Tracie Harris On What Does That Mean | The Atheist Experience 572
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- The Atheist Experience 572 for September 28, 2008 with Matt Dillahunty and Tracie Harris.
Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use your computer to save on long-distance charges: tiny.cc/callthe...
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
► Become a TH-cam member: / @theatheistexperience
► Join our discord:
tinyurl.com/Th...
► Chat room rules:
atheist-experie...
► The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting
atheist-experie...
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in 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)
► More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
www.atheist-exp...
► DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
www.atheist-com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 1997 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
This is what rational, intelligent conversation sounds like.
Most Christians will tell you that if you seek Jesus he will reveal himself to you. This is code for you can create a delusion and it will seem real, therefore Jesus exists.
Also it means that they're implicitly calling everyone a liar who has sought god and failed to find it.
If you make-believe (aka faith) an invisible friend, that friend becomes real
@@canwelook Making invisible friends is bad enough, but Theists also love creating invisible enemies. Total insanity.
Just believe in it, and you will believe in it! :D
Seek that invisible blue unicorn until you see it...😂
14:25 A good way to demonstrate how bonkers that concept is is to pull up something on your phone in a language that neither of you can read and tell them, "I have no idea what this is and couldnt even begin to guess what it means....BUT I BELIEVE IT!"
Yes, and they will believe it if they get their 'Afterlife Insurance ' for doing so. It is all rooted in fear and self.
If I bought an insurance policy that had no explanation of the policy except that it was magic and from outer space, I'd be a fucking fool.
Naw. God is the existence of Love. Everyone believes Love exists. This concept is simple and at the same time the most important reality in the world.
And to degrade it, obviously comes with Consequences.
Unfortunately...The issue Athiests have is they're devoted to frustration rather than the information.
@@damianedwards2327
Love isn't even all that important.
@@damianedwards2327 : Naw. Which god would that be? Cannot anyone believing in a god make a similar claim about their particular god?
Love is an emotion. Do different emotions all have their different gods?
What is the god of sorrow, the god of happiness, the god of anger, the god of whatever emotion you want to consider?
Damien Edwards, your definition is just plain nonsense.
@@Diviance Interesting. So the Love you have for your family isn't all that important?
Whoa
The atheists aren’t the ones with “issues” Skippy.
Yep. Theists consider the basic questions about magical entities to be taboo.
They fear that Satan may be putting doubt in there mind. lol
@@neutrinoexpert825 Why did the *scientific world* miss this _incontrovertible evidence_ for God?
Next you'll be telling us there is enough evidence for God to prove his existence in a court of law. LOL
I miss her
When you encounter a simple question with a simple answer that destroys your world view, pretend that it is a really deep question, and put up a wall of obscurity to hide behind.
Tried and tested by Jordan Peterson himself
You could be gored by a unicorn if you do not believe in him. It says so in the horse bible.
Dan Barker had a discussion, erroneously billed as a debate, with a dean from Houston Baptist University about the question "Does God exist.?" The dean refused to say what he meant by "God" until after the halfway point in the discussion. Presumably, one of his colleagues pointed out that even the Baptist students comprising the bulk of the audience were grumbling. He ended up by saying his God is an entity existing outside time and space which never interacted with the real world. I don't know whether that admission that he was not a Christian, much less a Baptist, caused any trouble with the rest of the faculty.
It would be interesting to watch. If you can find it again, please link it here.
@@magnuseriksson5547 I don't know that anyone made a video of the event. I didn't.
If the definition of god and the definition of "nothing" can be interchangeable, you really have to wonder about the reality of a god.
When you play the guessing game of identify my word, it is hard to narrow the meaning of the word idea and god using yes and no questions.
I am very upset that Matt didn't say that we're measuring invisible pixies with invisible pixie sticks.
It's a bit like Douglas Adams' 'Find the ultimate question.' As in 'what exactly are you asking about'?'
It comes down to subjective versus objective data. Subjective data can allow one to espouse belief in ghosts, gods, fairies, alien abductions and anything else the mind can imagine and then have an emotional and/or illusory or possibly even real experience with. Objective data means showing others that same data and for them to be able to see that data and reach the same conclusion. If you cannot share that data except as an explanation of your experience it is not objective data. The person who first espoused that concept of continental drift was not accepted as forwarding a demonstrable theory because he did not have sufficient objective data to support his claim. Once the data was obtained years later it proved he was right but you need the data and many people think that their subjective data is the same as objective data due to their lack of understanding what constitutes actual proof.
