Although I am not advocating this but if all religious people were banned from voting we would have a much better country and world. Religion poisons everything it touches.
@@MovieMakingMan there are countries where most people aren't religious yet still vote like retards. You'd also have to restrict people with low IQ's to vote as well. And with "countries with most people who aren't religious" i'm talking about west Europe. The statistics inflate how many religious people there are.. I'm an atheist since birth yet i'd be counted as a catholic because i was baptized which is still a tradition here just cuz people think it's fun. But nobody believes in the whole BS behind it.
@MovieMakingMan you should clarify this bc I fail to see how banning segments of the population from voting for believe the “wrong” things would be a more desirable society to live in. What if the wrong group gets in power and bans you from voting? Wouldn’t you rather live in a world where we can have a marketplace of ideas and strive to help good ideas win over bad ones? I don’t wanna ban anyone from voting and I don’t think the world would be better if we did. Can you clarify?
Exactly, of course the bible's descriptions of the world fit his imprecise and incomplete knowledge of the findings of science. If he had more than a rough approximation of what the scientific findings are then he would realize that he's stretching these verses to fit the modern understanding.
That's not the full quote of what he was saying. It's unfair and disingenuous to take part of someone's argument and twist it to mean something else. He was saying that it was rude of Matt to keep asking questions while not giving him the opportunity to answer previous ones. And Matt was quick-firing questions and not allowing him to answer them. The caller didn't get a chance to even finish his sentences. While I think his arguments were irrational, he tried to stay respectful and calm, which isn't something Matt returned throughout the entire call, even the beginning. Matt was rude throughout this call, and it's a shame because I think Matt could have actually made a difference to this caller's ideas if he'd given him respect and had a proper debate.
@@stephaniefarrant Theists have quite a lot of ways to shut down criticism. One recently railed at me " thou shalt not bare false witness " , all l had done was quote verses from the bible to counter his argument.
@@stephaniefarrant no, this caller got upset multiple times and called Matt rude that one time when he was asked a question that he didn't like or that may defeat his argument or that he didn't have the answer to.
"I was an atheist arguing with Christians until I learned the Bible says the oceans have mountains and valleys in them and now I believe in Jesus" Sure kid. Once again the caller's ignorance is directly proportional to their arrogance
The ancient Greeks made all sorts of statements like this, such as all life originally came from the sea....invisible particles that are never destroyed but only re-arranged...since the Greeks of that day were pagans, I am sure the caller will agree that this knowledge must have come to them from the gods....
Amen to that. I am not a scholar of ancient literature. However, the Epicureans believed that the world was composed of tiny indivisible particles (Greek "atomos" = "indivisible"). And that was in the first century BCE. See Greek philosopher Democritus and Roman philosopher Lucretius.
@@marshpoole And, for the record, ancient India believed even before the Greeks in the idea of these atomos, but if I remember correctly, called them 'nomads' but also believed they possessed intelligence...
What's funny: Zack's dancing around atoms being invisible, but they really aren't: if we remove all atoms from "something visible", that thing is no longer visible, whereas removing something invisible shouldn't make any difference. Atoms absorb, reflect and refract light, therefore they are visible - albeit not on an individual level to the resolution of the human eye, but whenever a bunch of them is grouped together... there's nothing invisible about them.
@@Mouse_Librarian ... in that case we could come up with many things that are too small for the resolution of the human eye, without being single atoms. Any amoeba should do the trick to point out that this bible verse could be talking about many things, without remotely having a clue about atoms. Besides, magic tricks that violate the laws of physics (the creation myth does that a lot) also fit the description of visible things from the invisible. In other words: the bible sticks to its nonsense story... I still don't see any atomic models in all that.
@@jared2244 No, I stop believing in bullshit because the bible is a morally repugnant book of absurd myths. If the Christian god existed, I wouldn't worship it, but fortunately, there's no good evidence to suggest that it does.
@@jared2244 You got it wrong. Nobody said Bible is book about science. Point is that Bible being accurate about some scientific things is not evidence for divine origin of Bible. Just like ancient Greeks being right about atoms isn't evidence for Zeus.
@@goranmilic442 "You got it wrong Nobody said Bible is book about science" Got what wrong? I did not say anybody told me that the bible is a book about science. Im just saying the bible is not a book of science to get into scientific details. In fact the message of the bible has nothing to do with science. Its message is the salvation of the human soul. Christianity that takes its guide from the bible understands the world better than atheism.. That alone makes it superior to any organization of human origin.
@@jared2244 We all agree with you that Bible is not science book and that Bible doesn't need to get into scientific details. What you got wrong is that that is reason why atheists don't believe Bible. No scientific details is not a problem. This is your sentence when you got it wrong: "So you left the church because the bible did not talk about DNA ?Are you serious?" That's not the reason he left. And nobody here said that was a reason.
Zack: "Claim, and such as..." Matt: "How do you know?" Zack: "Because I believe, and such as..." Matt: "I didn't ask what you believe, I asked why." Zack: "You're being rude to me, and such as..."
"Do you realize the word sphere wasn't invented back in biblical times?" the word sphere... before biblical times... It's literally the ancient greek word for sphere...
My original thought: Ooh snap. Great point. Plus tha... wait a sec... Originally Aramaic or whatever. Greek translation happened later and formed basis for the accepted text. You are Greek and translating a document. YOU know the world is round. You read word meaning round but--so you thought--flat. Do you add that up and figure you've actually found that word means spherical...and write it that way? Even maybe? Caveat: OT and NT are different beasts. And I don't know whence the "invisible things" verse. ===
@@thomastrinkle2294 Yeah, back then they were smart enough to speak and write, yet he IGNORANTLY asserts that they didn't have a word for one of the most basic shapes that abundantly appear in nature.
The moment he realized he was wrong was when Matt pointed out that strings might turn out to be the smallest thing. Instead of changing his mind or acknowledging this, he then started to argue that it's impossible that string theory can turn out to be true, which obviously is an absurd position to take. I see this over and over again, why are people so affraid to say that they are mistaken?
"why are people so afraid to say that they are mistaken?" Because they don't want to be thought of as idiots by their peers. It's like Scientologists, after spending years of their lives and hundreds of thousands of dollars are finally told about Xenu. They know it's bullshit but to admit that it's bullshit means all those years and all that money was for nothing and they're gullible idiots. So yeah, they get behind Xenu.
