The Atheist Experience 869 with Matt Dillahunty and John Iacoletti
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- The Atheist Experience 869 for June 8, 2014, with Matt Dillahunty and John Iacoletti.
John lists ten things he learned from Matt's debate with Sye ten Bruggencate.
SHOW TIME-STAMPS
01:03 - Intro & Announcements - Matt Dillahunty
01:42- Topic: top ten list of things John Iacoletti learned at the Sye Ten Bruggencate 'debate'
06:39- Kyle (theist from episode 867): reasonable doubt
14:48- Zack (theist from episode 861 and 862): scientific 'facts' in the Bible are proof of God, the Bible predicted atomic theory, string theory will never be confirmed
43:39- Jacob: peer-reviewed journals, the relationship between suggestibility and religious belief
46:45- Joey (caller from the previous episode): debating presuppositionalists
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
► www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
MUSIC CREDITS
Theme song: "Listen to Reason," written and performed by Bryan Steeksma.
► / bryansteeksma
► www.myspace.com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2014 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
![ออกพรรษาน้ำตาหล่น - แอน อรดี [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PFZtOcY9ONA/mqdefault.jpg)
How are these callers allowed to walk freely among us, instead of being locked up in a nuthouse? Very unsettling.
Amen. These freaks destroyed my and my children's lives. They are pure evil.
The Greeks where theorising about atoms 5 centuries before Christ
5 centuries before JC theorized about atoms?
So did the Greeks prophecy JC & atoms?
@@brucebaker810 no - they theorised about atoms - they didn't prophesied about anything...thesis is proposed and potential explanation about some aspect of reality....prophecy in holly books is a prediction about the future inspired by god - so make believe;)
J.C, & the Component Adams
They got it from the Egyptians. A select few got to go to Egypt and were initiated by the priests.
@@martingrey2231 So then the Greeks...
Grokked Like ... the Egyp--tians?
Zack is every Facebook discussion about complicated topics in science, medicine or law.
"the bible doesnt say the earth is flat, the bible says the earth is a circle" Zach blew my mind with stupidity
Zack: "It's talking about atoms."
No, it's talking about invisible Tinkertoys.
Imagine being a brain in a vat and you make up characters like Sye, and Matt Slick! That's a twisted brain.
Well at least that brain doesn't fizz.
Zack hasn't heard about subatomic particles, has he?
zack is completely ignorant on atoms and string theory... but the thing is molecules and the like are also unseen by the naked eye so idfk why this focus on atoms specifically :P
he was very vague.... on everything
Or our cells.
I have basically watched every single show high... lol
same lmao
Me too! I got my hand up! Wasted over here & don't care what they think!
Same here! Been binging for a month.
It does make it more amusing. 😁
Puff puff pass... Same here
We now have a picture of a single Hydrogen Atom.
Doesn't look very invisable to me.
I was surprised that didn't get brought up
That debate frustrated me so bad. I've yet to meet an honest apologist, but Sye was exceptionally dishonest. I'm glad Matt said he'd never interact with him again.
Nah. Sye is just exposing the fallacious worldview atheists hold. I really don’t think many catch what Sye is trying to point out. The question is, how can atheists account for reason or logic? Answer: they can’t or would just say, laws of logic are a consensus, Which means they are made up, which mean, ultimately, anyone can make any claim, logical or illogical, and it would be accepted because the laws of logic are a consensus(made up and agreed upon).
@@The_Truth_Talk That is the dumbest fucking take I've ever read. Do you agree that logic can be used or not?
@@johnathanfuller1423 yes, I agree and I know that you do use them hence the logical back and forth we are engaging in. I don’t deny that. But you cannot account for them.
@@The_Truth_Talk If accounting for them is necessary, then account for them.
@@johnathanfuller1423 it’s the point of the discussion. But go ahead throw the question back to me to avoid it. But I’ll answer. God. Now how do you account for them?
Bruggencate is an oozelum bird. He flies in ever decreasing circles until he disappears up his own jacksy.
happy
>Whoops<
You mis-spelled asshole.
Only confusion is with first word of your post or last.