An excellent form which adds greatly to the call in format.
Theist: So, what you're saying is that pens don't exist?
Its so interesting to see how different this used to be.
I enjoy a lot of the more recent responses given to the zealous, rabid, religious people who phone in.
Swear at them and hanging up while telling them they're an idiot but I've found it difficult as well.
I don't like attacking people and prefer a more measured and gentle approach while still showing how wrong they are about what they believe, particularly when misquoting and not understanding what the Bible says.
I realise I'm being hypocritical in enjoying the modern "Dillahunty" approach and saying I prefer this older method but just wanted to add my thoughts.
I agree with you. It’s very easy to give into your frustrations when arguing, but that’s nearly always counterproductive.
But it is somewhat cathartic to see Matt get fired up!
Fascinating discussion revealing what I have always believed about theists: they are unwilling to have an honest discussion suggesting, to me at least, that their beliefs are fragile.
If you don’t know what “it” is, how would you even know about its “awesome glory”?
Remember believers live in the magic world of FAITH!
@@neutrinoexpert825 Theism is a claim. At its weakest level, atheism is merely the rejection of that claim. Atheism isn't a belief. Why is this so difficult to understand?
@@neutrinoexpert825 this is very easy to clear up, we humans have made up over 10,000
GODS, the Hindus have got millions on the go. and I bet you don't believe in any of them! EXCEPT, FOR THE ONE YOU BELIEVE IN!
So you are an "atheist" towards all the others, but you just need to get over the last one!
Atheism IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM ITS A LACK OF BELIEF!
@@neutrinoexpert825 It's obvious you've never read the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy concerning atheism. Give that a shot and educate yourself. It's not as simple as you seem to be.
@@neutrinoexpert825 Atheism is not subject to belief.
@@enkidufive3349
Matt should bring back that hat. Makes me giggle.
There's only one true gawd...the Flying Spaghett Monstah!!
This sound like how the prosperity preachers talk.
Tack!
Didn’t the Bee gees ask how deep is your mug?
Awesome
Explaining God is not like Explaining a butterfly.
Butterflies are conventional, God can be conventional or existential. Hence the confusion because people are hung up, are unable to clarify those two concepts.
So explain god…..
God exist. Is he real? No.
So, igtheism. A term that everyone should be more familiar with.
I‘d say to the god believers of all sorts of religions and beliefs: you please first sort out what is the ONLY true god and understanding. We don’t need to discuss or debate this any further if they cannot agree.
Matt on a safari?
To pick up on a point albeit morbidly grotesque & not in any way whatsoever to condone such actions , but the women who kills her kids because she believes they will go to heaven , will have to be shown that they haven’t gone to heaven - ergo , prove to her irrefutably that heaven doesn't exist ; until you do, she is, in her perception, no more aberrant in that belief than you are incisive in your disbelief. And also if you are receptive of a description of a unicorn, the by the same measure you can accept a(ny) description of God. Tho', as far as I (rightly ) know, unicorns ( nor Thor , or Superman , or fairies , or Osiris , Zeus , etc etc ad nauseum ) haven't inspired billions of contemporaneous believers thru thousands of years, to this day.
Love the outfit. When you what Monty Python ,we know its true cause the same blind worship works today.
The problem with describing "love" like that is that it ignores the aspects that must be universal. To love someone you have to at the bare minimum want what's best for them. Whether or not you're very good at determining what's good for them is a separate matter.
Likewise with any notion of a god. At the bare minimum, it must be some kind of being. If you take the personification away, you don't have a god. Trying to say "everything" is god is like trying to say the setting of a story is a character. At that point whoever's speaking simply doesn't have a good enough grasp on language.
I've no idea if God exits but I can imagine Him She or It pissing themselsves laughing about watching us us all trying to make sense of this "Cosmic Game Show"!
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened." ....... Douglas Adams
That said, I prefer using my head for thought rather than employing it as a hat rack.
@@dimbulb23: There are plenty of theories, either scientific, relgious or "conspiratorial". Even the Quantum physicists aren't convinced they all agree about how to interpret the "double slit" experiment. Never mind the scientists don't really know how many have made the jump as if it proves everything and sell their their self help books on the basis of such ignorance?
