Downfall Of Morality?

[bluefootedpig]

arguments on morality based on proven facts... like? or am i to have faith that he is not lying as well?

[squareatheist]

Does anyone know the song playing at the introduction of this video?

[dondude69]

What is the going price for a 'soul'? Low mileage, no warped religious indoctrination (had that sh*t removed!). Send serious offers to me for consideration. Meanwhile it's off for some moral-free sinning!!! :D

[ChristlicherKrieger3]

1:25!

MASTURBATION!

w00t for masturbation!

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

You seem to have a sort of 18th century-like faith in science, as though science actually gave us reality as it is instead of realising that it's a construction, once again, espacially contemporary physics. Realism in science is completely dogmatic. As Alquié puts it, man tends to wonder at the order that he himself puts into the universe.

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

It's a modern faith in science. Science doesn't offer reality, but an understanding of it. Failing on this basic understanding destroys your position. Realism is very dogmatic. This dogmatic need for verifiable evidence, for instance, has laid waste to supernatural theories. Have you discovered any faults of its dogma that can be improved? Of course not, as all other issues I pointed, you fail to address any of them. I couldn't agree with Alquie's statement more.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

Perhaps you don't agree with it because you don't understand it. Alquié's statement is that supported by all philosophers of science, from Comte to Kuhn, to Duhem, to Bachelard, etc. etc. etc. though an exception would be Meyerson.

I don't have any problem with what we call nowadays "science", I think it's very important and has improved the world in many ways, I'm just inviting you to reflect it's value apart from "dominating" nature.

And you are, obviously, a realist.

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

Please re-read my statement. When you cannot agree with something more, it means you support what they are stating. I am definitely a realist. You may state you don't have a problem with science, but I disagree. I see it that you are agitated that science will not tolerate the requirement of evidence to support claims.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

Ps. You're mentionning "theories", which is problematic. Because theories rest on metaphysics, which is exactly why Duhem writes La Théorie Physique. Comte didn't want this, and for him, science must only look for "laws" between "phenomena", and not try to invent theories on how things actualy are precisely because "science" cannot describe the world as it actually is. This was at the end of the 19th century, you're late.

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

I'm trying to get you to the modern day, but some are more difficult to lead than others. You may, however, need to catch-up with us on your own time. It seems we have progressed you by a century in a day, so that's not too shabby. Pretty soon you may even have your thoughts in reality.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

I'm afraid I'm going to put an end to the conversation, you're starting to get angry and one needs to be calm when reflecting. I would have likes to, as Kant puts it, awaken you from your dogmatic slumbers, but I haven't.

I encourage you to read a little philosophy of science. Scientists are known for often being way behind in that domain and to paradoxicaly not really know the value of what they themseves are doing.

It was an entertaining discussion.

"Bonne continuation"

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

Ps. : You seem to contradict yourself : "you may have trouble with absolute certainty and that is something you need to learn to accept", and then you say "Necessities are well-established in each study". .

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

I see no contradiction. Are you under the impression that you need absolute certainty to establish logical necessities?

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

i'm not under the impression, that's the way it is. If A=B and B=C then A=C. If an apple falls on Newton, Newton has been hit by an apple. One entails the other. However, if there is no necessity between heat and expansion. It's a strange repitition. I'm not going into this again. Read Hume and/or Chesterton, or any other modern philosopher who talks about induction (Russel does so as well), I'm not repeating myself again. You're just defendig a paradigm.

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

As previously stated, you may have a problem with the inability to possess absolute certainty. I'm just confused how you can see necessity in the relation between gravity and a falling object, but not heat and the expansion of metal. I will continue defending evidence-supported paradigms. Can you give a reason why they should not be supported?

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

You would have reason to be confused if I had said that, yes. There is no necessity in the relation between gravity and a falling object, because the contrary can always be imagined without contradiction. There is however necessity in Newton's touching an apple if I accept that an apple has fallen on him, because il follows in a logical way from what I have accepted, and to say the contrary would be to contradict myself.

