Oh oh oh... no cookie for these guys. It's great to know there's better argumentation going today than back then. It's great to see that at least atheists learn from their argumentation fails and come up with new stuff to debunk those claims with.
This one would have failed immediately if they had answered the first question: "No, we don't know if god exists or not, but what ever the case, there's not evidence given to support claim that he exists."
The problem with this argument is that for everything that exists, there are infinite alternatives of which a human mind can conceive. So it is sufficient for the null hypothesis to stand.
But don't they make a point of NOT declaratively saying this in later years?
The guys made first mistake saying "there's no god". If you're intellectually honest, even I as an atheist can't say that there's no god. I may only say: there's no evidence brought forth thus far to support the claim there being one.
And that's about it.
I have a belief there's no god, but it's because I have looked and there's no sign of god to be seen. More than that, everything points to other way: people created gods to explain things they had no explanation to.
This is a prime example of why atheists shouldn't put themselves out there until they know how to defend their position. It makes the rest of us look irrational. As long as the caller can't present proof of *any* god (much less a specific god) we're justified in rejecting his claims. The fact that atheists don't *know* that there is no god isn't an argument for religion. Religion doesn't win by default, nutjobs need to provide evidence for their claims just like everyone else.
Not a bad anaology but here is the error with that argument. If one asserts thatbthe is gold in Alaska, great. Now, prove it. Show me when u went to Alaska and where did you find gold. As the middle man (lol) was saying that if analysis of Alaska has been done and so far there has been nothing found, then the probability of gold existing is very slight. Couple that withe the scientific knowledge of how gold is formed (which I personally don't know), laws of probability would say no
it doesnt matter if its easier in his mind to proove god than it is to disproove it. the point is hes making a claim that there is a god where he does not know if there is one.both sides have no absolute proof, but only 1 side - theists need that proof for theyre claim to be valid. if mr Wussle s theory was as good as this ignorant bufon says then he shouldnt have gotten destroyed by a random youtuber...
I kind of feel like he's trolling even though he's not really. This is because whenever I insult people, I use sir. And that's the only time I use it.
using this analogy, what the caller is doing is agreeing that in this very little information we know we have foung no proof of god. we do know the bible, quran, other "holy" books. so there is, according to the caller, no proof of god in any of those books, or anywhere else in this world where we have looked for one.
Trying to compare God (and of course the Bible) to gold in the state of Alaska, that's an interesting idea, but the problem is that gold is a real material. And plus atheists only claim to know what can be proven, it's the theists that claim to know everything.
How fallacious it is to make up a probability on how much knowledge we know...you would have to know how much knowledge there is to even come up with that number of 1%
They would need to know everything to say something isn't true.
They would need to know one thing to say something is true.
EXACTLY! That's why the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim. It's easier to prove that something that is true is true than to prove that something that is false is false. It's the same as "innocent until proven guilty".
It doesn't make a person an idiot even if he only knows 1% of anything!!! How much does those how say there is a GOD knows about anything? Almost all religious people who believes there is a GOD only knows it from the writings in books that was passed down through history and for Christians they take that the Bible spells the whole truth about universe. This guy is like saying that if we only know 1% about making bread we cannot say anything about wheat. He will thank GOD for the bread though.
Couldn't you make the same case about anything that may or may not exist? If you think ghosts don't exist, aren't you basing that claim on a teeny-tiny sliver of knowledge? You haven't explored every single corner of the universe and found no ghosts. You could say all this about God, Satan, angels, unicorns, aliens, etc.
@EmperorZ19 When that happens to me I just tell them I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know with absolute certainty that a god doesn't exist (agnostic), but I know with absolute certainty that I don't believe any gods exist (atheist).
Wow, this is an old episode. I clicked this wondering where the regular (for me) hosts were.
I would've just shut him down by saying I had misunderstood by what he meant by "declarative", and that though I'm agnostic, I'm reasonably certain enough to feel safe saying there probably is no God. I can even say that there isn't one if I'm just being casual. That, and the gnostic/agnostic thing is not a middle position of belief, but an assertion of knowledge or lack thereof.
Terrible... This is easy to refute... The man on the phone does not believe in everything... I'm sure he doesn't believe in Ra, Leprechaun, Pixies, Dragons, Goddesses, and a billion other things. He cannot prove these things do not exist. He does not believe these things because he has not been shown any credibile evidence. Negation is the start position not one that needs to be reached...
Gnosticism and agnosticism are positions on what we can and cannot know respectively. Theism and Atheism are positions on what you believe and don't believe respectively. So a person can be an Gnostic Atheist as much as they can be a Agnostic Atheist and likewise with Theism. The main question here is "Do you or do you not believe there is a god or gods?" Simply stating I don't know relates to -A-Gnosticism but you still fall on either side of the -A-Theism argument regardless of knowledge.
if we looked for gold in alaska for 6000 years and never found a spec, would you be justified in having unquestioning faith that there is gold in alaska?
@brez002 Matt's studies as a theist are in large part what make him credible. He wouldn't be so complete if he hadn't been at some time a theist and rejected it for purely rational reasons. Neither of these guys seems to have that background or experience.
@MrMZaccone yea, I know. I was kind of just joking around because he would've been arguing on the side of the caller in 1998. But yea, Matt's background and studies are what helped make him such a great rational skeptic.
It all depends upon your definition of god. The more anthropomorphic and personal your definition of god, the less likely that god is. Also, since we are all atheistic with respect to one god or another, what's the difference?
All they had to say was: By his standards ANYTHING- A N Y believe at all could be justified. And i could just assert that a magical mighty unicorn lives in the 99%.and killed god. And he would have to roam the universe forever to disprove me - granted that he owes up to his own ridiculous standards.
This argument is daft anyway, cos if you think of the % of knowledge they had 10,000years ago compared to what we know now, lets say er.....1% for example, NONE of it was revealed by or contained any god of any description. It was all discovered by science, and ignored a god explanation. This is just a god of the biggest gap argument. And laziness.
@k1llk1ngph30n1x I prefer to simply say that I accept the possibility of a God to the same extent that I accept the possibility that there is an invisible, incorporeal unicorn in my fridge.
@bogartnumbertwo lol, and to exactly what extent would that be? most people understand knowledge and belief in practical terms. so practically speaking, I believe there is no "invisible, incorporeal unicorn in my fridge." I also know it. therefore, given your analogy... you get my point.
