"non-contingent constants" In other words: I'm making assumptions and limiting possibilities so that I can define god and make it all fit and voila god exists. Of course it does because you set it up to not fail. You defined it as such. You defined god into existence.
wow Emilio like many others I've seen on this show go so far into their own minds to generate circular irrational wordplay to describe excessively complicated mental gymnastics to explain how a god could exist within today's science.
@xipheonj because thats all religion is and why apolegetics exist, it serves to bolster an already existing belief, not actually find the truth. Just ask any crhstian and you'll see them make up logic to justify their belief. The only honest answer you will get is "I don't know, I was brought up with it/you have to have faith", without evidence there is no justification
Why are fundamentalist Christians so unable to articulate anything resembling an argument? They believe in spite of any argument to the contrary then expect people to be convinced by gibberish.
every baby born into a religious family is brought up with the "love" of "god" when really they are being transformed to little "End-of-da-world" hate mongers.
Why is it that if a man walked up to you randomly and said a voice in my head told me to sacrifice my only son. A person in their right mind would call the child service and the cops to get that child to safety and that man some mental help. For hundreds of years people have been Burned at the stake, drowned, stabbed, bombed, and stoned because of religion. Religion is a propaganda driven scheme that has gotten way out of hand.
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
For those who don't know the meaning of the word, it means to understand a thing completely. Its origins are from a Robert Heinlein book called Stranger In a Strange Land. READ IT. One of the best sci-fi books of all time and the social commentary is delicious.
@HybridD91 LOL. We do and we don't. QM is just a mathematical model that explains various experimental results. We don't know why it works, but that's true of any physical theory. Why, for example, do objects continue in uniform motion when no external impulse is applied to them? We accept that as a principle because it's what we observe.
@HybridD91 We can explain uniform motion in terms of other principles, but those other terms themselves have no underlying rationale. Mathematically, it can be derived from the principle that physical law does not change from place to place or from the principle that objects move along a path that minimizes the time integral of kinetic energy minus potential energy--but why should those things be so? Same thing applies to QM.
Americans are very religious like Ted Haggard he is really, really religious and a moral becon, that Gay prostitute said he was always screaming OH GOD and dropping to his knees.
What is with these callers? This first one LIES that he is an atheist and magically found an argument that might led him to religion.....this magic god proof he has, is one of the most common ones ever. What BS
@mortensjoegren its pronunced "dun freece" its origins are from an ancient town in Scotland called Dunfries or Dumfries it's from the Scottish Gaelic Dún Phris which means "Castle near the Thicket"
Guys at TAA. I LOVE this show. I always look forward to it. Whenever this comes up in my youtube list, I light up. It's not only entertaining, but also, I get to hear other angles of argument form both sides, atheistic and theistic.
go-o-o-o-d! That caller (at 24:15)....he's soooo confused. He's a kind of guy that's just been given some awesome new info, tries to squeeze it in his theistically limited mindset, or subject that he's trying to talk aobut, then ends up really confused, and his argument becomes a pile of shit.
This happens al the time with theists who over think.
@Domzdream "This happens al the time with theists who over think."
Theists don't have brains... therefore they can't think... I think they are robots, which is funny because they believe in free-will... christianity is a fuster-cluck IMO...
33:15 - 33:20 Me too Matt...me too. I have no idea what he's trying to say. Partly because I'm so confused at his point. I don't really know what it is. And I don't think he knows either
a: grats to all who are getting married. russel and matt are amazing, and i have only seen beth, but i assume russels wife-to-be is also awesome.
b: as a pretty hardcore feminist, and also a male, and self-proclaimed comedian, i love the title "godless bitches". with the pure chattleization (not a word i know) of women in most western religions, and many eastern, the title is befitting. like scott thompson i think said, "and god, that fat black lesbian in the sky", it goes well with freethought.
"Please start recording/uploading this show in HD, come on, it's 2011 ;)"
The shows are not broadcast in HD, but in a letter boxed, American 4:3 television format. They are recorded on DVD (720 x 480i), uploaded to Blip.tv as 640 x 480 with black bars, downloaded, cropped, and then enlarged about 1.5 times to get this 480p format - mainly for the better audio quality.
@TheAtheistExperience Anyway, who cares about HD? It's the audio that's important here, not the visuals. I mean, who want's to see Matt's face in HD? :P
@PureBullcrap PB, two things. 1: it is mostly just people talking, so do we really need to see the gleam of the dude's shiny head in higher glorious detail and 2: there are still those of us with pathetic slow connections here in the USA, let alone other countries so 240 is better. I often listen while doing things so I don't watch at all. I like to use as little bandwidth as possible--it is a resource. Peace
To emilio; how do you know the universe is not non-contingent ? If the universe is non-contingent or is self caused then the god hypothesis is redundant. We can scientifically prove that the universe could of caused itself and leaves no room for the god hypothesis. So all evidence points towards the universe being non-contingent and god being contingent upon the existence of a mind.