Or both. 🤫
Jacksy lol
~ Five years later and still tons of fun - thanks, guys!! BTW - wondering 5 years later if Zack is still "butt-hurt."
Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
some say to this day that he is still on that call, reliving it wondering how it went wrong
It's still a great show!
I feel like Matt was unnecessarily dickish in that one.
@@Nekulturny I feel he was more than fair with him
I lost it at the end where Matt says he shouldn't do the show high , hilarious 😂!
We need more people like Zack. It shows us how stupity is presented as wisdom based on an old combination of scriptures written by not very well informed people that lived in a part of the world that was not very well educated..
Wow Kyle was all over the place and couldn’t grasp what analogies are, what belief is, how courtrooms work, and he didn’t understand why his irrelevant points were being dismissed.
Hint Kyle: when someone explains why the points you are making up are irrelevant, don’t keep coming back to them like they are relevant.
When John Iacoletti is mocking you, you're in big trouble.
Zach from NC, was your last science class in the 6th grade?
It seems far more likely that is where Zack's education ended. They are talking to a 6th grade drop out whose skill set is so pathetic that the only job he is qualified for is to be a preacher.
That debate was hilarious. Well done Matt 💪🏻
Zack: A mind so open his brain fell out.
Sye: Vain & a Brat. Vain & a Brat. Vain & a Brat.
Livin Gunk well Cain seemed to enjoy Nuke.
@Livin Gunk Malt whisky
The first clear hypothesis of atoms was devised in the 5th century BCE, by Democritus & Leuccipus - and they actually coined the term "atom" from the Greek word atomos, meaning indivisible.
K. S. K. I’m only seven minutes in and they haven’t mentioned this yet, therefore you’re wrong. Atoms come from bombs.
Yes, but you have to understand what they MEANT by that. Which is made clear when you read their stuff. If you keep taking slices of slices...of slices of cheese, you keep getting smaller and smaller pieces of cheese. If you do the same for a cow, you don't keep getting smaller and smaller 'cows'. So the early Atomists believed that cheese was elemental, but cows were not. This early reasoning is a LONG way away from modern atomic theory. And given our advancement into sub-atomic particles, it's even more incorrect. Kyle is in desperate need of a History and Philosophy of Science class at his local university.
Matt is specially patient on Zack
Zack is a very confused individual.
Jesus said, Cast off your sandals for you need not at the coming judgement.
I guess he meant soon.
Ok Jesus, ...... now I'm ready.
Hurry up, my wife will be home soon.
you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your educated opinion. No one is entitled to ignorance.
Sye “Everyone believes in god”
Also Sye “I don’t do bible studies with non-believers”.
But wait! Does that mean he’ll do bible studies with everyone and anyone, because everyone is a believer. No he won’t, so that can only mean he’s not being honest about his assertion that every body believes.
Everyone knows God exists. He won’t do Bible studies when people deny God and then want to make claims about Him.
Jake B “everyone knows god exists”
Is without a doubt the worst argument for a god. For starters every non believer knows you’re being dishonest. It’s the equivalent of me saying “You know a god doesn’t exist, you’re just playing make believe”.
But also any believers who have questioned their faith. Because how can they question a thing exists, if they are already supposed to know he exists. The slightest doubt a Christian has totally disproves the claim, everyone knows a god exists.
Which is why many Christian apologists won’t use that argument. Sye’s built his career on it and can’t drop it now.
Jarl Grimm Your problem is that you don’t understand what he’s meaning when he says it. It’s not an argument when he says it, it’s a certainty. He’s not arguing from neutrality with you, then proving some god. Obviously his position as a Christian is to have scripture as his standard for truth.
Doubt only exists because of sin. So of course Christians will have doubt. That’s why God, in scripture says “lean not on your own understanding”. We aren’t perfect, but I can’t even doubt God without presuppposing his existence.
If many Christians apologists don’t want to use Gods word to defend their faith, then they’re not very good apologists.
Jake B do you believe in pixies?
Jarl Grimm Toys nope, do you?
That Zack fellow seems to suffer from a bad case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
"It's how my mind works, I'm an open minded person"
Careful Zack, your brains pouring out of that gaping hole in your head.