When he said "all I need is that little nugget of gold" I was screaming at the screen "BUT YOU CAN"T EVEN GET THAT!!!" And they were just like "it's a bad analogy" >_<
Ouch... these three guys don't even understand their own position. Atheism is the rejection of the claims of Theism. When they accepted the caller's incorrect definition (i.e a Gnostic Atheist) they foolishly created a strawman and handed it to the him... and then they fumbled like fools to correct the mistake after realizing their error... Egad... I'm SO thankful that Matt, Jen, Jeff, and the rest replaced these folk.
They should have taken his analogy and ran with it. How many companies are prospecting for Gold in Alaska? If they can't be absolutely certain that there's nothing to be found by overturning every grain of sand, why aren't they there doing that? They might hit the mother of all veins! Who knows? The thing is for all practical purposes you just have to draw a line and say that until evidence produces itself, you're not interested in the possible existence of some or another deity.
Why did the hosts agree with an incorrect definition of atheism? Atheism doesn't declare that there is no god. It refers to BELIEF that there is no god. I'm also a bit surprised to hear the guy on the right basically say he's a gnostic-atheist scientist. Gnosticism, from what I understand, is to say you have knowledge of there not being a god. I would think that such declared knowledge comes with a burden to prove it.
I'm an agnostic-atheist. I don't KNOW, and I don't BELIEVE.
I may know only .0001% of what there is to know, but thats .0001% more than this asshole. And yet once again, there is no proof for god. This jerk had 12 years to figure out and didnt find god on pluto.
They should have never walked into that trap. You can never say without any shadow of a doubt, that "God" DOESN'T exist. Simply state that the evidence found, thus far does not imply that there is one.
First of all, the called would have to believe in an infinite amount of unproven entities and phenomenon for his argument to be valid. Unfortunately this would make it valid but pointless. Secondly, when referring to the immense size of the universe, he's restricting himself to the physical, material realm, excluding any 'supernatural' entities, like... GOD?! SERIOUSLY, are these religious people MENTALLY RETARDED to be making such utterly self contradictory and nonsensical claims?
@TehNetherlands cont. I honestly want to know, is he just DUMB like that? How is it that a grown man can be making such comments on a television show, and actually be convinced about the validity of his argument, when it takes me just two fucking minutes to destroy it?! How can an argument like that even survive for so long? I'm honestly convinced that people like the caller in this video are simply disingenuous, dishonest liars. Nobody regurgitates such bull without knowing it's shit.
In defense of the three of them, the show was only about a year old. I'm assuming none of these hosts, co-hosts had any previous experience debating on a TV phone in show nor had the luxury of taking a back seat to learn from someone more experienced in such.
Also its hard to shake the wrong definition of atheism/atheist which a theist biased society, and/or family has beat into you. My own experience with theists made me question my position as different than it is.
The way to address the caller, who has a point, is to remark that atheism is a response to a claim. If the definition of a god is so vague as to lack a definition completely, then the caller is right in saying that you cannot know that no gods exist. But that's besides the point, isn't it? Atheists that make a valid point say that without a sensible definition & additionally without a shred of evidence for a god, there is no reason at all to believe it. Probability remains unraised w/o substance
If this had been a formal debate, I would say the Christian had won. Unfortunately I think any knowledgeable atheist nowadays could easily have handled this call better than the host did.
It's such a stupid argument and yet people are saying the same but can't back it up exactly like the three gentlemen. This has been put forward so many times and I can only stress that faith can be put down to feeling or thought. Case solved.
I think they did a poor job defending themselves...I think they set themselves up and that caller knew it...Matt Im sure would have done a better job...no offense men...
Alsaka is a bad analogy. One could argure there is gold on Pluto but one would have to provide proof. With out proof there is not reason to believe.
God could exist on pluto but as of now we have no proof. I could say Spiderman lives on Pluto but now your reasoning skills start to become engauged so that you will indeed state Spiderman does not live on Mars based on your knowledge and lack there of.
This whole response was wrecked on the initial response when the guy in the middle asserted that he "knew" there was no God. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't make that kind of all-encompassing claim. The best (and most intellectually grounded) claim is that all affirmative claims that there *is* a god, is unsubstantiated, and the default position in respect to all unsubstantiated claims is that one ought to provisionally reject them. Give us sufficient evidence and we change our minds.
Unless someone finds some amount of gold in alaska, why would anyone claim there is gold in alaska?
This is how I see it. He says we're basing our beliefs on the "fact" that we only know %1 of the universe(if only that were true). So based on that %1, there is no god. He's basing his beliefs on the "fact" that we don't know 99% of the universe and dispite the fact that the %1 we do know says there is no god.
This is one of the worst handled callers I think I've ever seen.
This is a particularly weak argument, and very easily handled.
The clown even admits he thinks there definitely IS a god, so the argument can be turned around straight away. Before you get into why it's not a good argument, and destroy it.
Is this argument originally Ray Comfort's, or did he yoink it? When was it devised? I find it interesting that the only part that has evolved in twelve years is that Alaska became China.
OH MY GODDDD!!!!! these guys are completely failing to refute such a stupid ass argument!!! anyone could've done a better job. they're like 3 fucking clueless children!!!
his example is wrong because we dont know lets say 99% of the information, but we know the system of how this information is organized/grouped/handled, how it behaves/reacts etc with each other.
so what im saying, if u are 99% sure that god cant exist on earth which is very habitable, it is reasonable to say it doesnt exist anywhere in the universe.
same goes with going through each grain of sand in alaska. if u know that a gold takes "X" factor to form and u know that alaska doesnt have it...
These guys are making a religion of Atheism! Atheism is simply science! Scientific study has not identified the presents of a creator, YET! Maybe someday it will!? But until then we can only have true faith in what we know and can understand at this point in time. These guys need not to be so certain, they just need to get across that they are not pompous enough to have faith in the idea (Key word "Idea") of an alpha male in the sky.
That 1% covers 99% of the relevant part in question of the Universe, therefor you can say, we can practicly be absolutly sure there is no god (and we can 100% sure proove there isn't the god of the bible).
Anyway, by the caller's standards, you have to be "agnostic" in everything, as nothing can be known for absolute certainity, and that posistion is useless.
I love that religious people argue about truth eventhough they time and time have lost ground about what they hold be true. If you are wrong 100 % of the time and sometimes have to admit it because of overwhelming evidence, then the chance of you ultimately being right in the end is nearing 0 %. If you claim something is exists, then you have to prove it. Not the other way around. So his logic is basically flawed, although well.spoken.
They let this overly smug D - bag walk all over them ?
The "you don't know everything so how do you know there isn't ___?" argument can go either way but of course his argument when turned around at him isn't fair, right? Where's Matt when ya need'em?
