been foretold in Hebrew scripture), less baggage filled and more radical tradition. All of this before Christianity had its own forms of schisms and ruptures. But Christianity continued to persecute other beliefs to this day. The Middle Ages in particular is evidence to some of the worst intolerances shown by Christianity in any given period, but some Christians want to pretend that when Jesus died, the world kept being hunky dory after that. Science or reason isn't the only thing that is under assault now a days, but history and the pursuit of knowledge, accounts, and facts from the past divorced from superstition and myth.
And think of how much of the Hellenistic tradition is in Christianity. The concept of an underworld, which is not Jewish. The concept of a demigod, born of god and woman, which is certainly not Jewish. Jesus is closer to Heracles than he is to Moses.
@@scottdavidson5670 Absolutely. Greek culture and tradition (as well as language) was one, if not the most exported culture at the time. Thanks in part to Alexander and also a reason the Romans emulated them after the conquest of Greece during the years of the Republic. Christianity is just a collection of "classical times greatest hits" appropriating a lot of tradition and belief from surrounding lands. Not even mentioning the eventual Greek supremacy achieved during the Byzantine Empire centuries after, and their contributions to the canon Christians accept to this day. And that's just one of the early influences, even in the present, certain Christianity sub sects, like many others in other religions, will either mix or try absorb certain local traditions and try to make some kind of twisted justification for said new belief, in turn breeding something else... and this is how I think Christianity was born. Lol
I constantly encounter religious people that seem to be delusional. Many that I have talked to seem to have no problem denying, and trying to change, reality in real time. Be it by pretending that science says something it doesn't, or changing what I have said moments before, or twisting their earlier arguments to fit some new evidence. If that's not an example of delusion I don't know what is. Of course its not a clinical diagnosis, but by the colloquial definition of "delusional" it fits very well.
I absolutely agree; and categorically reject the notion that to point out where an individual has deluded themselves into believing something inconsistent with reality (like Kent Hovind et al believe they understand science) constitutes 'ableism'. It's a term which is frequently bandied about by hosts on this show inappropriately, as it was in this instance.
@@MisterRorschach90 I have no problem with people calling out 'ableism' where it applies to one person denigrating another person's intellectual disability or mental ill health, or applying such a label to another as a means of demeaning them. However, to say someone is deluded on the basis that their belief is demonstrably inconsistent with reality or because their reasoning lacks rationality does not, by itself, infer a disability and therefore, does not constitute 'ableism'.
@@lawsonharrison6927 That's true. However, the general public don't typically use the term diagnostically in accordance with the DSM5; they use it colloquially. So unless their commentary is conducted within a diagnostic context, it should be obvious to other participants that their meaning is not intended to infer a discriminatory epithet. After all, 'words have usages, not meanings'.
I think Ryan was trying to get you guys to "admit" you think it's okay to do bad things. I got the feeling he was riding on that assumption that so many theists have that if you're an atheist you have no morals. It would explain why he kept asking "how would that be wrong?" and so forth. He wanted you to say it's not so he could say you need god for morality. Just my opinion on him.
Someone needs to make a mashup of Sain's call with testimonial from a domestic abuse victim. When Matt told him how similar he was sounding, his response "well I battered Jesus first" just chilled me. That's exactly what an abuse victim would say 😥
Can someone explain to me why some Christians believe that the bible is the direct word of god and people like Jack believe that the bible needs interpretation? Is that not a contradiction? Is Jack then saying that the words in the bible are not saying God`s truth? I think Jack needs to do some thinking about what he really believes.
It tends to arise a needs-must tactic in an argument. Rather than admit the Bible is erroneous or 'bad', they simply make shit up. Literally. They pull excuses out of their asses. I bet if you asked him at the very start of the call, he would have said the bible DOESN'T need interpretation, but he said the opposite because he was desperately trying to defend what he really really really wants to be true. I'm not letting him into heaven.
Jonathan: I called into talk about life after death but I didn’t call not to talk about a soul. WTF? Come on man. Be honest. You have no real concept of what a soul is and that’s why you dodged the questions. You just accepted the idea because people told you there is one.
You guys asked so many fantastic questions in this program. I would, however, wish you'd give people time to think about the answers to the most profound ones. I felt like we missed out on several potential deep realizations here. I get the cutting people off when they go out on tangents/don't apply logic. But every now and then you throw people curve ball questions (e.g. why they believe what they believe) yet don't let the questions marinate. The silence can be valuable, since it's the only time when these people aren't in defensive mode. Just needed to get that out, thanks for an otherwise awesome show.
Ryan's evasive "responses" reminds me of children's behavior when they are up to mischief, suspected of something, or hiding something. I could understand juvenile minds behaving that way. There's no excuse for grown adults to act in the same dishonest manner.
I like Shannon. She totally contends for the driving seat on this show. Some other great cohosts are happy to let matt drive but add some cool thoughts in too; but she brings some great energy to the show.
3 years late but for Linguistie, I actually have support for what he’s going for. Once I was gaming for almost 24 hours and I got so tired, I fell asleep around the pc but in my dream I was still playing the game normally, I did a lot of things that I wanted to do in the game only to wake up 2-3 hours later and see my character on the screen dead, not at the level I was in my dream. I seamlessly transitioned into a kind of lucid dream state, because I was choosing what I wanted to do but I didn’t realize I was dreaming(I am a natural lucid dreamer, so I can do it). The only reason I became aware that the last 2 hours I was dreaming was because there was something objective there, my character in the game. If they were starving or lacking sleep and went into sleep from that, they might wake up feeling like everything was real unless they have something in the dream that changed to be able to verify the validity
ryan sounds exactly like my dad. he argues with me in that same way and says if gods not real he has no reason to care about anyone anymore including my family and i because no one would “have a purpose” anymore.
No one who cannot play the piano, can play the piano (trivially true). The people who want to start learning to play the piano, cannot play the piano. Therefore, no one can learn to play the piano. This is the last caller's (and creationists' in general) argument about the origins of life in a nutshell.
I think the problem with Ryan and other callers being asked the slavery question is that if he answers honestly he goes against the bible, and if he agrees with the bible he looks pretty immoral. To say I don't know also doesn't work here, since there is little ambiguity regarding that topic.
00:00 Intro
06:44 Faithless Forum And Meeting Shannon Q
07:52 Jack-(CA) | Religious Tolerance Of Other Religions
29:03 Ryan-NY | Atheistic Burden Of Proof...Again
46:33 Linguistie-(UA) | Dreams, Lucid Or Otherwise
56:47 Sain-TX | God's A Dick But I'm OK With It
1:19:55 Jonathan-AZ | Life After Death?
Shannon's cleavage @ 16:35
DAMN! Whoever does the timestamps is on it these days! Nice job! Not all heroes wear capes! 😁👍
@@KCTileGuy1120 They wear masks.😷🇭🇲
Ryan G. YAWN. More ID BS.