Because they build their entire life and identity around this system of unprovable claims, and to admit or even acknowledge that they might be wrong would upend their entire worldview, which they're fuckin' terrified of. Religion gives the underprivileged, unfortunate, and ignorant the excuse to feel inherently better than other people, and it's an easy solution to having to think about life. After all, you don't have to think about the nuances of morality if you have a black and white moral system handed down to you by a book. You don't have to worry about how to make sure that people are having safe sex if the only thing you think about sex is "Don't have it until marriage". You don't have to worry about making sure that your leadership has your interests at heart, and isn't just using you for what they can get out of you, because they were chosen by GOD to lead you, and all you have to do is give them your time, attention, and money.
@@petermirtitsch1235 "Aristotle posited that there were particles smaller than sand grains or dust, that could no longer be subdivided, that made up all things." ==It's not Aristotle. He rejected the notion of atoms and a void. It was Democrateus and possibly his teacher who had the idea of atoms and a void.
Poor guy was probably under a lot of social pressure to "find God" from family and friends, and didn't understand the principles of skepticism and rationality well enough to stand his ground, despite the fact that his starting point was the right one. That, and he wasn't well-enough educated to learn the principles and standards of scientific inquiry.
Actually they don't. What we call a tide is actually a bulge in the water envelope, caused by the gravitational attraction of the moon, which the Earth rotates underneath.
@@regularbanjo he was actually one of the best. He knew some verses well and was honest (mostly) about his answers to Matt's questions, e.g. "no, I'm not an expert" "yes, I'm ignorant to string theory" "these are my opinions" What's sad is that he got frustrated and lashed out when he couldn't think of any real evidence.
@@joypomeroy1452 Well said! There are a lot of context clues that this man is somewhat lacking in education. I felt he was sincere and genuinely struggled to understand what was flawed with his logic. He makes an easy target for religious indoctrination.
I'm pretty sure the Greeks and the Hindus (at least) had that concept first, and the idea that "if you keep taking something apart, you'll eventually reduce it to pieces too small to see" is pretty obvious because if the fundamental building blocks of matter were large enough to be visible, we'd see the seams where they connect like we do with Legos. Not to mention that we've since discovered that atoms themselves are composed of yet smaller particles, which themselves are made of quarks.
@@AlDunbar invisibility isn't the defining factor of atoms and elementary particles, it's their size (and the fact that they are not exactly objects so much as wave fields), with the important bit being that they are super tiny things which compose other things, which in turn compose other things, that eventually begin to get to the point where you can possibly start to see them.
Fun fact: einstein did not know how ro tie his shoes he could never figure it out this was smartest man.......but iunno if thas 100% true just heard it from so many reliable sources
@@beyondthelife6750 "...just heard it from so many reliable sources." Nonsense. Google fact check would only takes a few seconds. Stop trusting "reliability" of others.
@@davidcarter3830 it's called short form. You should try it. Grammar police caught me! Because I said IUNNO instead of I don't know. Or I spelt too quickly. English isn't my first language but I can damn sure spell good for it. You can go crawl back to the cave you came from. Did I make any mistakes this time? Only person who made a mistake were your parents, if you know what I mean.
How typical , The moment Zach realized his argument was failing . He resorts to the , you're being rude to me and are personally attacking me , and you just want to persecute christians and make us all look stupid or bad ploy . Which is just a dishonest cop out or diversion for the fact you can't defend the argument you presented . If you can actually defend your argument , you'd never have to resort to these tactics .
There is a stark difference between being open-minded, allowing other points of view to enter your thoughts, and leaving the barn door open to let anything blow in with the Wind.
@@louistournas120 Im not saying the writer is attempting to define atheism.. I am abstracting from his or her words and using them to define atheism.. " ..allowing other points of view to enter your thoughts...let anything blow in..." In my opinion this is exactly the way how atheists think
@@jared2244 That's not a definition of atheism. Atheism just means to not believe in any gods or lacking belief in any gods. Theism means belief in 1 or more gods. In my experience, when someone asks me to keep an open mind, what they really mean to say is "Don't criticize my beliefs for which there is no evidence." I am willing to listen to what they have to say. I am willing to communicate with them but what interests me is why they believe what they believe. Plus, I would be asking them questions and see if they respond. In your experience, you think that atheists accept just about anything?
From what I've seen that is the only time I've ever seen Matt get caught out and it wasn't even over anything important, just whether they cared or not 😂😂😂
"Do you have any expertise in this area?" haha... that made me bust out laughing. Matt almost came across as sincere when he asked this, too, which I think added to the comedic value.
Darwin had an idea that didn't have a model at the time. 150 years later we have a very comprehensive model. 3,000 years ago someone had an idea of a god. still no model.
Around 400 BC, Democritus was a Greek philosopher who was the first person to use the term "atom" (atomos: meaning indivisible). He believed that all matter was made up of indivisible particles. Christianity inherited much from the early Greek schools of thought.
Mountains rising out of the ocean, you mean like volcanoes do from time to time? He fell for something that sounded profound but is actually incredibly mundane. Gullible and stupid.
For those wondering, 2yrs later: I believe Zack is referring to the King James Bible site, and their article, "29 Scientific Facts from Bible Scripture" Several of his references are word for word. It's worth a look, for laughs.
It’s always funny when they start to get butthurt and become childish after all the gaps in their knowledge and fallacious reasoning is laid bare, right in front of them for everyone to see. For Zack, it was around the 6:12 mark.
Matt - ‘What were your reason for being a atheist’ Zach - ‘I had no reason to believe, I had no proof’ Matt - ‘What’s your reason for believing now?’ Zach - ‘I looked into stuff and I there are tons of reasons to believe’
Jeesus, Zack is just interpreting his baybul to mean what he wants it to mean. The bible is so vague that it can be interpreted in any way. Zach is dishonest and deluded.
The little angels holding things together comment was a nice touch. Daemons (daimons or demons), ie. worker deities, were theorised to be what kept things going in nature.
For some reason that escapes me, I'm picturing Zach from North Carolina as a guy wearing cut off jeans, a Metallica Tee shirt, a backwards ball cap and crocs.
Thousands of years ago people started asking their Rabbi's or Preists : "Why should I believe in God " . Almost immediately a group of Hebrew preists got togather and said" we have to come up with something or were going to lose power. They then wrote Hebrews and came up with the notion of faith. Faith is the bull shitters crutch.
I am so thankful for shows like this, especially for TAE. It helped free me from Religion. I would have never grown to understand what I do and become as capable without leaving Religion.