It is a shame that those that believe in the evolutionary process could not even hold Zack accountable for his supposed "stupidity" as it was ultimately not his fault or free will that the chemicals in his brain fizzed in such a way to utter the words that he did through his mouth!
You need to laugh and mock the supposed "evolutionary process" not him.
@@VesseledSoulDefender Why would I laugh at evolution? I enjoy laughing at people who surround themselves with religious walls of ignorance and then claim they know the truth of things.
People with D-K don't suffer. We do.
Zack says "not seen" refers to atoms, but they can refer to any hidden object, like one's heart, kidneys, liver, stomach, etc
Sarcasm Warning
Plenty of internal organs were made visible during the biblical times.
It could very well refer to atoms as they were conceptualized at the time. Those ideas first proposed by Democritus had been out for about 500 years at the time Hebrews was written and were popular with the Epicureans, a philosophical school that was pretty big in the Roman Empire at the time. I would be surprised if an educated man at the time Hebrews was written had never heard of any of that in fact. Too bad Matt didn't point any of this out.
Or words, or numbers, or elves, or microscopic difataloozems
Or even cells
Kyle got over his stage fright pretty quickly...
Sometimes stupidity give you confidence.
The aftershow guy was the best
yeah i was zoning out, till he said "were in a binary system star and that the vatican this, telescope that" and i was like "this is good internet"
That was truly an experience.
Here's the thing about the Sye debate. Sye tried to use the old "What if you're a brain in a vat" crap.
Well let's think this trough....
If Matt was a brain in a vat, Sye doesn't actually exist, neither does Sye's god, or the bible, or Christianity. In which case Matt wins, the debate.
If Sye is a brain in a vat, then the bible isn't real, or his god. In which case Matt still wins.
If neither of them are brains in a vat's, Sye still doesn't have sufficient evidence or an argument, in which case Matt still wins.
And even if a god does exist, Sye still doesn't have sufficient evidence or argument for god, in which case Matt still wins.
It's funny a Christian would resort to "What if you're a brain in a vat". Because they think consciousness come from a soul, not the brain. So shouldn't they be saying "You could be a soul in vat"? Isn't the very fact that Sye says "Brain in a vat" a recognition (an admittance if you will) on his part that consciousness comes from the brain, and not a soul.
But atoms are made up of protons neutrons and electrons. Those are made up of quarks. Atoms arent thr smallest thing.
The Greeks called the smallest thing they consider to be atoms. The fact that other people thought that what we now called Atoms are not the smallest things is not the fault of the Greeks but those who wrongly assumed that atoms were the smallest.
Do you have any idea how incredibly far away from understanding atomic physics Zack is? Lets not even mention subatomic. If Zack ever read about QCD his head would implode.
They call him Christ because that's the first word that comes out of people's mouths when he opens his.
"I shouldn't do the show high anymore". 58:31
haha. probably an edible. things got way too heady for poor Matt lol.
As if I couldn't love this man any more
Bricks may be a mixture of clays, limestone, sands, various crushed rocks, etc. When the brick is fired, those individual components are no longer visible and the brick appears as a single unified object.
I have never seen a better “are you done?” face than Matt’s.
The after show call is truly wonderful
Since days of thunder & lightning gods, ghosts, goblins & scary monster noises in the dark, none have yet been produced.
Still waiting.
About Zack and things unseen being atoms. We can SEE atoms. We might not have been able to see them back then, but we CAN see them with machines that we make. Using Zacks logic, we can't see air either. Is air what the author was thinking of?
The only reason presups came about is cos it's a way to avoid evidence (cos it's so overwhelmingly against them).
Actually Democritus spoke about atoms hundreds of years before...so it's nothing surprising at all, it was an idea already diffused in those years. He shows his ignorance in philosophy, science and general culture.
...and then Christ calls in. 😉
Still waiting...
The looks that Matt and John give each other in the middle of his call is priceless.
The only thing that is not visible to the naked eye zack is your brain.