@Ryan G. As a member of a social species if you have an axiomatic belief that your individual survival is dependant on the survival of your group, then yes things can be objectively wrong or right. Any predatory action against your own group is an objectively wrong action. The action itself is objectively wrong. The fuzzy part is how each individual defines their “group” and how strongly each individual holds that axiom. These 2 variables are why morality can seem subjective. Your axiomatic belief is shaped by your social emotions (shame, guilt, empathy, etc.). Some people don’t feel them as strongly as others. Some choose to ignore them. Some people see only those in their tribe or country as their “group”. Others see all of humanity as their “group”. Still others choose to expand their group to include other species (vegans). Objective morality is biologically a part of us. It’s a survival trait
Jack "I am offended"
Me " So what is your argument? Being offended is NOT an argument for anything"
@Dee Bee What about them? Each person gets to decide what they do or don't want to watch based on whatever reasons they decide. Who do you think should be the arbiter of what each individual enjoys?
Jack thought he was going to kick ass. Some ass was kicked alright.
@Dee Bee "What about people who want to cancel comedians" How does any of that have to do with being offended constituting an argument?
@Dee Bee yes cancel culture does go far and it is fair to criticize it but what does that hsve to do with what the OP said?
@Dee Bee how so? Give me an example.
"Why is it so difficult for you to have an original thought?" is probably one of the best sentences I've ever heard uttered.
I don't know why Matt didn't say "Would you be my slave?"
DNA provides information
Information comes from Intelligence
@@whoneverknow9588
That's quite an assertion. Must be nice to be able to SAY something is true and just stop looking for answers... Because "god". 😶
@@sophiedash4026
Why do you consider that one has stopped searching ?
@@whoneverknow9588
Progress is often impeded by the religious believing they already have the answer. "God." The most stark example that I can point to is the regression of the muslim/arabic peoples. They were at the forefront of astronomy and mathematics. There is a reason we use Arabic numerals. There is a reason so many of our stars/constellations have Arabic names. Then a "prophet" came along and forbid education to the masses and replaced it with religion. Since then, the region deteriorated in knowledge, independent thought, and novel ideas. At the same time they became more devout and ignorant, they also became more permissive of religious violence. They are still struggling to overcome that legacy. It's been centuries. Because they came to think they know the answer to everything. "God."
STOP saying atheism is a belief. It is not. It's a conclusion. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
It is actually human nature to project.
In this case, the believer sees thru the eyes of a worshipper.
I can certainly see how they see atheism as a "religion".
(It's not.)
But you claim that "something" started the big bang? Can you provide proof please?
The evidence of the last days is all around us. Watch my video that I may convince you of what times we live in. Bless up
@@imjustchillman "But you claim that "something" started the big bang? Can you provide proof please?" This isn't a science show, and this is a big scientific subject, so nobody here has the inclination nor time to teach you. That being said, just one of the evidence, and there are others, for the expansion of the universe is the microwave radiation that permeates the universe. Now is up to you to go study that.
@@imjustchillman Now your turn. Can you provide evidence for your deity.
@@imjustchillman I don't find that claim anywere. Looks like you made that one up.
"Christians aren't bigoted towards other people like atheists are"
> The Westboro Baptist Church has entered the chat.
Would you be surprised to hear that these groups are not "true Christians"?
@@frogsinpants Of course they're not! That's why we keep the Holy Inquisition around. It's the epitome of being non bigoted and tolerance. ;)
> All of Christendom has entered the chat.
"No pedophiles!"
> All of Christendom has left the chat.
Plus there is a huge argument that there is actually a theistic privilege in modern society that gives the exact opposite than the caller suggested. Often even for small questions people and society will shame people for asking them even if that person is making sure to be calm and kind while criticizing the idea not the person. Many Non-religious people,in fact, often feel extreme pressure to not fulfill the stereotypes society puts on us in a way even when it could be beneficial to be more willing to discuss these things all while basically even be shammed for simply being a nonreligious person.
Matt has stated in the past that they are actually teaching what the bible says. Modern religions just leave the nasty parts out.
Its always fun to see Christians talk about the bible... the verses they agree with wholly, are literal and clear with no possible interpretation... the verses they don't like, now they need to be interpreted. and only interpreted in the way they want it to be.
NonStampCollector did a great video on this and "but you're taking it out of CONTEXT!"
@@benroberts2222 Yeah the NSC is brilliant
@@benroberts2222 I love NSC. I've seen all of his videos and still return to them.
You know what's even more fun?
Watching two christians talking about the Bible. With two, completely different opinion about what the verse says. And both claiming to have "scriptural evidence" to back it up, both proceeding to quote verses and both concluding they're right without actually pointing out the flaw in the other's argument. :D
The evidence of the last days is all around us. Watch my video that I may convince you of what times we live in. Bless up
I once saw a documentary featuring holocaust survivors, and I remember one man said, “When I go to heaven, God has to answer to me and beg my forgiveness.”
RIP God
I love it when believers call in "unsure" if anybody has thought to suggest *insert well-known fallacy here*
Matt leads Jack exactly to the place where Jack deserves to be led and to be made to look like a total jackass:
It's called "Let's see how much the christian can deflect and tapdance this time"
Just ask any christian a question framed to be answered with a "yes" or a "no" where the true, honest and OBVIOUS answer is not the answer they want to give.
And Matt did exactly the same thing to Ryan when Ryan was led down the dreaded slavery road:
And Shannon Q did the same with Sain with the question "Would this make a better world"?
Then, grab a lawn chair, make some popcorn, maybe grab a beer, then sit and watch them squirm around and tap dance.
@@kentonbaird1723
Lol…Matt called Jack, a jack-ass.
Love the classic "I'm not a bigot, _but_ ..."
Shannon Q and Matt D are by far my favorite mix of hosts on the Atheist Experience. There are SO MANY GREAT HOSTS!!!! I do however have to note that I really like the interaction between these two. Its always amazing.
Ryan is the reason believing is bad, dangerous and disgusting
Ryan seemed like he was reading standard questions off a sheet of paper. Weird.
He (Ryan) is living, walking proof of how Religion can "force" a good person to do bad things!
Jack just got spanked. Badly. Like a child in biblical times
Lmao 🤣😂🤣
😂😂😂😂
OMG he got Shannon angry. I'm actually sorry for everyone who has to interact with this guy...
A biblical child? Spanked? How boring. Should've sent some bears to rip them apart.
It's quite possibly (and sadly) true.
I see quite a lot of people in the UK post on social media about how they were spanked as a child and it did them no harm.
It gave them the impression it was OK to hit kids! If course it did them harm!
We need to pass a law that states, "No teaching of any religion to any child, no child under the age of 18 should be allowed in any religious building. You can teach children about religions but not involve children in any religious practices" I would love to know just how many people become religious when they are not raised as religious...I bet not that many.