That would be a good point against something like the cosmological argument, in which a theist would argue that the existence of god is necessary to explain "the first cause", because then you could explain it with the universe. But for an ontological argument it's irrelevant. Even if God wasn't necessary to create the universe and therefore "redundant" it would still exist by virtue of being non-contradictory and it's non-contingency.
This is what religion preys on, and why tithing is a tax on ignorance. It is also why we need an atheist community to defend against the brainwashing of the unwary mind.
For the last caller , surely the only reason you would be an "atheist Christian" or an "atheist Muslim" etc. by continuing to practice but not "believe" is because you are either gaining something or scared of something aka being disowned and homeless.
if i hear the word contingent ONCE MORE today i'm going to throttle someone. Holy fuck that diot was so busy chasing his own tail he couldn't hear reason.
Christopher Hitchens is the best orator of our generation. I have never had the fortune to be in the same city he was speaking at and fear that I will never have that chance. I envy everyone who had the chance to see and listen to him speak in person. Hitchens spoke at the biggest law firm in Calgary (where I am from) in early 2000 and broke the smoking by-law in the building while giving his speech. I love that story and he is truly a lion of a man.
@lompeluiten No, because you just end up arguing specifics and eventually you can dismiss all specific god claims, that's why this guy wanted and why he choose the lamest and most nebulous definition of god.
no, the concept were a little bit to difficult to grasp for him (i could also barely follow). So an example can help him understand.
And what is bad about discussing specifics? Athiest Experience made a claim, they should be able, and have to if asked give an example. What was for them logical, as they know the examples, they were not as obvious for him.
If you define god as the greatest possible being and then compare it to other god concepts you by definition can say your god is obviously the only true one, it's a weasel move. The correct response to this is "Ok since the supernatural has never been demonstraited that means that the greatest possib;le being, as far as we can know, would be some hyperintelligent super organism- that is bound by the laws of physics and therefore is not by any streach a god or the prime mover."
That's indeed a logical response. But it won't do it for him. I think an good example of the statement: 'if you accept that claim, you have to accept all other god concept" is the thing he need. He barely knows what a "godconcept" is, how the hell can he understand what he's saying
@lompeluiten Perhaps i'm too much of a synic but I thought he did understand it, aside from being a poor speaker, and he was trying to ask a leading question as a debate tactic.
@Sykotix1 >.> no wine is blood to them which to think that wine is actually someones blood makes no sense at all. Also they tried to steal wine after finding out how great it is. >.>
Why did Matt grant that non-contingent things exist during that discussion? I think he mentioned briefly at one point that he didn't think they did, but he didn't push that point enough. If non-contingent things don't exist, the argument is invalid, he should of pointed this out, and if the caller couldn't present an example of something that was non-contingent, they should of moved on. Waste of time
@SpiffyHarry "if the caller couldn't present an example" that's unfair, is the problem. Doing that becomes an argument from ignorance. But it's perfectly acceptable to grant someone else's point for the sake of argument simply to see where it leads and then point out the problems later on when it's not possible to agree that the premise is problematic.
A simple example is granting that -a- god exists, but that the theist cannot establish -which one- with his arguments.
But he never said he was granting the point for the sake of argument, he didn't push that home at all, it's like he briefly mentioned it and forgot about it, the caller wasn't even asked to address that point, and it was the most fundamental one Matt made.
If the caller couldn't present an example, THEN they should of said they were granting the premise and moving on for the sake of argument, after establishing that, that's all I'm saying.
@SpiffyHarry It's a one-hour show and, let's face it, they weren't exactly talking to Einstein. I think you're asking a bit much.
But if it makes you feel better, I'm fairly certain anyone listening to that particular segment (I wanted to use the word fiasco, but...) will be so zoned out and eyes-glazed-over by then that any potential harm will be avoided. And even better, anyone trying to use that argument will look like a dumbass to -everyone-.
Yeah, I just feel that their time could of been optimized a little better... Although it's not entirely reasonable to expect the hosts to be organized and prepared for these kinds of things, considering they're a live show xP
One of the main criticism of the idea that everything is "contingent" is that it leads to an infinite regression of causes and it's not clear whether that's possible or an adequate explanation for why contingent beings exist. Not to mention, if all causes in a set are contingent then the whole set is contingent, so the cause of the set (since it's contingent) is non-contingent, otherwise it would be included in the set and therefore not a cause of the set.
