Thanks to whomever is responsible for the time-stamps and show notes. Really useful and helpful. They add greater incentive to listen and is much appreciated. The short descriptions are especially nice.
@@schrisdellopoulos9244 Okay. So tossing thanks to someone is somehow not an action? Wasn't trying to sound smart, just grammatically correct. Sorry you took it that way, assigning false intent to something. Can't do anything when someone interprets something wrong, wanting it to be something they prefer it to be. Nice demonstration of arrogance in trying to combat arrogance that wasn't there though.
@@DarkRoastReviews If you believe "atheism" is a thing connected to a reality by a habitual characteristic, you'd be an English teacher and wrong. Matt claims "positive atheism" & "anti-theism" & "education" & "separation of Church and State" and "Atheism is a single position on a single issue." If he knew English, logic, science a little theology then maybe everything he said might not be an intentional lie. Do you send this guy your money?
00:00 Intro And Announcements 3:56 The Real Deal With Dr. Hector Garcia 7:00 Jonathan-(UK) | Helping Wife Without Challenging Her Beliefs 20:37 Shona-NY | Challenging Consciousness Therefore God 26:20 Dean-CA | Coronavirus And Wellbeing 38:11 Brian-CA | Pascal's Mugging 47:03 Rick-MI | Slavery In The Bible 1:01:21 Ron-FL | Mental Health Barriers 1:05:58 Mark-NM | Insecurity Of Theists Due To Atheism 1:10:36 Nathan-LA | Agnostic Misunderstanding Evolution 1:22:51 Michael-AZ | The God Paradox 1:24:15 Vernaz-(UK) | God Versus Religion 1:31:17 Outro
Honestly I love this content, It was a long journey getting to a point where I'm confident in atheism and watching everyone over at the ACA and plenty of others has done so much to help.
Huntress Marcy I’m glad for you, is that because you never believed? For me as a former believer I always want more ways to rebut belief, not that I have any doubts myself but I have family who are still deluded. A better book by Dawkins for you may be The Magic of Reality. My response was probably as I love books, don’t think I read enough, and I like to have the print in front of me.
@@thomascarroll9556 as a child I was always brought to church and did believe a bunch of it when I was younger. But as I grew I just couldn't follow the lectures and it made less and less sense so it all fell apart.
Watch Hector Garcia's "How Evolutionary Science Explains Religious Violence and Oppression". on TH-cam. Great lecture. Amazing concepts on tribalism and Alpha primates.
Heh! Matt's been doing this so long, he can see, break down and refute the theists' arguments more efficiently than the theists can express their erroneous ideas, themselves. This saves SO much time!
The main issue I see is that religious folk haven't had a chance to appreciate the sheer amount of time involved. I think the detail is fairly easy to learn, but having a true appreciation of 4.5 billion years is something that is best learned at a younger age.
I wish people would learn how to think. This kind of shallow-pool argument doesn’t lend itself to deep dives... unless you count a concussion as a conclusion.
I was asked, "What if hell really was real"? So now I always remind them that Jesus is the architect of hell, Jesus is the designer of hell, Jesus is the creater of hell, Jesus is the implementer of hell, Jesus is the threatener of hell, Jesus is the placer of hell, Jesus chooses who goes to hell, Jesus has complete control of hell. Jesus did not have to build a hell. Jesus wants us to be afraid of hell, so we will want to come live with him after we die. If heaven was so great, no one would have to be threatened to go there! My ending question back to them is...How the hell do we save ourselves from Jesus??
The nobility of Christ's architecture is that no one has to burn. If Jesus made hell then why offer Himself as a sacrifice for all of mankind's sins? 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. Religion is not for the faint of heart, read on if you feel the unction of the Holy Spirit, otherwise, carry on, you'll have yourself convinced before you give up too many more years of your life. Pulpit Commentary Verses 51-56. - Signs following the death of Christ. (Mark 15:38-41; Luke 23:47-49.) Verse 51. - And, behold. St. Matthew thus introduces his account of the portents which attended the death of the Son of God. The rending of the veil is mentioned by the synoptists as consequent on, and occurring simultaneously with, the completion of the ineffable sacrifice. The veil of the temple (τοῦ ναοῦ). There were two principal veils in the present temple - one between the vestibule and the holy place, and one other which is that here referred to, a constituent part of the edifce. This was the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies, which was moved aside only once a year to admit the high priest to the shrine on the great Day of Atonement (Exodus 26:33). It was large and costly, some sixty feet high, and made of rich materials. Josephus ('Bell. Jud.,' 5:05. 4) tells us of one of the veils in the temple, that it was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with linen in various colours, woven together with wonderful art, such as the eye loved to rest upon. Was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. An apocryphal Gospel ('The Gospel of the Hebrews'), quoted by St. Jerome, in loc., asserts that the exquisitely carved lintel to which the veil was fastened was at this moment shattered to pieces, and in its fall tore the curtain asunder. The direction of the rent would show that no human hands had torn it apart, and the rending seems to have preceded the earthquake. The violent act was supernatural, and of a typical nature, as we are taught by Hebrews 9:6-12. The sanctuary enshrined the presence of God, from which the veil excluded every one but the high priest on one special occasion, thus denoting the imperfect reconciliation between God and his people, and that the way to the holiest was not yet made manifest. The rending of this veil betokened the opening of the access to heaven through the wounded body of Christ: as we read in Hebrews 10:19, 20, "Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh." "When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death, thou didst open the kingdom of heaven to all believers."
@@trustinjesus1119 Except God is omniscient and omnipotent. So tons of people have to burn, God specifically made the Universe in such a way that countless people would necessarily end up in Hell and he knew who they were before he even made the Universe. So your actions don't matter. If your end is getting into heaven, you will. Otherwise, straight to hell with you. You can do nothing to influence this. It is predetermined.
Diviance What happens to Christians that sin in heaven? I have posed this question a few times on our threads. Do they go to hell and burn too? Theists haven’t responded. Possibly the same theists who condemn Nero for burning say a few thousand scapegoat Christians, but do not protest about billions burning for eternity in hell.
@@petersinclair3997 Their argument is that you _can't_ sin in heaven... which means either there is no free will or that sin is not a result of free will, which means sin exists because God wanted it to so he could torture people for some reason. And how can they call it heaven when countless people will have people they ostensibly love dearly burning in hell and they know it? How can you be happy if you know that the people you care about most are being tortured endlessly? Their cult makes no sense.
There's quite literally one born every minute. The various churches are like factories turning out fresh product from the assembly line. That's why so many of them are dead set against contraception and abortion. It interferes with the supply of raw materials.
So i watched like 10 mins of another vid from this channel (matt), and now im watching this one. Two things id like to say, one for matt and the other a generalized message. For matt: I dont know much about you, but i appreciate* the fact that you are more than willing to be understanding of others beliefs and even try to guide them via their beliefs. You merely state what is fundamental to their beliefs and question it in a way without trying to be rude or mean about it. Secondly: The captions are pretty much spot on. Really helps to understand the callers.
Primates to humans is actually one of the easier things to describe on the evolutionary tree. The Cambrian explosion, abiogenesis, etc. are harder, but it's still just god of the gaps.
Humans are primates, more accurately, great apes. Hominids, apes, monkeys all speciated from a common ape-like ancestor. We didn't evolve from them but parallel to them because we are them.
The Cambrian explosion is not that difficult to explain. In that pocket of development, many varieties of life evolved a hard calcified shell that allowed 'them' to be successfully fossilized in a way that the 'soft tissue' examples could not be. This has the appearance of a sudden explosion of evolutionary options that didn't exist before. In truth, it just shows what is better able to survive the fossilization process; and those other options (soft tissue) could not be fossilized successfully and, therefore, disappear from observation and record.
@@seanmolloy9297 My understanding is that the Cambrian period is referred to as an explosion due to the time scale and magnitude of diversity rather than merely more fossils from animals more readily fossilized. There's an acknowledgement of the "more fossils" component, but it still doesn't account for speed and diversity when compared to other periods. And there's still no consensus among scientists about the ultimate explanation. I'm sure it'll get ironed out, though, without a god explanation :\
@Aaron M What is the scientific consensus theory and/or opinion about the explanation of the Cambrian explosion? I'll take links to read. I find this to just be a fuzzy gap at the moment, which will eventually be filled by reasoned science.
@@heatherlewis9951 The Cambrian explosion coincides with the expansion of life onto land, particularly that of plants. The result of this expansion was more oxygen in the atmosphere due to photosynthesis, which is a much more chemically active ingredients for the process of evolution to experiment with. As well, since life was making it onto land for the first time, new physical forms were being chosen by natural selection over time, meaning more variation, since things that aren't as successful over time were surviving over the short term due to no competition. In point of fact, there's been numerous computer simulations of how evolution causes changes over time, showing that is exactly what happens: as new niches become available for things to fill, more variation appears since different forms appear before competition can render some obsolete and kick them out. If you change parameters of the simulation as it runs, it will almost invariably result in a sudden spike of variation until a dominant group arises out of said variation and create the constant range of variation. In short, "the scientific consensus theory and/or opinion about the explanation of the Cambrian explosion" is an increase of atmospheric oxygen due to plant photosynthesis, as well as the wide range of ecological niches available for living things as they colonized the land on the planet.
I've read the comment "I'm an atheist" and then some other crap after that, predicated on that claim, several million times. I stopped thinking on it several million times ago. It's assuming the initial point. Can't Matt's followers simply say what they _want to say_ without prefacing it with "I'm an atheist" first?
Matt's never been to college, how do who you feel about that? Dillahunty joined a speaking tour sponsored by the Pangburn Philosophy foundation where he shared the stage with fellow atheists Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Lawrence Krauss. Dillahunty has no formal degrees or higher education, and did not attend seminary. [14] [14] Dillahunty, Matt (2014-02-19). "I've been told there's a reddit discussion about my credentials. Easy. I have none. No degrees. No seminary. Doesn't matter". @matt_dillahunty. Retrieved 2019-11-07. Without putting through the most mentally challenged people, how could Matt even give the appearance he's winning these exchanges? "Formal education doesn't matter." Famous last words of Matt Dillahunty.
@@loki6626 Please keep me apprised of all future updates. May I beg your pardon to be put on your mailing list and added to your newsletter subscription. I know you don't do this for free so by all means tell me where i can send my tithe. Take these broken wings and teach me how to fly again!
@@drg8687 fair enough but I would say that he seems to me to that he's trying (and failing) to defend the bible from 'accusations' that it endorses slavery
I've only watched up to the first caller and the discussion afterwards, and I really love Dr. Garcia as a co-host. The combination of Matt's experience with religion, skepticism, and logic combined with Dr. Garcia's psychological expertise is perfect for this show. I've found it challenging to find secular therapists in Canada, and I've always found it unprofessional when religion is brought into therapy unless the client requests it. I'm glad to hear that project supporting secular therapy are alive and well in North America.