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

And this is the problem you will continue experiencing. The problem is that I can conduct a study and obtain a result. Your statement that you can think of the contrary occurring and therefore your thought merits as much reliability as the experiment is ludicrous. I can state that babies birth adults all day, but it shouldn't be taken serious without evidence. The requirement of evidence destroys your position.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

I'm astounded at how little understanding you possess. I never said that because I can imagine the contrary, the contrary is true. Only, the fact that you can imagine the contrary without contradiction shows that the contrary is not illogical. And therefore that reality is not "logical" = concieved as necessary = understood in the strong sense.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

One can always imagine the contrary : a world in which heat makes metal shrink isn't contradictory. It is as logical as our world. Science cannot explain why this happens, it just happens to be the case. Because, once again, it is not deductive, it is inductive. Though many scientists and philosophers have wanted it to be deductive (Descartes especially), though failed to make it so.

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

We can imagine all sorts of scenarios, but must follow the evidence. You keep stating that science "cannot explain" why things occur when the understanding of exactly why an event occurs is thoroughly understood. Heat causing the expansion of metal is an excellent example of inductive reasoning based on observations. You seem to be under the impression that this weakens the argument or that correlation or cause cannot be established.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

To "explain" would mean to show that the effect is contained in the cause and could be therefore deduced by the cause.

Yes, it definitely does weaken the argument. Because it doesn't explain much, though obviously science is very important.

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

Are you under the impression that an effect resides in a cause? It is the potential of the heat to expand metal. It can also have numerous other potentials depending upon how the heat is applied. The effect, however, is separate from the cause and does not become the cause when it is applied. While we know that it explains the nature and uses, you choose to define this as "not much" and I disagree wholeheartedly.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

"Are you under the impression that an effect resides in a cause? It is the potential of the heat to expand metal... While we know that it explains the nature and uses" —> Right, you're obviously not getting the point, I'll try another way.

Explain to me why heat expands metal. You will only be able to resort to "that's the way it is", though at a higher level of complexity, you may evoke the movement of atoms, etc. But you will never be able to go beyond "that's the way it is".

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

Now we are getting to your problem. Where is your evidence that there is anything beyond "that's the way it is." This is when you have to commit a First Cause argument and you need to rectify its fallacies, which we both know you cannot perform. Science is discovering how things work in reality. All you are left with is your wishful thinking and it has no merit. Please don't avoid this question like the previous because I'm not going to continue going in circles with you.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

"The way things actually work" is a metaphysical statement. It is therefore not what contemporary science claims to acceed to. You obviously haven't read much.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

Btw, atoms are a tool used to explain phenomena. Nothing "proves" there existence. "In chemistry we have to decide whether the assumption of atoms is a hypothesis adapted to theexplanation of chemical phenomena" writes Kekule. Saying "atoms are" is just being dogmatic. It's being a realist. Perhaps they are. But perhaps not, they are a mere hypothesis which fits the facts for the moment. They are "conventient".

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

If you would spend more time studying science instead of philosophy, you wouldn't make such incorrect statements. There is a massive amount of evidence that atoms exist. The science that is used to support their existence is dogmatic, but the knowledge of their existence is not. Are you just wasting my time because that is something I would expect from someone in middle school at the latest.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

Atomism is a hypothesis. Which is the most plausible there is. Once again, if you reflected on the value of the concepts you use, you wouldn't be so dogmatic.

[gulbirk]

what is a soul worth. Im selling it to anyone who can bid over 1 million dollars. seriously. Il just post it to you in a letter.

[resendess]

As for the bishops' statement (was he a bishop? can't remember), I believe it simply means that our society tends to focus more on what means to apply in order to attain certain ends than on what ends we ought to pursue. Which I believe is spot on. Our society is full of "specialists" who are very good at reaching a given goal but who precisely are incapable of deciding (properly) what goals ought to be reached.

[resendess]

So obviously some ways of acting are better than others. The question is whether or not you HAVE to act in the best way possible.