The first argument, I'm not sure I get what he's trying to say... I don't actually think non-contingent things exist, all things are contingent on something to exist, if they weren't they wouldn't exist
If someone can give me an example of a non-contingent thing though, that'd be great
@filthyfun TAG is the Transcendental Argument for God, a mess of pseudological BS that is claimed as a proof that a god exists (and that that god is the god of the bible as well, as I recall.)
Caller Emilio sounds like one of that multitude of poor souls who believe first, then grasp at any argument that SOUNDS convincing -- even if he doesn't completely understand it -- just to reinforce that belief. I've seen this more times than I can count.
Matt alluded to something in another call that bears repeating here: If a god truly existed, he would provide, simple, logical and unambiguous arguments that ANYONE can understand, not this "non-contradictory" gibberish.
How do they know what they are talking about when they talk about God if they have no concept of God to start with? What is it? Intelliegent designer of the universe? I don't believe in that, all I know is that if my mum had an abortion I wouldn't be here. She didn't because she believes in God.
I'm not religious but the rest of my family, in laws, etc are all religious. There's also some 7 ordained ministers on my wife's side of the family. :p
@ThePhysicsOf To give you and others a chance to fully appreciate the true nature of his stupidity and form a rebuttal that is as well informed and intelligent as possible.
To Emillio, even if the concept of a god is probable, that still doesn't make it necessary.
Even if it was necessary, you still need to decide which god is the correct one to follow.
You have made at least two quantum leaps in your logic, and none of them are backed up by any kind of evidence - so your argument literally falls apart in the real world.
".. when the first half is the basis of Judaism!"
Sick burn, bro.
Vinzaf 1 day ago
"non-contingent constants" In other words: I'm making assumptions and limiting possibilities so that I can define god and make it all fit and voila god exists. Of course it does because you set it up to not fail. You defined it as such. You defined god into existence.
jamespiperca 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
wow Emilio like many others I've seen on this show go so far into their own minds to generate circular irrational wordplay to describe excessively complicated mental gymnastics to explain how a god could exist within today's science.
xipheonj 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
@xipheonj because thats all religion is and why apolegetics exist, it serves to bolster an already existing belief, not actually find the truth. Just ask any crhstian and you'll see them make up logic to justify their belief. The only honest answer you will get is "I don't know, I was brought up with it/you have to have faith", without evidence there is no justification
wohodude100 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
Why are fundamentalist Christians so unable to articulate anything resembling an argument? They believe in spite of any argument to the contrary then expect people to be convinced by gibberish.
LiamXaoh 1 month ago
every baby born into a religious family is brought up with the "love" of "god" when really they are being transformed to little "End-of-da-world" hate mongers.
RapLegendsRelapse 2 months ago
Why is it that if a man walked up to you randomly and said a voice in my head told me to sacrifice my only son. A person in their right mind would call the child service and the cops to get that child to safety and that man some mental help. For hundreds of years people have been Burned at the stake, drowned, stabbed, bombed, and stoned because of religion. Religion is a propaganda driven scheme that has gotten way out of hand.
RapLegendsRelapse 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
" youtube.com/watch?v=YZPmTH6sloo"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 2 months ago
Maybe that Emilio works in a McDonalds
CaptCamping 2 months ago
Matt just said Grok. I fucking love that.
For those who don't know the meaning of the word, it means to understand a thing completely. Its origins are from a Robert Heinlein book called Stranger In a Strange Land. READ IT. One of the best sci-fi books of all time and the social commentary is delicious.
jojomesozoic 2 months ago 3
@jojomesozoic Can I get an AMEN up in here?
TomVodkaCollins 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
is that the spaghetti monster between them?
klickkzam 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALLAH asking the atheist these questions in the QURAN in chapter 52 verse 35:
"Were they created of nothing,
or were they the creators [of themselves]? 35 "
=> for more type in google "TheDeenShow"
akeello 3 months ago
Emilio was sooooooooo boring.
urcritic 3 months ago
best public show ONLY IN AUSTIN! WHAT ABOUT THE FUKING WORLD MAN????
hobbohippy2 3 months ago 2
That 2nd caller is unbearable! Throughout his whole segment I kept thinking "get to the fucking point, say what you want already!"
kalash156 3 months ago
@kalash156 second caller has no idea of quantum mechanics.
phallictractor 3 months ago
@phallictractor Do physicists even have one lol?