It is actually quite common in my neck of the woods, to believe in a greater power or supernatural entity/s of some kind not associated with religion, and identify their "spiritual" practices as not necessarily associated with their perception of divine presence. It is generally a trend, from what I have seen, among these individuals to practice or associate with some sort of "woo". Astrology, orgonite, alternative medicines, qi/ki or similar supernatural "energy", luck/divine favor, folk lore magic, spirits, etc. Pretty much all falls under "tiger in the bush" thinking, and fear of community rejection. Picking a middle ground without taking a firm stance. A lot of 'em will even claim to be agnostic despite clearly being non religious theists. Usually I give let them take 8 guesses at my astrology sign, no one has got it yet lol, run them through some statistics on how they probably could have guessed it if they just applied random guesses, and then go into depth how astronomically offensive it is for them to make assumptions about someones character based on some arbitrary fantasy.
How can it *_matter_* to you when it doesn't matter to Matt? Dillahunty has no formal degrees or higher education, and did not attend seminary.[14] [14] Dillahunty, Matt (2014-02-19). "I've been told there's a reddit discussion about my credentials. Easy. I have none. No degrees. No seminary. Doesn't matter". @matt_dillahunty. Retrieved 2019-11-07. Suffering fools, being fools, saying it doesn't matter you're fools. What else do you have?
@@inertiaforce7846 This is how he makes his living, begging for cash. Every show is a fundraiser now. I personally don't believe in a god that requires heavy financing. I have a hard enough time bankrolling my own needs and desires to worry about Matt's "positive atheism" and "atheo-logical" benders.
Atheism entertainment, or just entertainment? Is there some connective tissue between "atheism" and any habitual characteristic? (you know, apart from a person needing others to entertain them). KNOWING ESSENCE & EXISTENCE. Now let's put these two ideas together, Shannon's definition of information as a reduction in possibility and my analysis of existence in terms of the ability to act. When something acts on us we know that it exists and the possibility that it did not exist is eliminated. Therefore, we are truly informed of its existence and when it acts on us in a particular way, when it affects our senses in a particular way, then we know that it can act on us in that way. And that is a partial insight into the specification of its possible acts. Before we were acted on we did not know whether or not it could act on us in that way. Now that we are acted on, now that we do sense it, we know that it can act on us in that sensory way. And so each act of sensation serves to inform us about some aspect, some projection, of a thing's essence. Now remember from our earlier videos that projection is a dimensionally reduced mapping. For example a picture is a two dimensional map of a three dimensional object. In the same way we can consider the dimensions of information. These dimensions can be specified by yes or no answers to any possible act and as we learned that there are yes answers to some possible acts we begin to form a partial but incomplete map of the specification of possible acts of the thing's essence. And so our sensations truly do inform us about the essence of things, about their true reality, about the numina and not just about phenomena. Thank you for watching and please leave comments. - dfpolis #42 Knowledge & Information. Part 6 of the knowledge series. How reality truly informs the mind on essence and existence.
😸 Matt, I was so proud of you this episode! Keeping your Zen mode on like never before, and making it 49:00 minutes before even dropping a single, well warranted, "fuck." Idk what was different today, but I hope this will become the more regular attitude of this show, so I can persuasively share the smart content with more people.
Nathan had to be a troll. At one point he said evolution is definitely true then he says "2 chimps can't create a human" in reference to the strawman of evolution in his head. When people contradict themselves so completely so quickly I tend to think they're dishonest.
It's truly amazing how many Christians actively choose slavery as their hill to die on. Im not even referring to those who get into a conversation that eventually goes that way, but those that actually call in and have defending slavery as their only objective. 🤯
@@scottiethegreat74 People and things can be godded; deified; & idolized. The Tiki Idol from the Brady Bunch Episode August 1972. Matt & Hector should watch the Brady Bunch, or look in the dictionary and stop all this silliness about what does and doesn't exist. Mythology falls under the heading of literature. *GOD* is the focus of *_theology._* Two different academic subjects. I couldn't sum up Homer's Odyssey in the few seconds Matt allows callers anyway. He's setting himself up to fail.
@@oursecretlord9008 What the fuck are you talking about?? Theology and mythology are the same thing. The only difference being one is believed, and the other isn't. Norse gods are considered to be mythology by many, but would be considered theology to those who still believe. You are spouting nothing but crap, and having looked through other comments you have made, it appears spouting shit is your way. What the fuck your reply to me has any relevance to what my comment was eludes me. Appears to me you are as whacky as the idiots who called in. Any more weird ass comments, call the show, so everybody can have a good laugh!! 😂😂
We can't give our side of science in the few seconds Matt gives us for your entertainment. Our labs must be soundproofed and magnetically shielded, Matt's come with no such requirements. Do you really want to call us liars when you're all special pleading all the time, setting up the rules in your own favor, rules we're required to follow and you're not?
@BookkeeperBill I didn't respond because there are a myriad of websites that can be easily Googled that would do a far better job at explaining sciences current standing on the origin of life.
@rod of discipline i guess you don’t even understand that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. Makes it kind of pointless to explain anything to you. Only a religious person is this clueless.
@rod of discipline lol. You really should stop posting and putting your ignorance at display like this. You’re either a troll or or an uneducated dumbass or both. I’m going with the latter. Either way you’re not worth the time.
Ugh, as someone who's paid to work with ancient documents, it's bizarre to me to see people trying to defend biblical slavery. Even within the moral systems of people in antiquity, this wasn't a "this is what's best for them" kind of thing. Slavery was viewed as a natural state of being; you can find plenty of rhetoric in ancient documents saying that slaves are morally and intellectually inferior, that they are living farm equipment, that they aren't their own human agents. Usually, if you see writing advocating for treating slaves well, there is a logistical reason that is beneficial to the master as much as the slave -- ie, the slave will be more productive, the master will show his own character through his self-control, the slaves are less likely to revolt and kill him, etc. I also find it interesting that conversations on this are limited to the Old Testament. Paul is confronted with a runaway slave (Onesimus) and has him returned to his master and tells his master to welcome him back; he could have told him to free the slave, but he doesn't. You could make an argument that Paul is doing the most he can reasonably do within the context of the time period, and I'd give that a pass, but you can't see that passage in your canon and say "this was inspired by a timeless being and not someone limited by his own society" or "this is an anti-slavery document", because it isn't and was never meant to be.
The woman at the end vehemently stated repeatedly that she hates religion and the concept of it. Then she said she belongs to a religion (Zoroastrianism)! WTF?
Glen Hill when I said I was part of a religion , I meant I was born into it and that’s all it was for me...I cannot hide from a religion I was born into but I have a choice to make decisions about it as I grow in thought and mind ...cheers
Low carb/keto recipes and having fun Vernaz You sound like a grown up. Are you old enough to leave the religion you where born into. Then you won’t be in a religion. Simple.
@@ketokat333 the fact that you listen to this show and would make a claim like you "hate all religion" shows that you question them and are not afraid to challenge them. If that's the case, why belong to a religion at all?
Justin S. I don’t belong to any religion , the only religion by default was by birth and that was a Zoroastrian and I don’t follow anything of it ...cheers
"Naw dude, this isn't about Strawman." Needs to be made into a drop. Now that I think about it Matt needs an entire soundboard loaded with succinct explanations of the most frequent apologetics on the show. Put audio of someone reading every single bible verse that involves slavery or genocide onto a labelled soundboard for Matt.
There really should be an international convention on defining these words so that there's a real standard and a lay-man's standard. Because most of the terms used on ACA in Spanish means slightly different things, and I argue that that's because one country's language grew with protestantism and the other with catholicism so what words mean in one place doesn't mean the same in other places...
@@adamgodfrey6591 That is how I was taught in school, simplified. I was taught that if you dont believe in God you are an atheist, and if you believe you can not know if a god exists or not you are an agnostic. "Either you believe or you do not" is true, but it is also true to say that there is a middle ground between believing something to be true and believing something to not to be true, that is not knowing if either proposition is true. One question is about belief the other about knowledge. In belief, you can either believe or not. In knowledge you can believe, believe not, and not believe at all.
Well I can’t change the religion I was born into ...when I said PART I meant born into and that doesn’t mean I have to be a follower of it or any other religion....as one ages one grows and learns new aspects about life and generate new viewpoints ...cheers !!
@@ketokat333 Yeah unfortunately I assume are you were indoctrinated, maybe your family and cultural values are defined by religious beliefs so that it's hard to say that you're not a part of the religion. I know because my mom was born into a religious family, but only got the chance to break away when she left her country.
Dragon also I would like to say that an amazing thing that my parents did was never to force me to follow the religion ...they gave me a chance to think for myself and make my own decisions and that was very helpful for forming my thoughts and ideas over time
@@ketokat333 That makes no sense. How can you willfully belong to a religion that you don't believe in? If you agree to be a part of a religion, then at minimum you believe in a religion. Again you said that you don't believe in religion, but you are a part of one. That's like saying I don't believe in clubs, but I'm part of this book club that meets on Tuesdays. Then I say, oh I get it maybe you were forced to go there but you don't really agree with it, and now you're saying you go to this club on your own volition?
Dragon I’m born into Zoroastrianism but I don’t follow any customs or traditions or rules laid down by it and that makes me clearly NOT a part of it and I feel the same about every other religion as I truly believe religion divides the planet ...cheers
Overall, I'd say this was one of the more truly thoughtful episodes, a few callers not withstanding. This episode started off super interesting with a couple of really thoughtful questions/discussions. The intro through the first 4 callers in particular. Then we got into slavery in the bible...again...and there were a few other callers that were off the rails IMHO. Anyway, thanks ACA, Matt, and Hector for this week's episode and the work you do!
Discussion is not one of the show's goals. We don't need to fund his charity with millions of dollars in order to have a conversation. "I need to ask for money because this is how I make my living," _Matt Dillahunty._ I can have conversations with people who don't need to do it in order to survive, and Matt has no higher education. His university here is not accredited. One of the goals shows is *_Separation of Church and State._* I don't watch the videos, but I've never seen it come up in the comment sections. His goal is to acquire cash but not to defend his goals.
@@NyxSilver8 I missed this comment. While I don’t think it’s relevant to anything I said, I’ll bite the bait and respond. “Discussion is not one of the show’s goals” And your proof for that is, what, exactly? “We don’t need to fund his charity with millions of dollars to have a discussion.” No, we don’t. That doesn’t change that I found this episode particularly thoughtful. “I need to ask for money because this is how I make a living.” Matt Dillanunty. And making money off a show discussing religion, atheists, etc is wrong? Why? Also how is this relevant to my comment at all? “I can have conversations with people who don’t need to do it in order to survive” Sure we can. That matters, why, exactly? “and Matt has no higher education.” Even if that’s true, does that make him unintelligent? My grandfather went no further than high school. He worked as an engineer for most of his career. Pretty sure you’d have a hard time saying he was not an intelligent person. “His university here is unaccredited” Of course not, because it’s a talk show. I doubt anyone believed a weekly talk show is a university, so this is in my opinion is a foolish line of thinking. “One of the goals of the show is separation of church and state.” Cool, sounds like an admirable goal as theocracies have shown to be woefully autocratic and oppressive throughout history. “I don’t watch the videos but” Then what are you doing here commenting as if you actually watch, follow, or know anything about this show, good or bad? How can you think anyone would or should take your view on a show you don’t even watch seriously? “His goal is to acquire cash, not defend his goals.” For someone who only cares about acquiring cash, he’s pretty consistent in his defense of his views. And you’d know that if you actually watched/listened to the show instead of commenting on something you admit you don’t actually watch.