Matt did not take this up with Jack, but Jack's claim that "all verses need to be interpreted" is typical "Special magical meaning" bullshit. In other words, you are not smart enough to read it and understand it, you need someone with special knowledge to tell you what it means. So basically, it doesn't matter what it says, it matters what we say it says and if you're one of us you'll understand. If you're not one of us, then you can't understand. You can literally make anything mean anything you want with that logic. There's no way to prove that wrong since you can "interpret" it to mean anything you want, even if it is irrational and illogical. Complete phoeey.
The perfect definition of theology.
"Cold is hot because I say it is, and if you say it's not, that's because you don't understand it."
Sentences like the above is the logical result of the method of thinking by these people: everything can be the opposite of what it actually is when you say it is, because you can justify anything when you use assertion. It's why argument by assertion is a logical fallacy.
A great summary of the heuristic flaws of religious texts and its misuse by people/groups who try to gain power and other advantages from them.
Some of the so-called prophesies also fall into that area of ‘explanation’. As do the strained attempts to fit imprecise biblical statements into some form of early scientific revelation.
This reads like a rant, but you honestly did a fantastic job explaining what's wrong with that argument.
Note to self: Don't call Shannon Q a bigot.
Lol
I almost sharted
She handled that beautifully, by the way. So glad she’s a cohost.
@@noel090909 Yeah she really did. I really hate it when people speak passive aggressively to try to show how much better they are while making derogatory statements they walk back as soon as they get called out.
I second that.
'jack' is the canadian catholic that has called in under many pseudonyms and given us such enlightening nuggets as "Cockroach brains prove God" and telling us that he used to be an Inner Circle(TM) Atheist.
Lying for Jesus, by doing that.
Though he quit (or was asked to leave?) The Inner Circle,he retains certain perks. Adjudication ofmainstreamness being one.
Also, he figures Matt is disqualified from MSA.but,if anyone isInner Circle,, it's Matt .
Oh that idiot.
@@loki6626 Red. No, yellow. AAAAAA... AAaaa... aaaaaaaaaah.
I thought so, the moment he said "mainstream atheist" I thought of CC's dumb "inner circle"
I've been hearing this show for more than a decade and Ryan is one of the most dishonest callers of all time. He deserves an award.
He doesn't reach the level of the caller a few years ago who said a child rape victim "wasn't entirely innocent".
@@h.g.wellington2500 WTF really?
Eve ate the apple... None are innocent. Or something
Shannon Q, your laughter is infectious. I'm 65 today.. I tried to call the show for the first time as an atheist but not in enough time to make it. This show is awesome and I never miss show. Keep it up.
Eh honestly I find it annoying but she's very intelligent and gorgeous so it doesn't phase me lol
"I'm not judging a person" Proceeds to call people bigots...hmmm seems like you're making a judgement about a persons character/actions.
If that’s not delusional I don’t know what is
Yes...Almost all apologetic seems to be projection.
God never Said don't judge, it's a common misunderstanding of the Bible people sometimes make actually.
@@meta4zs A bit random
Q: Jack, have you ever visited the Planet Earth? A: Not yet but when I do it will be flat.
ALL YOU BELIEVERS OUT THERE! Please listen to Ryan! This is what you sound like! Frustrating, isn't it?
Fuckin A dude.
1:28:00 - I love the addition of Shannon Q to this show. Her scientific background works perfectly for discussions of the soul, duality, etc.
If anything good came from COVID it was to facilitate the guests here who would otherwise rarely made their way to Austin.
@phosphorescent wave is she though? I hadn't noticed. Like a Catholic rosary, or something small. A Maltese cross? Can you give me a timestamp so I can see this, because honestly I did not notice.
@phosphorescent wavecool. Why do you think she has it? I don't know a whole lot about her. Do you think she is a secret Methodist infiltrator to the ACA? Or could an accessory hold significance as something other than a religious symbol? You should call in and ask her. Really get to the bottom of it.
@phosphorescent wave I still wear my crosses on occasion. One was given to me by my grandmother when I was an infant and the other I inherited from my other grandmother when she died. They have sentimental value to me. It might be similar for Shannon. Either it was a gift or she just likes the look would be my guess.
I understand she's active on twitter, you could try asking there if you want a direct response without calling long distance.
When a candle is extinguished, that's it. There is no after-candlelife.
@he11b1ade thats what op wished to convey, but it's nice to see someone interject for shaping up sloppily presented idea.
@@loki6626 let's call them Jesus candles, they make cake more delicious (you know, by their blood and flesh).
Oh yeah buddy? Well what happens to that candles soul? Huh? Call me back at ridiculous reasons university
I grow more and more convinced that "Jack" is actually "Canadian Catholic" after listening to this call and comparing it against the two CC calls. Voice/diction sounds very close, he's a vocal and ardent Catholic in Canada, same stubborn pig headedness, passive aggressiveness, illogic, condescension, and even gets hung up on by Matt for basically the same reason. There very well might be even more commonalities a more observant person would notice.
100%
You mean the "former inner circle atheist" idiot? I thought I recognized him, thanks for the confirmation.
Thus another chapter is added to TAE lore.
The show is definitely no stranger to the same religious nut jobs claiming multiple personalities
I was thinking that as well.
Shannon is an awesome addition to the show. She brings a different energy than Matt’s but somehow the synergize together
And so much good science!!!!
....And she's hot!
Corona Kuro some people just high energy ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣
To Ryan, most of what you would call the Old Testament was written in the 5 century BCE. The earliest photo Hebrew was about the 10 century BCE. Moses story occurred about the 14 century BCE. So moses of the story could not been the author of the book, it talks about his death and his tomb.
The NT was written by unknown authors, and the Bible that you follow was created by committee.
Matt: do you think slavery is okay?
Christian callers: *buckle up jesus, this is gonna get bumpy*
@Dregoth good thing the wise people of the bible left us a detailed description of what means to be a slave (wheter they want to call it servant or not)
Hey @David ANewman !! i see you created another account after your last one got banned.
Nice try, too bad that slavery as described in the bible is still inmoral, regardless of how many other people also had slaves or how much you want to play around with the definition of slavery.
A real god should never have to endorse slavery.
@David ANewman Nope, even if you could actually defend "intelligent thought processes" (whatever that means) it wont change the fact that slavery as described in the bible is still inmoral, regardless of the excuses you could present for your inmoral god.
@David ANewman Irrelevant, even if it were true that "the OT was cutting edge morality superior to any the world has ever seen", the fact that it endorses slavery (as defined in that same OT) makes it an inmoral piece of shit.
At this point your defense is just 'everyone was as inmoral as god', sadly that still doesnt make slavery moral.
If that is the best you can give, then sorry but your inmoral god is just an inmoral piece of shit. And a real god should never have to endorse slavery.