@TheAtheistExperience well one thing for sure you guys are now much better at the art of argumentation and arguing :) great show. Never seen you live but i go through the whole liblary of your videos theyre al entertaining and hilarious in most cases. Id propably start this guy of with "you havent found a grain of that gold and actualy your analogy would be more fittinf if you were to look for one unicorn cause gold is a physical thing documented and proven to exist unixorns yet need to be"
I find it weird that you said "even" Jeff or Tracie, considering those two are awesome. Tracie in particular is almost as high as Matt on the pwnage scale, though her style is different, of course.
These guys suck compared to Matt! Matt would have destroyed this caller in a minute! I thought of things to say faster than these guys.. they are too hesitant. They should have said: "Assuming you as well know only 1% of the world and theres 99% you do not know what makes you think there actually is a god and can you prove your claim that he exists?"
I think that was a better argument for Atheism than Xianity..
We have to search the entire state, and all he has to do is find that one little nugget.. According to him, that makes it easier for the guy that wants to prove that the gold is there.
So his claim should be easier to find proof for, and yet he still hasn't done it.. Neither has ANY Xian, and there are a lot more Xians than Atheists..
This caller is delusional does he believe in tooth fairies, leprechauns, santa claus and unicorns to. We never see them maybe their out their to, what a completer moron this guy needs a reality check Matt would have tore him apart.
Do you need to search the entire Arctic to prove that Santa Claus does not exist?
Do you need to search every spec of the sun to prove that Apollo isn't actually carrying it?
Do you need to search the entire universe to confirm that Darth Vader is indeed a fictional being? That the Protoss aren't out there? Saiyans? Necrons? ET? Galactus? Unicron? He-Man? Zoidberg? Starfire?
In order to prevent belief in crazy things like the above, we take the stance of disbelief until we are proven otherwise.
100% atheist with the admission of fallibility is tenable. What the caller really getting at is that a claim of infallibility is unreasonable; however I know of no atheist that makes such a claim. The Pope does however.
Sorry, but after following a middle-Eastern holy book for thousands of years it's too late for Christians to pretend they give a fuck about rationality.
I don't know 99% of what goes on in theUniverse.
Therefore Robocop is out there.
And anyone who says Robocop isn't out there is an arrogant fool and they are to be chopped up and turned into baby food.
They should have asked if he could prove the Quran isn't true. If he can't prove the Quran isn't true then all other religions are incorrect. These theists will lie, misrepresent facts and just make up there own logic to try and prove atheism is wrong when all they need to do is prove that theism is correct. Notice that when they kept asking for the nugget of proof for God that he ignored them and kept going with his false premise. Atheists simply don't believe theistic claims. That's all.
These guys were blindsided by practiced debater. Matt would have destroyed him as he is knows these tactics.
The analogy is a Straw-man argument that wasn't properly identified. Since we know Gold exists having seen it elsewhere we have reason to believe it COULD be in Alaska..
Properly:
Manbearpig of which we have no evidence of existence COULD be in Alaska however there is no reason to believe so.
Let's say we know 1 % - but none of this supports the existence of God, thus how probable is the existence of a God? Clearly less than the non-existence...
The atheists in this clip are rather stupid. The answer to his question is that atheists doesnt BELIEVE in a god, noone claimed to know that there is no god.
Were aware that there is alot we dont know, and that its possible that there is a god, we just dont see any reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
@gokuhawks14 Actualy it seems like the atheist in this clip have the position he claims all atheists have. So in this clip Id say the caller is the smart one and the atheists are the stupid ones.
Ya a agree they did not do a very good job debating him. I would agree that any atheist saying He knows that their is no god is wrong. Not believing in god and knowing that there is no god are two different things. They did not represent atheists very well in this.
@gokuhawks14 Yea, but the callers point was exactly that, that you cant know. But they argued against him instead of just saying that no, we dont know, but we dont think so.
The whole point with being an atheist is that we dont believe in god simply because theres no real reason to. Theres no evidence or any arguments that supports his existance
this is ridiculous ...the theist is using gold a proven element , that exists in numerous places on this planet, we have tons of it as proof and equating it with god- a supernatural being that has no physical proof what so ever. by the 4th min I lost patience for that guy, ....(me..I would have used antimatter ,,,just to give you a run for your money....hhehehehe)
this show needed Matt. Matt would have handled this in 5 seconds. These atheists got destroyed by this simple question. They couldn't even say that the burden of proof is on the person asserting the claim. I was embarrassed to watch this clip.
@nadocrew i disagree, the caller does not destroy these people. he says all he has to do is go to venezuela to find a little god, which is obviously impossible.
The caller destroys them in terms of rhetoric, but rhetoric says nothing for the truth or falsity of a proposition. Man, I was just waiting for them to say "Okay, we're fuckin' agnotics; what difference does it make? Show evidence for your own claims or STFU!"
@nadocrew You can't be more correct bro. I felt ashamed that these atheist were debunked with this easy and silly argument. Mat and I think anybody else would've destroyed this caller in seconds
You'd think this is an easy argument to be prepared for. All you have to do is ask "is there any fairy dust in Alaska?" If you are arguing with a fair minded person you will get to the point where they say no. Most likely because they know fairy dust is not based on reality but fantasy. Then explain this is how atheists feel about god. Such a bad argument.
Is anyone else really surprised the atheist side didn't mention "Russell's Teapot" or "Occams Razor" even once? There are perfectly valid arguments against this man, it seems that atheists were not represented very well here.
well, the hard reality for both sides is there is no proof that there is no God, and there is no proof that there is a God. Both sides very staunchly hold to their beliefs, but no one can 'declaratively say' either one is 'truth.'
The caller is right. He proves that atheism is as ignorant and closed minded as a fundamentalist religion. If you are a modern scientific type, it makes the most sense to be agnostic. Do scientists ever do one percent of an experiment, and then give a declarative statement of evidence? The phrase "god does not exist" is not scientific fact, period.
The analogy he uses is great. I can continue on and declare a statement "There is no Bethilium(⁸³⁹Bet) in Alaska". I know for a fact there is no Bethilium in Alaska, cause I made that Element up.
The concept of a God as an explanation for life, morality, natural phenomena, etc.. is outdated and to a very high degree we know that most Gods throughout history are made up. Most monotheistic religions are incompatible, so only one can be right, but they are all equally "credible".
The strange thing about the size of the universe, as we discover more with every new breakthrough in science, is that it is so incredibly vast, that even if you did "just make it up", it may exist somewhere. It likely doesn't, but if you declaratively say it doesn't, you are not basing that on facts, but rather on an internal belief in your own logical and subjective infallibility.