These guys can only argue that it will harm you if you kill an innocent person, not that you OUGHT not to kill him/her. This is more or less what Spinoza tries to do, to show that you can be happier by acting in a certain way, without asserting that you OUGHT to do so. Whether this view is problematic or not, you judge, I think it isn't sufficient.

[resendess]

They just don't get the point.

Morality is not rational insofar as the goodness of a proposition cannot be deduced in the same way that you can deduce A=C if you accept that A=B and B=C.

BUT some things are bad for people and it is reasonnable to avoid those harmful things. Obviously. HOWEVER the principle of morality is precisely that you OUGHT to avoid harmful things and do good things. The "ought" introduces obligation. And absolute obligation cannot be accounted for without transcendence.

[darkilustrisimus]

eyebrows

[sleepywolff]

Such refreshing clarity from these two, who are my favorite combination on the Atheist Experience

[tetleydidley]

gawwdd i hate that o so familiar background..

[ArrogantAtheist]

Atheists FTW!!

[futurepsycdoc]

How do you think they got to where they are? Most atheists are well-read in theology and see it's weaknesses. This is what causes them to question the claims they make and realize it doesn't hold up to science (what we have proven as truth).

Morals is a great example. Religions teach that you need a god-figure for morals. The fact is that we have had morals since before religions were created.

Religion equals crediting/blaming god for what occurs. Science looks for proof and replication.

[todore00]

Maybe in America, but not England. Most people I know are atheist, or at most 'spiritual', but have never heard of Hume or 'cosmological'.

Morality is an interesting example. I would say, like Jared Diamond argues, that religion actually acted as a vessel for the universalization of moral codes in post-tribal society. So whilst religion was vital in the evolution of morality, now, as J. Haidt claims, we can be 'moral without religion'. After all, we are risen apes, not fallen angels.

[PhuqueU]

Most athiests are well read in pornography and love it.

[futurepsycdoc]

I am involved in my local Humanist Association and disagree with your statement. Most atheists I know are dedicated to science. Many are professors or Park Ranger types. Of course I know you don't have any proof to back up your mindless accusation. As if it makes a point even if it did. Do you really think that theists don't look at porn? Do you realize also that our jails are filled with theists also? I hope I've helped expand your thinking. Have a nice day.

[PhuqueU]

"Many are professors or Park Ranger types"

Those are just costumes in the porn flick dude.

" Do you realize also that our jails are filled with theists also?"

Yeah but many come out born again, nothing like the fear of God...

...and buff gay prison professors.

[futurepsycdoc]

lol. Thanks. I needed a laugh.

[ChidoriAnbu]

@PhuqueU so are many religious people. lol

and your priests molest young boys too

[PhuqueU]

@ChidoriAnbu See Infiltration of the churches by Freemasons for the purpose of destroying the church from within, and you will see who those priests are.

[resendess]

@ChidoriAnbu DIstinction : essence and accident. Was it AS priests that some priests molested young boys? Or where they evil people who happened to be priests? Not the same thing.

Given that catholic priests aren't allowed to marry, the profession is sometimes tempting for people who want to hide their intemperance. "I won't be suspicious if I'm a priest". Once again, it is not AS priests that these people molested young boys.

It's a shame Aristotle isn't as tought as he used to be....

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

(Chesterton : Morals in elfland

Hume : Essays on Human Understanding

Science doesn't "prove" anything. It observes repititions which it assumes are regular without being able to explain why they occur. Science is incapable of finding causes. Also see Duhem's Théorie Physique or even Pointcarré's nominalist theories. Realism in science ended roughly at the beginning of the 20th century, you're 100 years late in the philosophy of science ;) )

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

Thanks for the response. It would really depend on how you used the term "prove." If you mean that science cannot demonstrate validity and reliability of hypotheses then you are sorely mistaken. Science is the best form of discovering causes that we know. Can you offer a more reliable method? As I've recently gotten through my Advanced Research Methods course, I would say I'm fairly up-to-date with how science is conducted and its tools of implementation. Thanks anyway.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