@@dtgris7291 Hi, youtube is kind of weird like that, about not getting notifications, I've always assumed it's my religious opponents, the most religious people on the face of GOD's Good Planet Earth and that is people who claim they don't have any religion, they point blank tell me they're snitching on my channel for no other reason than I disagree with them about their claim "atheism." If you're not getting the same number of comments in our notifications I'll have to rethink what being put on suspension is really all about. Matt can't have a conversation and be "positive atheist" and "anti-theist" at the same time. It's the same as being "pro-teacher" & "anti-student." It's a very significant part of the Bible about people who are not against us are for us, and accepting the good will of people we don't know for no other reason than it's conducive toward productivity. It was the sons of thunder who wanted to cast fire down on people casting out devils in Christ's name when they weren't among the apostles physically with Jesus. HE said, "You don't know what spirit you're of," He's anti his own show's format of acquiring the evidence of the fantasy gods he needs proven real to him instead of *GOD* who is necessary and therefore philosophically required. No one can present to Matt in 4 or 5 seconds what it's taken me 60 years to understand about making a case for *GOD's* existence, essence and causality. Dillahunty can only bite off and chew a couple seconds of information before he can have anything apropos to say in response, but that's not the method of debating. One side gets a twenty minute opening and then the other and so on. If you watch one or maybe both of the debates between Sam Harris and William Craig,, you'll notice Sam never even addresses a single thing Craig says. He's the worst at debate I've ever seen. Your grandfather is fine, I have an uncle who never went to college, would razz my Dad saying, "I can buy you college boys a dime a dozen" and then among other things built a motor yacht out of metal and along those lines became a master at CAD-CAM and metal works and moved up to where my Dad hails from Eugene Oregon and became a college professor at the stuff - U of Oregon, without ever having gone to college! My uncle Gene, my namesake, called me when my Mom passed on and I mentioned this to him about the "Dime a dozen" and how he's a college professor now! He laughed. The thing you seem to be missing here is that the subject is *Divinity* and you can't really talk about it when you don't even know what it is and think it's something else. Matt can't be intelligent and think there's such a thing as a logical positive atheist and a logical anti-theist all existing inside of him at the same time. No one is claiming "theism" in response to his claim of "atheism" unless they're more intellectually handicapped than he is. Think about it, if I claim "i'm a theist" here, I lose. It's doxastic logic, but none of you know that, it's the logic of "I believe this" or "that." None of you claim you believe, that's your biggest tenet, the one all the rest of it hangs. "Believing is bad I tell you!" but you all believe that! He's asking theologians with a different theological orientation to call in and bid against ourselves while he says he's against us and wants to learn. Apart from your "relevancy" issue, you're a lot smarter than he is.
Am in South Africa and above the chat there is a notification :Sorry, you can't donate in this country or region yet." Great show as usual. Thanks. Rooting for your ginormous blue wave!!
54:00 Alternate slavery approach: Owning other human beings as property. Being able to beat them as long as they don't die within 2 days. Able to pass them on to your children. Morally speaking, in all of human history, how many people should be allowed to do that? [ zero ] In the bible, how many people are allowed to do that? [ more than zero ]
Iike the remote version. So many awesome Co hosts who don't have to be Austin. Awwwwwwwwww crew kitty ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️if Vern ever returns to the studio he needs to bring crew cat. The crew cat does most of the work
I don’t believe in love at first sight. So when I find out on the first date that she’s a Christian, no love is going to develop. That’s because I have no respect for people who believe in religious nonsense. So the first date would be the last date, and therefore I could not end up in this man’s situation. Love is 90% admiration in my opinion, and I could not admire anyone with that type of thinking.
When Matt told Nathan his two chimps giving birth to a human was a straw man I'm pretty sure he thought that Matt was trying to interject the character from the Wizard of Oz.
5:00 "Read; try not to gain too much weight; try not to develop a drinking problem." Dang, Dr. Garcia, why you gotta call me out like that? What's next, cut back on 90-minute long TH-cam videos? 😆
20% of the population being either dead or permanently/currently disabled (or whatever the exact numbers come out regarding "long covid" and organ damage) is on fucking lot more preservative of the general well-being of society than "being home all the time makes me sad", barring of course, real psychological problems but those can be properly diagnosed by professionals. And yes, I have multiple diagnosed mental illnesses, and I have absolutely no hate for people developing mental illness over isolation. But that is far far far from "I'm bored" or "I want a haircut" or "I want to visit a mega church with 10000 other peopleand be a goddamn plaguerat." And we do have treatments for mental illness for those who require it. Being bored isn't a mental illness, especially when compared to the whole of society and not losing an enormous number of people to disease.
@The Maverick That one caller was trying to say God only endorsed slavery because it was the best culturally appropriate option. You know, because the all-powerful creator whose master plan includes the probability field map of every electron, for every moment in time, who also apparently didn't hesitate to kill everyone in his perfect creation except one family that one time, didn't want to propose anything culturally inappropriate to the people who had dedicated their lives and culture to following his every whim including dietary choices and genital mutilation. It's not like he could suggest something that was actually moral, or they'd have surely balked at that, so he had to let them push him around and condone slavery, beatings, and such. What was he supposed to do? He's only all-powerful, all knowing, and already established as not holding back on such matters. Poor God in a corner like that. If only he'd been a little more like himself.
@The Maverick I know more about Christianity and have experienced far more mindless zealotry from it in my life, but my real problem is with the zealotry in any form. I don't mind people believing anything they want, as long as it doesn't cause harm. I think it's a basic effect of our conscious experience to at least want there to be something more, and we have dreams every night where impossible things can happen, so we're always going to have a lot of people who believe in something, probably even in silly things. And I think it's important to keep open our capacity for whimsical thought and acceptance of others' wild thoughts too. But people are prone to failing to draw the line between the fantasies that they see as beautiful in their heads and the way they want the real world to work. I don't have a solution for it, but it doesn't get talked about the right way enough. We're expected to respect the fantasies that real world evidence doesn't match as if they're equal to the evidence. Society moves too fast for this to continue much longer.
@The Maverick I am pining only for people to stop trying to dominate worldviews with views that can't be validated by the world. We are already supposed to have a separation of church and state; I just wish we truly did. A whitewashed Christianity would still hinge on people believing fanciful things to be literally true, and living their lives accordingly. That is a flaw that cannot be undone without undoing the thing itself. Even getting to the least harmful version of Christianity would involve throwing out most of the bible, its only so-called anchor. I wouldn't remove the villains from fairy tales, or imperfect brush strokes from paintings. It can be argued that music is just the establishment of a repeating pattern of interrupting a monotone, so that we can appreciate the narrative we build in our mind of its reconciliation of unevenness. And so I wouldn't rob the world of its broken history, or the many great tales we've spun in religion. But we need to stop acting like they're more than they are. As they say, "my right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Believe whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause harm, and don't expect anyone else to share your belief, because you've concocted it in your mind whether you meant to or not. In truth, there are as many religions as there are people. We shouldn't limit what people dream up in their heads, but neither should we draw lines of common ground by what's individual to our heads, but by the verifiable common world we share.
@The Maverick 1) Those virtues are non-religious and don't stem from religion, so you can simply cut away the "fat" that is religion and enjoy the lean, tender beef without the extra baggage that is bad for everyone. 2) Believing fanciful things is always a flaw if you cannot possibly support the belief with any credible evidence.
I literally just had an argument with someone on Twitter who actively misunderstood the use of the word "you" when using a hypothetical. The kind of person who thinks that if I say "This allows you to do x" that it is directed specifically at them is arguing in bad faith.
Someone said that to me yesterday, "Atheism is when *_you_* lack belief in gods." I'm not arguing for that. I lack belief in atheism, not people who are admired and adored (gods).
Nathan sounds like a 10 year old in his questions of evolution and the origins of life. "Ok, two monkeys have a baby and...." The education system has failed Nathan, and now Nathan fails in his understanding. Very sad.
He took idiocy to a whole new level, to the point I thought he might be trolling. (Edit - Haha, just got to the point where Matt said he thought he might be a troll). Any herd would banish that fool from the pack for fear he’d weaken the whole.
Pascal's mugging seems pretty simple to address. As the promised amount increases, the odds of actually receiving that amount declines. If a 10% return is offered, the likelihood of them keeping their word is clearly higher than someone who offers 1000%. Their incentive to keep the money increases and the likelihood that they are making the deal in good faith is reduced. It'd very rarely be in their interest to borrow $10 today at the cost of $100 tomorrow. So regardless of the offer, above a certain point, it won't increase the likely return. Therefore, you *don't* have to accept that there is a rate of return that would entice you to invest.
David Bermudez Weak?? Its the strongest question! Debunked???😂😂😂😂😂 But wich God? Thor? God of childrapist Priests?? God of Warlord Mohammed ?? No No really wich God are you talking about???
@@davidbermudez7704 so what's the answer then? Rather than making assumptions about others, debunk it here and now. If everything needs a creator, who created God? Or if there are exceptions to the rule, isn't the rule bogus in the first place?
If a mugger is going to pay me back tomorrow it would probably be with money they stole from someone else. If I’m ok with that, why wouldn’t I just skip the middleman and mug other people myself?
I've never heard of a mugger offering a return on investment. This seems like a weird thought exercise he made up that doesn't make any sense either way.
Watching this on 6-24-22. To respond to Matt’s lament of RBG’s death… this week roe v wade was overturned and separation of church and state was weakened. Life will go on, but it will be much harder for many people.
@@evanwebber9981 ah ok. I mean I guessed it could be covid but I thought they gave up the ban of saying it in April. I mean it's the main topic right now. I certainly don't like the backstreet boys but quite a mean comparison 🤣
I don't know about others, but for me, gatherings of ten or fewer fulfills any need I might have for socialization. Gathering with a few friends who are being as careful as I am assures me that I am not exposing myself to the virus. Gong out to drink with friends in a crowd of strangers is not satisfying in the least.
57:08 Buying slaves from abroad, there is two possible decisions: permit it or forbid it. And in the Bible, God made the morally wrong rule here, according to Rick's own admission!
Nathan: Let's not put words in each other mouths... Also Nathan: Let's say you have two chimps, two apes, that have a baby, and then you are saying that this baby just comes out human? Because that is basically what you are claiming.
Dean is a very confused individual. In his model, after a nuclear bomb falls, his position is that it's OK to go outside in the radioactive fallout because it makes him happy to see the sun and walk around rather than being stuck in a fall-out shelter. The lack of concern for himself and others is astounding.
If a god is "testing" you, I think that would mean he is in the business of playing mind games. Don't we all have enough to deal with just in trying to live our lives without having to think about or worry about a god "testing" us?