HybridD91 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
@HybridD91 well no, haha. but they atleast have a grasp of its implications.
phallictractor 3 months ago
@HybridD91 LOL. We do and we don't. QM is just a mathematical model that explains various experimental results. We don't know why it works, but that's true of any physical theory. Why, for example, do objects continue in uniform motion when no external impulse is applied to them? We accept that as a principle because it's what we observe.
acr08807 3 months ago
@HybridD91 We can explain uniform motion in terms of other principles, but those other terms themselves have no underlying rationale. Mathematically, it can be derived from the principle that physical law does not change from place to place or from the principle that objects move along a path that minimizes the time integral of kinetic energy minus potential energy--but why should those things be so? Same thing applies to QM.
acr08807 3 months ago
@HybridD91 They have a complete understanding of it when they don't think about it. ;)
youtubian2500 3 months ago 2
great show as per always, really appreciate your efforts in sharing these videos, congrats matt, take care
jeremyshambles 3 months ago in playlist 4-3-11
Emilio's argument sounds a lot lik that of VenomfangX's....gibberish.
musashi06 3 months ago
@musashi06 I'll never forget VenomfangX's "from goo to zoo" argument against evolution. Not so much appeal to authority as appeal to Teletubbies.
crapatev 3 months ago
is the wedding going to be televised?
magicomiralles 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Americans are very religious like Ted Haggard he is really, really religious and a moral becon, that Gay prostitute said he was always screaming OH GOD and dropping to his knees.
VideoAudioDisco09 3 months ago
Comment removed
VideoAudioDisco09 3 months ago
Talk About a brainwashed kid deperate to dodge logic and reason.
Its like watching the Titanic Sink which the Capt say what Ice burg!
VideoAudioDisco09 3 months ago
Oh No a rat ate a hole in a plastic bucket in the shed, therefore there must be a god. Piss of caller one.
VideoAudioDisco09 3 months ago
What is with these callers? This first one LIES that he is an atheist and magically found an argument that might led him to religion.....this magic god proof he has, is one of the most common ones ever. What BS
Sperminator10000 3 months ago 9
"just feel the love" XD
stoicfan 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
To theists a thought experiment.
Imagine you're god, before you created time and space.
You're holding a rubber ball that you must now put aside so that you can start creating time and space.
Where do you put the rubber ball?
baldurus1 3 months ago
calls start at 15:00
jukejuk 4 months ago 2
If this guy says non-contingent one more time I'm gonna freak out
Argamocrypt 4 months ago 3
the guy at 20 min is rambling incoherently. it's like he hasnt even learned to speak yet
chaoszieg 4 months ago 2
"God Concept Guy" is a total moron!
KaxMisha 4 months ago
I lol'd hard at Rob in NY. :)
Kazzeroth 4 months ago
Wait, that guy is from a town called Dumfries?
mortensjoegren 4 months ago
@mortensjoegren its pronunced "dun freece" its origins are from an ancient town in Scotland called Dunfries or Dumfries it's from the Scottish Gaelic Dún Phris which means "Castle near the Thicket"
MsOneiroi77 3 months ago
Totally agree with the taxation argument, the USA needs to wake up and realise that they are subsidizing religion even if they don't agree with it.
anonymous1312 4 months ago
Emilio's way in over his head, poor guy.
powabiatch 4 months ago
Ugh, Amelio was obviously a fucking idiot...wish they hadn't wasted so much time on him.
omgitsrook 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Guys at TAA. I LOVE this show. I always look forward to it. Whenever this comes up in my youtube list, I light up. It's not only entertaining, but also, I get to hear other angles of argument form both sides, atheistic and theistic.
So thanks.
Domzdream 4 months ago
Comment removed
Domzdream 4 months ago
(facepalmSLAP!)
This is the point where Bill Hicks rolls his eyes into the back of his head and mumbles incoherently, when mocking christians.
Domzdream 4 months ago
Geez, he cant even say contingent. mat Slick also seem to have a problem with that at one point.
Con-gin-tin-gent.
Domzdream 4 months ago
go-o-o-o-d! That caller (at 24:15)....he's soooo confused. He's a kind of guy that's just been given some awesome new info, tries to squeeze it in his theistically limited mindset, or subject that he's trying to talk aobut, then ends up really confused, and his argument becomes a pile of shit.
This happens al the time with theists who over think.
Domzdream 4 months ago
@Domzdream "This happens al the time with theists who over think."
Theists don't have brains... therefore they can't think... I think they are robots, which is funny because they believe in free-will... christianity is a fuster-cluck IMO...
shadesters 3 months ago
@shadesters
Totally agreed.