I am legitimately convinced that Sye Ten Bruggencate suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. They guy "debates" like a bratty second grader arguing with other kids at recess. Something's not right with a man when he does that well into middle age. :\
He has a well rehearsed script from which he won’t depart
I think he's a psychopath.
His "winning" strategy is that he's so obnoxious that no one wants to deal with him.
Too bad Zack didn't call in after AXP moved to their own building... Matt's "fucks/shits" would have been legendary.
When did 'Kyle' teach logic to his 'gut'? Relying on ones 'gut' is, by definition, NOT reasonable.
31:36 😂😂😂 Classic 🧚🏽♀️
That's some funny shit. I shouldn't do the show high anymore LOL. That's the best. I'm glad they rolled that part.
Re; Zack and his bible verse supposedly about atoms. The Greek philosopher Leucippus in 440 BCE devised the concept and actually named the indivisible, unseen building blocks "atoms". The word "atomos" means indivisible. A hypothesis that actually NAMES and describes atoms is more accurate than a random bible verse.
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal ... of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Heb 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Sounds like an invisible God creating things out of nothing (invisible)
Two different writers described God in different ways...one will mention God by name...the other did not.
The final caller is right at least according to scripture because it says specifically in Colossians 3:11, Christ is all and is in all. It says this two other times in scripture and Christians deny it to the end.
The courtroom analogy is about explaining the difference between not guilty and innocent.
It's actually guilty and not guilty. Innocents has nothing too do with it...
@@kylevogelgesang9996 The courtroom analogy is used to illustrate the difference between not guilty and innocent. The court does not address innocence. The analogy is specifically used to point this out.
@@notatheist In the analogy, Jehovah is found either Guilty or Not Guilty of existing. And that if you don't have sufficient evidence to vote Guilty, you must vote Not Guilty.
But, in the analogy, J's actual state would be "innocent" of existing.
@@notatheist Using a false analogy to help point out a false gods existence???? Guilty or not guilty. Those are what real court rooms use. You can be guilty as shite but if there is not enough evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt then its not guilty.
If man was made in god's own image, shouldn't we be invisible?
Zack from West Jefferson is the top tier most embarrassing caller LOL
55:00 I agree the moral argument is probably the best argument for god. People really want to believe in objective moral truths. Just on an intuitional level people have this deep feeling that moral truths really exist, and they then seek to find a way to ground them and God seems like the most reasonable way. As flawed as it is, I think its the most persuasive argument. Personally, I just have no problem accepting that objective moral truths dont exist. And that we can just construct a secular moral system based on what is in the best interest of ourselves, our families, our communities, humanity in general and even to all sentient beings.
Kyle is definitely right in his criticism. Someone can vote not guilty while believing the person is guilty. Because the legal standard of reasonable doubt may be much higher than individual's personal standard for accepting a conclusion. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you must have at bare minimum 95% confidence in guilt to vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And a jurir is only 70% certain about guilt. But that juror may be willing to believe the person is guilty based on that 70% certainty. But they know there's enough uncertainty that they can not in good conscience vote for guilt based on their own personal standard rather than the reasonable doubt standard. So they believe in guilt but can not vote for guilt
I could give an example for myself but the inverse. The man Steven Avery from making a murderer. I believe he is innocent. But I don't believe it beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe in exoneration trials defendants must prove their innocence. So although I believe he is innocent I could not vote for innocence needing to meet the reasonable doubt standard
Oooo-wee! Now that is one big dumb bass we got on the line. Yank it in!
I doubt that I am the first person to notice this but while listening to sye bloviate about brains in vats it occured to me this is actually in line with the worldview he promotes. Once you cut through all the religious and "spiritual " language what you are left with is eternal souls (consciousness) controlling avatars in a virtual reality that operates according to rules prescribed by the creator of that reality (god). That is what he is appealing to to claim that all capacity for reason and knowledge comes from the matrix god but fails to realize that he must still accept reality is real to function and that his worldview does not allow for him to know ultimate truth but actually pushes ultimate truth even further away into a universe he can not even know exists.
Your comments are well-considered. I will take aspirin now as my head hurts. Being a theist would reduce headaches as the brain has go on vacation
Did the guy talking about atoms know about Democritus?