Interesting how nobody who read the bible before Dalton proposed the idea of atom ever came up with the concept of atom. Its only after the atom was proposed do people like this try to show how the bible always contained this idea. Zach, here's the thing - if you can't say that text A contains an idea without reading text B first then that means that text A does not contain said idea. A little game for you - viable ftl isn't something we know of yet. With that being said would you say that this comment of mine contained the idea of a viable ftl before it was formally described ? If you can't then why do the same for atoms and bible ? ("sacred text"/"God's word" as an answer makes as much sense here as "jcbjxbjnvxn".)
And even if the Bible DID specifically mention atoms, it's not as if that was a novel idea. Greek philosophers proposed it centuries before the bible was even written.
@@tomterific390 furthermore, as a result, even if it did specifically talk about atoms, in no way is that any evidence that the Bible is holy, or the word of God or any such nonsense.
The atomic theory predates the letter to the Hebrews by several centuries so even if that is what the verse means it didn’t need divine inspiration. The theory is thought to have be proposed by Leucippus of Miletus in the 5th century BCE.
Notice how Zack doesn't use the term "tectonic plates" until Matt says it. Zack clearly has no understanding of science is trying to fake it with buzz words. I also don't believe he was ever an atheist.
Oh yes he was a-theist b4 he heard theism existed, now he’s no longer a not-thiest but an expert-thiest in short he thought if somebody can bible-bable, he could as well, so here is self ordained rite reverend zack, saved.
So Every thing (that isn't energy and/or Jehovah) is made of atoms? Or maybe they're just made of a different category of invisible things. Or, um... ...he's reasoning badly. Just a hypothesis,
Actually, the concept of atoms comes from pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus somewhere around 400 yrs before Hebrews is considered to have been written. Hellenistism was rampant by the time of Hebrews writing. So it's not that surprising that some Jewish author plagiarized some Greek ideas.
They didn't plagiarize anything. There is no description of the atom in the Bible. Hebrew 11:3 just says this Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. ^^^^^Words are things that are not seen. The authors think that their god created things with words. Teh same kind of notion is present in Genesis 1:1. You can't understand anything with faith. Read 11:1. The author doesn't know the meaning of evidence. Then it talks about dead people and their faith. The bible is written by illogical people.
So Zack read an excerpt from the bible and in his mind it somehow related to atoms. Yet it did not give any definition or description of what they are and what they work together. Therefor god. Ah, no.
well, faith is wishes and invisible evidence (paraphrased). He's pointing at atoms and saying "look how invisible they are!" Voila, checkmate, k who needs a ride home?
Wow! I replayed the clip where Zach explains his reasons for believing about ten times with the subtitles on and I still can't make out what he's really talking about. Classic Dunning-Kruger effect. For those who don't know what this is, it's the cognitive bias where the less someone knows about a subject the more they think they know, not having the ability to realize this. On the flip side the more someone knows, the more they can see that there's more to learn about a subject. I found Zach's attitude really annoying and completely self absorbed.
There’s an old saying “ never Argue with someone who’s ignorant because a passerby or those watching the conversation won’t be able to tell the difference between the two “
Jay-Z said it best: *“A wise man told me don't argue with fools. Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who".* The wise man he is eluding to originally wrote: *"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain.*
That was painful. The lack of critical thinking skills on display puts the current situation in the US in sharp relief. When people can’t listen to reasonable criticism and cling to childish views so hard that there’s no letting go, you get exactly what Matt always discusses-flawed people with flawed views being fleeced by the first con man to come along and convince religious adherents that everything should go back the “the good times” when they were the top dogs in all their ignorant bliss.
Not to assert that we aren’t all flawed, but at least some of us live our lives around seeking truth no matter how uncomfortable, and serving others, even if it means sacrificing our comfort and expanding our worldview to encompass different viewpoints and circumstances.
So the opinion of somebody who is ignorant of string theory is arguing that everything is made out of atoms and there's nothing smaller than that I guess the caller has never heard of the planck length. The smallest thing our math can show. I have never wanted so badly to be on this show so I could teach people like this that the opinion of somebody who is ignorant holds no weight. If you think something is true you have to have a justifiable reason for holding that position. The fact that you don't know anything isn't a reason to hold that position.
I suspect that someone invented the term "arrogant little prick" a couple of thousand years ago and then waited for Zac to call in. Prediction confirmed!
I guess they would because getting on the show is a pretty big thing, well, it would be for me anyway. Whether they actually listen and realise where they went wrong is a whole different story.
Around 450 B.C., the Greek philosopher Democritus introduced the idea of the atom. However, the idea was essentially forgotten for more than 2000 years. In 1800, John Dalton re-introduced the atomic theory. It was Einstein who proved it mathematically in 1905. Then in August 1955 Prof. Erwin W. Mueller became the first person ever to see an atom using a Field Ion Microscope he developed .
To be fair, they could not confirm the existence of atoms. They were theorizing about possible explanations of the source properties of all matter. But it was not like they particularly had the technology to observe such phenomena
@@fenrirhere Hi there, Yes I did say they were 'talking' about 'atoms' in a general sense. And how there could be possible alternatives to Gods powers.Zeus Neptune etc.
A couple of years before my father died around 1968 when televisions weighed about half a hundredweight, he said, son someday “people will be wearing TVs on their wrists”. ‘PREPOSTEROUS’ eh?
"Something that is rubber and round and bounces...basketball right." Well Pro basketball balls are leather, others are synthetic so that loose definitions allow me to consider a volley ball, kick ball, soccer ball, handball, racketball, tennis ball, golf ball, pool balls, billard ball, beach ball, squash ball, cricket ball, baseball, softball, super ball - AND Zach's head.
I was getting a bit bored with the video, then a miracle happened. An advert suddenly appeared for something I really need ! A new belt to hold up my trousers. Thanks !
If you read the entire verse it's clear that its god's word which is not visible. Not atoms. god's word formed the universe so it's god's word that's invisible.
So ur saying Jesus is invisible? Cause he is supposedly the "Word" that was with God in the beginning. Soooo all that was made by Jesus in the beginning is invisible? Huh? How'd we get so visible today? Huh?
Atoms were theorised by the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus (460 - 370 BCE). He had no scientific proof for it however. Rather it was the result of a thought experiment where he supposed if you cut up some matter there would be a point at which you could no longer cut it up into smaller parts, these smallest individual particles he called atoms. So, the ancient Greeks had ideas about atoms some 500 or so years before the book of Hebrews in the NT was written. The word "atom" comes from ancient Greek "atomos" which means uncut/indivisible. The irony is that Democritus is considered by many to have been an atheist, or at the very least an agnostic who sought to explain the natural world in a naturalistic/materialistic manner, without invoking the the power of supernatural gods.