If the scientists don't have proof why should any old hack lob it into a book claiming they know it is proven when it isn't?
Aliens arrived... Game over
Possibly but maybe not. These jackass theists would construct a new paradigm to fit their narrative. Such as, "this alien creature is the second coming of kreist".
Asking for rational thought by the society of I know what I know is true, is not logical.
I believe in '' god ''...I just hope it's not the wrong one, like one of those hindu gods.
God, Brahman, Lit the Vastness, a No-Thing (no individuated manifest thing, and potential thing, with definite characteristics) that is the sum of consciousness and the impersonal universe in total. Not an entity per se, or maybe not definable as entity or object.
Guys dont be mad about this. Its just a show, like a a-astrology show would be.
Unfortunately it's a show that convinces people to not only legislate their beliefs onto other people, it's a show that convinces people to believe things without evidence which can lead those people to believe other crap without evidence. That's why we get mad.
@@david2869 If this is the case Im not convinced. And this show teached me how not to be blindly conviced. So it cant be what ur stating here.
@@jasi5534 David is projecting, he's saying this show does the things that theists do, like wanting to legislate their religious beliefs and making claims without evidence. Just ignore him, if he's resorting to projecting, then he has no valuable discussion points.
@@MG-ot2yr Sorry about the misunderstanding. I thought when Ja Si said "show" he was referring to religion being a show, just like astrology. When in actuality he meant TAE is a show, and not to get mad over it (with the extra "a" being a typo). Being an atheist, I don't get mad over TAE.
@@jasi5534 It isn't what I'm stating, please read my reply to M G.
Your distinction between conceptuality and physical phenomena is wrong. Measuring a mug does not show that it is a mug. A mug is a concept. The idea of objective reality as opposed to conceptual reality needs to be proved. It seems to me, and scholars of perception, that conceptuality and perception are entangled? Proving objective reality independent of a subject (presumably human) is impossible and therefore is an unreasonable assertion. I am not an apologist for Christianity, it is just there are assumed metaphysics underlying your refutation which are no better than the theism you are refuting.
You're mistaking the map with the place. It's literally one of the well-known logical fallacies, look it up.
There are 2 appointments that we all have. We cannot cancel or reschedule these appointments. The first appointment is death! The second appointment is judgement day!
Got proof for that claim about that second appointment?
@@FourDeuce01 Of course not, don't be Judgemental! ;)
@@TasarranGood one!
Hey guys can any of you tell me more about your religion of atheism ??
Also why do atheists have such a hatred for science ? This has always baffled me
Atheism is not a religion:
Atheism is not a group that someone signs up for.
They have no places to gather.
Atheists usually disagree with one more god than most theists.
There are no appointed/voted leaders.
There are no rules or laws for atheists to follow.
There are no special days to be an atheist.
Not all atheists have the same ideas.
Atheism is not a cult, there are no rules to join or exit.
Atheism is a loose random bunch of people that simply have varying lacks of belief in a god(s).
Atheism has no membership fees
Atheism doesn't even require anyone to be a member.
Atheism has no 'holidays' based on atheistic ideas.
Atheists don't cast you out for questioning anything.
Atheists don't go door to door trying to help you 'find' no god.
Troll trolling
OP isn’t even trying to hide his trolling, most good ones are subtle. He blew his load in one comment.
@@ajclements4627 Then he was a bad troll.
For the hatred of science you should ask the masters of it, religious people
God exists, all right. In the minds of lots of Humans God is quite real. The fact that he/she/it has so far had no measurable effect on anything in the real world doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Last time I was this early, people started a religion about a girl who cheated on her husband, got pregnant, and lied about still being a virgin.
And that was the only time someone bought that excuse.
@UCcxKej8V1rrvzIOBqNPnzqA Okay.... last time I was this early, there was no way to tell.
Naw. God is the existence of Love. Everyone believes Love exists. This concept is simple and at the same time the most important reality in the world.
And to degrade it, obviously comes with Consequences.
Unfortunately...The issue Athiests have is they're devoted to frustration rather than the information.
@@damianedwards2327 That was a lot of words to say nothing.
@@damianedwards2327
Oh look a definition changed
Ok my turn
God is nothing
Therefore that is what it is
It’s VERY simple
@ 6:53 'One persons Love is another person's monstrosity ' That's a Tee shirt I would buy.