Creationists hate apes. Atheists hate admitting that they're logic isn't an authority in the universe.
"Atheists hate admitting that they're logic isn't an authority in the universe." That may be true but it doesn't take away from the fact that our logic is all we have to go by. An employer won't refuse to give someone a job because even though the 1% he knows about the prospective employee is very good, the 99% COULD be bad. It is illogical to base any decision around that 99% without good reason to suspect a certain point within it.
That is my point exactly. We don't have the right to make a decision, or foster a belief on this particular issue. Why do we need an immediate answer about the existence of God? I think the jury is out on this one until we understand our universe better.
We should live our lives based on the assumption that God does not exist, because his existence has yet to be proven in any capacity. At the same time, saying there is no God is ignorant, until we know all things in the Universe.
Ahh I see what you're saying now, I agree with you more than I originally thought. I am an atheist based on my belief that if when the the notion of a god was introduced, the people had the same level of reasoning skills we do now, religion would not have lasted an hour. I do not claim to definitively know but I do claim that the only logical answer, if one is required to take a side, is that god does not exist.
Would you call me arrogant or closed minded if I told you that I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Please provide any evidence of god or shut the fuck up.
There is no proof of God. There is no proof that there is no God. Nobody has the evidence for either. So everyone should shut up, essentially. Nobody knows, and neither do you. If you think you do, you're making an assumption, however likely that assumption may be. Logical thinkers don't make assumptions. Arrogant people think that their own knowledge and brain power is so great, that they can make blanket statements about the universe.
A biblical God is unlikely, but not definitively absent.
I should further point out that I see no reason whatsoever why anybody should believe in God. I've seen no proof, and if you asked me to chance an educated guess, I would say that he doesn't. However, I would not say definitively "there is no god", because I don't know, and can't possibly know.
If there's one thing I share with Atheists, it's the frustration about God playing a role in the world at all. Until his existence has been proven, he holds no water.
Actually, we do all make a very important baseline assumption: That what our senses tell us is at least a relatively accurate portrayal of what is around us. In order to make it somewhat LESS of an assumption, we look to those people and machines around us and see if they have the same result our senses tell us. If your senses tell you something very different from everyone elses' senses, and the detection machines you have, then it's probably you screwed up
Gold is a physical entity and need not exist at all in Alaska. But is there a case for saying God need not exist in the Universe. The truth is science knows so little about wht they do know. How did a living cell, composed of atoms, neutrons, electrons,etc develop in a working unit that all life sprang from. What is intelligence?How do men manage to think?Yes, they know the anatomy but cannot explain clearly why it functions? A cause not physical could explain this? Why is this not reasonable?
Not knowing how something works does not default to the position that a god did it. If this was true then we would have millions of 2 year olds worshiping a magic god box that beams entertainment into everyones homes.
Thge caller kept saying you have to go everywhere to prove there isn't a god and all I have to do is go anywhere to prove there IS. OK so DO IT!!!
Caller claims "All I need is one nugget of gold to prove there is gold in Alaska" OK so show me this one nugget of gold.... I would have turned his logic around on him... ok SIR what YOU are saying is you have the easier task of only having to find one nugget of gold. SO WHERE IS YOUR NUGGET BUDDY!?!?!?
:3 Its crazy to see how far this show has gone. I hope one day this actually hits prime time cable.
TheDreadedlife 1 week ago
Yeah this is pathetic. I'm glad the arguments have evolved.
esplin227 2 weeks ago 2
Oh oh oh... no cookie for these guys. It's great to know there's better argumentation going today than back then. It's great to see that at least atheists learn from their argumentation fails and come up with new stuff to debunk those claims with.
This one would have failed immediately if they had answered the first question: "No, we don't know if god exists or not, but what ever the case, there's not evidence given to support claim that he exists."
Mtaalas 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANY of the current hosts would've ripped that dude apart, Ashley and Keryn probably would've done so as well, in fact Keryn answered perfectly here:
watch?v=-LaGeqMtPyY
Salanmon 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Salanmon 2 weeks ago
humans didn't invent the concept of gold, gold is tangible. it was in the dirt before we were here. that was a horrible analogy.
MrCraigIsles 3 weeks ago
Oh man i would have destroyed this guy.
MrCraigIsles 3 weeks ago
The problem with this argument is that for everything that exists, there are infinite alternatives of which a human mind can conceive. So it is sufficient for the null hypothesis to stand.
But don't they make a point of NOT declaratively saying this in later years?
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
we don't know 99% of the universe, therefore zeus exists. and unicorns, the loch ness monster....
castelgandalf 1 month ago
Oh this is from 1998. I was wondering how on earth they made so obvious mistakes debating this guy.
Mornys 2 months ago
The guys made first mistake saying "there's no god". If you're intellectually honest, even I as an atheist can't say that there's no god. I may only say: there's no evidence brought forth thus far to support the claim there being one.
And that's about it.
I have a belief there's no god, but it's because I have looked and there's no sign of god to be seen. More than that, everything points to other way: people created gods to explain things they had no explanation to.
Mtaalas 3 months ago 2
This is a prime example of why atheists shouldn't put themselves out there until they know how to defend their position. It makes the rest of us look irrational. As long as the caller can't present proof of *any* god (much less a specific god) we're justified in rejecting his claims. The fact that atheists don't *know* that there is no god isn't an argument for religion. Religion doesn't win by default, nutjobs need to provide evidence for their claims just like everyone else.
banestyrelsen 3 months ago 3
Not a bad anaology but here is the error with that argument. If one asserts thatbthe is gold in Alaska, great. Now, prove it. Show me when u went to Alaska and where did you find gold. As the middle man (lol) was saying that if analysis of Alaska has been done and so far there has been nothing found, then the probability of gold existing is very slight. Couple that withe the scientific knowledge of how gold is formed (which I personally don't know), laws of probability would say no
newjorrican 3 months ago
it doesnt matter if its easier in his mind to proove god than it is to disproove it. the point is hes making a claim that there is a god where he does not know if there is one.both sides have no absolute proof, but only 1 side - theists need that proof for theyre claim to be valid. if mr Wussle s theory was as good as this ignorant bufon says then he shouldnt have gotten destroyed by a random youtuber...
86Corvus 4 months ago
religions were an ancient egyptian concept. 10 000 bc
48mmwatch 4 months ago
I kind of feel like he's trolling even though he's not really. This is because whenever I insult people, I use sir. And that's the only time I use it.
PowBlock96 4 months ago
What the hell are the panel doing, they should chew this guy up, he's making all kinds of fallacies and they dont call him on it.
matszz 4 months ago
@matszz Oh, how bad Matt and Jeff would own him.