Domzdream 3 months ago
33:15 - 33:20 Me too Matt...me too. I have no idea what he's trying to say. Partly because I'm so confused at his point. I don't really know what it is. And I don't think he knows either
LoungeFly02 4 months ago
So I guess they went off the air ^^
juuonse 4 months ago
Matt you got married today!! Congrats
newb4714 4 months ago
a: grats to all who are getting married. russel and matt are amazing, and i have only seen beth, but i assume russels wife-to-be is also awesome.
b: as a pretty hardcore feminist, and also a male, and self-proclaimed comedian, i love the title "godless bitches". with the pure chattleization (not a word i know) of women in most western religions, and many eastern, the title is befitting. like scott thompson i think said, "and god, that fat black lesbian in the sky", it goes well with freethought.
Neeboopsh 4 months ago
15 solid minutes of housekeeping at the beginning? No one cares about all that. Get to the callers!
montyollie 4 months ago
Dumb Fries, VA.
FreeThoughtCrime 4 months ago
Ben talks fast.
ItsMeDauntless 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
He really should have written down what he wanted to say.
JustAThrowAwayName 4 months ago
Is the professionally done video from the TFC out yet?
drunkrtard 4 months ago
Emilio is a tool and like all religious apologetics he is being dishonest to others and also to himself. people like Emilio do not deserve respect.
ZZzzzzzWhat 4 months ago
Emilio needs to put down the blunt
MegaFlipperboy 4 months ago
Please start recording/uploading this show in HD, come on, it's 2011 ;)
PureBullcrap 4 months ago
@PureBullcrap
"Please start recording/uploading this show in HD, come on, it's 2011 ;)"
The shows are not broadcast in HD, but in a letter boxed, American 4:3 television format. They are recorded on DVD (720 x 480i), uploaded to Blip.tv as 640 x 480 with black bars, downloaded, cropped, and then enlarged about 1.5 times to get this 480p format - mainly for the better audio quality.
TheAtheistExperience 4 months ago 40
@TheAtheistExperience Anyway, who cares about HD? It's the audio that's important here, not the visuals. I mean, who want's to see Matt's face in HD? :P
JuryDutySummons 4 months ago
@PureBullcrap PB, two things. 1: it is mostly just people talking, so do we really need to see the gleam of the dude's shiny head in higher glorious detail and 2: there are still those of us with pathetic slow connections here in the USA, let alone other countries so 240 is better. I often listen while doing things so I don't watch at all. I like to use as little bandwidth as possible--it is a resource. Peace
HowardFair 3 months ago
@HowardFair I'm the same. I like to listen to it at work.
zeldaofarel 3 months ago
Emilio is a confused boy.
thefknCASTLE 4 months ago
"Won't you listen to reason
Will you open your eyes
Its a wonder what you'll find with an open mind
You may be surprised, yeah"
there you go :D
watcheem 4 months ago
To emilio; how do you know the universe is not non-contingent ? If the universe is non-contingent or is self caused then the god hypothesis is redundant. We can scientifically prove that the universe could of caused itself and leaves no room for the god hypothesis. So all evidence points towards the universe being non-contingent and god being contingent upon the existence of a mind.
Pomaori 4 months ago
@Pomaori
That would be a good point against something like the cosmological argument, in which a theist would argue that the existence of god is necessary to explain "the first cause", because then you could explain it with the universe. But for an ontological argument it's irrelevant. Even if God wasn't necessary to create the universe and therefore "redundant" it would still exist by virtue of being non-contradictory and it's non-contingency.
MrKommienezuspadt 15 hours ago
I wrote that before they called him out on his stupidity, he has no idea what he's talking about
lukeism2 4 months ago
I wonder what god this kid is talking about....
lukeism2 4 months ago
This is what religion preys on, and why tithing is a tax on ignorance. It is also why we need an atheist community to defend against the brainwashing of the unwary mind.
JusticeIsWhere 4 months ago 2
Fuck it we're doing it live!
cristianfcao 4 months ago 54
@cristianfcao O'really?
HKOverlord117 4 months ago
Is Christopher Hitchens ok?
Does he have cancer?
What happened to the sound, at 26:15-26:59?
What is "T.A.G."?
SinnFein4ever 4 months ago
@SinnFein4ever The 'Transcendental Argument for God'.
GypsyLeah 4 months ago
@SinnFein4ever I'm not sure about your other questions, but "T.A.G." stands for "Transcendental Argument for God".