As far back as 450BC, they believed everything was made of earth, air, fire and water. Given that none of these are visible in most of the things we see, and the fact that the verse does not say "tiny" things that are unseen, it is much easier to believe they were talking about this. It's a better fit
Why would God want to create a Universe or even a planet Earth other than to piss Himself laughing at how we all try to make sense of it? What other reason could there be?
I imagine someone experiencing a major earthquake at any point in history could observe mountains rising or pits opening. Anyone who has ever seen a water-stream would see them running downhill and if at a coast, would see then end at the sea. Nothing more required than a pair of eyes.
Yeah, I don't believe for a second that he "used to be an atheist". At this point, I think that's just a that theists say in an effort to sound "more credible".
@@FrankWinchester That typically happens during the learning development process of the early years of human life. My comment was aimed more towards people beyond that stage in their lives.
@@Wiggimus I'd say most theists used to be atheists (by the definition). Plenty of religious people get to the point where they, for a period, start to lack faith and don't hold the positive belief God exists. That makes them (former) atheists by definition
@@FrankWinchester Wouldn't that make them former theists? If they believed, but then expressed doubt to the point where the beliefs waned, then that would make them atheists, right?
The thing I just can't understand about the callers is that they must have listened to the show before and heard all these other callers who thought "Well...where did stuff come from, huh?" was a great argument but once they called in they just sounded like babbling idiots. Do they think they are going to seem so much more profound when they call and say "Well...where did everything come from, huh?"?
For some reason, they can't hear each other very well and it REALLY hurts the call. Matt isn't as effective as he normally is bc every other sentence is "excuse me?" "what did you say" and it gives Zack this false sense of stumping them when I think Matt just couldn't hear this kid very well
Here’s an argument: There are a lot of people like Zack. They are allowed to vote. Therefore, we are all fucked.
Yep... Messed up huh.
Although I am not advocating this but if all religious people were banned from voting we would have a much better country and world. Religion poisons everything it touches.
@@MovieMakingMan Reminds me of a Family Guy episode I saw as a kid where it literally was a “what if religion stopped as soon as it began”
@@MovieMakingMan there are countries where most people aren't religious yet still vote like retards. You'd also have to restrict people with low IQ's to vote as well. And with "countries with most people who aren't religious" i'm talking about west Europe. The statistics inflate how many religious people there are.. I'm an atheist since birth yet i'd be counted as a catholic because i was baptized which is still a tradition here just cuz people think it's fun. But nobody believes in the whole BS behind it.
@MovieMakingMan you should clarify this bc I fail to see how banning segments of the population from voting for believe the “wrong” things would be a more desirable society to live in. What if the wrong group gets in power and bans you from voting? Wouldn’t you rather live in a world where we can have a marketplace of ideas and strive to help good ideas win over bad ones? I don’t wanna ban anyone from voting and I don’t think the world would be better if we did. Can you clarify?
He’s literally using his own ignorance as evidence for his religious claims.
The bible is not a book of science
Exactly, of course the bible's descriptions of the world fit his imprecise and incomplete knowledge of the findings of science. If he had more than a rough approximation of what the scientific findings are then he would realize that he's stretching these verses to fit the modern understanding.
Or as I like to phrase it-he is being religious
@@AlexanderNash Perfectly said, sir.
Yes his argument is inversely proportional to his level of ignorance .
"You're being rude to me by asking questions"
The truth fears no question.
That's not the full quote of what he was saying. It's unfair and disingenuous to take part of someone's argument and twist it to mean something else. He was saying that it was rude of Matt to keep asking questions while not giving him the opportunity to answer previous ones. And Matt was quick-firing questions and not allowing him to answer them. The caller didn't get a chance to even finish his sentences. While I think his arguments were irrational, he tried to stay respectful and calm, which isn't something Matt returned throughout the entire call, even the beginning. Matt was rude throughout this call, and it's a shame because I think Matt could have actually made a difference to this caller's ideas if he'd given him respect and had a proper debate.
@LuthAMF While Christianity still remains on the same level of believing in fairytales and fantasy novels, that WAS a good comeback, not gonna lie.
@@stephaniefarrant Theists have quite a lot of ways to shut down criticism. One recently railed at me " thou shalt not bare false witness " , all l had done was quote verses from the bible to counter his argument.
@@stephaniefarrant no, this caller got upset multiple times and called Matt rude that one time when he was asked a question that he didn't like or that may defeat his argument or that he didn't have the answer to.
@@stephaniefarrant all he did was ask the kid "Zack, what are atoms made of?" To which the kid responds by calling him rude.
Zach is reaching so much he's going to dislocate his shoulder
Ya but gotta give him credit because everything he says makes total and complete sense if you don't think about it! Lol
He might even reach space and see that there are more than a thousand stars.
"I was an atheist arguing with Christians until I learned the Bible says the oceans have mountains and valleys in them and now I believe in Jesus"
Sure kid.
Once again the caller's ignorance is directly proportional to their arrogance
zach was never a true atheist.
The ancient Greeks made all sorts of statements like this, such as all life originally came from the sea....invisible particles that are never destroyed but only re-arranged...since the Greeks of that day were pagans, I am sure the caller will agree that this knowledge must have come to them from the gods....
Amen to that. I am not a scholar of ancient literature. However, the Epicureans believed that the world was composed of tiny indivisible particles (Greek "atomos" = "indivisible"). And that was in the first century BCE. See Greek philosopher Democritus and Roman philosopher Lucretius.
@@marshpoole And, for the record, ancient India believed even before the Greeks in the idea of these atomos, but if I remember correctly, called them 'nomads' but also believed they possessed intelligence...
@@sugartoothYT So true! And a great play, no?
Good point, but of course he won't; how could there be any other real God but the Jewish one back then?
@@sugartoothYT Confucius also spouted the Golden Rule centuries before Jesus' birth. (Ironically called the Silver Rule)
What's funny: Zack's dancing around atoms being invisible, but they really aren't: if we remove all atoms from "something visible", that thing is no longer visible, whereas removing something invisible shouldn't make any difference. Atoms absorb, reflect and refract light, therefore they are visible - albeit not on an individual level to the resolution of the human eye, but whenever a bunch of them is grouped together... there's nothing invisible about them.
Thats a good point.
I can already hear his rebuttal that 'invisible' meant 'invisible to the human eye'.
@@Mouse_Librarian ... in that case we could come up with many things that are too small for the resolution of the human eye, without being single atoms. Any amoeba should do the trick to point out that this bible verse could be talking about many things, without remotely having a clue about atoms. Besides, magic tricks that violate the laws of physics (the creation myth does that a lot) also fit the description of visible things from the invisible. In other words: the bible sticks to its nonsense story... I still don't see any atomic models in all that.