PowBlock96 4 months ago 2
using this analogy, what the caller is doing is agreeing that in this very little information we know we have foung no proof of god. we do know the bible, quran, other "holy" books. so there is, according to the caller, no proof of god in any of those books, or anywhere else in this world where we have looked for one.
m2ger8 4 months ago
Trying to compare God (and of course the Bible) to gold in the state of Alaska, that's an interesting idea, but the problem is that gold is a real material. And plus atheists only claim to know what can be proven, it's the theists that claim to know everything.
zfan2591 4 months ago
could god live in Uranus....
wait for it....
didja get it?
thumbs up this comment if ya got it!
I'm pretty sure that's where all gods live...
Heretikus 4 months ago
Let's admit they were just not prepared enough to support atheism.
Here we can't even hear the simple argument that defines the difference between knowledge and belief, expecially the guy in the middle.
ChristianIce 4 months ago in playlist Altri video di TheAtheistExperience
How fallacious it is to make up a probability on how much knowledge we know...you would have to know how much knowledge there is to even come up with that number of 1%
Which then one make it contradicted.
Stupid Christian....
Phaze252 4 months ago
@Phaze252
I'm an idiot who jumbled up words.
"Which then would make it a contradictory statement"
Phaze252 4 months ago
Another one who doesn't know what the word "atheism" means...
theism = belief in god; a- = without. Atheism = without a belief in god.
I'm sick of these theists trying to create a "middle" category. The exchange
"Are you an atheist?"
"No, I'm agnostic."
is equivalent to
"Are you right-handed?"
"No, I'm left-footed."
JMUDoc 4 months ago
They would need to know everything to say something isn't true.
They would need to know one thing to say something is true.
EXACTLY! That's why the burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim. It's easier to prove that something that is true is true than to prove that something that is false is false. It's the same as "innocent until proven guilty".
INTPTT 5 months ago
Woo man, they did a bad job on this one.
Simple answer: "Saying there is no god is not tantamount to saying I have proven there is no god." The caller's criticism is nonsensical.
C0LLIDER 5 months ago
I would love to debate this caller.
Evolvedprimate 5 months ago
holly shit! 1998? Is this the first season?
thegodlessatheist 5 months ago
It doesn't make a person an idiot even if he only knows 1% of anything!!! How much does those how say there is a GOD knows about anything? Almost all religious people who believes there is a GOD only knows it from the writings in books that was passed down through history and for Christians they take that the Bible spells the whole truth about universe. This guy is like saying that if we only know 1% about making bread we cannot say anything about wheat. He will thank GOD for the bread though.
number99my 6 months ago
Theist: Oh, so you think I'm wrong? So you know everything then? You arrogant bastard! You think you're soooo clever!
Atheist: ... no, I just know more than you do
TheOmegajuice 6 months ago
Who are these people? Matt would destroy this bafoon.
FreeGuitarLicks 7 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Couldn't you make the same case about anything that may or may not exist? If you think ghosts don't exist, aren't you basing that claim on a teeny-tiny sliver of knowledge? You haven't explored every single corner of the universe and found no ghosts. You could say all this about God, Satan, angels, unicorns, aliens, etc.
"Mr. Wessels would destroy you." Lovely.
ShellyDZ99 7 months ago
I wanna put up a set of big fucking billboards all over America explaining the definitions of Agnosticism and Atheism.
I get so tired of people deriding me for labeling myself atheistic instead of agnostic.
EmperorZ19 7 months ago
@EmperorZ19 When that happens to me I just tell them I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know with absolute certainty that a god doesn't exist (agnostic), but I know with absolute certainty that I don't believe any gods exist (atheist).
Zentz29 5 months ago
OH MY GOD, 9.5 minutes of a semantic dispute. They're agnostic atheists. Too bad they never got around to saying it.
GuacamoleKun 8 months ago
Wow, this is an old episode. I clicked this wondering where the regular (for me) hosts were.
I would've just shut him down by saying I had misunderstood by what he meant by "declarative", and that though I'm agnostic, I'm reasonably certain enough to feel safe saying there probably is no God. I can even say that there isn't one if I'm just being casual. That, and the gnostic/agnostic thing is not a middle position of belief, but an assertion of knowledge or lack thereof.
Jaybird196 8 months ago 3
I'm glad you guys got better - this sucks. God DOES live on Pluto, but he never comes here.
calmreason 8 months ago 4
Terrible... This is easy to refute... The man on the phone does not believe in everything... I'm sure he doesn't believe in Ra, Leprechaun, Pixies, Dragons, Goddesses, and a billion other things. He cannot prove these things do not exist. He does not believe these things because he has not been shown any credibile evidence. Negation is the start position not one that needs to be reached...
gekapat 8 months ago 2
These hosts suck.
Drucef 8 months ago 4
Well, just because you don't know some things, filling in the gaps with whatever fairy tale you like doesn't make sense.
oo0o0 8 months ago
Gnosticism and agnosticism are positions on what we can and cannot know respectively. Theism and Atheism are positions on what you believe and don't believe respectively. So a person can be an Gnostic Atheist as much as they can be a Agnostic Atheist and likewise with Theism. The main question here is "Do you or do you not believe there is a god or gods?" Simply stating I don't know relates to -A-Gnosticism but you still fall on either side of the -A-Theism argument regardless of knowledge.
MysteriousAya 9 months ago
does he believe in fairies?......best argument against this turd.
fermos11111 9 months ago
if we looked for gold in alaska for 6000 years and never found a spec, would you be justified in having unquestioning faith that there is gold in alaska?
SuperAthiest1 9 months ago
Who are those guys?? its an argument so simple to show false!!!
jlompcm 9 months ago 13
My other question is, where's Dillahunty? These guys are sadly inept by comparison and Matt would make mincemeat of this guy.
MrMZaccone 9 months ago 15
@MrMZaccone This is way before Matt became host.
brez002 3 months ago
@brez002 That explains it.
MrMZaccone 3 months ago
@MrMZaccone In fact, these guys probably actually did a better job than Matt would've back then because Matt was still a Theist back then.
brez002 3 months ago
@brez002 Matt's studies as a theist are in large part what make him credible. He wouldn't be so complete if he hadn't been at some time a theist and rejected it for purely rational reasons. Neither of these guys seems to have that background or experience.
MrMZaccone 3 months ago
@MrMZaccone yea, I know. I was kind of just joking around because he would've been arguing on the side of the caller in 1998. But yea, Matt's background and studies are what helped make him such a great rational skeptic.
brez002 3 months ago
@brez002 Hey, this might be Matt!