That apparently happens a lot. I think it's actually a good move on their part. The people who call in typically are not going to be convinced. The point is to convince the people who are watching and on the fence. Likewise with the Christian ads.
The thing is we've had pretty effective Southern re-write of Civil War history, but the reason that slavery existed in the South is because Christians read their bibles and thought those verses applied to them. Read the letters of succession. There is a reason slavery was practiced pretty much solely in the Bible belt.
I'm glad for the discussion on our current moral catastrophe. R.I.P. Tony Tenpenny, former council member from Nashville, Tn. He was vocal on social media about the hoax of covid-19. He was committed to this cause to the point where he would re-tweet videos wherein Dr. Duck is heard to quack about outrageous quackery. Anyhow He struggled with the disease for a month and sadly succumbed to this pandemic. What I would have expected from a moral person is , something along the lines of a retraction of prior misleading and inaccurate posts. If he was so disabled as to render him unable to post, he could at least have had a trusted family member do the right thing and admit to posting dangerously misleading information. So far we have only statements about the deceased's upstanding character and statements about how sad we are and what a heavy heart we have. I'd be curious how many others he may have infected in his effort to prove what a hoax the liberal left has cooked up.
On Pascal's mugger. Here are my thoughts. There is a variable missing from his equation: Believability. The higher the return promised the less likely I am to believe you. Promising me more does not make me more tempted to accept the offer but makes me less tempted to hand over my cash because the outrageous nature of the claim makes it less believable and more likely to result in a net loss for me. If Pascal lived today he would probably be one of those guys who actually sends money in reply to an email from a Nigerian Prince. Go get those millions Pascal. I'm sure he is a trustworthy fella.
@47:03 Rick-MI/ I immediately clicked to this timestamp. 'Is Slavery Really in the Bible?' Wow, something NEW!, never talked about before on the show! (he said super sarcastically)! [ this is going to become one of the most viewed clips, most laughed at clip by this time tomorrow]
The only reason we have a concept we call "God" is because of frauds, fools, and fantasists. There was always something. That, I think, we must agree on. Just something. You cannot talk about nothing simpliciter. An instance of nothing: impossible by definition. The notion of a first entifier not only defeats its own purpose on its own, its purpose never existed either. Theists like to say, "if ever there was only nothing, only nothing would yet be." That is, one effectively says, "if ever a non-thing were the only thing, then now the only thing would be a non-thing." It is a non-starter.
@The Maverick you are showing the cyclopean depth and bounds of your own ignorance on science and philosophy. Atheists do not claim to be scientists or philosophers anymore than anyone else who thinks or searches. Atheists claim to be atheists. Einstein was an atheist. I wish I could say I do not see why anyone does not know this, but few people seem to grasp he was also a socialist; perhaps a similar campaign of disinformation brought it about. Do yourself, and everyone you converse with, a favour: read more, and not just books by "Chopraphiles."
@The Maverick Einstein believed in the universe. He was an atheist in the sense of denying the personal god of the conventional believer. If there is anything impersonal and non-conscious in or identical with the universe that you must insist is "God", then Einstein and I are trivially theists with respect to that, I suppose. But I see no point in calling it "God" any more than calling it "potato." It is sophistic to do so. Einstein, in our language game, like it or not, is what is meant by an atheist with respect to most definitions of and hypotheses pertaining to gods. In my other comment, I do not deny the possibility of there being a god. I claim only that we cannot say, "in the beginning there was nothing, then God..." because a god must be an instance of something to do anything. It would be a contradiction. A philosopher's nothing is not cognizable except as the absence of something at all. The scientist's nothing is something that is nothing like other things we commonly deal with. These other things, especially when we cannot immediately see them, we conceive or hypothesize. Why we do this at all is because our environment presents us with phenomena in need of explanation. We came up with gods as person-like agents because our paradigm case for causes of anything were persons. Theologians have come so far as to render god moot even to itself. If there were at t0 only one entity that was by default perfect, complete, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., then it would never create anything else. It would not want to. It could not want to. Even if it could, it would not. Not only would it have no needs to fulfill through creation, the only thing it could conceive to create would be itself. If anything else ever emerged from it, such would arise by accident or as a byproduct, not as a direct consequence of will. Such a god hypothesis is imparsimonious (a non-conscious something is simpler than conscious something). Its simplification is identical with the bare something I refer to.
Matt, one thing I’ve noticed is that you interact and debate with some of these callers on a level that is clearly above their heads. While there are obviously some theists that are clearly intelligent and articulate that call in, many are just not that smart. I find myself thinking “he/she/they don’t get it, you’re talking over their head”, or “he needs to dumb it down for that one”. Just an observation. Love the show.
Matt has no higher education and asks for proof of gods (not *GOD).* How intelligent can _he_ possibly be? How much dedication and study is required to claim "I'm a positive atheist and an anti-theist, and atheism is a single position on a single issue"? & why would anyone need 3000 shows to get that across to mankind? I got it right off, the dude is into entertaining people with less education than he has.
Nathan - you don’t understand and it’s very clear by what your saying that you don’t. Sit down before you hurt yourself then grab a book and educate yourself.
Where can I find more about the interview that Matt is talking about at the @24:00 mark? I was trying to spell out what he said but he said it kinda fast. Sounds very interesting. Thanks in advance.
Goddess, was Mark insufferable... Not clear on his point, took him too long to get into it, his voice, etc. Props to both Matt and Hector for getting through that call
1:24:00 the only response to this guy saying no evidence is needed that God exists, is the Christopher Hitchens quote "That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
Thanks to whomever is responsible for the time-stamps and show notes. Really useful and helpful. They add greater incentive to listen and is much appreciated. The short descriptions are especially nice.
@@schrisdellopoulos9244 Okay. So tossing thanks to someone is somehow not an action? Wasn't trying to sound smart, just grammatically correct. Sorry you took it that way, assigning false intent to something. Can't do anything when someone interprets something wrong, wanting it to be something they prefer it to be.
Nice demonstration of arrogance in trying to combat arrogance that wasn't there though.
@@schrisdellopoulos9244 Kind of a dick comment either way
@@dontpanic1812 LOL I read that and thought, "Hey wait a tic. This guys a douche"
If you’re here, who’s at home disappointing your parents? Lol
@@DarkRoastReviews If you believe "atheism" is a thing connected to a reality by a habitual characteristic, you'd be an English teacher and wrong. Matt claims "positive atheism" & "anti-theism" & "education" & "separation of Church and State" and "Atheism is a single position on a single issue."
If he knew English, logic, science a little theology then maybe everything he said might not be an intentional lie. Do you send this guy your money?
00:00 Intro And Announcements
3:56 The Real Deal With Dr. Hector Garcia
7:00 Jonathan-(UK) | Helping Wife Without Challenging Her Beliefs
20:37 Shona-NY | Challenging Consciousness Therefore God
26:20 Dean-CA | Coronavirus And Wellbeing
38:11 Brian-CA | Pascal's Mugging
47:03 Rick-MI | Slavery In The Bible
1:01:21 Ron-FL | Mental Health Barriers
1:05:58 Mark-NM | Insecurity Of Theists Due To Atheism
1:10:36 Nathan-LA | Agnostic Misunderstanding Evolution
1:22:51 Michael-AZ | The God Paradox
1:24:15 Vernaz-(UK) | God Versus Religion
1:31:17 Outro
Thank you to whoever does the timestamps! You are the real hero!
Honestly I love this content, It was a long journey getting to a point where I'm confident in atheism and watching everyone over at the ACA and plenty of others has done so much to help.
Not sure what you mean by ‘confident in atheism’ atheism is just a lack of belief in g0d, not belief there is no g0d.
@@thomascarroll9556 That's is true and I could have worded that better, however when I said that I meant that I held my position confidently.
Huntress Marcy I’m glad for you, is that because you never believed? For me as a former believer I always want more ways to rebut belief, not that I have any doubts myself but I have family who are still deluded.
A better book by Dawkins for you may be The Magic of Reality. My response was probably as I love books, don’t think I read enough, and I like to have the print in front of me.
@@thomascarroll9556 as a child I was always brought to church and did believe a bunch of it when I was younger. But as I grew I just couldn't follow the lectures and it made less and less sense so it all fell apart.
Watch Hector Garcia's "How Evolutionary Science Explains Religious Violence and Oppression". on TH-cam. Great lecture. Amazing concepts on tribalism and Alpha primates.
Heh! Matt's been doing this so long, he can see, break down and refute the theists' arguments more efficiently than the theists can express their erroneous ideas, themselves. This saves SO much time!
LMAO
I've resolved all this religious stuff for myself years ago. But .I check in here because it's always so entertaining!
Sigh, people like Nathan who try to argue against evolution, should first understand what evolution is.
The main issue I see is that religious folk haven't had a chance to appreciate the sheer amount of time involved. I think the detail is fairly easy to learn, but having a true appreciation of 4.5 billion years is something that is best learned at a younger age.
Nathan needs to evolve 😂
@@Domzdream I bet the first thing Nathan thinks about that is he will become an X-Man.
I wish people would learn how to think. This kind of shallow-pool argument doesn’t lend itself to deep dives... unless you count a concussion as a conclusion.
How did you come to the conclusion Evolution is 100% accurate and correct?
I was asked, "What if hell really was real"? So now I always remind them that Jesus is the architect of hell, Jesus is the designer of hell, Jesus is the creater of hell, Jesus is the implementer of hell, Jesus is the threatener of hell, Jesus is the placer of hell, Jesus chooses who goes to hell, Jesus has complete control of hell. Jesus did not have to build a hell. Jesus wants us to be afraid of hell, so we will want to come live with him after we die. If heaven was so great, no one would have to be threatened to go there! My ending question back to them is...How the hell do we save ourselves from Jesus??
The nobility of Christ's architecture is that no one has to burn. If Jesus made hell then why offer Himself as a sacrifice for all of mankind's sins? 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
Religion is not for the faint of heart, read on if you feel the unction of the Holy Spirit, otherwise, carry on, you'll have yourself convinced before you give up too many more years of your life.
Pulpit Commentary
Verses 51-56. - Signs following the death of Christ. (Mark 15:38-41; Luke 23:47-49.) Verse 51. - And, behold. St. Matthew thus introduces his account of the portents which attended the death of the Son of God. The rending of the veil is mentioned by the synoptists as consequent on, and occurring simultaneously with, the completion of the ineffable sacrifice. The veil of the temple (τοῦ ναοῦ). There were two principal veils in the present temple - one between the vestibule and the holy place, and one other which is that here referred to, a constituent part of the edifce. This was the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies, which was moved aside only once a year to admit the high priest to the shrine on the great Day of Atonement (Exodus 26:33). It was large and costly, some sixty feet high, and made of rich materials. Josephus ('Bell. Jud.,' 5:05. 4) tells us of one of the veils in the temple, that it was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with linen in various colours, woven together with wonderful art, such as the eye loved to rest upon. Was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. An apocryphal Gospel ('The Gospel of the Hebrews'), quoted by St. Jerome, in loc., asserts that the exquisitely carved lintel to which the veil was fastened was at this moment shattered to pieces, and in its fall tore the curtain asunder. The direction of the rent would show that no human hands had torn it apart, and the rending seems to have preceded the earthquake. The violent act was supernatural, and of a typical nature, as we are taught by Hebrews 9:6-12. The sanctuary enshrined the presence of God, from which the veil excluded every one but the high priest on one special occasion, thus denoting the imperfect reconciliation between God and his people, and that the way to the holiest was not yet made manifest. The rending of this veil betokened the opening of the access to heaven through the wounded body of Christ: as we read in Hebrews 10:19, 20, "Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh." "When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death, thou didst open the kingdom of heaven to all believers."