Ycekhold 4 months ago
@SinnFein4ever esophagus cancer...i don't know how well he's doing with it. not sure about tag...maybe urban dictionary it?
alex12123002 4 months ago
@alex12123002
Poor guy.
I hope that he beats it.
He's such a wonderful person.
He's so brilliant, that he never stuck me as the type to smoke.
SinnFein4ever 4 months ago 2
@SinnFein4ever Christopher Hitchens has esophagus cancer.
1tofallen 4 months ago
@1tofallen
The poor man.
I hope that he's ok.
If it kills him, it will be the worst loss to the modern Atheist movement, since Noam Chomsky died.
And more than that, I think that he is truly a very nice man.
The kind of man that a lot of people would feel lucky to have as a father.
SinnFein4ever 4 months ago
This caller must have just gotten through his mid-terms for Philosophy 101 and is probably the smartest person he knows.
AfraidtoFly 4 months ago
I love that, "Welcome to the best public access show in Austin."
Nice to see irony isn't lost on Matt :P
Atheistcat2004 4 months ago
I love this show.
O2BSoLucky 4 months ago
i just realyesed...matt is marided just now :D
sendvic12 4 months ago
@sendvic12
What's a "marided"?
Numinous123 4 months ago
@Numinous123 one in every comment... :/
sendvic12 4 months ago
@Numinous123 Obviously, he was just marid. So now he's been completely marided. ;)
(He got MARRIED a day or two ago.)
GoblinXXX 4 months ago
Comment removed
sendvic12 4 months ago
You guys and gals are amazing simply for not slamming your heads into the table over and over with some of these callers.
CosmicApe2 4 months ago
Hm.. the date from the show in the top right corner went from 10/16 for most of the episode to 9/25 near the end
xESOTERlC 4 months ago
@xESOTERlC
- "Hm.. the date from the show in the top right corner went from 10/16 for most of the episode to 9/25 near the end"
Nice catch! The date must be the image with the e-mail address. :)
TheAtheistExperience 4 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience Haha yeah I didn't think anything of it, just wanted to flaunt my observational talents xD thanks
xESOTERlC 4 months ago
@TheAtheistExperience Are you sure? Sounds like a miracle to me
petegriswold 3 months ago
For the last caller , surely the only reason you would be an "atheist Christian" or an "atheist Muslim" etc. by continuing to practice but not "believe" is because you are either gaining something or scared of something aka being disowned and homeless.
LogicalStatements1 4 months ago
if i hear the word contingent ONCE MORE today i'm going to throttle someone. Holy fuck that diot was so busy chasing his own tail he couldn't hear reason.
fomoran 4 months ago
I am Matt Dillihunty's favourite caller!!!!!
NovaAthenae 4 months ago
Christopher Hitchens is the best orator of our generation. I have never had the fortune to be in the same city he was speaking at and fear that I will never have that chance. I envy everyone who had the chance to see and listen to him speak in person. Hitchens spoke at the biggest law firm in Calgary (where I am from) in early 2000 and broke the smoking by-law in the building while giving his speech. I love that story and he is truly a lion of a man.
trocknickel 4 months ago
you had to give this guys an example
lompeluiten 4 months ago
@lompeluiten No, because you just end up arguing specifics and eventually you can dismiss all specific god claims, that's why this guy wanted and why he choose the lamest and most nebulous definition of god.
phookadude 4 months ago
@phookadude
no, the concept were a little bit to difficult to grasp for him (i could also barely follow). So an example can help him understand.
And what is bad about discussing specifics? Athiest Experience made a claim, they should be able, and have to if asked give an example. What was for them logical, as they know the examples, they were not as obvious for him.
lompeluiten 4 months ago
If you define god as the greatest possible being and then compare it to other god concepts you by definition can say your god is obviously the only true one, it's a weasel move. The correct response to this is "Ok since the supernatural has never been demonstraited that means that the greatest possib;le being, as far as we can know, would be some hyperintelligent super organism- that is bound by the laws of physics and therefore is not by any streach a god or the prime mover."
phookadude 4 months ago
@phookadude
That's indeed a logical response. But it won't do it for him. I think an good example of the statement: 'if you accept that claim, you have to accept all other god concept" is the thing he need. He barely knows what a "godconcept" is, how the hell can he understand what he's saying
lompeluiten 4 months ago
@lompeluiten Perhaps i'm too much of a synic but I thought he did understand it, aside from being a poor speaker, and he was trying to ask a leading question as a debate tactic.
phookadude 4 months ago
Summary of Emilio: "I believe that lack of evidence is proof for god..." dumb.
whanethewhip 4 months ago
I think I should start my own church, the church of wine where we beleive in wine religiously. I wonder if that would be popular?