If we assume that people don’t linguistically distinguish between atoms and molecules, then there are indeed molecules that are visible and huge.
So it is an emergent property.
The ancient Greeks had a concept of atoms. I mean, that's where we get the word from. So uh... time to worship Zeus?
You got it all wrong.. The bible is not a book of science.. So you left the church because the bible did not talk about DNA ? Are you serious?
@@jared2244 No, I stop believing in bullshit because the bible is a morally repugnant book of absurd myths. If the Christian god existed, I wouldn't worship it, but fortunately, there's no good evidence to suggest that it does.
@@jared2244 You got it wrong. Nobody said Bible is book about science. Point is that Bible being accurate about some scientific things is not evidence for divine origin of Bible. Just like ancient Greeks being right about atoms isn't evidence for Zeus.
@@goranmilic442 "You got it wrong Nobody said Bible is book about science" Got what wrong? I did not say anybody told me that the bible is a book about science. Im just saying the bible is not a book of science to get into scientific details. In fact the message of the bible has nothing to do with science. Its message is the salvation of the human soul.
Christianity that takes its guide from the bible understands the world better than atheism.. That alone makes it superior to any organization of human origin.
@@jared2244 We all agree with you that Bible is not science book and that Bible doesn't need to get into scientific details. What you got wrong is that that is reason why atheists don't believe Bible. No scientific details is not a problem.
This is your sentence when you got it wrong:
"So you left the church because the bible did not talk about DNA ?Are you serious?"
That's not the reason he left. And nobody here said that was a reason.
In behalf of the state of NC, I apologize for Zach
I apologize for the black theist callers all the time 😂😂😂😂
sorry we dont Accept........lol
Thank you I'm from Raleigh this was embarrassing
The fact that "bouncy balls" are foremost in Zack's mind says a lot.
Zack: "Claim, and such as..."
Matt: "How do you know?"
Zack: "Because I believe, and such as..."
Matt: "I didn't ask what you believe, I asked why."
Zack: "You're being rude to me, and such as..."
Also Zack: "OkAy, LiStEn..."
"Do you realize the word sphere wasn't invented back in biblical times?"
the word sphere...
before biblical times...
It's literally the ancient greek word for sphere...
My original thought: Ooh snap. Great point. Plus tha... wait a sec...
Originally Aramaic or whatever. Greek translation happened later and formed basis for the accepted text.
You are Greek and translating a document. YOU know the world is round. You read word meaning round but--so you thought--flat. Do you add that up and figure you've actually found that word means spherical...and write it that way? Even maybe?
Caveat: OT and NT are different beasts. And I don't know whence the "invisible things" verse.
===
Ancient Hebrew has a world for "ball". If they wanted to describe the Earth as a round 3-D shape instead of a round 2-D, they had the word for it.
@@thomastrinkle2294 I've been thinking that too. Meaning to check it out. "Ball" is pretty basic. To make things from clay (or snow), you make a ball.
@@thomastrinkle2294 Yeah, back then they were smart enough to speak and write, yet he IGNORANTLY asserts that they didn't have a word for one of the most basic shapes that abundantly appear in nature.
This reminds me of a line from The Hangover.
Stu - “You are literally too stupid to insult”.
Alan - “Thank you”.
Zach was ahead of his time. He just did the "I did my own research meme" like 5 years early.
I love the way Americans politely call each other Sir and Ma'am even when they are in fact being quite rude and obnoxious. Always makes me smile.
There is always a tiny "fuck you in every "bless their heart."
We got that from the British.
@@pretzelogic2689😂 yeah but we can't do it like the Britt ! I love'em.
The moment he realized he was wrong was when Matt pointed out that strings might turn out to be the smallest thing. Instead of changing his mind or acknowledging this, he then started to argue that it's impossible that string theory can turn out to be true, which obviously is an absurd position to take. I see this over and over again, why are people so affraid to say that they are mistaken?
"why are people so afraid to say that they are mistaken?"
Because they don't want to be thought of as idiots by their peers. It's like Scientologists, after spending years of their lives and hundreds of thousands of dollars are finally told about Xenu. They know it's bullshit but to admit that it's bullshit means all those years and all that money was for nothing and they're gullible idiots. So yeah, they get behind Xenu.
Because they build their entire life and identity around this system of unprovable claims, and to admit or even acknowledge that they might be wrong would upend their entire worldview, which they're fuckin' terrified of. Religion gives the underprivileged, unfortunate, and ignorant the excuse to feel inherently better than other people, and it's an easy solution to having to think about life. After all, you don't have to think about the nuances of morality if you have a black and white moral system handed down to you by a book. You don't have to worry about how to make sure that people are having safe sex if the only thing you think about sex is "Don't have it until marriage". You don't have to worry about making sure that your leadership has your interests at heart, and isn't just using you for what they can get out of you, because they were chosen by GOD to lead you, and all you have to do is give them your time, attention, and money.
I listen to this show to go to sleep. Hearing theists get ripped a new one with logic is so soothing
Zach isn't an expert in string theory? Well I, for one, am shocked!!!
SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!!
NGL, that was probably the most astounded I've ever been in my whole entire life.
I pretty sure he cannot do up shoe laces
@@edheal3246 Lol! You win Ed :p
He probably thought Matt meant strings like in clothing.
Zack should have checked where the word "atom" came from.
It is Greek for "unable to be cut" - "atoma".
@georg walt a small grain of sand can be cut or forced apart, though. You just need a slicing device fine enough.
You are the one thinking silly to regard the bible as a book of science.
@georg walt Aristotle posited that there were particles smaller than sand grains or dust, that could no longer be subdivided, that made up all things.
@@petermirtitsch1235 "Aristotle posited that there were particles smaller than sand grains or dust, that could no longer be subdivided, that made up all things."
==It's not Aristotle. He rejected the notion of atoms and a void. It was Democrateus and possibly his teacher who had the idea of atoms and a void.
@@louistournas120 apologies. You are correct. It was Democritus. I got the two mixed up.
Poor guy was probably under a lot of social pressure to "find God" from family and friends, and didn't understand the principles of skepticism and rationality well enough to stand his ground, despite the fact that his starting point was the right one. That, and he wasn't well-enough educated to learn the principles and standards of scientific inquiry.
Tides come in, tides go out. You can't explain that!