@Dregoth I would say dont invest yourself too much with little david, he knows his god is a complete inmoral piece of shit.
As a defense mechanism, david created a caricature of his imaginary friend, so he can delude himself into beliving that this inmoral god is not the same as his original one.
That is basically the reason why he can defend the atrocities of the bible without feeling any guilt.
And yes david, you admitted this in our conversation about pearl harbor, that was a fun one.
Jack sounds like Canadian Catholic
Chronochaos
It is
Jack sounds like a former inner circle atheist........uncanny
Yeah. I’m surprised he admitted he is a Canadian...Catholic.
Maybe that's why the phone was coincidentally crackly...
Ryan called out to Jesus and was granted the gift of talking word salad.
👏 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
I prefer speaking in tongues to word salad, it's shorter and more entertaining (from a safe distance)
There is more to this world than you think there really is. Jesus is real and his teachings as well. Many cases of schizophrenics aren't based on natural physical psychological disorder but is a result of torments, confusion and conscience pricking by the evil ones that set up traps for them.
@@frostmourne4598 Prove it. Until then your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
@ frost mourne wow how'd you know? What's your thoughts on the big one tho? They are led by satan not really knowing what they do .... or they know and just pure evil ?
Matt deserved a standing ovation for his rant against Sain. How anyone could remain a Christian after that is beyond me.
Shannon absolutely wrecked the first caller Jack
This was the first time I saw her lay it down like that.
😍
Shannon is absolutely fantastic, I hope she continues to be on fairly regularly
@@eddy3017 She is officially a co-host! 😃
It's hard not to. "Jack" is Canadian Catholic. I've never watched this show, but boy, this dude is all over Reddit. He even has his own special nickname that he really, really hates
Jonathan: I didn't call in to talk about a soul.
1 minute later.
Jonathan: it's a soul.
Lmfao!!
Ikr. I thought she gave him a good answer and he was just like "meh".
Omg right! I facepalmed
He. calls time and again, not to increase his understanding but to waste show time and hear his own voice.
Of course he doesn’t want to talk about the soul, after Shannon’s questions. 🤷♀️
He clearly was not expecting to get owned by Shannon.
Jack Jack! Jack like most of them ONLY have experience debating within their ECHO-CHAMBERS!!
Religious moderates are taught to be tolerant of other religions because they all have a mutually beneficial interest in not having holes poked in their reasoning. If Christians spend too much time poking holes in Islam for example, people will eventually realize that those holes can be found in Christianity and all other theistic religions as well. This risks burning the entire religious power structure to the ground.
Very well said.
That's literally what made me first question my religion in highschool. I read a book, written by a Christian author, meant to show the flaws in other religions, while proving it's own truth. However, it only served to show me the errors that each of these religions possessed could also be found in the fundamentals of Christianity.
(It takes less time to read than to binge one season of Breaking Bad and imho, has an even more powerful impact (and in the same direction)).
Exactly. When someone challenges a Mormon on the implausibility of his faith, a response is often "well, regular Christianity is just as implausible." They don't seem to get why that isn't a defense of Mormonism. And why two implausibilities don't make a plausibility.
Best episode ive seen in MONTHS IMO
Not saying that other episodes werent good but this was excellent. The theists were scary at times today. I admire a couple of the theists for being honest....even if scary.
I Agree. Best in a long time.
I'm seriously getting scared by how many Christians can actually (try to) justify or advocate for slavery.
43:05
Anthony PC They have a long history here, backed by the Bible.
@Roger Edgerton Yes many do, but literal slavery has fallen out of fashion much more so and is illegal.
I'm not surprised that it can be justified by the bible nor that there's still fundamentalists who rivet their moral code strictly to the Christian Scripture.
I'm only dismayed by how much more COMMON this apologist attitude is regarding enslavement of people!
I was raised in one of those "costal elite" states thatRed blooded Americans like to resent and mock. And I never heard anything like this growing up until I moved around.
It has to be a troll caller, right... right?!
@Deo Gratias haha a)slavery IS illegal and therefore police deal with it on our behalf, b) if you need convincing that owning another person as your property is immoral then your worldview is fucked up. How is enslaving someone demonstrating and love for your fellow man? You're a troll or a moron or a sociopath.
@Deo Gratias so who says your Bible determines the moral code plenty of cultures denounced slavery without a God and without your God. You can't claim that the Bible is both the source of morals that allow it and the reason for abolishing slavery.
I can set a moral standard without recourse to a Bible based on any parameter I set within my worldview, and so long as another person agrees to the same premise we have our moral code. Starting with the basis that our well-being is the only true purpose in life, it is easy to agree that anything deleterious to the well-being of another is therefore wrong in our eyes. You do not need a God for that. Your God doesn't actually care what you do in your life, the Bible even says your life is a waste, it's only purpose is to determine whether or not you you go to heaven or hell by following a lot of vague and contradicting rules. If you think those rules allow you to treat someone as property and beat them, and that is what your God wants or allows you to do, fuck your God. That's no moral compass that's just you being a slave to its whims to massage its ego.
"Why is murder wrong? Just cause it hurts the victim?" I facepalmed so hard...
@Yokai369 he answered his own question while asking with arrogance of 'is that all', as if hurting another person wasn't reason enough.
"Why is eating poison wrong? Just 'cos I'll die?"
Conversations with people like him are best done in front of an audience, because he's not being helped here, but his obvious ignorance and immorality could educate others.
Hearing theists talk about morals, makes me think. What happens when a dictator grabs power in the US? Oh wait...
That's just how "morality" works. I mean take for example the conversation Shannon and Matt had with Ryan; Shannon and Matt didn't substantiate their prescriptive moral claims in that call. They merely expressed their repulsion to the concept of slavery and stated that Ryan shouldn't have a wife, and as Shannon put it, "God forbid a child." But they never substantiated a foundation for their prescriptions.
There are power hierarchies in the universe, and entities with superior power to other entities will force those inferior entities to act in accordance with their will or ability. That may be a civilization which allows slavery, wherein the slave owners have the superior power over the slaves, or it might be a civilization in which slavery is made illegal, in which the governing authority has superior power over the population, and thereby prevents slavery from occurring in the civilization.
@Phelan I'm familiar with Matt's position on secular morality. That doesn't change anything.
I'm pointing out how it's ironic when the atheists are challenging the theist caller, accusing them of merely providing their subjective feelings in regard to their belief in God, yet Matt and Shannon's response to the "morality" of the concept of owning and beating slaves was merely emotional, with them merely expressing their subjective repulsion to the concept.
I'm not claiming "might makes right", for two reasons:
1. "Might makes right" is a specific concept that refers to how the powerful entities in these hierarchies dictate to other people what they want, thereby making it "right", and other people agree that what they are dictating is "right". I don't agree with using the term "right" there, at least I don't think it's an accurate use of language, because it's an equivocation of what people believe are objective standards. Might doesn't make "right", might gets what it wants.