The way Zack says < 'pinion> says everything there is to say about him.
@@Godslayer1975 You do not sound more clever btw lol
I was just trying to determine whether to call him a rube, hillbilly, or just simply uneducated.
Zach giving the atheists experience a bible study, love it!
I’m not sure there is a funnier 4-5 minutes of video on TH-cam than watching these two react to Christ at the end of this thing.
Clearly the last caller, "Christ" was a republican.
😂😂😂
Christian's love to use the phrase vicious and virtual when referring to circular logic, even though it doesn't apply. A logical argument is circular or it is not.
They let Zach ramble on, for way to long. I mean for fuck's sake, the guy was claiming that "made of things unseen" = atoms. They writers/writer of that line, could of meant one of many different supernatural things, believed in at that time. It didn't have to be "god". It could have been a spirit, soul or anything "invisible" or unseen. The fact that Zach goes directly to something we happen to know about today, is beyond ridiculous. Especially considering the lack of any other descriptors, aside from the what was given.
Zack doesn't understand that Matt doesn't decide what is valid and what isn't valid. Logic decides that.
Zack has done absolutely no research into the early Atomists. If you keep taking slices of slices...of slices of cheese, you keep getting smaller and smaller pieces of cheese. If you do the same for a cow, you don't keep getting smaller and smaller 'cows'. So the early Atomists believed that cheese was elemental, but cows were not. This early reasoning is a LONG way away from modern atomic theory. Rather than expecting Dillahunty to do the job for him, Zack should go enroll himself in a simple History and Philosophy of Science (HPSC) course at his local university.
Jacob: correlation between religiosity and suggestibility doesn't say anything whether gods and goddesses exist. Theists , particularly more left leaning theists, loose theists can easily accept that religious/suggestibility relationship. Even among charismatic circles, evengelical circles, conservative circles, literalists and fundementalist circles, correlation and religiosity is understood in the context of theisms outside of these circles. Studies that speak of this correlation between religiosity and suggestibility doesn't say anything really about god's and goddesses.
"I shouldn't do the show high anymore" lmao
"I shouldn't do the show high anymore"... I don't have a show, but you can replace the word "show" with so many things and it applies to me ugh.
"I picked the wrong day to give up heroin."
Lloyd Somebody, _Airplane_
"I picked the wrong day to give up cocaine"
Lloyd Bridges-Airplane
Late to the party here, but the first caller is right. In a court room you actually DON'T always vote guilty just because you believe the accused is guilty, you vote guilty only if you think the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" is met, and if you don't think that you should vote "not guilty". So your position can be: "I believe the defendant is guilty, but i don't believe it's proven beyond reasonable doubt, so I'm voting not guilty".
Every fart is another nail in god's coffin.
all i heard was a banjo that entire call
everything you see is made of 'atoms', Zack keeps saying you cant see 'atoms' , so I cant see anything? his argument works better with 'atom' singular
Zack... wow...
Ignorance is not a hurtful comment; it's to express one's lack of knowledge
"Sometimes a juror is convinced the defendant is guilty and still votes not guilty"
That's cause Guido is staying with his family until the trial is over!
The greeks also came with the concept of atoms. Though it was wrong, it was pretty close. Now i ask you, which god was more right?
Many ancient texts mention things tha can be interpret as so e sort of scientific revelation like Vedas.
All Veda says about Science.
Rig Veda:-
1 . There are many Suns.
2. Electromegnetic field,conversion of
mass and energy.
3. The gravitational effect of solar system
makes the earth stable.
4. The axle of the earth does not get
rusted,the earth continues to revolve on
it's axle.
5. The science of Time and it's suitable
nature is described in Rig Veda.
I think Matt being stoned actually made him more patient and less brutal w the callers lol.
Sye Ten is one of the most dishonest people I've ever seen speak words.
In my opinion, there's no possible way that he doesn't know he's lying.
Sometimes Matt cares more about always being right and winning any argument, rather than having a degree of patience, and teaching the theist listeners. Case in point, Zack. He really didn't deserve to be bullied that way. Matt could take some lessons from Tracy.