Bill? Is that you? Lol
Sun comes up, sun goes down. Nobody knows why! 🤪
Actually they don't. What we call a tide is actually a bulge in the water envelope, caused by the gravitational attraction of the moon, which the Earth rotates underneath.
"FUCK IT! WE'LL FIX IT IN POST!"
Wow Zach proves the point that this period we are living in now where people have their own facts and truths is dangerous
c'mon, the best line came from John, in reference to Zach's biblical evidence....:"I bet it's gonna be vague"
Zack's not an expert, but he has alot of conclusions based on his own personal conclusions.
Very nice (huge laugh)!
And Zack makes total and complete sense if you don't think about it!
Zack might be the least articulate caller I’ve ever heard.
@@regularbanjo he was actually one of the best. He knew some verses well and was honest (mostly) about his answers to Matt's questions, e.g. "no, I'm not an expert" "yes, I'm ignorant to string theory" "these are my opinions"
What's sad is that he got frustrated and lashed out when he couldn't think of any real evidence.
@@joypomeroy1452 Well said! There are a lot of context clues that this man is somewhat lacking in education. I felt he was sincere and genuinely struggled to understand what was flawed with his logic. He makes an easy target for religious indoctrination.
I'm pretty sure the Greeks and the Hindus (at least) had that concept first, and the idea that "if you keep taking something apart, you'll eventually reduce it to pieces too small to see" is pretty obvious because if the fundamental building blocks of matter were large enough to be visible, we'd see the seams where they connect like we do with Legos.
Not to mention that we've since discovered that atoms themselves are composed of yet smaller particles, which themselves are made of quarks.
"Too small to see" does not mean the same thing as "invisible"
@@AlDunbar invisibility isn't the defining factor of atoms and elementary particles, it's their size (and the fact that they are not exactly objects so much as wave fields), with the important bit being that they are super tiny things which compose other things, which in turn compose other things, that eventually begin to get to the point where you can possibly start to see them.
This should be good a NC call. Can't wait to hear this guy Zack. Simply amazing nonsense as I am listening!
There are dozens of reasonable people in NC. Dozens!
I would be surprised if Zack knew how to tie his shoes.
Yup. Dumbasses can be entertaining, but Zach is borderline at best.
Fun fact: einstein did not know how ro tie his shoes he could never figure it out this was smartest man.......but iunno if thas 100% true just heard it from so many reliable sources
@@beyondthelife6750 And your grammar needs work, so maybe you don't know how to tie your shoes.
@@beyondthelife6750 "...just heard it from so many reliable sources." Nonsense. Google fact check would only takes a few seconds. Stop trusting "reliability" of others.
@@davidcarter3830 it's called short form. You should try it. Grammar police caught me! Because I said IUNNO instead of I don't know. Or I spelt too quickly. English isn't my first language but I can damn sure spell good for it. You can go crawl back to the cave you came from. Did I make any mistakes this time? Only person who made a mistake were your parents, if you know what I mean.
How typical , The moment Zach realized his argument was failing . He resorts to the , you're being rude to me and are personally attacking me , and you just want to persecute christians and make us all look stupid or bad ploy . Which is just a dishonest cop out or diversion for the fact you can't defend the argument you presented . If you can actually defend your argument , you'd never have to resort to these tactics .
I'm kind of amazed that his first thought about "invisible things making up everything that is" wasn't, oh, I don't know, SPIRIT?
There is a stark difference between being open-minded, allowing other points of view to enter your thoughts, and leaving the barn door open to let anything blow in with the Wind.
This is a clear definition of atheism
@@jared2244 That wasn't a definition. Read it again. All he is saying is that there is a difference between X and Y.
@@louistournas120 Im not saying the writer is attempting to define atheism.. I am abstracting from his or her words and using them to define atheism.. " ..allowing other points of view to enter your thoughts...let anything blow in..."
In my opinion this is exactly the way how atheists think
@@jared2244 That's not a definition of atheism. Atheism just means to not believe in any gods or lacking belief in any gods.
Theism means belief in 1 or more gods.
In my experience, when someone asks me to keep an open mind, what they really mean to say is "Don't criticize my beliefs for which there is no evidence."
I am willing to listen to what they have to say. I am willing to communicate with them but what interests me is why they believe what they believe. Plus, I would be asking them questions and see if they respond.
In your experience, you think that atheists accept just about anything?
@@louistournas120 funny thing is, if atheists accepted just about anything, they'd be theists.
Matt: "why should we care about your views on string theory?"
Caller: "well you just asked me"
Lol.....he got you there
I think Matt meant, why is your view on string theory be of any importance?... but yeah, lol, I saw Matt being stunned by the caller's quick response.
it was funny tho he got him there for sure 😅
From what I've seen that is the only time I've ever seen Matt get caught out and it wasn't even over anything important, just whether they cared or not 😂😂😂
Zack is basically Napoleon Dynamite...
Is Napoleon there?
Yes
Well can I talk to him?
You already are
Bwahahaahha
"Do you have any expertise in this area?" haha... that made me bust out laughing. Matt almost came across as sincere when he asked this, too, which I think added to the comedic value.
I love this show. Thank you for making clips. This content is so valuable as education. Thank you!
Darwin had an idea that didn't have a model at the time. 150 years later we have a very comprehensive model. 3,000 years ago someone had an idea of a god. still no model.
Around 400 BC, Democritus was a Greek philosopher who was the first person to use the term "atom" (atomos: meaning indivisible). He believed that all matter was made up of indivisible particles. Christianity inherited much from the early Greek schools of thought.
The way the caller thinks and draws conclusions is frightening….
Mountains rising out of the ocean, you mean like volcanoes do from time to time?
He fell for something that sounded profound but is actually incredibly mundane. Gullible and stupid.
and rather obnoxious too
I’m assuming Zack’s mother is his fathers sister.
I am so impressed by Matt's incredible tolerance for unbelievable stupidity.
I certainly couldn't do it.
This call made me literally laugh out loud.
This caller in one sentence: "I am totally ignorant, but I will use anything to defend my delusion!"
"I did 6 years at school straight" ... must be a record for where he is from, good on him.
The toughest three years of his life were fifth grade.
Zack is a living example of people who shoehorn everything they hear, listen to or learn into their own personal worldview...twisting it
For those wondering, 2yrs later:
I believe Zack is referring to the King James Bible site, and their article, "29 Scientific Facts from Bible Scripture"
Several of his references are word for word.
It's worth a look, for laughs.
I know it sounds bad but we’re just dealing with 2 different levels of intelligence
'I did some research' = I didn't do any research.