"If you mean that science cannot demonstrate validity and reliability of hypotheses"That is what I mean, yes. It cannot demonstrate them for the simple reason that science is inductive. And as Duhem and Quine have argued, a theory is a construction which is not entirely determined by the experiment, so several theories can explain a given/constructed phenomena. So science can find theories which are not contradicted by observations, but their necessity is never fully established

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

Okay. Then you remain sorely mistaken. Science uses both deductive and inductive reasoning to form hypotheses. Can you show me a scientific hypothesis that does not display logic? You may be having trouble with absolute certainty and that is something you need to learn to accept. Nothing can be stated as possessing 100% certainty. That does not mean that science can not exam, study, and further understand relationships between variables. Necessities are well-established in each study.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

Yes, obviously, science uses logic, and science uses deduction. But science starts with observation, it generalises certain phenomena it observes (though this is not always true in contemporary physics) and therefore it is inductive. And I never said that there was no logic in science, logic is required for any form of reasoning. Only there is no logical necessity between two phenomena between which science establishes "a law".

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

Scientists can also use inductive reasoning by applying laws that are already established. Please give me an example of how logical necessity is not required for the law of gravity. How does it not require factors to be in a certain state to be applicable?

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

"Science is the best form of discovering causes" : science never finds a "cause" : it observes repititions. Science can say "heat expands metal" but cannot explain why, it cannot find a cause. It can decribe how it happens, but it cannot explain. Explaining it would require attaching it with necessity to previously accepted truths. But there is no necessary link between "heat" and "expanding", no one can explain "why", it just happens to be true.

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

Science most definitely finds causes. We know exactly why heat expands metal, fully understand its cause, and can predict and cause it to occur. I'm unsure where the confusion is, however. You may think there is no causal relationship between heat and expansion, but I'll stick with the scientific consensus. You may be attempting to make a First Cause argument without stating how you could have possibly resolved its fallacies.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

As most "scientists", you haven't much knowledge of the philosophy of science. That's what I study at the moment. Giving a detailed answer would be incredibly long.

Science finds "laws", not "causes". To say "this is a cause" is a metaphysical statement. You can look up Comte's Leçons de Philosophie Positive (I'm not sure what the title is in English) for more info. Science deals with phenomena.

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

No thanks. Just from your statement that science cannot determine causes leaves you in an area I don't have the time to correct. To associate heat with the expansion of metal is not a metaphysical claim. I agree that science searches for causes that are universal and invariable. Good luck on creating some verifiable data with your metaphysical claims. I agree that science deals in reality. I don't have time or energy for metaphysical claims that have no supporting evidence.

[resendess]

@futurepsycdoc

As for LAWS (though the term "law" is not necessarily the best), like "science expands heat", science cannot explain why. It can say that it does, and describe how it does so, but "why" entails an understandible relation. But the realtion between expansion and metal is not understood, it is merely a fact. I already explained in another message, but you don't seem to have understood. It is true that I'm being very brief. Hume's Essay On Human Understanding goes into more detail.

[futurepsycdoc]

@resendess

You can keep stating that science doesn't understand why things occur when they have extensive knowledge, such as the causation of expanding metal to applied heat, but you are talking circles. I can Google the term and read exactly why it occurs.

[KKKK1213]

you are a fucking idiot because you would not know truth if it dressed in a fucking 2 piece bathing suit .

[verdegumby]

I believe that the reason that morality has gone down is simply because of all the FALSE ideas/beliefs that come from religion/church which are created by man.

What we simply need to do is look inside into your heart/conscience if you can FEEL then you can follow that to make your choices.If you have a bad consience and cant FEEL the pain and hurt that your actions cause others, say like a Charles Manson, then you cant just follow your heart/consience.Most of us are not like the latter.

[resendess]

@verdegumby

The "Church" doesn't say the contrary. Saint Augustin said "Tu étais plus intime que l'intime de moi-même" (=God —> moral conscience). And Luther's point of view was that laws were for immoral people who couldn't see in themselves what was good and needed to refer to a set of laws and conform themselves to them. This is Kierkegaard's point in Either/Or, part 2, chapter 1.

Sorry for all the quoting, I haven't got the time to go into more detail...