@@trustinjesus1119
Except God is omniscient and omnipotent. So tons of people have to burn, God specifically made the Universe in such a way that countless people would necessarily end up in Hell and he knew who they were before he even made the Universe.
So your actions don't matter. If your end is getting into heaven, you will. Otherwise, straight to hell with you. You can do nothing to influence this. It is predetermined.
TrustInJesus111
Fear mongering is how this religion keeps people hooked
The concept of blood sacrifice is obnoxious,
Diviance What happens to Christians that sin in heaven? I have posed this question a few times on our threads. Do they go to hell and burn too? Theists haven’t responded. Possibly the same theists who condemn Nero for burning say a few thousand scapegoat Christians, but do not protest about billions burning for eternity in hell.
@@petersinclair3997
Their argument is that you _can't_ sin in heaven... which means either there is no free will or that sin is not a result of free will, which means sin exists because God wanted it to so he could torture people for some reason.
And how can they call it heaven when countless people will have people they ostensibly love dearly burning in hell and they know it? How can you be happy if you know that the people you care about most are being tortured endlessly?
Their cult makes no sense.
How are we still having callers arguing that the Bible doesn’t endorse slavery!?
because they don't read the Bible
They don't have reading skills. When someone is doing the reading for you while discouraging you from learning, why bother.
There's quite literally one born every minute. The various churches are like factories turning out fresh product from the assembly line. That's why so many of them are dead set against contraception and abortion. It interferes with the supply of raw materials.
Because some people will try any kind of mental gymnastics to make the bible fit their own agenda
Biblical Slavery differs from the one during the Plantation
So i watched like 10 mins of another vid from this channel (matt), and now im watching this one. Two things id like to say, one for matt and the other a generalized message.
For matt:
I dont know much about you, but i appreciate* the fact that you are more than willing to be understanding of others beliefs and even try to guide them via their beliefs. You merely state what is fundamental to their beliefs and question it in a way without trying to be rude or mean about it.
Secondly:
The captions are pretty much spot on. Really helps to understand the callers.
"Hello""
"Hello?"
"Hey"
"Hello? Can you hear me?"
"Yes"
"I can hear you"
"Then maybe we can start?"
😂😂
Emma W “hello from the other siiiiiiiide! I must’ve called a thousand tiiiiiimes!”
Primates to humans is actually one of the easier things to describe on the evolutionary tree. The Cambrian explosion, abiogenesis, etc. are harder, but it's still just god of the gaps.
Humans are primates, more accurately, great apes. Hominids, apes, monkeys all speciated from a common ape-like ancestor. We didn't evolve from them but parallel to them because we are them.
The Cambrian explosion is not that difficult to explain. In that pocket of development, many varieties of life evolved a hard calcified shell that allowed 'them' to be successfully fossilized in a way that the 'soft tissue' examples could not be. This has the appearance of a sudden explosion of evolutionary options that didn't exist before. In truth, it just shows what is better able to survive the fossilization process; and those other options (soft tissue) could not be fossilized successfully and, therefore, disappear from observation and record.
@@seanmolloy9297 My understanding is that the Cambrian period is referred to as an explosion due to the time scale and magnitude of diversity rather than merely more fossils from animals more readily fossilized. There's an acknowledgement of the "more fossils" component, but it still doesn't account for speed and diversity when compared to other periods. And there's still no consensus among scientists about the ultimate explanation. I'm sure it'll get ironed out, though, without a god explanation :\
@Aaron M What is the scientific consensus theory and/or opinion about the explanation of the Cambrian explosion? I'll take links to read. I find this to just be a fuzzy gap at the moment, which will eventually be filled by reasoned science.
@@heatherlewis9951 The Cambrian explosion coincides with the expansion of life onto land, particularly that of plants. The result of this expansion was more oxygen in the atmosphere due to photosynthesis, which is a much more chemically active ingredients for the process of evolution to experiment with. As well, since life was making it onto land for the first time, new physical forms were being chosen by natural selection over time, meaning more variation, since things that aren't as successful over time were surviving over the short term due to no competition.
In point of fact, there's been numerous computer simulations of how evolution causes changes over time, showing that is exactly what happens: as new niches become available for things to fill, more variation appears since different forms appear before competition can render some obsolete and kick them out. If you change parameters of the simulation as it runs, it will almost invariably result in a sudden spike of variation until a dominant group arises out of said variation and create the constant range of variation.
In short, "the scientific consensus theory and/or opinion about the explanation of the Cambrian explosion" is an increase of atmospheric oxygen due to plant photosynthesis, as well as the wide range of ecological niches available for living things as they colonized the land on the planet.
This channel is a great service. I probably agree 90% of the time, but it always makes one think.
I've read the comment "I'm an atheist" and then some other crap after that, predicated on that claim, several million times. I stopped thinking on it several million times ago. It's assuming the initial point. Can't Matt's followers simply say what they _want to say_ without prefacing it with "I'm an atheist" first?
When someone says "I'm a scientific thinking person" 3 times in 2 minutes, I'm not likely to believe them.
Matt's never been to college, how do who you feel about that?
Dillahunty joined a speaking tour sponsored by the Pangburn Philosophy foundation where he shared the stage with fellow atheists Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Lawrence Krauss. Dillahunty has no formal degrees or higher education, and did not attend seminary. [14]
[14] Dillahunty, Matt (2014-02-19). "I've been told there's a reddit discussion about my credentials. Easy. I have none. No degrees. No seminary. Doesn't matter". @matt_dillahunty. Retrieved 2019-11-07.
Without putting through the most mentally challenged people, how could Matt even give the appearance he's winning these exchanges?
"Formal education doesn't matter." Famous last words of Matt Dillahunty.
@@loki6626 Sow needles.
@@loki6626 Please keep me apprised of all future updates. May I beg your pardon to be put on your mailing list and added to your newsletter subscription. I know you don't do this for free so by all means tell me where i can send my tithe. Take these broken wings and teach me how to fly again!
SweetComfort “Matt’s never been to college.” And?
@@NyxSilver8 Doesn't bother me.
I've never been in the Navy.
Shrug.
That was the weirdest slavery-spindoctoring tapdance in a few weeks.
well they have to try something as they get blasted every time they try making out its okay or their magic book doesnt allow it
Without going back and listening to them all (*shudder*), I'm thinking this is the weirdest defense on biblical slavery that I've ever heard on ACA
@@Emelefpi I'm not sure I even heard a defense. Very odd argument.
@@drg8687 fair enough but I would say that he seems to me to that he's trying (and failing) to defend the bible from 'accusations' that it endorses slavery
@@Emelefpi I agree that's his argument I just never heard a justification for it.
I've only watched up to the first caller and the discussion afterwards, and I really love Dr. Garcia as a co-host. The combination of Matt's experience with religion, skepticism, and logic combined with Dr. Garcia's psychological expertise is perfect for this show.
I've found it challenging to find secular therapists in Canada, and I've always found it unprofessional when religion is brought into therapy unless the client requests it. I'm glad to hear that project supporting secular therapy are alive and well in North America.
Last caller. "I dont believe in religions - except mine"
It is actually quite common in my neck of the woods, to believe in a greater power or supernatural entity/s of some kind not associated with religion, and identify their "spiritual" practices as not necessarily associated with their perception of divine presence. It is generally a trend, from what I have seen, among these individuals to practice or associate with some sort of "woo". Astrology, orgonite, alternative medicines, qi/ki or similar supernatural "energy", luck/divine favor, folk lore magic, spirits, etc.
Pretty much all falls under "tiger in the bush" thinking, and fear of community rejection. Picking a middle ground without taking a firm stance. A lot of 'em will even claim to be agnostic despite clearly being non religious theists.
Usually I give let them take 8 guesses at my astrology sign, no one has got it yet lol, run them through some statistics on how they probably could have guessed it if they just applied random guesses, and then go into depth how astronomically offensive it is for them to make assumptions about someones character based on some arbitrary fantasy.
@Black Sun Obelisk Which one? There are literally tens of thousands of gods out there. Which one, in your opinion, is real?
This show is awesome. I love that Matt does not suffer fools. These morons should be exposed always.
I have to agree.
How can it *_matter_* to you when it doesn't matter to Matt?
Dillahunty has no formal degrees or higher education, and did not attend seminary.[14]
[14] Dillahunty, Matt (2014-02-19). "I've been told there's a reddit discussion about my credentials. Easy. I have none. No degrees. No seminary. Doesn't matter". @matt_dillahunty. Retrieved 2019-11-07.
Suffering fools, being fools, saying it doesn't matter you're fools. What else do you have?
Agreed. Matt has some balls to be doing this week after week.
@@inertiaforce7846 This is how he makes his living, begging for cash. Every show is a fundraiser now. I personally don't believe in a god that requires heavy financing. I have a hard enough time bankrolling my own needs and desires to worry about Matt's "positive atheism" and "atheo-logical" benders.
@Aaron M You're not claiming to be an a-mythologist.
Best show in town.
Atheism entertainment, or just entertainment? Is there some connective tissue between "atheism" and any habitual characteristic? (you know, apart from a person needing others to entertain them).
KNOWING ESSENCE & EXISTENCE. Now let's put these two ideas together, Shannon's definition of information as a reduction in possibility and my analysis of existence in terms of the ability to act. When something acts on us we know that it exists and the possibility that it did not exist is eliminated. Therefore, we are truly informed of its existence and when it acts on us in a particular way, when it affects our senses in a particular way, then we know that it can act on us in that way. And that is a partial insight into the specification of its possible acts. Before we were acted on we did not know whether or not it could act on us in that way. Now that we are acted on, now that we do sense it, we know that it can act on us in that sensory way. And so each act of sensation serves to inform us about some aspect, some projection, of a thing's essence. Now remember from our earlier videos that projection is a dimensionally reduced mapping. For example a picture is a two dimensional map of a three dimensional object. In the same way we can consider the dimensions of information. These dimensions can be specified by yes or no answers to any possible act and as we learned that there are yes answers to some possible acts we begin to form a partial but incomplete map of the specification of possible acts of the thing's essence. And so our sensations truly do inform us about the essence of things, about their true reality, about the numina and not just about phenomena. Thank you for watching and please leave comments. - dfpolis #42 Knowledge & Information. Part 6 of the knowledge series. How reality truly informs the mind on essence and existence.