It’s always funny when they start to get butthurt and become childish after all the gaps in their knowledge and fallacious reasoning is laid bare, right in front of them for everyone to see.
For Zack, it was around the 6:12 mark.
Matt - ‘What were your reason for being a atheist’
Zach - ‘I had no reason to believe, I had no proof’
Matt - ‘What’s your reason for believing now?’
Zach - ‘I looked into stuff and I there are tons of reasons to believe’
"Sure, sure it would have been silly to put the name in there."
This line was the best!!
Zack is the definition of Dunning-Kruger…
Faith is what we believe without evidence. Science is what we believe with evidence. This should not be confusing.
“The Bible discovered things before Technology!”
How do you know that?
“I don’t I’m not an expert but, Bible”
"The bible discovered things before.. The bible is not a book of science.
@@jared2244 then why zac was talking about science from the bible??? You guys are sure conflicting each other 😂😂
@@cyrus3316 "...are sure conflicting each other" Nice to know that.
@@jared2244 sure man any time🤟
Jeesus, Zack is just interpreting his baybul to mean what he wants it to mean. The bible is so vague that it can be interpreted in any way.
Zach is dishonest and deluded.
Very few honest believers around.
And he’s pissed about it. He’s squirming and whatabouting and can’t listen. And everybody else sux except for me.
The little angels holding things together comment was a nice touch. Daemons (daimons or demons), ie. worker deities, were theorised to be what kept things going in nature.
For some reason that escapes me, I'm picturing Zach from North Carolina as a guy wearing cut off jeans, a Metallica Tee shirt, a backwards ball cap and crocs.
present day Matt wouldn't have tolerated this guy for as long as he did.
“Scientific properties like stars…”
Welp, no one here can help you, my dude.
This guy might be the best stand up comedian ever
Thousands of years ago people started asking their Rabbi's or Preists : "Why should I believe in God " . Almost immediately a group of Hebrew preists got togather and said" we have to come up with something or were going to lose power. They then wrote Hebrews and came up with the notion of faith. Faith is the bull shitters crutch.
This one never grows old.
I am so thankful for shows like this, especially for TAE. It helped free me from Religion. I would have never grown
to understand what I do and become as capable without leaving Religion.
Interesting how nobody who read the bible before Dalton proposed the idea of atom ever came up with the concept of atom. Its only after the atom was proposed do people like this try to show how the bible always contained this idea. Zach, here's the thing - if you can't say that text A contains an idea without reading text B first then that means that text A does not contain said idea. A little game for you - viable ftl isn't something we know of yet. With that being said would you say that this comment of mine contained the idea of a viable ftl before it was formally described ? If you can't then why do the same for atoms and bible ? ("sacred text"/"God's word" as an answer makes as much sense here as "jcbjxbjnvxn".)
And even if the Bible DID specifically mention atoms, it's not as if that was a novel idea. Greek philosophers proposed it centuries before the bible was even written.
They try to highjack science all the time. "Oh the Big Bang? Well, God said, "Let there be light" lol
@@tomterific390 furthermore, as a result, even if it did specifically talk about atoms, in no way is that any evidence that the Bible is holy, or the word of God or any such nonsense.
The atomic theory predates the letter to the Hebrews by several centuries so even if that is what the verse means it didn’t need divine inspiration. The theory is thought to have be proposed by Leucippus of Miletus in the 5th century BCE.
Knowing he’s from Jefferson, NC causes absolutely no surprises. This is very on brand for most of rural NC.
The concept of a sphere was well known to the ancient Greeks.
Notice how Zack doesn't use the term "tectonic plates" until Matt says it. Zack clearly has no understanding of science is trying to fake it with buzz words. I also don't believe he was ever an atheist.
Oh yes he was a-theist b4 he heard theism existed, now he’s no longer a not-thiest but an expert-thiest in short he thought if somebody can bible-bable, he could as well, so here is self ordained rite reverend zack, saved.
They rarely are. Its a common method used by theists, to claim that they were once "lost atheists" that have been saved.
He claims “everything is made from atoms” ... light, is not an atom or made from atoms
Be fair. He was clearly talking about material things, not energy.
Plus...is He included in the Everything set?
So is He made of atoms? Or is that another "well obvsly, cuz Super..." deal?
So Every thing (that isn't energy and/or Jehovah) is made of atoms?
Or maybe they're just made of a different category of invisible things.
Or, um...
...he's reasoning badly. Just a hypothesis,
@@ookeekthelibrarian fair enough
Actually, the concept of atoms comes from pre-Socratic philosopher Democritus somewhere around 400 yrs before Hebrews is considered to have been written. Hellenistism was rampant by the time of Hebrews writing. So it's not that surprising that some Jewish author plagiarized some Greek ideas.
Exactly this. Thank you.
They didn't plagiarize anything. There is no description of the atom in the Bible.
Hebrew 11:3 just says this
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
^^^^^Words are things that are not seen. The authors think that their god created things with words. Teh same kind of notion is present in Genesis 1:1.
You can't understand anything with faith.
Read 11:1. The author doesn't know the meaning of evidence.
Then it talks about dead people and their faith.
The bible is written by illogical people.
Democritus 460 - 370 BCE, proposed Atomic theory. Whoops?
You are correct Chris. These people are scary.
West Jefferson. Being from NC, I already know where this is going. lol
So Zack read an excerpt from the bible and in his mind it somehow related to atoms. Yet it did not give any definition or description of what they are and what they work together. Therefor god. Ah, no.
, why would a god say that they were atoms and then say nothing more about it ?.
Exactly my OP comment in the main section.
well, faith is wishes and invisible evidence (paraphrased). He's pointing at atoms and saying "look how invisible they are!" Voila, checkmate, k who needs a ride home?
@@brucebaker810 . I can’t remember the clip. Surely he didn’t use the words, “Look how invisible they are?”
@@RickyisSwan Correct. He spoke for minutes. I condensed, with attitude, for ridicule and funny.
He actually thinks you're an atheist because you have a show, not the other way around lol
Wow! I replayed the clip where Zach explains his reasons for believing about ten times with the subtitles on and I still can't make out what he's really talking about. Classic Dunning-Kruger effect. For those who don't know what this is, it's the cognitive bias where the less someone knows about a subject the more they think they know, not having the ability to realize this. On the flip side the more someone knows, the more they can see that there's more to learn about a subject. I found Zach's attitude really annoying and completely self absorbed.
There’s an old saying “ never Argue with someone who’s ignorant because a passerby or those watching the conversation won’t be able to tell the difference between the two “
Very nice! I'll remember it.
Reminds me of "Better to remain silent and be thought an idiot, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt!"