2. I'm not claiming that "might makes right" is an objective standard, because of the misnomer. That said, it is evidently the case that might is what determines how civilizations work, in this regard.
I already thoroughly explained my position, so attempting to oversimplify it into the phrase "might makes right", is not only unnecessary, but also misrepresentative.
@Phelan That's not a contradiction; I said _their response,_ and I was referring to the conversation they were having in the video. You are either extremely dense, or you are making a straw man in a failure of an attempt to make it seem like I offered a contradiction.
"...to each and every caller?"
I neither said, nor implied, anything about "each and every caller", that is you trying to inflate the situation with rhetoric. I was specifically referring to their response in this instance. They didn't say anything like "refer to my videos on this", they didn't reference any specific label of a moral system, they simply responded with disgust.
That said, they're subjective moral system, at least Matt's, is based on their subjective emotional and biological preferences. If you start with your foundational desires and goals, and then try to work some sort of moral system from that, you are starting with your foundational preferences for the system, which are subjective. So, even if they did argue from that kind of moral system, they would still only be objecting based on their subjective preferences. I was specifically referring to how they _responded_ on this call, but either way, we get to the same greater point.
In regard to your comment about "might makes right", even if I was explaining that "might makes right" is how things work, which isn't exactly the case based on my previous response to you, I wouldn't necessarily be "advocating" for it. This is another example of you injecting some sort of concept into what I'm saying, which has nothing to do with anything I've actually said.
As for how that last paragraph you're referring to is relevant to morality, the point is there is no objective morality; it hasn't been demonstrated. And subjective morality is nothing more than people having their own individual preferences for things, and attempting to leverage their power in order to form the world to their liking, whether that power takes the form of persuasive speech, or physical force.
@Phelan Wow, so many issues to address.
“Okay, my question there was a bit hyperbolic, for which I apologize. Sorry, I thought you’d be able to recognize that.”
“So, let me rephrase it - “each and every caller that starts talking about morality”.
1. I _did_ recognize that it was hyperbolic, which is why I responded how I did, and which is subsequently why you are responding to my response about that. So, I don’t know why you are under the impression that I was not able to recognize that, when you are demonstrating that you recognize that I recognized that. Smh
2. Are you sorry for being hyperbolic _because_ there is a problem with being hyperbolic (inaccuracy, dishonesty, etc.), or are you sorry for being hyperbolic because you think I wasn’t able to recognize that (even though you know I recognized that, because you have responded to my recognition of it)? Smh
3. The addition of “that starts talking about morality” doesn’t change the point, as this topic is specifically about morality, so it would only make sense in that regard.
4. You have also disregarded my further points about referring to other videos, or referencing a specific moral system by name.
5. Yes, it would behoove them to substantiate their claims, whenever they make claims, or at least refer to the substantiation of them.
6. You have also disregarded my point that even if they referred to some moral system, they would still be making claims from their subjective preference, and so my point still stands, as that was my main point with all of this (I thought you’d be able to recognize that).
“Extremely shortsighted or extremely dishonest.”
1. You haven’t demonstrated it is “extremely” anything (more rhetoric by way of hyperbole). Also, a single claim is either dishonest or not; there are not gradations.
2. It’s not shortsighted, because my point was about what they did for this call. I wasn’t talking about any other calls. Your insistence to make it about other calls is your preference, but that is irrelevant to my point. You are now trying to focus on some red herring pedantry. In _this_ call they merely responded with unsubstantiated words of disgust, and that was what I was commenting on. I have since further explained how, at least for Matt’s claims of a moral system otherwise, they don’t go much further. If I want to talk about a specific instance, you can claim it’s “shortsighted” because I’m not talking about “every single instance” of that thing, but that is irrelevant.
3. It’s not dishonest at all. Again, I was talking about this specific instance. I truly wasn’t referring to anything else, so there was nothing dishonest about it.
“No, but thanks for demonstrating you don’t understand secular morality.”
This entire response from you is simply a dodge. I have watched _all_ of Matt’s videos on this topic. You assuming I’m ignorant, and then not providing any argument, is simply dodging. You have chosen to cowardly avoid engagement with the substance of my points.
Secular Morality, in general, is all based on individual preferences. One cannot start the process of choosing a moral system without subjective preference.
@Phelan “Emotional judgement”
Where did I claim anything about “emotional judgement”? I said they merely expressed their repulsion. You really have a problem with misrepresentation.
“…since _you_ claim to know about and understand their explanations of secular morality…”
I said I am familiar with Matt’s claims. I was specific about this, on multiple occasions.
“…claiming they made an emotional judgement is a massive contradiction.”
1. Again, a contradiction is not “massive” or “small”, or any size. Something is either a contradiction or it is not. That is basic logic.
2. Again, I did not claim they made an “emotional judgement”. That is a straw man you have made. I specifically said that they merely expressed their repulsion to the concept, in this specific call. This has nothing to do with what they state about their positions elsewhere, as I was commenting on what they did _in this call,_ not making an assertion about them in general. It was about _how they handled the call. _You_ are attempting to make claims about my intentions, and you are simply wrong. I have not lied about anything.
“No, I did address that - by pointing out that you obviously either didn’t watch or didn’t understand any of the available explanations of secular morality.”
This doesn’t negate my point. You disregarded, or didn’t understand, the relationship to the concept. When I pointed out that you _disregarded_ my point, I was specific; I didn’t claim that you didn’t address _anything_ is said there, I explained that you disregarded how they would still be making claims from their preferences, specifically. This is yet another example of you misrepresenting what I have said.
“… my statement about your dishonesty wasn’t even one bit hyperbolic…”
1. You still have not demonstrated any dishonesty, and I have not been dishonest; this is just making false claims about my state of mind, without substantiation.
2. Again, you used the phrase “extremely dishonest”, and as I have explained, a claim on _one_ point is either honest, or it’s not (p or -p); there are no gradations here. So, not only was your claim hyperbolic, it was incoherently hyperbolic.
“If you want to continue this conversation, I expect you to show _some_ shred of basic decency and admit that you were blatantly dishonest.”
As I have thoroughly explained, I was not dishonest, and you have failed to demonstrate that I was. You are simply making false/confused accusations of me, and using that to avoid actually engaging with the substance of the points I have made. You are dodging.
Any selection of a moral system starts with subjective preference. You are either attracted to, or repulsed by moral concepts/a moral system. You either find them preferable or not.
1:21 - that was exactly what made me an atheist. My Christian grandfather got Alzheimer's and his personality changed. Was is personality not part of his soul? My divinity teacher told me that his mind would be restored in heaven but I didn't buy it. And if so, why would God be so cruel to him and his family?
Yeah that one is important.