😸 Matt, I was so proud of you this episode!
Keeping your Zen mode on like never before, and making it 49:00 minutes before even dropping a single, well warranted, "fuck."
Idk what was different today, but I hope this will become the more regular attitude of this show, so I can persuasively share the smart content with more people.
Nathan had to be a troll. At one point he said evolution is definitely true then he says "2 chimps can't create a human" in reference to the strawman of evolution in his head. When people contradict themselves so completely so quickly I tend to think they're dishonest.
It's truly amazing how many Christians actively choose slavery as their hill to die on. Im not even referring to those who get into a conversation that eventually goes that way, but those that actually call in and have defending slavery as their only objective. 🤯
Mark- Nathan- Michael, three callers in a row that sounded like they had been on heavy drugs for a long time, like wtf....
Nathan just blew my mind!! 😂😂 Michael coming up now, after reading your comment, I'm bracing myself for mor stupidity!! 😂😂
Reminds me of the episode from years ago when a caller was rambling on like that and the crew changed the background image to a pot leaf lol
Handsome B. Wonderful it took Matt and Jeff Dee a few seconds to catch on, from what I recall
@@scottiethegreat74 People and things can be godded; deified; & idolized. The Tiki Idol from the Brady Bunch Episode August 1972. Matt & Hector should watch the Brady Bunch, or look in the dictionary and stop all this silliness about what does and doesn't exist. Mythology falls under the heading of literature. *GOD* is the focus of *_theology._* Two different academic subjects. I couldn't sum up Homer's Odyssey in the few seconds Matt allows callers anyway. He's setting himself up to fail.
@@oursecretlord9008 What the fuck are you talking about?? Theology and mythology are the same thing. The only difference being one is believed, and the other isn't. Norse gods are considered to be mythology by many, but would be considered theology to those who still believe. You are spouting nothing but crap, and having looked through other comments you have made, it appears spouting shit is your way. What the fuck your reply to me has any relevance to what my comment was eludes me. Appears to me you are as whacky as the idiots who called in. Any more weird ass comments, call the show, so everybody can have a good laugh!! 😂😂
Your discussion about wellbeing was superb Matt
Matt has a brilliant video about that with a lot more information on his own channel and
Pascal sounds exactly like the kind of guy who would give up his wallet in face of "Pascal's mugging".
And even if you weren't ACKshully mugged, it's better to behave as if you were, because, um...
Drew is awsome. He's sooo smart but most of all he is so respectful and and balanced. I learn a lot from him. Glad you gave him a shout out.
Nathan stop lying...go back to school and actually take the time to learn some science.
We can't give our side of science in the few seconds Matt gives us for your entertainment. Our labs must be soundproofed and magnetically shielded, Matt's come with no such requirements. Do you really want to call us liars when you're all special pleading all the time, setting up the rules in your own favor, rules we're required to follow and you're not?
@rod of discipline can you without making unsupported claims? my guess is no.
que the claims. in 3, 2, 1 ..
@BookkeeperBill I didn't respond because there are a myriad of websites that can be easily Googled that would do a far better job at explaining sciences current standing on the origin of life.
@rod of discipline i guess you don’t even understand that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. Makes it kind of pointless to explain anything to you. Only a religious person is this clueless.
@rod of discipline lol. You really should stop posting and putting your ignorance at display like this. You’re either a troll or or an uneducated dumbass or both. I’m going with the latter. Either way you’re not worth the time.
Ugh, as someone who's paid to work with ancient documents, it's bizarre to me to see people trying to defend biblical slavery.
Even within the moral systems of people in antiquity, this wasn't a "this is what's best for them" kind of thing. Slavery was viewed as a natural state of being; you can find plenty of rhetoric in ancient documents saying that slaves are morally and intellectually inferior, that they are living farm equipment, that they aren't their own human agents. Usually, if you see writing advocating for treating slaves well, there is a logistical reason that is beneficial to the master as much as the slave -- ie, the slave will be more productive, the master will show his own character through his self-control, the slaves are less likely to revolt and kill him, etc.
I also find it interesting that conversations on this are limited to the Old Testament. Paul is confronted with a runaway slave (Onesimus) and has him returned to his master and tells his master to welcome him back; he could have told him to free the slave, but he doesn't. You could make an argument that Paul is doing the most he can reasonably do within the context of the time period, and I'd give that a pass, but you can't see that passage in your canon and say "this was inspired by a timeless being and not someone limited by his own society" or "this is an anti-slavery document", because it isn't and was never meant to be.
Matt you cut nathan off too soon.I wanted to hear nathan say that two blades of grass came together and created a human, that's a straw man.
😂😂😂
I-💀💀💀
👍
hahahahahahahahahhahahahhahhahahah
The woman at the end vehemently stated repeatedly that she hates religion and the concept of it. Then she said she belongs to a religion (Zoroastrianism)! WTF?
Next level contrarianism, running contrary to her own positions.
Glen Hill when I said I was part of a religion , I meant I was born into it and that’s all it was for me...I cannot hide from a religion I was born into but I have a choice to make decisions about it as I grow in thought and mind ...cheers
Low carb/keto recipes and having fun Vernaz
You sound like a grown up. Are you old enough to leave the religion you where born into. Then you won’t be in a religion. Simple.
@@ketokat333 the fact that you listen to this show and would make a claim like you "hate all religion" shows that you question them and are not afraid to challenge them. If that's the case, why belong to a religion at all?
Justin S. I don’t belong to any religion , the only religion by default was by birth and that was a Zoroastrian and I don’t follow anything of it ...cheers
"Naw dude, this isn't about Strawman." Needs to be made into a drop.
Now that I think about it Matt needs an entire soundboard loaded with succinct explanations of the most frequent apologetics on the show. Put audio of someone reading every single bible verse that involves slavery or genocide onto a labelled soundboard for Matt.
I watched Dr Garcia's Lecture on "How Evolutionary Science Explains Religious Violence and Oppression". GREAT WATCH. VERY INFORMATIVE.
"Daddy, what an 'agnostic'"?
"Johnny, an agnostic is a person that doesn't know what the word 'agnostic' means"
There really should be an international convention on defining these words so that there's a real standard and a lay-man's standard. Because most of the terms used on ACA in Spanish means slightly different things, and I argue that that's because one country's language grew with protestantism and the other with catholicism so what words mean in one place doesn't mean the same in other places...
I said "most", but I mean just some of the important ones.
My understanding is that an agnostic isn't someone who says they DON'T know, but rather they would say they CANNOT know. Right, or wrong?
@@adamgodfrey6591 That is how I was taught in school, simplified. I was taught that if you dont believe in God you are an atheist, and if you believe you can not know if a god exists or not you are an agnostic. "Either you believe or you do not" is true, but it is also true to say that there is a middle ground between believing something to be true and believing something to not to be true, that is not knowing if either proposition is true. One question is about belief the other about knowledge. In belief, you can either believe or not. In knowledge you can believe, believe not, and not believe at all.
@@Whydoyoureadme No, you're confusing matters there.
Vernaz : I don't believe in religion at all.
Also Vernaz: I am part of a smallest religion...only 100,000 people...
Well I can’t change the religion I was born into ...when I said PART I meant born into and that doesn’t mean I have to be a follower of it or any other religion....as one ages one grows and learns new aspects about life and generate new viewpoints ...cheers !!
@@ketokat333 Yeah unfortunately I assume are you were indoctrinated, maybe your family and cultural values are defined by religious beliefs so that it's hard to say that you're not a part of the religion. I know because my mom was born into a religious family, but only got the chance to break away when she left her country.
Dragon also I would like to say that an amazing thing that my parents did was never to force me to follow the religion ...they gave me a chance to think for myself and make my own decisions and that was very helpful for forming my thoughts and ideas over time
@@ketokat333 That makes no sense. How can you willfully belong to a religion that you don't believe in? If you agree to be a part of a religion, then at minimum you believe in a religion. Again you said that you don't believe in religion, but you are a part of one. That's like saying I don't believe in clubs, but I'm part of this book club that meets on Tuesdays. Then I say, oh I get it maybe you were forced to go there but you don't really agree with it, and now you're saying you go to this club on your own volition?
Dragon I’m born into Zoroastrianism but I don’t follow any customs or traditions or rules laid down by it and that makes me clearly NOT a part of it and I feel the same about every other religion as I truly believe religion divides the planet ...cheers
Hector you should have talked more. But Matt brought some things out of you that was very interesting to us. Thanks bro
Overall, I'd say this was one of the more truly thoughtful episodes, a few callers not withstanding. This episode started off super interesting with a couple of really thoughtful questions/discussions. The intro through the first 4 callers in particular. Then we got into slavery in the bible...again...and there were a few other callers that were off the rails IMHO. Anyway, thanks ACA, Matt, and Hector for this week's episode and the work you do!
Discussion is not one of the show's goals. We don't need to fund his charity with millions of dollars in order to have a conversation. "I need to ask for money because this is how I make my living," _Matt Dillahunty._ I can have conversations with people who don't need to do it in order to survive, and Matt has no higher education. His university here is not accredited.
One of the goals shows is *_Separation of Church and State._* I don't watch the videos, but I've never seen it come up in the comment sections. His goal is to acquire cash but not to defend his goals.
@@NyxSilver8 I missed this comment. While I don’t think it’s relevant to anything I said, I’ll bite the bait and respond.
“Discussion is not one of the show’s goals”
And your proof for that is, what, exactly?
“We don’t need to fund his charity with millions of dollars to have a discussion.”
No, we don’t. That doesn’t change that I found this episode particularly thoughtful.
“I need to ask for money because this is how I make a living.” Matt Dillanunty.
And making money off a show discussing religion, atheists, etc is wrong? Why? Also how is this relevant to my comment at all?
“I can have conversations with people who don’t need to do it in order to survive”
Sure we can. That matters, why, exactly?
“and Matt has no higher education.”
Even if that’s true, does that make him unintelligent? My grandfather went no further than high school. He worked as an engineer for most of his career. Pretty sure you’d have a hard time saying he was not an intelligent person.
“His university here is unaccredited”
Of course not, because it’s a talk show. I doubt anyone believed a weekly talk show is a university, so this is in my opinion is a foolish line of thinking.
“One of the goals of the show is separation of church and state.”
Cool, sounds like an admirable goal as theocracies have shown to be woefully autocratic and oppressive throughout history.
“I don’t watch the videos but”
Then what are you doing here commenting as if you actually watch, follow, or know anything about this show, good or bad? How can you think anyone would or should take your view on a show you don’t even watch seriously?
“His goal is to acquire cash, not defend his goals.”
For someone who only cares about acquiring cash, he’s pretty consistent in his defense of his views. And you’d know that if you actually watched/listened to the show instead of commenting on something you admit you don’t actually watch.
@@dtgris7291 Hi, youtube is kind of weird like that, about not getting notifications, I've always assumed it's my religious opponents, the most religious people on the face of GOD's Good Planet Earth and that is people who claim they don't have any religion, they point blank tell me they're snitching on my channel for no other reason than I disagree with them about their claim "atheism."