[resendess]

(Ps : I agree with some things you say though : the Church has obviously made mistakes.

Pps : Your starting point i "moralty has gone down". But the Church's influence has also gone down, so it seems rather paradoxical to say that the Church has caused immorality (whether conciously or not) )

[ArranoGris]

Where do I sign up to sell my soul to the Pursuit of Reason? Can't think of anything better to sell it for.

[Nextstopearth]

@ArranoGris Well it's always nice to get something for nothing.

[Hamas]

How complex is a human system?

Like science also... I have never seen electron...But I know.. and understand there is electron...

I never seen my own brain.. but i learned that by practical experiment and practrical conclusion... human have a brain....

That also how we believe there is a supreme intelligent... that created such a complex life form(human).. and how GOd created with precision.. earth orbit...

>The light human created have only 10% efficiency...

[Hamas]

I just could not understand atheisism...

did you learn science?

Do you like to think?

how could you get such a conclusion...

It just doesnt make sense...

Do you Know the purpose of your life?

Are U happy? hmm...

[Hopeful71]

"I just could not understand atheisism..

did you learn science?...

Are U happy? hmm... "

I just could not understand your post....

Could you talkie more coherently? hmm...

[nidodson]

I found the best way to come to understand atheism is by researching other religions. Mostly Greek, early Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Chinese, and Indian. Once you do that, ask yourself why you believe in the God you do, and not any of the others, because there is no more evidence for them than there is for yours. There is more evidence for Greek Gods given typical mono-theistic logic. Don't be selective of thinking of your religion one way, and all others another, that is bias.

[tainoaz]

That is exactly how I shed my Catholic Indoctrination.

An open mind, critical thinking, common sense and a love for the underdog. Underdog? Yes I got tired of Catholics looking down on LDS and Jehova's Witnesses so I checked their beliefs out and VOILA! I looked in the mirror and saw a .... Kool Aid Drinker!!!

Same Shit Different Myth

[nidodson]

Oh, also research Judaism and Islam, and all of the histories of the religions.

I learned science so in depth that I realized a god is not a logic conclusion in the science world or what I would ever wish to consider as reality. That is why most scientists are not theists. Also, people who are in fields that use logic and in depth thinking are more likely to not be theist because they apply such thinking to theology/mythology.

The purpose to life is what you make it, and I am happy about it.

[eatfirejones]

1) Of course I learn science. I love science!

2) Of course. Who doesn't?

3) Easily. There's no evidence that a God or gods exist, so conclude that there are none.

4) Why do you assume we have an inherent purpose? I'll make my own!

5) I'm quite happy, thanks for asking!

[AscendedLifeForm]

1:07 - 1:34 That's the reason why this country along with the rest of the world has been hurled into a state of chaos. You would think that after 9/11 people in general would try a different solution to make improvements in this country but once again biblical principles have been thrown aside and we are right back to square 1 where we rather rely upon our own thinking. Which is the main thing that has gotten into this mess to begin with.

[mleonsmith]

we have always relied on our own thinking, and it never has been perfect. you think the world is in chaos now? you should take a look at your history book and see the tragedies that happened all around the world since the dawn of civilization... where is this time when biblical principles WERE being followed? even in theocratic times that was not the case.

[Buzzzcutboy]

I love this show, its always great fun...Danke for posting.

[Shrinkynuts]

NOOOOO!! Where is Matt!!!!!!!!??????

[olijeolinije]

I miss Matt also, he is the best.

[mleonsmith]

they have a rotation of show hosts. i believe matt does 3 shows and then gets 1 show off

[787Bisurdaddy]

Morals are completely subjective valuations of the consequences of actions, and are therefore bogus. There are no objective morals, only actions and consequences.

[adolthitler]

Like a doctors diagnosis? Even if he uses a test with a conclusive result?

The disease exists objectively.

The moral exists objectively.

The doctors opinion might be subjective.

Your view of the moral might be subjective.

Piranhas don't kill each other, why is it when we verbalise the same rule they use it is subjective? The rule exists objectively. Your opinion of the rule is subjective.