Matt once said: When a person gets brain trauma and forgets who he loves (and how to walk etc etc) and ALSO forgets their own religion and end up believing in a totally new religion; what happens to their claimed soul? Do they get 2 souls? Does 1 soul go dormant and just wait for the person to relearn everything? Does the soul also get hurt? It makes no sense at all.
Plus now that we understand where and how the brain stores memories (including of people's faces etc) then after death they couldn't see their loved ones, because that part of the brain would be dead and decaying! Exactly similar (but worse) as brain trauma victims!
When it comes right down to it.
The more science uncovers, the further God claims recede.
Even epilepsy does not mean you are demon possessed anymore LOL God changed his mind on that too. And natural gays, AND marriage, and it goes on and on and on and on and on.
Glad you Recovered From Religion :)
Welcome back Shannon! You do a such a great job!
Re: Ryan's call: Egyptians did not engage in human sacrifice...
LOL. Right now, I think that's the LEAST of the problems about Ryan's call. :D
Prisoners of war were routinely slaughtered by having their heads bashed in. I don't know if you'd call it a sacrifice or a statement of power. When does ritualised thuggery become religious worship?
@@kayb9979 When it's done in the name of a deity. The line is pretty clear.
@@kayb9979 If war alone constitutes ritual sacrifice, then all warring nations would have to be considered to be practicing human sacrifice. But, not all warring nations even have a national belief in a deity. These victims of ancient Egyptian wars were not "sacrificed" "to a God." There was no idol to whom they were offered, or placed before when they were killed, to demonstrate that any such thing occurred. There were many cultures anciently that did engage in ritual human sacrifice, and left clear relics of this practice, Egypt, however, was not one of them.
Kay B What dynastic periods?
Some People don't realize that most non believers have no problem with what people choose to believe. This whole thing comes down to the separation of church and state, at least for me anyway. Again I don't care what anyone chooses to believe, but when they start infringing on other people's freedoms with those beliefs we have a serious problem.
Some religious people seem to have it in their head that not being able to show intolerance to others is somehow intolerant to them. They think that science disproving something they believe or someone not accepting it equates to intolerance for their religion. It’s honestly pathetic.
@@MisterRorschach90 Indeed, theism is the original cancel culture. Only deadlier.
Remember that religions like Christianity and Islam set themselves up as fundamentally above secular law. There is that tension which exists, whether it always manifests itself or not. The effect of this is that such religious people believe they have an inherent right to impose their beliefs and views on society, and often that it is the morally right thing to do.
You really can make a great analogy between religion and a virus.
@@JesusChrist-og6rb
And it is funny that Christianity has done that, since their very own savior said to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" (meaning government and the like).
Christians basically treat Christianity as an all-you-can-eat buffet. Pick what you want, ignore the rest because it can't possibly matter because it doesn't agree with me.
@@Diviance Indeed. It's all my fault of course. Well, I didn't think people would be stupid enough to actually believe any of it. I was just shooting the breeze most of the time.
Anyway, back to overseeing Coronavirus - keep the mole in the hole!
Ryan starts off talking about intelligent design and complexity, then talks about people of another religion sacrificing babies, then objective morality, then finding Jesus at his "lowest point" and being "filled with the Holy Spirit". It really sounds like he's a Poe just going down a laundry list of common reasons theists give for believing in God.
Yeah especially after the slavery is ok spiel..
lol, I just posted a message about him being unable to parrot his platitudes without looking at his notes.
Ryan NY - More 3D apologetic (Distort, Distract, and Dissemble)
Don't you love Shannon s mug?
Has Jack been watching Fox News? He seriously sounds like he was about to go on a rant about the War on Christmas.
Also,
Deuteronomy 13:6 “Oh. So that’s the problem, right?”
Edit: Ryan was worse.
The call with Sain was awesome. The reason to keep watching the show. I really hope he calls back at some point.
Agreed. I think he got an education. I think he got affected. Probably never heard people talk like that before. I suspect he is reevaluating his beliefs.
Sain: He beats me because he loves me.
1:29:17 jonathans prefrontal cortex has left the building
The Canadian catholic strikes again lol he used to be an inner circle atheist 🤣
I used to be an Inner Circle Atheist like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
@@galacticbob1 lol yes!
Hitler was a Roman Catholic, he never renounced his faith and the pulpit celebrated his birthday till 20. April 1945 where it still could. According to Catholicism he is in heaven and enjoying the spectacle of sinners being punished in hell.
@iAnarchist No, that's part of german history but you are right, it is very close to the Hitch. Yet the Hitch was close to being wrong about the German Helmets in the Franco Tomb Chappel the depictions are of the Helmets from Francos personal guards. He chose those as gesture of thanks to the german massacre of Guernica.
The Bible tells us how to spot a Christian. He was not one.
@@meta4zs
A Christian is someone who accepts their own re-interpretation of the stories in their favourite version of the Bible.
Ryan said older religions were bad because they advocate sacrificing babies, but I suspect he would justify it if they kept him on the line. It's ok if it's what god wants....blah blah blah
Jesus, Jonathan is so...missing the point?
“I actually didn’t ask about souls, so thanks for wasting my time” 😂
IMO, Sain is one of the most honest, polite, genuine callers I've ever heard on this channel! He truly seems like a decent open minded human being. 👍
I could watch this for a minute I guess. It's always the same old lines from the apologist. Nothing ever changes.
The worst thing about religious people like Jack is that he’ll almost certainly leave that encounter thinking he’s a victim.
I disagree. The worst thing about people like Jack is they can never, ever, EVER, admit they were wrong.
Which explains why they believe so many wrong things.
@@Leafsdude_ Kinda the same thing. People who don't admit their wrong often justify that position by claiming their a victim. Most often on my Political Channel, when I try and challenge someones belief in the comment section, I do so by posing a question that makes them rethink their belief, but doing so often means they have to change their belief, and they don't want to do that. So what they do is claim I'm being Mean, or I'm angry, or they tell me to calm down, and go on this Wild Ass Fit about how mean I am, just so they can avoid having to openly rethink their narrative in the context I provided. I even had one guy go as far as to try and get me Banned from TH-cam. It was really funny.
Dude's a troll that has called in many times under many names. Andrew, Canadian Catholic, etc. etc. He's the one who said that he was a member of the 'Atheist Inner Circle"
He knows he's the dishonest one.
That was the whole point of his call, really.
@@Leafsdude_
They are suffering from Trumpitis
Do you remember the star ship Enterprise had 'deflecor shields'? That what Christian's have in their brain to deflect reason, it just never gets through.
One of the best episodes ever. Good job Matt and Shannon! ExJW here that learned a TON from you guys!
Atheism is just the absence of theism. Theism is the belief that a god exists. So A-theism, is without theism. Without the belief that a god exists. Absence of theism. Thats it.