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
@IoEstasCedonta what might be matt?
brez002 1 month ago
It all depends upon your definition of god. The more anthropomorphic and personal your definition of god, the less likely that god is. Also, since we are all atheistic with respect to one god or another, what's the difference?
MrMZaccone 9 months ago
All they had to say was: By his standards ANYTHING- A N Y believe at all could be justified. And i could just assert that a magical mighty unicorn lives in the 99%.and killed god. And he would have to roam the universe forever to disprove me - granted that he owes up to his own ridiculous standards.
Neotracer64 9 months ago 3
It's hard to defend atheism when you don't even know its definition.
shizoid123 9 months ago
This argument is daft anyway, cos if you think of the % of knowledge they had 10,000years ago compared to what we know now, lets say er.....1% for example, NONE of it was revealed by or contained any god of any description. It was all discovered by science, and ignored a god explanation. This is just a god of the biggest gap argument. And laziness.
adey5 10 months ago
was Matt a theist back in 98?
megaton666 10 months ago
Wow this show has improved in 10 years. This caller would be done in a minute:
"You can't be sure there is no Thor, unicorns or leprechauns either".
Done.
pedazodeboludo 10 months ago
OMG anyone claiming ""There is no God"" is just as stupid as the one claiming "There is a god":
gulbirk 10 months ago
Mistake right at the beginning:
"You believe that there is no God?"
"Yes"
Atheists do not believe in God, they do not believe that there is no God.
bogartnumbertwo 10 months ago
@bogartnumbertwo some do. i for one.
k1llk1ngph30n1x 10 months ago
@k1llk1ngph30n1x I prefer to simply say that I accept the possibility of a God to the same extent that I accept the possibility that there is an invisible, incorporeal unicorn in my fridge.
bogartnumbertwo 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bogartnumbertwo lol, and to exactly what extent would that be? most people understand knowledge and belief in practical terms. so practically speaking, I believe there is no "invisible, incorporeal unicorn in my fridge." I also know it. therefore, given your analogy... you get my point.
k1llk1ngph30n1x 9 months ago
Wow these guys defend atheism very badly. They completely screw up and let the theist win. Good example of how it is not done.
dutchbb1979 10 months ago 3
@dutchbb1979 Bear in mind how old this is. We have all learned from our predecessors mistakes and ignorance.
inquisitorMence 10 months ago
@inquisitorMence True, that's why I said 'Good example of how it is not done.'
dutchbb1979 10 months ago
When he said "all I need is that little nugget of gold" I was screaming at the screen "BUT YOU CAN"T EVEN GET THAT!!!" And they were just like "it's a bad analogy" >_<
Nemesis000000 10 months ago
Ouch... these three guys don't even understand their own position. Atheism is the rejection of the claims of Theism. When they accepted the caller's incorrect definition (i.e a Gnostic Atheist) they foolishly created a strawman and handed it to the him... and then they fumbled like fools to correct the mistake after realizing their error... Egad... I'm SO thankful that Matt, Jen, Jeff, and the rest replaced these folk.
bozzutoman 10 months ago 2
They should have taken his analogy and ran with it. How many companies are prospecting for Gold in Alaska? If they can't be absolutely certain that there's nothing to be found by overturning every grain of sand, why aren't they there doing that? They might hit the mother of all veins! Who knows? The thing is for all practical purposes you just have to draw a line and say that until evidence produces itself, you're not interested in the possible existence of some or another deity.
WSWarthog 11 months ago
ugh, so tough listening to people that don't know the difference between agnosticism and atheism
Feralus69 11 months ago
Why did the hosts agree with an incorrect definition of atheism? Atheism doesn't declare that there is no god. It refers to BELIEF that there is no god. I'm also a bit surprised to hear the guy on the right basically say he's a gnostic-atheist scientist. Gnosticism, from what I understand, is to say you have knowledge of there not being a god. I would think that such declared knowledge comes with a burden to prove it.
I'm an agnostic-atheist. I don't KNOW, and I don't BELIEVE.
SeveredFootLoki 1 year ago
I may know only .0001% of what there is to know, but thats .0001% more than this asshole. And yet once again, there is no proof for god. This jerk had 12 years to figure out and didnt find god on pluto.
FAIL
MrKevMan 1 year ago
They should have never walked into that trap. You can never say without any shadow of a doubt, that "God" DOESN'T exist. Simply state that the evidence found, thus far does not imply that there is one.
seeqer66 1 year ago
First of all, the called would have to believe in an infinite amount of unproven entities and phenomenon for his argument to be valid. Unfortunately this would make it valid but pointless. Secondly, when referring to the immense size of the universe, he's restricting himself to the physical, material realm, excluding any 'supernatural' entities, like... GOD?! SERIOUSLY, are these religious people MENTALLY RETARDED to be making such utterly self contradictory and nonsensical claims?
TehNetherlands 1 year ago
@TehNetherlands cont. I honestly want to know, is he just DUMB like that? How is it that a grown man can be making such comments on a television show, and actually be convinced about the validity of his argument, when it takes me just two fucking minutes to destroy it?! How can an argument like that even survive for so long? I'm honestly convinced that people like the caller in this video are simply disingenuous, dishonest liars. Nobody regurgitates such bull without knowing it's shit.
TehNetherlands 1 year ago
The caller must believe in unicorns and leprechauns too, we don't have proof those don't exist either.
digidot 1 year ago
In defense of the three of them, the show was only about a year old. I'm assuming none of these hosts, co-hosts had any previous experience debating on a TV phone in show nor had the luxury of taking a back seat to learn from someone more experienced in such.
Also its hard to shake the wrong definition of atheism/atheist which a theist biased society, and/or family has beat into you. My own experience with theists made me question my position as different than it is.
robvlob 1 year ago
The way to address the caller, who has a point, is to remark that atheism is a response to a claim. If the definition of a god is so vague as to lack a definition completely, then the caller is right in saying that you cannot know that no gods exist. But that's besides the point, isn't it? Atheists that make a valid point say that without a sensible definition & additionally without a shred of evidence for a god, there is no reason at all to believe it. Probability remains unraised w/o substance
ReasonsAdvocate 1 year ago
If this had been a formal debate, I would say the Christian had won. Unfortunately I think any knowledgeable atheist nowadays could easily have handled this call better than the host did.
TASDeign 1 year ago
It's such a stupid argument and yet people are saying the same but can't back it up exactly like the three gentlemen. This has been put forward so many times and I can only stress that faith can be put down to feeling or thought. Case solved.
AlExXx364 1 year ago
I think they did a poor job defending themselves...I think they set themselves up and that caller knew it...Matt Im sure would have done a better job...no offense men...