He was incredibly patient with him... He couldn’t defend a single point.
Kyle's analysis: Because God exists, the systems of thinking that show reasonable doubt that God exists proves that the systems are faulty, because God exists.
Look at that, circular. The real thesis is that God exists. His court analogy is to show why God exists. How can we know why God exists, if we don't even know he exists? Circular argumentation.
What you’re not understanding, Kyle is that even if you can’t convict because of some technicality, one can still be convinced they’re guilty.
Cells aren't visible either
True, however the knowledge of cells was something humans didn't discover until the microscope.
A more logical assumption is that they were talking about internal organs. (not visible from outside)
The ancient Greeks believed that everything was made up of fine particles, only because everything
they knew of could be broken down into tiny tiny bits. But they were unaware of atoms.
Doesn't do bible studies with non-believers, but will preach which is essentially bible studies without being asked.
This Zack dude is incredibly over-simplistic.. This is a common thing I see w creationists. Very simple minded.. tryin to talk about very complex concepts by oversimplifying the concept all while having zero expertise and just calling it common sense.. it’s so frustrating. Simpletons kill me
I interpret that Hebrews verse as midichlorians
Oh Kyle, please turn your brain on.
If you make a graph in which every piece of knowledge that you have is a node, and an edge between x and y represents that x proves y, you quickly realize that since you, as a human, have limited pieces of knowledge, in that graph, there exists at least 1 piece of knowledge that doesnt have a proof. Either that, or you force a proof and create a cycle, in which case you what we call "circular reasoning". So, by using graph theory i just proved the following statements: Omniscient beings know an infinite amounts of things, and they have an explanation for each of those pieces of knowledge. Non-omniscient being know a finite of things, and they have at least 1 piece of knowledge that is not proven. Sye argument is this "you have at least of piece of knowledge that is not proven, therefore God exists." Which translates to "you are not omniscient, therefore God exists" which can be countered with an argument just as stupid "You are not omniscient, therefore God doesnt exist, because you are unaware of the reasons for which God cant exist". This argument is also wrong, cause then we cant have an opinion on anything if we start from this. And there lies his stupid argument.
The problem with Sye is that if you would tell him my argument, he would say "How do you know thats true?". Basically, when Sye asks "how do you know your reasoning is valid?" he wants you to prove your reason is valid, without using your reason. This is a contradictory statement. The moment Sye uses the word "know" in the sentence "how do you know your reasoning is valid" , he admits that you are capable of knowing things and the question becomes pointless. If he would ask "Do do you know that your reason is valid?", you could just simply say "yes" and when he would ask "how" you would have the same problem again.
My last favorite way of contradicting Sye is making him admit that revelation from God is how he knows that his senses are right. Then tell him "Ok, a second ago, the aliens that created this universe, stopped time, and told me that this universe is just a computer simulation to see what kind of live can this universe support. They also told me that they wrote the entire bible thing just for fun, and nothing in that book is true". They told me this, and i know this because they revealed to me. And since my revelation is the full story of your world view, I am right. Prove me im wrong Sye. Now you turned the tables and you have access to all his tricks. In the end, he will be forced to admit that he cant prove you are wrong, and since revelation lead to 2 different stories about reality, it cant be a good way of finding out whats true.
Atoms were first proposed by Epicurus some 350 years before Hebrews was written anyways. But that verse is so flimsy if that's your attempt to point to science in the Bible lol
Actually I prefer to believe that mountains descend into the ocean and such forth
Coke and psycho drugs is a wonderful thing HAHAHA
Highly doubt Zack was an atheist. Seems to me he simply stated that to try and make himself appear more authoritative and knowledgeable than he actually is.
Christ needs his own podcast lol
But you can see atoms, your looking at your computer screen, which is made up of atoms
Zack: "But mah 'pinions say so!"
Why do stupid people call into this show ?
Hey Zack. Tides.
The ocean recedes. And you see the hills and valleys.
Or, I dunno, open your eyes under water? Ooh. Stingy. So probably no one did it ever.
"If it meant god it would say god" but other things are just about his inference? 🤔