Q: Do you believe that a god exists?
Any answer to this question other than “yes”, makes you an atheist, by definition.
If you say you’re unsure, not convinced yet, withholding judgement, don’t think you have enough information about the concept to decide either way, those are all answers that would not fall under the category “yes”, so they all fall under atheism.
Being unsure, still makes you an atheist. It means you are not yet convinced enough to say “yes” definitively, so you remain in disbelief until you have more information. That may be agnosticism as far as what you can possibly know about generally, but as far as a belief that a god exists, you would still be absent from actually holding that particular belief.
An agnostic, is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. There is no third option.
If you think you are an agnostic and are also not an atheist or theist (cough mcrae cough) then you are basically saying you are both: absent theism (not a theist) and are also not an atheist (absent theism).
A = A person who believes that god exists.
You are either A, or not A.
What is the third option?
Negative atheism is not believing that a god exists.
Positive atheism is believing that no god exist.
Positive atheism, would be a subset of negative atheism: ALL positive atheists are necessarily negative atheists, but not conversely.
This should be posted on all Apologetic websites.
Fairly sure Jack was Canadian Catholic. Sad.
Jonathan, these are such simple concepts to grasp, yet your belief system is a road block that will not
allow you to move forward.
Caller "JACK" is a repeat caller who went by "Canadian Catholic." He's a part of the dissfunctional DISCORD discussion groups with all the faux-logic verbal fightclub apologist people like Mr.Batman, Darth Dawkins, etc etc. He thinks that he thinks at a much higher level than he actually does. The boy is a mess.
Nothing more annoying than a person with a low double digit iq thinking they have a high triple digit iq.
Jack is great! He clearly demonstrates that religion is a morally bankrupt proposition. What a tool he is.
Dunning-Kreuger
I came on here to see if SJ Thomason had misquoted Matt on here as she has on Twitter. Matt seems to be popular viewing among the 3rd tier of TH-cam apologists.
Jesus Christ gesundheit
Wow ,Ryan is the proverbial pos
Damn I really hope that Ryan was a prankster, just for the sake of humanity
iAnarchist Oh no...
Shannon is great!!!!! Wow. I am thoroughly impressed!!
Does anyone else sing the intro song like they wrote it or is it just me?😂😂😂😂 I LOVE THAT DAMN SONG
Are you kidding, I'm harmonising like I'm part of the band :D
I love that we get to hear more of it in the outro lately... the words there are so poignant. Much respect for Shelley Segal!
Mel Ody yeeeeesss!!! The lyrics are so on point!
You wonder?
I mute it, or skip it.
Also, that Catholic call-in show that Jack was talking about, saying they were so open to atheists calling in and debating... that's a straight up lie
I was gonna guess they only seem polite because they mostly get believers or people questioning, but very far from actually abandoning the faith. Though I guess it could also be a case of using polite language is not the same as being polite.
This episode was responsible for probably the most surreal twitter exchange I'd seen in a while. SJ Thomason misrepresented Matt's position and he was "defended" (sorta) by Steve McRae of all people. SJ admitted she was in error, but of course didn't take down the tweet. Hahaha.
On the moral argument
If a christian says that morality depends on god and that I don't have the right to decide about moral values I answer
"You are right. Thank you! Now I can do whatever I want. Maybe I should harm as many people as possible"
The face after this is always funny to watch. Their face then seems to say : Holy .... this man is sick and I should've never said anything
Actually that can backfire because its exactly what many preachers say about atheists.
Possibly not the best answer because they could be totally expecting that from an atheist. Many churches teach that to their followers. I do hope most religious followers won’t really believe that, that they will hear the sarcasm, and that your response could show them the flaws in their thinking, but I don’t know, some people really do buy into what they’ve been told about atheists.
1:18:44 The God of the Bible = Cthulhu
It all makes sense now.
Have been seeing Shannon as a co-host a few times now.
She is an excellent addition to the ACA hosts.
The only thing making me notice she hasn't done this for years was her genuine shocked reaction to the guy who thought owning and beating slaves is ok!
At 1 hour 22 minutes Shannon blew my mind... such a well thought out line of questioning.
agreed!
I absolutely love watching these two hosts. Be safe and Great job again guys. I enjoyed listening to the Sain caller and how he still believes after acknowledged his cognitive dissonance and still believes in this monster god.... It baffles me. I guess like many, the beliefs run deep in their core and is difficult to emancipate themselves from it. It's like worshipping Ted Bundy....
It's amazing how Sain agreed with everything Matt said and yet still doggedly held onto his beliefs. I guarantee, if Sain was being 100% honest he would admit that he can't lose belief because that would mean losing living an eternal half-life in another dimension.
Does Ryan need someone to check his basement in a house call?
I love when bible thumpers bring out "well it was in the new testament" like the new testament was "written" not long ago, like in the 70s or 80s. It all takes place in the same time period (though traditional Jewish Canon and history is certainly older than the classical time period of the Hellenistic Mediterranean or Classical Rome). The Christians, while certainly persecuted up to a point by older institutions and religions, perhaps most famously so by the Roman Empire during its early years of inception, had already dominated or at least shared more than half of the political influence within Rome after Constantine made the famous turn around as early as the 3rd century CE. And you know what?? They were just as bad as the pagan Romans before them (bad is relative term though). They did the same persecution that to this day, they still bitch about it being done to them, what with the colosseums and Nero (Nero was an astronomical asshole hated by everyone, and possibly had syphilis or some kind of brain dementia brought on by a disease, which basically explains why he went batshit crazy). But nobody ever mentions pagan persecutions during the waning years of the Roman Western Empire. The Bible clearly has doctrines or teachings that make it, for the time in which it was written, an imperative to both spread the "word of god" and to reject any alternative notions that threaten the Christian canons validity. Its basically Judaism turned into a New Age concept during between the periods of 500 BCE to 300 CE, with many of the same original beliefs, but a more unified and simpler, fulfilled (on claims of Jesus being the messiah that had been foretold in Hebrew scripture), less baggage filled and more radical tradition. All of this before Christianity had its own forms of schisms and ruptures. But Christianity continued to persecute other beliefs to this day. The Middle Ages in particular is evidence to some of the worst intolerances shown by Christianity in any given period, but some Christians want to pretend that when Jesus died, the world kept being hunky dory after that. Science or reason isn't the only thing that is under assault now a days, but history and the pursuit of knowledge, accounts, and facts from the past divorced from superstition and myth.
And think of how much of the Hellenistic tradition is in Christianity. The concept of an underworld, which is not Jewish. The concept of a demigod, born of god and woman, which is certainly not Jewish. Jesus is closer to Heracles than he is to Moses.