Ahsharya 1 year ago
This caller is an idiot.
Alsaka is a bad analogy. One could argure there is gold on Pluto but one would have to provide proof. With out proof there is not reason to believe.
God could exist on pluto but as of now we have no proof. I could say Spiderman lives on Pluto but now your reasoning skills start to become engauged so that you will indeed state Spiderman does not live on Mars based on your knowledge and lack there of.
This caller is an idiot.
adobePC 1 year ago
This whole response was wrecked on the initial response when the guy in the middle asserted that he "knew" there was no God. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't make that kind of all-encompassing claim. The best (and most intellectually grounded) claim is that all affirmative claims that there *is* a god, is unsubstantiated, and the default position in respect to all unsubstantiated claims is that one ought to provisionally reject them. Give us sufficient evidence and we change our minds.
prodprod 1 year ago
@prodprod Well put. That was my immediate reaction as well.
sangsomlipo 1 year ago
wow this show has really evolved since 1998.
ihmen 1 year ago 6
these guys suck compared to everyone they have on the show now, not just matt
henhicktaimon 1 year ago
Unless someone finds some amount of gold in alaska, why would anyone claim there is gold in alaska?
This is how I see it. He says we're basing our beliefs on the "fact" that we only know %1 of the universe(if only that were true). So based on that %1, there is no god. He's basing his beliefs on the "fact" that we don't know 99% of the universe and dispite the fact that the %1 we do know says there is no god.
urantivirus 1 year ago
Holy shit. This must be REALLY old.
This is one of the worst handled callers I think I've ever seen.
This is a particularly weak argument, and very easily handled.
The clown even admits he thinks there definitely IS a god, so the argument can be turned around straight away. Before you get into why it's not a good argument, and destroy it.
The worst A EX clip I think I've ever seen.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
Just because we don't know something doesn't mean something else is true.
simcult 1 year ago
wow these are like "proto" atheists.
they agree to the proposition that atheists "declare there is no god"
which is not even the Atheist position.
kevycanavan 1 year ago
Is this argument originally Ray Comfort's, or did he yoink it? When was it devised? I find it interesting that the only part that has evolved in twelve years is that Alaska became China.
Eyedunno 1 year ago
OH MY GODDDD!!!!! these guys are completely failing to refute such a stupid ass argument!!! anyone could've done a better job. they're like 3 fucking clueless children!!!
who the hell put them on the show?!!
ERRRRRRRRRR!!!!! i wish Matt was there!!!!!!!!
wiz2112 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
the caller sounds like a broken record
dreamlikedigital 1 year ago
that was pisspoor
you could simply allow him to walk you down this path as long as he is willing to do the same.
WrongFit 1 year ago
Using the 1% concept, the caller has to believe in every god, ever described! If not, he's a hypocrite.
knineu02 1 year ago 20
"Eh aaahh eeeh... eeehhh aahhh eehhh ehhaaa eeeh aaahhh aaah uuuh uhu uhh"
Sakkawokkie 1 year ago
his example is wrong because we dont know lets say 99% of the information, but we know the system of how this information is organized/grouped/handled, how it behaves/reacts etc with each other.
so what im saying, if u are 99% sure that god cant exist on earth which is very habitable, it is reasonable to say it doesnt exist anywhere in the universe.
same goes with going through each grain of sand in alaska. if u know that a gold takes "X" factor to form and u know that alaska doesnt have it...
UninstallingWindows 1 year ago
These guys are making a religion of Atheism! Atheism is simply science! Scientific study has not identified the presents of a creator, YET! Maybe someday it will!? But until then we can only have true faith in what we know and can understand at this point in time. These guys need not to be so certain, they just need to get across that they are not pompous enough to have faith in the idea (Key word "Idea") of an alpha male in the sky.
000MrJwright 1 year ago
This is definitely the B team.
TheQRabbit 1 year ago
My answer to the phoner goes:
That 1% covers 99% of the relevant part in question of the Universe, therefor you can say, we can practicly be absolutly sure there is no god (and we can 100% sure proove there isn't the god of the bible).
Anyway, by the caller's standards, you have to be "agnostic" in everything, as nothing can be known for absolute certainity, and that posistion is useless.
gagnashdiak 1 year ago
Caller is fucking irritating... what percentage does HE know?
tml4873 1 year ago
One question for theists and IDiots, why would a god create a Rh negative woman and a Rh positive man? The results wouldn't be nice.
HybridD91 1 year ago
love the show, I love how the show constantly evolves and gets better.
calikeebler 1 year ago
I love that religious people argue about truth eventhough they time and time have lost ground about what they hold be true. If you are wrong 100 % of the time and sometimes have to admit it because of overwhelming evidence, then the chance of you ultimately being right in the end is nearing 0 %. If you claim something is exists, then you have to prove it. Not the other way around. So his logic is basically flawed, although well.spoken.
ToshiroDK 1 year ago
That guy in the middle ... is he high?
They let this overly smug D - bag walk all over them ?
The "you don't know everything so how do you know there isn't ___?" argument can go either way but of course his argument when turned around at him isn't fair, right? Where's Matt when ya need'em?
FranklenWylder 1 year ago 23
@FranklenWylder
- "Where's Matt when ya need'em?"
This is from 1998, when Matt was probably still a Christian.
TheAtheistExperience 1 year ago 50
@TheAtheistExperience
Oh really??
Ssnap, my bad...
FranklenWylder 1 year ago
@TheAtheistExperience well one thing for sure you guys are now much better at the art of argumentation and arguing :) great show. Never seen you live but i go through the whole liblary of your videos theyre al entertaining and hilarious in most cases. Id propably start this guy of with "you havent found a grain of that gold and actualy your analogy would be more fittinf if you were to look for one unicorn cause gold is a physical thing documented and proven to exist unixorns yet need to be"
86Corvus 1 year ago
@FranklenWylder or even jeff or tracie or any current co host would have torn this guy several new ones.
webmaster2089 1 year ago 3
@webmaster2089
I suspect 1 or 2 of these guys are high or on some sort of downer.
They seem waayyy too passive for a topic such as this one.
FranklenWylder 1 year ago
@webmaster2089
I find it weird that you said "even" Jeff or Tracie, considering those two are awesome. Tracie in particular is almost as high as Matt on the pwnage scale, though her style is different, of course.
Eyedunno 1 year ago
@Eyedunno didn't mean to diminish them, i was trying to bring them up cause they weren't mentioned
webmaster2089 1 year ago
@FranklenWylder Thats Ray Blevins and the show almost wouldn't be without him, he was very camera shy, matts the guy for sure though
Revenchist6 1 year ago
@FranklenWylder
that was painful
juliusduku 11 months ago
@juliusduku
I'm sorry, I offend?