Jay-Z said it best: *“A wise man told me don't argue with fools. Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who".* The wise man he is eluding to originally wrote: *"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain.*
That was painful. The lack of critical thinking skills on display puts the current situation in the US in sharp relief. When people can’t listen to reasonable criticism and cling to childish views so hard that there’s no letting go, you get exactly what Matt always discusses-flawed people with flawed views being fleeced by the first con man to come along and convince religious adherents that everything should go back the “the good times” when they were the top dogs in all their ignorant bliss.
Not to assert that we aren’t all flawed, but at least some of us live our lives around seeking truth no matter how uncomfortable, and serving others, even if it means sacrificing our comfort and expanding our worldview to encompass different viewpoints and circumstances.
Matt was so much more patient. Wow.
So the opinion of somebody who is ignorant of string theory is arguing that everything is made out of atoms and there's nothing smaller than that I guess the caller has never heard of the planck length. The smallest thing our math can show. I have never wanted so badly to be on this show so I could teach people like this that the opinion of somebody who is ignorant holds no weight.
If you think something is true you have to have a justifiable reason for holding that position. The fact that you don't know anything isn't a reason to hold that position.
As usual it comes down to his opinion and his feelings.
I suspect that someone invented the term "arrogant little prick" a couple of thousand years ago and then waited for Zac to call in. Prediction confirmed!
I wonder if these callers ever come back to listen to their nonsense, years later.
I guess they would because getting on the show is a pretty big thing, well, it would be for me anyway. Whether they actually listen and realise where they went wrong is a whole different story.
I think now we have definitive proof of the Dunning-Kruger Effect from this caller.
When he talks...all I can hear is banjos.
Good ol’ bruncle dad
Around 450 B.C., the Greek philosopher Democritus introduced the idea of the atom. However, the idea was essentially forgotten for more than 2000 years. In 1800, John Dalton re-introduced the atomic theory. It was Einstein who proved it mathematically in 1905. Then in August 1955 Prof. Erwin W. Mueller became the first person ever to see an atom using a Field Ion Microscope he developed .
The ancient Greeks were talking of atoms thousands of years ago, in a answer to supernatural events being given uneccesary validity.
To be fair, they could not confirm the existence of atoms. They were theorizing about possible explanations of the source properties of all matter.
But it was not like they particularly had the technology to observe such phenomena
@@fenrirhere exactly
@@fenrirhere Hi there, Yes I did say they were 'talking' about 'atoms' in a general sense. And how there could be possible alternatives to Gods powers.Zeus Neptune etc.
A couple of years before my father died around 1968 when televisions weighed about half a hundredweight, he said, son someday “people will be wearing TVs on their wrists”. ‘PREPOSTEROUS’ eh?
"Something that is rubber and round and bounces...basketball right." Well Pro basketball balls are leather, others are synthetic so that loose definitions allow me to consider a volley ball, kick ball, soccer ball, handball, racketball, tennis ball, golf ball, pool balls, billard ball, beach ball, squash ball, cricket ball, baseball, softball, super ball - AND Zach's head.
I had tennisbal in mind.
Round, rubber, bounces......a tire was my first thought.
I was getting a bit bored with the video, then a miracle happened.
An advert suddenly appeared for something I really need !
A new belt to hold up my trousers.
Thanks !
If you read the entire verse it's clear that its god's word which is not visible. Not atoms. god's word formed the universe so it's god's word that's invisible.
So ur saying Jesus is invisible? Cause he is supposedly the "Word" that was with God in the beginning. Soooo all that was made by Jesus in the beginning is invisible? Huh? How'd we get so visible today? Huh?
@@keswes266 what? It’s all nonsense. I’m just pointing out what the sentence structure implies.
@@lawrencefleischer1414 Was just in a satiristic jokey mood. It was all nonsense.
@@keswes266 ok
Atoms were theorised by the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus (460 - 370 BCE). He had no scientific proof for it however. Rather it was the result of a thought experiment where he supposed if you cut up some matter there would be a point at which you could no longer cut it up into smaller parts, these smallest individual particles he called atoms. So, the ancient Greeks had ideas about atoms some 500 or so years before the book of Hebrews in the NT was written. The word "atom" comes from ancient Greek "atomos" which means uncut/indivisible. The irony is that Democritus is considered by many to have been an atheist, or at the very least an agnostic who sought to explain the natural world in a naturalistic/materialistic manner, without invoking the the power of supernatural gods.
Matt is really trying to be patient huh, cuz even I'm losing patience with this guy.
Old school Matt is savage.
Good is6nt it👍
I wonder where Zach is now, and whether he broke away from his religion.
I wonder how many teeth he still has.
And has he learned to blow his nose?
As far back as 450BC, they believed everything was made of earth, air, fire and water. Given that none of these are visible in most of the things we see, and the fact that the verse does not say "tiny" things that are unseen, it is much easier to believe they were talking about this. It's a better fit
Why would God want to create a Universe or even a planet Earth other than to piss Himself laughing at how we all try to make sense of it? What other reason could there be?
The fall
@@kelseykjarsgaard5774:What is the point of that?
I imagine someone experiencing a major earthquake at any point in history could observe mountains rising or pits opening. Anyone who has ever seen a water-stream would see them running downhill and if at a coast, would see then end at the sea. Nothing more required than a pair of eyes.
Yeah, I don't believe for a second that he "used to be an atheist". At this point, I think that's just a that theists say in an effort to sound "more credible".
That's illogical. All theists used to be atheists. By definition. You obviously reject logic
@@FrankWinchester That typically happens during the learning development process of the early years of human life. My comment was aimed more towards people beyond that stage in their lives.
@@Wiggimus I'd say most theists used to be atheists (by the definition). Plenty of religious people get to the point where they, for a period, start to lack faith and don't hold the positive belief God exists. That makes them (former) atheists by definition
@@FrankWinchester Wouldn't that make them former theists? If they believed, but then expressed doubt to the point where the beliefs waned, then that would make them atheists, right?
The thing I just can't understand about the callers is that they must have listened to the show before and heard all these other callers who thought "Well...where did stuff come from, huh?" was a great argument but once they called in they just sounded like babbling idiots. Do they think they are going to seem so much more profound when they call and say "Well...where did everything come from, huh?"?
That's just like...your opinion man.
Dude.....
For some reason, they can't hear each other very well and it REALLY hurts the call. Matt isn't as effective as he normally is bc every other sentence is "excuse me?" "what did you say" and it gives Zack this false sense of stumping them when I think Matt just couldn't hear this kid very well