@@scottdavidson5670 Absolutely. Greek culture and tradition (as well as language) was one, if not the most exported culture at the time. Thanks in part to Alexander and also a reason the Romans emulated them after the conquest of Greece during the years of the Republic. Christianity is just a collection of "classical times greatest hits" appropriating a lot of tradition and belief from surrounding lands. Not even mentioning the eventual Greek supremacy achieved during the Byzantine Empire centuries after, and their contributions to the canon Christians accept to this day. And that's just one of the early influences, even in the present, certain Christianity sub sects, like many others in other religions, will either mix or try absorb certain local traditions and try to make some kind of twisted justification for said new belief, in turn breeding something else... and this is how I think Christianity was born. Lol
Matt and Shannon are an unstoppable force!
When Matt read the Deuteronomy bit...my brain automatically converted it to the monty python voice in the holy handgrenade scene.
Shannon is awesome. That is all.
Ok Matt is awesome too...
😃
All books are good if you ignore the evil parts.
Evil parts?
The Bible promotes child abuse
@@ponsxl3596 Promotes...
@@ALTDOK667 Slavery, rape, murder....evil parts
@@jeffreygerdes3785 All books contain slavery, rape and murder?
Or, if the bible did not have slavery, etc., it would be a good book?
I constantly encounter religious people that seem to be delusional. Many that I have talked to seem to have no problem denying, and trying to change, reality in real time. Be it by pretending that science says something it doesn't, or changing what I have said moments before, or twisting their earlier arguments to fit some new evidence. If that's not an example of delusion I don't know what is.
Of course its not a clinical diagnosis, but by the colloquial definition of "delusional" it fits very well.
I absolutely agree; and categorically reject the notion that to point out where an individual has deluded themselves into believing something inconsistent with reality (like Kent Hovind et al believe they understand science) constitutes 'ableism'. It's a term which is frequently bandied about by hosts on this show inappropriately, as it was in this instance.
Anser Bauer I think they are referring to mental illness.
@@MisterRorschach90 I have no problem with people calling out 'ableism' where it applies to one person denigrating another person's intellectual disability or mental ill health, or applying such a label to another as a means of demeaning them.
However, to say someone is deluded on the basis that their belief is demonstrably inconsistent with reality or because their reasoning lacks rationality does not, by itself, infer a disability and therefore, does not constitute 'ableism'.
@@lawsonharrison6927 That's true. However, the general public don't typically use the term diagnostically in accordance with the DSM5; they use it colloquially. So unless their commentary is conducted within a diagnostic context, it should be obvious to other participants that their meaning is not intended to infer a discriminatory epithet. After all, 'words have usages, not meanings'.
@@lawsonharrison6927 ok... and? I wasn't referring to spiritual beliefs at all anyway.
Another great show guys! Thank you!
I think Ryan was trying to get you guys to "admit" you think it's okay to do bad things. I got the feeling he was riding on that assumption that so many theists have that if you're an atheist you have no morals. It would explain why he kept asking "how would that be wrong?" and so forth. He wanted you to say it's not so he could say you need god for morality.
Just my opinion on him.
Someone needs to make a mashup of Sain's call with testimonial from a domestic abuse victim. When Matt told him how similar he was sounding, his response "well I battered Jesus first" just chilled me. That's exactly what an abuse victim would say 😥
Can someone explain to me why some Christians believe that the bible is the direct word of god and people like Jack believe that the bible needs interpretation? Is that not a contradiction? Is Jack then saying that the words in the bible are not saying God`s truth? I think Jack needs to do some thinking about what he really believes.
It tends to arise a needs-must tactic in an argument. Rather than admit the Bible is erroneous or 'bad', they simply make shit up. Literally. They pull excuses out of their asses.
I bet if you asked him at the very start of the call, he would have said the bible DOESN'T need interpretation, but he said the opposite because he was desperately trying to defend what he really really really wants to be true.
I'm not letting him into heaven.
Jonathan: I called into talk about life after death but I didn’t call not to talk about a soul. WTF? Come on man. Be honest. You have no real concept of what a soul is and that’s why you dodged the questions. You just accepted the idea because people told you there is one.
I have had lucid dreams a few times, but had almost no control over them, other than just waking myself up in a nightmare.
Sain - TX = Stockholm syndrome..........., but, but, but, but, but......
You guys asked so many fantastic questions in this program. I would, however, wish you'd give people time to think about the answers to the most profound ones. I felt like we missed out on several potential deep realizations here. I get the cutting people off when they go out on tangents/don't apply logic. But every now and then you throw people curve ball questions (e.g. why they believe what they believe) yet don't let the questions marinate. The silence can be valuable, since it's the only time when these people aren't in defensive mode. Just needed to get that out, thanks for an otherwise awesome show.
Ryan's evasive "responses" reminds me of children's behavior when they are up to mischief, suspected of something, or hiding something. I could understand juvenile minds behaving that way. There's no excuse for grown adults to act in the same dishonest manner.
Haha right. He knew he was about to get in trouble.
I like Shannon. She totally contends for the driving seat on this show.
Some other great cohosts are happy to let matt drive but add some cool thoughts in too; but she brings some great energy to the show.
3 years late but for Linguistie, I actually have support for what he’s going for. Once I was gaming for almost 24 hours and I got so tired, I fell asleep around the pc but in my dream I was still playing the game normally, I did a lot of things that I wanted to do in the game only to wake up 2-3 hours later and see my character on the screen dead, not at the level I was in my dream.
I seamlessly transitioned into a kind of lucid dream state, because I was choosing what I wanted to do but I didn’t realize I was dreaming(I am a natural lucid dreamer, so I can do it). The only reason I became aware that the last 2 hours I was dreaming was because there was something objective there, my character in the game. If they were starving or lacking sleep and went into sleep from that, they might wake up feeling like everything was real unless they have something in the dream that changed to be able to verify the validity
Matt made a mistake when he said that 2 Chronicles was from the new testament. 2 Chronicles is still old testament.
ryan sounds exactly like my dad. he argues with me in that same way and says if gods not real he has no reason to care about anyone anymore including my family and i because no one would “have a purpose” anymore.
sorry to hear. My dad is similar too actually. Just know you're not alone mate. Hold tight!
No one who cannot play the piano, can play the piano (trivially true). The people who want to start learning to play the piano, cannot play the piano. Therefore, no one can learn to play the piano. This is the last caller's (and creationists' in general) argument about the origins of life in a nutshell.
@@loki6626 Lol that was good.
@@loki6626 lol
@@loki6626 the piano evolved from the harpsichord.
Ryan has the highest level of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen.🤦🏾♂️
I think the problem with Ryan and other callers being asked the slavery question is that if he answers honestly he goes against the bible, and if he agrees with the bible he looks pretty immoral. To say I don't know also doesn't work here, since there is little ambiguity regarding that topic.
If Christianity is true and there is a Hell, I'd happily go to Hell knowing my morality is better than God's.
I love the dynamic between Shannon and Matt!