If you're not getting the same number of comments in our notifications I'll have to rethink what being put on suspension is really all about.
Matt can't have a conversation and be "positive atheist" and "anti-theist" at the same time. It's the same as being "pro-teacher" & "anti-student." It's a very significant part of the Bible about people who are not against us are for us, and accepting the good will of people we don't know for no other reason than it's conducive toward productivity. It was the sons of thunder who wanted to cast fire down on people casting out devils in Christ's name when they weren't among the apostles physically with Jesus. HE said, "You don't know what spirit you're of,"
He's anti his own show's format of acquiring the evidence of the fantasy gods he needs proven real to him instead of *GOD* who is necessary and therefore philosophically required. No one can present to Matt in 4 or 5 seconds what it's taken me 60 years to understand about making a case for *GOD's* existence, essence and causality. Dillahunty can only bite off and chew a couple seconds of information before he can have anything apropos to say in response, but that's not the method of debating. One side gets a twenty minute opening and then the other and so on.
If you watch one or maybe both of the debates between Sam Harris and William Craig,, you'll notice Sam never even addresses a single thing Craig says. He's the worst at debate I've ever seen.
Your grandfather is fine, I have an uncle who never went to college, would razz my Dad saying, "I can buy you college boys a dime a dozen" and then among other things built a motor yacht out of metal and along those lines became a master at CAD-CAM and metal works and moved up to where my Dad hails from Eugene Oregon and became a college professor at the stuff - U of Oregon, without ever having gone to college!
My uncle Gene, my namesake, called me when my Mom passed on and I mentioned this to him about the "Dime a dozen" and how he's a college professor now! He laughed.
The thing you seem to be missing here is that the subject is *Divinity* and you can't really talk about it when you don't even know what it is and think it's something else.
Matt can't be intelligent and think there's such a thing as a logical positive atheist and a logical anti-theist all existing inside of him at the same time. No one is claiming "theism" in response to his claim of "atheism" unless they're more intellectually handicapped than he is.
Think about it, if I claim "i'm a theist" here, I lose. It's doxastic logic, but none of you know that, it's the logic of "I believe this" or "that." None of you claim you believe, that's your biggest tenet, the one all the rest of it hangs. "Believing is bad I tell you!" but you all believe that!
He's asking theologians with a different theological orientation to call in and bid against ourselves while he says he's against us and wants to learn.
Apart from your "relevancy" issue, you're a lot smarter than he is.
I LOVE MARK! But he should probably wait to hit that bong until after the call.
And he's eating too.
This show features extremely high/drunk people calling in.
Oh, you can't get a human from two chimps? I'm going to let the zoos know they can relax.
IF the zoo had the call in show then maybe they'd let the primates have more time to get their religious adherences across.
Am in South Africa and above the chat there is a notification :Sorry, you can't donate in this country or region yet." Great show as usual. Thanks. Rooting for your ginormous blue wave!!
It blows my mind that people will still call in to a show and still be confused about the audio delay. I thought everyone knew what was up by now.
54:00 Alternate slavery approach: Owning other human beings as property. Being able to beat them as long as they don't die within 2 days. Able to pass them on to your children.
Morally speaking, in all of human history, how many people should be allowed to do that? [ zero ]
In the bible, how many people are allowed to do that? [ more than zero ]
Iike the remote version. So many awesome Co hosts who don't have to be Austin.
Awwwwwwwwww crew kitty ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️if Vern ever returns to the studio he needs to bring crew cat. The crew cat does most of the work
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Yup crew cat is integral to the show.
@@trustinjesus1119 what do u mean?
@@miboogaroo the cat that you see when they show the crew. The red beauty!
@@stephjovi i know what u mean.. just questioning truth in jebus s silly comment.
I don’t believe in love at first sight. So when I find out on the first date that she’s a Christian, no love is going to develop. That’s because I have no respect for people who believe in religious nonsense. So the first date would be the last date, and therefore I could not end up in this man’s situation. Love is 90% admiration in my opinion, and I could not admire anyone with that type of thinking.
When Matt told Nathan his two chimps giving birth to a human was a straw man I'm pretty sure he thought that Matt was trying to interject the character from the Wizard of Oz.
5:00 "Read; try not to gain too much weight; try not to develop a drinking problem."
Dang, Dr. Garcia, why you gotta call me out like that? What's next, cut back on 90-minute long TH-cam videos? 😆
Dean might not drink but he’s on something.
I love the shout out to RBG at the end... I'm welling up a bit at that...
Nathan: I understand evolution
I get the feeling Mark from NM is stoned.
Why is someone mugging you if they can give you ten times the amount?
Don't trust anyone "mugging" you.
20% of the population being either dead or permanently/currently disabled (or whatever the exact numbers come out regarding "long covid" and organ damage) is on fucking lot more preservative of the general well-being of society than "being home all the time makes me sad", barring of course, real psychological problems but those can be properly diagnosed by professionals. And yes, I have multiple diagnosed mental illnesses, and I have absolutely no hate for people developing mental illness over isolation. But that is far far far from "I'm bored" or "I want a haircut" or "I want to visit a mega church with 10000 other peopleand be a goddamn plaguerat."
And we do have treatments for mental illness for those who require it. Being bored isn't a mental illness, especially when compared to the whole of society and not losing an enormous number of people to disease.
Why do people keep trying to defend a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient being by saying "oh well God had to take the lesser of two evils?"
@The Maverick That one caller was trying to say God only endorsed slavery because it was the best culturally appropriate option. You know, because the all-powerful creator whose master plan includes the probability field map of every electron, for every moment in time, who also apparently didn't hesitate to kill everyone in his perfect creation except one family that one time, didn't want to propose anything culturally inappropriate to the people who had dedicated their lives and culture to following his every whim including dietary choices and genital mutilation. It's not like he could suggest something that was actually moral, or they'd have surely balked at that, so he had to let them push him around and condone slavery, beatings, and such. What was he supposed to do? He's only all-powerful, all knowing, and already established as not holding back on such matters. Poor God in a corner like that. If only he'd been a little more like himself.
@The Maverick I know more about Christianity and have experienced far more mindless zealotry from it in my life, but my real problem is with the zealotry in any form. I don't mind people believing anything they want, as long as it doesn't cause harm. I think it's a basic effect of our conscious experience to at least want there to be something more, and we have dreams every night where impossible things can happen, so we're always going to have a lot of people who believe in something, probably even in silly things. And I think it's important to keep open our capacity for whimsical thought and acceptance of others' wild thoughts too. But people are prone to failing to draw the line between the fantasies that they see as beautiful in their heads and the way they want the real world to work. I don't have a solution for it, but it doesn't get talked about the right way enough. We're expected to respect the fantasies that real world evidence doesn't match as if they're equal to the evidence. Society moves too fast for this to continue much longer.
@The Maverick I am pining only for people to stop trying to dominate worldviews with views that can't be validated by the world. We are already supposed to have a separation of church and state; I just wish we truly did.
A whitewashed Christianity would still hinge on people believing fanciful things to be literally true, and living their lives accordingly. That is a flaw that cannot be undone without undoing the thing itself. Even getting to the least harmful version of Christianity would involve throwing out most of the bible, its only so-called anchor.
I wouldn't remove the villains from fairy tales, or imperfect brush strokes from paintings. It can be argued that music is just the establishment of a repeating pattern of interrupting a monotone, so that we can appreciate the narrative we build in our mind of its reconciliation of unevenness. And so I wouldn't rob the world of its broken history, or the many great tales we've spun in religion. But we need to stop acting like they're more than they are.
As they say, "my right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Believe whatever you want, so long as it doesn't cause harm, and don't expect anyone else to share your belief, because you've concocted it in your mind whether you meant to or not. In truth, there are as many religions as there are people. We shouldn't limit what people dream up in their heads, but neither should we draw lines of common ground by what's individual to our heads, but by the verifiable common world we share.
@The Maverick
1) Those virtues are non-religious and don't stem from religion, so you can simply cut away the "fat" that is religion and enjoy the lean, tender beef without the extra baggage that is bad for everyone.
2) Believing fanciful things is always a flaw if you cannot possibly support the belief with any credible evidence.
@The Maverick
1) False.
2) I know there isn't. You believe there is. You are wrong. Simple as that.
That caller was right. Science only answers how, what, when, where, or who, not why.
It occurs to me, while listening to Brian's call, that whoever came up with " Pascal's Mugging" is someone who has never been mugged!
1:24:16 Buddhism doesn't require a God. Hinduism doesn't require a God. Sorry Vernaz, your Hastey Generalization is showing... :(
I love how Christians can be ok with god not having to be created yet they can't grasp the idea of the universe not having a creator
Please bring Hector back! His commentary is really helpful.
I literally just had an argument with someone on Twitter who actively misunderstood the use of the word "you" when using a hypothetical. The kind of person who thinks that if I say "This allows you to do x" that it is directed specifically at them is arguing in bad faith.
Someone said that to me yesterday, "Atheism is when *_you_* lack belief in gods." I'm not arguing for that. I lack belief in atheism, not people who are admired and adored (gods).
Nathan sounds like a 10 year old in his questions of evolution and the origins of life. "Ok, two monkeys have a baby and...." The education system has failed Nathan, and now Nathan fails in his understanding. Very sad.
Nathan is just a more-ignorant Ray Comfort, if that is even possible. The first dog went looking for a mate...
@RDE Lutherie watch the whole thing... totally worth it
He took idiocy to a whole new level, to the point I thought he might be trolling. (Edit - Haha, just got to the point where Matt said he thought he might be a troll).
Any herd would banish that fool from the pack for fear he’d weaken the whole.
@@larjkok1184 nice... lol
No...its not possible
@@markburch6253 I'm so tired of ray comfort and apologists in general... when people ask me, I say I'm an atheist... we have nothing to apologize for
Pascal's mugging seems pretty simple to address. As the promised amount increases, the odds of actually receiving that amount declines.
If a 10% return is offered, the likelihood of them keeping their word is clearly higher than someone who offers 1000%. Their incentive to keep the money increases and the likelihood that they are making the deal in good faith is reduced. It'd very rarely be in their interest to borrow $10 today at the cost of $100 tomorrow.
So regardless of the offer, above a certain point, it won't increase the likely return. Therefore, you *don't* have to accept that there is a rate of return that would entice you to invest.
A simple question to Nathan , If everything “must” have a creater Who created God??
TickerTaallick 😂, Theists answer is always “HE” was/is always there!! How the F... you know that??
Weak question you got from your atheist hero Richard Dawkins from the God Delusion which has been DEBUNKED
David Bermudez Weak?? Its the strongest question! Debunked???😂😂😂😂😂 But wich God? Thor? God of childrapist Priests?? God of Warlord Mohammed ?? No No really wich God are you talking about???
@@davidbermudez7704 so what's the answer then? Rather than making assumptions about others, debunk it here and now. If everything needs a creator, who created God? Or if there are exceptions to the rule, isn't the rule bogus in the first place?
Justin S.
Nobody created God because He is God.