I throw a lb of butter across the room...see there's a butterfly
Hahahahahahaha
It should be called a flutter-by.
Another important aspect of the "butterflies exist" analogy is the fact that after one person has described the butterfly to you, you can then turn and ask another person to describe a butterfly, and get the exact same answer. No two people on Earth are in agreeance about any gods.
I describe a butterfly as having a wingspan of 15 feet long and shooting lasers from it's eyes and being telekinetic
@@louisbarrow4671 I can show you my butterfly. Where's yours?
@@studlord9970
My butterfly is in my garage
@@louisbarrow4671 you’re wasting that butterfly’s talent, keeping him cooped up in your garage.
@@gabrieljaxon7164
I can't release him because I have to protect the karma of the world
Oooh, blast from the past.
Great stuff, but one more logical inconsistency that bugs me. Within their own mythology, people do have moral reasoning on par with their god because "we" waste from the tree of knowledge of good & evil.
Seems to me the only reason their mythological creator would be angered by this, is because we could see its immoral hypocrisy & understand it would then not be worthy of worship.
Cant define the non-existent man-made sky dictator who exists beyond space and time and convenietly outside our understanding. Amazing.
This is great stuff, haven't seen this before. Thanks so much for sharing!
They can’t think for themselves.
It's true, he's not dodging her question. Dodging implies you're at least in the rough vicinity of, and are aware of the question. This clearly doesn't apply.
This is very random and not at all important, but butterflies have 6 legs.
I would say it is very important. God is a concept. God does not have an external referent so we do not have any way to identify God. So God becomes whatever people want God to become. It is the reason Atheists do not believe in God because the descriptions are so nebulous that we can't even have a conversation.
And termites are evolved cockroaches
And cakes have layers.😂
I believe in BOOBERCH. I dont know exactly what Booberch is, or what it/he/she/they does, but someone told me that there is a reward of eternal paradise if I do believe, so count me in!
Oi sometimes I feel like talking to a faith-head of performative zealotry is like playing a word game that they are committed to well over the aims of any debate, discussion or examination, so.... talking with them is talking to a wall.
At least I can touch the grounding of common reality with a radical personalist (usually still a rational personalist).
I'm not opposed to the existence of a god. I'm not opposed to the existence of several gods. Smelling 💩 and stepping in 💩 are wildly different experiences, that's all.
Butterflies are crustaceans!
How to define God? How to define existence? And if he exist, where is he? Not as easy as it looks. If we define God as a creator of universe, we could assume that he is objectively real and the main reason why we cannot detect him is because he is far away from us, outside of the universe. Another idea is that God is everywhere, omnipresent but invisible, inaudable and undetectable in any other way than a subjective personal experience. And finally, eastern philosophy view God as some center of
human consciousness that could be found through meditation.
So, that is all to say for this topic. "Does God exist?" and "Should we believe in him?" are totally different questions.
You cannot define something into existence. The existence has to come first, THEN the definition.
@@greyeyed123 Define into existence? The existence has to come first? And you assume that i cannot do it, even if i am allready doing it? That is a strange way of thinking, i dont understand it.
@@eklektikTubb This is what Hitchens means when he said he does not recognize the grammar of your question. You define real things by the observed properties of the thing, so that other people can see what you are pointing to in your definition, which confirms the existence of the thing in verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable, and predictive ways. Simply declaring X must be this and that because you cannot imagine how it could be otherwise...is not conveying any useful, objective, verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable, or predictive information. This is why you cannot define your god into existence any more than I can define werewolf gnomes that ride vampire bunnies into existence. I can go on and on about the social structures of the werewolf gnomes, and the mating habits of the vampire bunnies. But defining them does not force them into existence. Do you understand now?
@@greyeyed123 That is a strawman fallacy, because i never said that defining things force them into existence. My comment was not about existence, because that is not the topic of this video.
@@eklektikTubb Yes you did. "If we define God as a creator of universe, we could assume that..."
Why do things have to manifest? That sucks.
Things have to manifest to be considered existing. Things don’t have to manifest if they don’t want others to believe in them.
@@chemquests
That's not fair.
What's the difference between something that doesn't manifest and something that doesn't exist? None, that's why they need to manifest.
@@legionleschyzophrene4929
There is a difference. One exists and the other doesn't
@@louisbarrow4671 Neither manifest, so neither can be confirmed to exist or not. So for all intents and purposes, they are indistinguishable.