Hi Bis, nice to see you.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"Like a doctors diagnosis?"

You already posed the same malformed argument on the other video, and I already explained to you why it was wrong. What on Earth makes you think that I would waste my time explaining it all over again when you've repeatedly shown your ignorance to be a conscious decision? Besides, my comment was about MORALS, not diagnoses (and in your other comment, you had changed your argument to 'testing').

Quit trolling me, moron.

[adolthitler]

I did not change the argument, I expanded it because you could fathom what is going on.

You said the diagnosis must be subjective, and I posed the question and if the diagnosis was based on a conclusive test for the suspected disease?

An objective fact that it is the disease means no matter how prejudiced and biased and subjective the doctor the diagnosis is now an objective fact.

Spelling it out over and over, facts trump opinions, and what was subjective without a fact becomes objective.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"I did not change the argument, I expanded it because you could fathom what is going on."

You changed the words you were using, and therefore the meaning of the argument.

"what was subjective without a fact becomes objective."

You just keep driving home the point that you don't know what these words mean. Just like you don't understand what a theory is.

[cyberdemon107]

But you gotta agree that if enough people agree on something (eg stealing is wrong) it becomes defined as a moral norm, right?

I still agree that those are completely fluid and different civilisations easily slap their own morals as the one true way, because people are pack animals and like to stick together.

[787Bisurdaddy]

Sure, there are societal standards, but they are in no way objective, unchanging, or universal, and I see no reason to label them as "morals." That word seems to convey a notion of objective certitude that doesn't actually exist.

[olijeolinije]

well, not exactly, neuroetic studies neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. I supose you are familiar whit hypotetic situations like "crying baby dilema" or "trolley dilema" and the solution separate utilists wiew from dentologists, its seems evolution is on the side of utilists, bicause newer parts of neocortex are adapted for utilist judgement.

If you are interested find publications from Joshua D. Greene

[787Bisurdaddy]

There are certainly genetic characteristics influencing the tendencies toward certain behaviors, but there is no genetic basis for qualitatively evaluating those behaviors as "good" or "bad." Any such qualitative analysis exists purely as the opinion of the person positing it.

[olijeolinije]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying,I'm not speaking about for example genetic predisposition for aggressivness.I was reffering to your comment where you are saying there is not universal moral, try to find MST (moral sense test), you will be surprised with the results.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"I was reffering to your comment where you are saying there is not universal moral"

There isn't, and the moral sense test serves to illustrate that (albeit in a ridiculously contrived and arbitrary way).  Perhaps you could actually explain what you meant instead of giving vague references.

[olijeolinije]

ok. that test consist several moral dilemmas to which examined persons had to answer

whether they are morally acceptable to them, and to explain why it is so.

People from many different countries and cultures, of all ages and religious

backgrounds, have completed the test. The assumption was that if moral judgments

were derived from rational processes, one would predict that people from different

countries, or different ages or sex, would respond differently to a common

challenge,

[olijeolinije]

and they would have articulated justification of their desicions. Result was that they all responded in more or less same way,their interpretation of desicions is what differences.most subjects responded in a similar fashion,

making similar moral choices. Most important, none could articulate or justify their responses, it seems to be a common subconsious mechanism that is activated in response to moral challenge.

sorrry, but this limit characters are killing me.

and if there is something you

[olijeolinije]

dont understand, let me know, I'm thinking in croatian and writting in english..

[787Bisurdaddy]

"Result was that they all responded in more or less same way,"

That is entirely my point! There is an evolutionary origin for a genetic disposition to altruism. Yet it is not objectively immoral for a human to kill another human, such as in the case of self-defense. The fact that people 'feel' that killing others is wrong does not make it universally so.

You're doing a fine job of communicating, much better than most. Perhaps I could point to some other videos; the character limit sucks!

[olijeolinije]

but exactly situation to which you refer is interpretation to universal moral judgement., in short killing people is wrong, but in some cases it is justified (example- to perserve your own life).

for the altruism I know, it has been recorded also in elephants,monkeys and dolphins

"Perhaps I could point to some other videos;"

please do so, if it 's interesting I will comment :)

[playgrrrr]

well... things can not do any harm and still be not something a morale valuing person would appreciate.