MistressArte 4 months ago
@MistressArte
Isn't that called Catholicism?
Sykotix1 4 months ago
@Sykotix1 >.> no wine is blood to them which to think that wine is actually someones blood makes no sense at all. Also they tried to steal wine after finding out how great it is. >.>
MistressArte 4 months ago
does godlessbitches have a youtube account too?
MistressArte 4 months ago
wow, it's the Emilio Show! starring Matt Dillahunty and Jen Peeples. :)
TruthSurge 4 months ago
non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, non-contingent, OH GOD MY BRAIN IS FULL OF FUCK!
faithofjudas 4 months ago 3
"Something that is non-contingent doesn't have to be non-contingent." HANG UP ON HIM PLEASE.
JustAnotherHumanist 4 months ago
15:05 to skip to the first caller
BeatlesFanNumber9 4 months ago
You guys and gals put on a very entertaining and educational show regardless of technical difficulties!
chicarbiomed 4 months ago
Wow Dumfries...wow... I really wish people would at least write down what they want to say before they call and just talk in circles.
chicarbiomed 4 months ago
@chicarbiomed
...or think it over...
But then there would be less callers then ;-))
grozde 4 months ago
I'M OUT
AscendingParadigm 4 months ago
That Emilio call was just simply painful!!!
angeliccomplication 4 months ago
HAHAHA Dumfries, VA
lftm1 4 months ago
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA!!
"If we were still Christians, this would be God looking out for us."
Not often do i actually laugh out loud from something on the internet. Wow that was funny. :D
LordRyanRahl 4 months ago
"Fancy graphics"? oh matt..
mavs2147 4 months ago
The proof that I would except as proof for the existence of God? The discovery of a planet, moon or star in the shape of a tetrahedron. :)
mjh012363 4 months ago
oh shit i missed the end of the world!!!
bigjon1359 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience
I love this show. @39:50 This has got to be the best short description of christian faith i have heard in ages. LMAO Thanks Matt you made my night.
bigjon1359 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TheAtheistExperience 2
emilio= fail
3dcow 4 months ago 20
Emilio: Victim of semantical gymnastics.
Keovar 4 months ago
I never get tired of you.
viicISrotcib 4 months ago
I didn't understand a single thing Emilio said.
superwowie111 4 months ago
@superwowie111 Don't feel too bad, neither did he.
EdwardHowton 4 months ago
Has anybody ever noticed that the folks in the churches (southern Baptist) are the same folks at the rasslin' matches??? just a thought
hunkallgood73 4 months ago
No fancy graphics or intro music!
That's it. I'm a theist now.
BohemianBlasphemy 4 months ago 91
@BohemianBlasphemy Won't you listen to reason? Won't you open your mind?
EliteDoomer 4 months ago
Why did Matt grant that non-contingent things exist during that discussion? I think he mentioned briefly at one point that he didn't think they did, but he didn't push that point enough. If non-contingent things don't exist, the argument is invalid, he should of pointed this out, and if the caller couldn't present an example of something that was non-contingent, they should of moved on. Waste of time
SpiffyHarry 4 months ago
@SpiffyHarry "if the caller couldn't present an example" that's unfair, is the problem. Doing that becomes an argument from ignorance. But it's perfectly acceptable to grant someone else's point for the sake of argument simply to see where it leads and then point out the problems later on when it's not possible to agree that the premise is problematic.
A simple example is granting that -a- god exists, but that the theist cannot establish -which one- with his arguments.
EdwardHowton 4 months ago
@EdwardHowton
But he never said he was granting the point for the sake of argument, he didn't push that home at all, it's like he briefly mentioned it and forgot about it, the caller wasn't even asked to address that point, and it was the most fundamental one Matt made.
If the caller couldn't present an example, THEN they should of said they were granting the premise and moving on for the sake of argument, after establishing that, that's all I'm saying.
SpiffyHarry 4 months ago
@SpiffyHarry It's a one-hour show and, let's face it, they weren't exactly talking to Einstein. I think you're asking a bit much.
But if it makes you feel better, I'm fairly certain anyone listening to that particular segment (I wanted to use the word fiasco, but...) will be so zoned out and eyes-glazed-over by then that any potential harm will be avoided. And even better, anyone trying to use that argument will look like a dumbass to -everyone-.