Dwells in eternity
Self-existing
Ancient of Days
The First and the Last
I AM
Alpha and Omega
Hurray, Crew, Hector and Matt....you all Rock!!!
If a mugger is going to pay me back tomorrow it would probably be with money they stole from someone else. If I’m ok with that, why wouldn’t I just skip the middleman and mug other people myself?
If he's going to pay you back he's not a mugger though. If that were the case then people mug banks everytime they take a loan.
Would they give me their money if I ask them? Or the cognitive dissonance I would see...
I've never heard of a mugger offering a return on investment. This seems like a weird thought exercise he made up that doesn't make any sense either way.
Watching this on 6-24-22.
To respond to Matt’s lament of RBG’s death… this week roe v wade was overturned and separation of church and state was weakened.
Life will go on, but it will be much harder for many people.
"Backstreet reunion tour" is not what I expected. Anywho love this show!
A game grumps reference on the atheist experience. Now I've seen everything.
Can either of you explain what it means? I heard it used several times lately. What is it a euphamism for?
@@stephjovi It's what the Game Grumps are calling COVID, since apparently youtube doesn't like people saying COVID.
@@taq154 I came here looking for more Grumps fans, and you made my day!
@@evanwebber9981 ah ok. I mean I guessed it could be covid but I thought they gave up the ban of saying it in April. I mean it's the main topic right now. I certainly don't like the backstreet boys but quite a mean comparison 🤣
That Dean dude is creeping me out. Nervous laughter is not the most appropriate reaction on mentioning million deaths.
I don't know about others, but for me, gatherings of ten or fewer fulfills any need I might have for socialization. Gathering with a few friends who are being as careful as I am assures me that I am not exposing myself to the virus. Gong out to drink with friends in a crowd of strangers is not satisfying in the least.
57:08 Buying slaves from abroad, there is two possible decisions: permit it or forbid it.
And in the Bible, God made the morally wrong rule here, according to Rick's own admission!
Nathan: Let's not put words in each other mouths...
Also Nathan: Let's say you have two chimps, two apes, that have a baby, and then you are saying that this baby just comes out human? Because that is basically what you are claiming.
Yes,it's absurd isn't it.I wish some of these clowns would actually do some research before calling the show.
Evolution is not a tool..but Nathan might be
Wish hector wasnt so quiet!! Great episode
Its nice when you get a British lunatic too. Reminds me we aren't so different
I thought she was pretty different tbh 😁
Dean is a very confused individual. In his model, after a nuclear bomb falls, his position is that it's OK to go outside in the radioactive fallout because it makes him happy to see the sun and walk around rather than being stuck in a fall-out shelter. The lack of concern for himself and others is astounding.
Is covid even close to a nuclear bomb though?
If a god is "testing" you, I think that would mean he is in the business of playing mind games. Don't we all have enough to deal with just in trying to live our lives without having to think about or worry about a god "testing" us?
whatever mark is smoking....please get me some
I like how I got an ad to a Catholic channel on an athiest experience video.
Well, what channel is better suited to waste religious groups' money on than atheist channels?
That apparently happens a lot. I think it's actually a good move on their part. The people who call in typically are not going to be convinced. The point is to convince the people who are watching and on the fence. Likewise with the Christian ads.
The thing is we've had pretty effective Southern re-write of Civil War history, but the reason that slavery existed in the South is because Christians read their bibles and thought those verses applied to them. Read the letters of succession. There is a reason slavery was practiced pretty much solely in the Bible belt.
Nathan, learn from better sources, not biased ones.
I'm glad for the discussion on our current moral catastrophe. R.I.P. Tony Tenpenny, former council member from Nashville, Tn. He was vocal on social media about the hoax of covid-19. He was committed to this cause to the point where he would re-tweet videos wherein Dr. Duck is heard to quack about outrageous quackery. Anyhow He struggled with the disease for a month and sadly succumbed to this pandemic. What I would have expected from a moral person is , something along the lines of a retraction of prior misleading and inaccurate posts. If he was so disabled as to render him unable to post, he could at least have had a trusted family member do the right thing and admit to posting dangerously misleading information. So far we have only statements about the deceased's upstanding character and statements about how sad we are and what a heavy heart we have. I'd be curious how many others he may have infected in his effort to prove what a hoax the liberal left has cooked up.
OMG it's 2020 and there are still people who don't understand they need to mute call-in shows when calling **facepalm**
OMG it's 2020 and there are still people who believe in sky daddies, prayer and 2000 year old fairytales **facepalm**
On Pascal's mugger. Here are my thoughts. There is a variable missing from his equation: Believability. The higher the return promised the less likely I am to believe you. Promising me more does not make me more tempted to accept the offer but makes me less tempted to hand over my cash because the outrageous nature of the claim makes it less believable and more likely to result in a net loss for me. If Pascal lived today he would probably be one of those guys who actually sends money in reply to an email from a Nigerian Prince. Go get those millions Pascal. I'm sure he is a trustworthy fella.
That’s kind of what Hector was saying - we are social animals and each of us has a highly-attuned cheat detector.
At times, too highly attuned!
Vernaz likes the force, but not religion. I have news for her. She is having a religious experience, it's religion. I don't get the mentality.
I thought that was a male
@@anthonylong9067 She's here defending her views in the comments section unlike Matt Dillahunty who's only in this for the religious money.
TrustInJesus111 you do realize ACA is a non-profit organization right? He’s not getting paid
@47:03 Rick-MI/ I immediately clicked to this timestamp. 'Is Slavery Really in the Bible?' Wow, something NEW!, never talked about before on the show! (he said super sarcastically)! [ this is going to become one of the most viewed clips, most laughed at clip by this time tomorrow]
The only reason we have a concept we call "God" is because of frauds, fools, and fantasists. There was always something. That, I think, we must agree on. Just something. You cannot talk about nothing simpliciter. An instance of nothing: impossible by definition. The notion of a first entifier not only defeats its own purpose on its own, its purpose never existed either. Theists like to say, "if ever there was only nothing, only nothing would yet be." That is, one effectively says, "if ever a non-thing were the only thing, then now the only thing would be a non-thing." It is a non-starter.
@The Maverick you are showing the cyclopean depth and bounds of your own ignorance on science and philosophy. Atheists do not claim to be scientists or philosophers anymore than anyone else who thinks or searches. Atheists claim to be atheists. Einstein was an atheist. I wish I could say I do not see why anyone does not know this, but few people seem to grasp he was also a socialist; perhaps a similar campaign of disinformation brought it about. Do yourself, and everyone you converse with, a favour: read more, and not just books by "Chopraphiles."
@The Maverick Einstein believed in the universe. He was an atheist in the sense of denying the personal god of the conventional believer. If there is anything impersonal and non-conscious in or identical with the universe that you must insist is "God", then Einstein and I are trivially theists with respect to that, I suppose. But I see no point in calling it "God" any more than calling it "potato." It is sophistic to do so. Einstein, in our language game, like it or not, is what is meant by an atheist with respect to most definitions of and hypotheses pertaining to gods.
In my other comment, I do not deny the possibility of there being a god. I claim only that we cannot say, "in the beginning there was nothing, then God..." because a god must be an instance of something to do anything. It would be a contradiction. A philosopher's nothing is not cognizable except as the absence of something at all. The scientist's nothing is something that is nothing like other things we commonly deal with. These other things, especially when we cannot immediately see them, we conceive or hypothesize. Why we do this at all is because our environment presents us with phenomena in need of explanation. We came up with gods as person-like agents because our paradigm case for causes of anything were persons.
Theologians have come so far as to render god moot even to itself. If there were at t0 only one entity that was by default perfect, complete, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., then it would never create anything else. It would not want to. It could not want to. Even if it could, it would not. Not only would it have no needs to fulfill through creation, the only thing it could conceive to create would be itself. If anything else ever emerged from it, such would arise by accident or as a byproduct, not as a direct consequence of will. Such a god hypothesis is imparsimonious (a non-conscious something is simpler than conscious something). Its simplification is identical with the bare something I refer to.
@The Maverick read my response one more time, unless you are content to add one more falsehood to your collection.
@The Maverick
Congrats on spending the entire comment thread proving you are ignorant.
@bad zombie
Man, if you are the Homer Simpson of science, he must just feel terrible after being schooled by Homer freaking Simpson.
1:09:13 Matt is truly owning it with his charitable listening this episode. Gawd bless you
🕯🕊🧘🏻♂️🕊🕯
Lmao at those emojis 🤣🤣
Mark thinks he sounds smart but in reality he just sounds like a drunk surfer trying to be philosophical.
very good show! i love the last call a lot. very very charming person. and Drew was very thoughtful and kind!
Was Pascal s mugging the idea for the Nigerian Prince?
Did you speak to the Prince? Can you remind him I’m still waiting for the £56M.
@@thomascarroll9556 sorry he says he will send you the money. Twice that if you send him 10000 dollars or euros depending on were you live 🤣
Stephanie the cheque’s in the post 😂
@@thomascarroll9556
**James Veitch has entered the chat**
Matt, one thing I’ve noticed is that you interact and debate with some of these callers on a level that is clearly above their heads. While there are obviously some theists that are clearly intelligent and articulate that call in, many are just not that smart. I find myself thinking “he/she/they don’t get it, you’re talking over their head”, or “he needs to dumb it down for that one”. Just an observation. Love the show.
Matt has no higher education and asks for proof of gods (not *GOD).* How intelligent can _he_ possibly be? How much dedication and study is required to claim "I'm a positive atheist and an anti-theist, and atheism is a single position on a single issue"? & why would anyone need 3000 shows to get that across to mankind?
I got it right off, the dude is into entertaining people with less education than he has.
Nathan - you don’t understand and it’s very clear by what your saying that you don’t. Sit down before you hurt yourself then grab a book and educate yourself.
As always big hugs to The Crew.
I would give the mugger the money if only to stop him from talking...
Where can I find more about the interview that Matt is talking about at the @24:00 mark? I was trying to spell out what he said but he said it kinda fast. Sounds very interesting. Thanks in advance.
god has only its own interest and well-being at heart. It wants all the fools to be singing praises to its glory.
I am 9th months late; but was this supposed to be a poem?
Nathan: I'm agnostic
Also Nathan: I'm going to use Kent Hovind arguments
Goddess, was Mark insufferable... Not clear on his point, took him too long to get into it, his voice, etc. Props to both Matt and Hector for getting through that call
Anything more than a few seconds of letting a caller talk and it would just be boring *"A"* - theological lectures.
@@trustinjesus1119 the guy was obviously drunk.
@@cullenarthur8879 Who else is Matt Dillahunty going to beat in a debate?
TrustInJesus111 Probably you, call the show instead of telling lies on here.
1:24:00 the only response to this guy saying no evidence is needed that God exists, is the Christopher Hitchens quote "That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
Chimp + Chimp = Human
Human + Human = Stan Lee
Stan Lee... + Stan Lee's genius = Marvel 😎
Rick....learn to listen and remove the panic from your voice. You sound like a panicking child when you try and talk.