[PurushaDesa]

Christ, Birmingham's gone down the bloody toilet if they're accommodating that old bag of shite.

[FireStorm821]

NORMALIZE AUDIO LEVELS!

[wretcherwretch]

I listened to the live feed of this show and was VERY, VERY disappointed. Usually I'm a huge fan of AE, but these two guys were just HUGE assholes to a creationist who called in and asked the honest question of, "well, where do I found the alternative answers, then, if I'm wrong?" Instead of giving him a straight reply, they mocked him by sarcastically responding with a "you know what google is?". Really, really pissed me off.

[Faustuss1]

These two guys, meaning, the two in the video? Cause they bring in different people on different shows.

[apocalypseap]

When you consider they have tried to tell hundreds of creationists where to go for the "alternative answers," -- and many of them being sarcastic about asking in the first place -- their guarded reaction was natural.

[wretcherwretch]

No way in hell would I classify that reaction as "guarded". That's a euphemism if I ever heard one. I'm a pretty outspoken, staunch atheist myself but they were WAY out of line.

[MrFacet]

I agree, but I as minused for stating a similar remark on the intro video.

I don't think this immature behaviour is what made AE big and influential.

[wretcherwretch]

Agreed. Makes AE look bad.

[DarkAngel182]

"Britain has sold its soul to pursuit of reason".

Oh that is just PURE GOLD!!!!

:D

[robertghouston]

Nice background on the video!

[godlessmessiah]

on the 666th show, dress up as satan with a hellfire background.lol

[daddyleon]

they should. :D

But maybe they should do that on show # 616 too.

That's the real number of the beast, it was just a mistranslation... if I'm correctly informed. xD

[SoullessAtheist]

Good video!

[thePuzzledDragon]

You guys are fabulous. Thanks for being cool-headed and articulate.

[kevdog315]

Just to let know its #599. The show 2 weeks ago was #598 and there was no show 1 week ago making yesterdays show #599 not #600.

[Cafeeine]

This is just how they number the shows. Any 'lost' weeks keep their numbering, so #599 represents last week, show or not.

If you look through the archives, this isnt the first instance this happened.

[Munkatten]

It's not 599 either, it's way less than that. It's numbered 600 by their archiving system.

[C0ldking]

Cant wait til nr. 666 :D

[MagnusIan]

They should do something on 616 & 666 just to make sure. : D

[jgskpx0389]

hmm 600 already?

I have a feeling when it's #666; they should do speical show for it XD

[nickrd182]

Why should they celebrate a number made up by their opponents? It would only show reverence for a number that has no significance than any other.

[pimpolinka69]

to piss off their opponents? :D

[eatfirejones]

Wouldn't work, because the actual number of the beast is 616, not 666.

[xVancha]

There is no *actual* number of the beast for a beast that doesn't exist.

666 is far more recognized as the "evil" one.

[Cafeeine]

Well it could be something as innocuous as having Maiden's the Number of the Beast as a theme song, to something more inspired. Still, that is like 14 months away, so they have time to think of something.

[robertghouston]

Maiden rules!

[eatfirejones]

Yes 666 is more recognised, but in the same way the Great wall of China is recognised as viewable by space. It's well know, but it's completely wrong.

According to the corresponding holy book (and QI), the number of the beast is 616, not 666.

[GetTheCans]

Does it really matter in the end?

[eatfirejones]

Nah, not really. It's just an interesting snippet of information.

Besides, I'm a big enemy of general ignorance.

[MrFacet]

that is, the oldest known version of the document mentioning the number.

[MrFacet]

'666 is far more recognized as the "evil" one. '

That's the reason why, when interviewed about this, a spokesperson of the satanic church -might have been the Amsterdam branch?- replied to the question 'will you use the number 616 from now on' with: 'no, the people we are trying to annoy are not aware of this so we stay with 666' :)