EdwardHowton 4 months ago
@EdwardHowton
Yeah, I just feel that their time could of been optimized a little better... Although it's not entirely reasonable to expect the hosts to be organized and prepared for these kinds of things, considering they're a live show xP
SpiffyHarry 4 months ago
@SpiffyHarry
One of the main criticism of the idea that everything is "contingent" is that it leads to an infinite regression of causes and it's not clear whether that's possible or an adequate explanation for why contingent beings exist. Not to mention, if all causes in a set are contingent then the whole set is contingent, so the cause of the set (since it's contingent) is non-contingent, otherwise it would be included in the set and therefore not a cause of the set.
MrKommienezuspadt 14 hours ago
The first argument, I'm not sure I get what he's trying to say... I don't actually think non-contingent things exist, all things are contingent on something to exist, if they weren't they wouldn't exist
If someone can give me an example of a non-contingent thing though, that'd be great
SpiffyHarry 4 months ago
Dam we could've had a whole extra hour of discussion that time
TekLok 4 months ago
THIS IS SO BORING, ON TO THE NEXT EPISODE
mushroomartist 4 months ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought France was the first secular nation.
spikevalentine13 4 months ago
Hank is from New Bern, NC.
saxmanchiro 4 months ago
What is Tag?
filthyfun 4 months ago
@filthyfun TAG is the Transcendental Argument for God, a mess of pseudological BS that is claimed as a proof that a god exists (and that that god is the god of the bible as well, as I recall.)
pacogoatboy 4 months ago
@pacogoatboy thanks!
filthyfun 4 months ago
I happen to know that in Sweden there have been some trouble between the government and establishing boundaries for the muslim extremists.
spikevalentine13 4 months ago
Caller Emilio sounds like one of that multitude of poor souls who believe first, then grasp at any argument that SOUNDS convincing -- even if he doesn't completely understand it -- just to reinforce that belief. I've seen this more times than I can count.
Matt alluded to something in another call that bears repeating here: If a god truly existed, he would provide, simple, logical and unambiguous arguments that ANYONE can understand, not this "non-contradictory" gibberish.
xxxxPaladinxxxx 4 months ago
Emilio, the vaguest, most uneducated "theist" ever.
LordSlag 4 months ago
That must have been the single most confused opening since the dawn of broadcast.
namnack 4 months ago
0:22, that was totally a Fluttershy cheer... Is Matt a brony?! :P
SpiffyHarry 4 months ago
Maybe Harold is just predicting his death
hopokuk 4 months ago
How do they know what they are talking about when they talk about God if they have no concept of God to start with? What is it? Intelliegent designer of the universe? I don't believe in that, all I know is that if my mum had an abortion I wouldn't be here. She didn't because she believes in God.
hopokuk 4 months ago
great first question answer. Religion is ruining our country
rextrek 4 months ago
skiwzgar... from ecceland. lol.
hollaboutit 4 months ago
EMILIO!! ... sigh .... mumble mumble exclu ehr sive .. ehr ... whoami again ....
Moron ... truly a moron. Waste of time as well ... but it seemed an honest one :o
PlanetJeroen 4 months ago
What channel on cable does this air????
INMATE2468 4 months ago
I'm not religious but the rest of my family, in laws, etc are all religious. There's also some 7 ordained ministers on my wife's side of the family. :p
99minerkc 4 months ago
using the term non-contingency proves that you know shit
chrisbuxton1958 4 months ago
MY GOD WHY DIDNT THEY JUST HANG UP ON THIS IDIOT
ThePhysicsOf 4 months ago 29
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePhysicsOf Because they are better than that?
pythor2 4 months ago
@ThePhysicsOf lol... should have put time stamp, now I have to wait to find out what you mean! Ah, the suspense!
chicarbiomed 4 months ago
@ThePhysicsOf To give you and others a chance to fully appreciate the true nature of his stupidity and form a rebuttal that is as well informed and intelligent as possible.
EmmittBrownBTTF1 4 months ago
Is there an episode 728 or 729?
IVIaggotx 4 months ago
omfg emilio almost put me to sleep repeating "non-contingent" so many times.
Pirwzwhomper 4 months ago
I don't ever want to hear the word non-contingent again.
Wes561 4 months ago 2
Thumbs up if the last caller Ben from Boston, sounds like Peter Joseph!
jerahmia 4 months ago
Can someone post up the correct time for a good argument in this video. too lazy to do it
PimpingRice 4 months ago
To Emillio, even if the concept of a god is probable, that still doesn't make it necessary.
Even if it was necessary, you still need to decide which god is the correct one to follow.
You have made at least two quantum leaps in your logic, and none of them are backed up by any kind of evidence - so your argument literally falls apart in the real world.
CHRISR0BERTS 4 months ago