FranklenWylder 11 months ago
Wow, what a bunch of lightweights. They had no control over their own show.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
These guys suck compared to Matt! Matt would have destroyed this caller in a minute! I thought of things to say faster than these guys.. they are too hesitant. They should have said: "Assuming you as well know only 1% of the world and theres 99% you do not know what makes you think there actually is a god and can you prove your claim that he exists?"
Radetzky19 1 year ago
This is the 3rd string team.
mspookie 1 year ago
I think that was a better argument for Atheism than Xianity..
We have to search the entire state, and all he has to do is find that one little nugget.. According to him, that makes it easier for the guy that wants to prove that the gold is there.
So his claim should be easier to find proof for, and yet he still hasn't done it.. Neither has ANY Xian, and there are a lot more Xians than Atheists..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
The middle guy is barely understandable.
F33bs 1 year ago
This caller is delusional does he believe in tooth fairies, leprechauns, santa claus and unicorns to. We never see them maybe their out their to, what a completer moron this guy needs a reality check Matt would have tore him apart.
erikcjustice 1 year ago
It's awesome that these guys put together this show, but it's fascinating to watch the early efforts.
Right from the beginning, they get the definition of atheism wrong.
It's interesting to see how much of a difference Dillahunty makes.
hossrex 1 year ago
Do you need to search the entire Arctic to prove that Santa Claus does not exist?
Do you need to search every spec of the sun to prove that Apollo isn't actually carrying it?
Do you need to search the entire universe to confirm that Darth Vader is indeed a fictional being? That the Protoss aren't out there? Saiyans? Necrons? ET? Galactus? Unicron? He-Man? Zoidberg? Starfire?
In order to prevent belief in crazy things like the above, we take the stance of disbelief until we are proven otherwise.
DestAeval 1 year ago
@DestAeval you basically nailed it (i.e. the perfect response)
dontliethetruth 1 year ago
@LFWOL
100% atheist with the admission of fallibility is tenable. What the caller really getting at is that a claim of infallibility is unreasonable; however I know of no atheist that makes such a claim. The Pope does however.
Phage0070 1 year ago
Sorry, but after following a middle-Eastern holy book for thousands of years it's too late for Christians to pretend they give a fuck about rationality.
I don't know 99% of what goes on in theUniverse.
Therefore Robocop is out there.
And anyone who says Robocop isn't out there is an arrogant fool and they are to be chopped up and turned into baby food.
DrunkenPoetic 1 year ago
They should have asked if he could prove the Quran isn't true. If he can't prove the Quran isn't true then all other religions are incorrect. These theists will lie, misrepresent facts and just make up there own logic to try and prove atheism is wrong when all they need to do is prove that theism is correct. Notice that when they kept asking for the nugget of proof for God that he ignored them and kept going with his false premise. Atheists simply don't believe theistic claims. That's all.
ProveItOrLoseIt 1 year ago
That dude seems to just follow a script.
Are you sure there are no unicorns in Alaska? LOL
DeletedDelusion 1 year ago 4
These guys were blindsided by practiced debater. Matt would have destroyed him as he is knows these tactics.
The analogy is a Straw-man argument that wasn't properly identified. Since we know Gold exists having seen it elsewhere we have reason to believe it COULD be in Alaska..
Properly:
Manbearpig of which we have no evidence of existence COULD be in Alaska however there is no reason to believe so.
Vynjira 1 year ago
Wow, these Athiests were stutterring and trying to laugh off their defeat but they could not answer a single question! They're simply idiots!
qwecars 1 year ago
Let's say we know 1 % - but none of this supports the existence of God, thus how probable is the existence of a God? Clearly less than the non-existence...
DigitizedSelf 1 year ago
The atheists in this clip are rather stupid. The answer to his question is that atheists doesnt BELIEVE in a god, noone claimed to know that there is no god.
Were aware that there is alot we dont know, and that its possible that there is a god, we just dont see any reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Lillie1986 1 year ago
@Lillie1986
you hit the nail on the head. the caller in this clip does not understand the atheist position. his argument is flawed.
gokuhawks14 1 year ago
@gokuhawks14 Actualy it seems like the atheist in this clip have the position he claims all atheists have. So in this clip Id say the caller is the smart one and the atheists are the stupid ones.
Lillie1986 1 year ago
@Lillie1986
Ya a agree they did not do a very good job debating him. I would agree that any atheist saying He knows that their is no god is wrong. Not believing in god and knowing that there is no god are two different things. They did not represent atheists very well in this.
gokuhawks14 1 year ago
@gokuhawks14 Yea, but the callers point was exactly that, that you cant know. But they argued against him instead of just saying that no, we dont know, but we dont think so.
The whole point with being an atheist is that we dont believe in god simply because theres no real reason to. Theres no evidence or any arguments that supports his existance
Lillie1986 1 year ago
This caller is an idiot
drche420 1 year ago
this is ridiculous ...the theist is using gold a proven element , that exists in numerous places on this planet, we have tons of it as proof and equating it with god- a supernatural being that has no physical proof what so ever. by the 4th min I lost patience for that guy, ....(me..I would have used antimatter ,,,just to give you a run for your money....hhehehehe)
dangermous1968 1 year ago
@dangermous1968 I am not implying that he would be right
dangermous1968 1 year ago
this show needed Matt. Matt would have handled this in 5 seconds. These atheists got destroyed by this simple question. They couldn't even say that the burden of proof is on the person asserting the claim. I was embarrassed to watch this clip.
nadocrew 1 year ago 47
@nadocrew
Exactly. It's a pretty dopey argument.
Yes, what the caller is saying is correct.
It's also irrelevant.
Diosibundo 1 year ago
@nadocrew I agree i couldn't believe no one could get around this guy's circular argument
wackyweed57 1 year ago
@nadocrew yeah! matt rulez! :)
dadiijugovaca 1 year ago
@nadocrew i disagree, the caller does not destroy these people. he says all he has to do is go to venezuela to find a little god, which is obviously impossible.
commerceskate 1 year ago
@commerceskate
The caller destroys them in terms of rhetoric, but rhetoric says nothing for the truth or falsity of a proposition. Man, I was just waiting for them to say "Okay, we're fuckin' agnotics; what difference does it make? Show evidence for your own claims or STFU!"
Eyedunno 1 year ago 2
@nadocrew You can't be more correct bro. I felt ashamed that these atheist were debunked with this easy and silly argument. Mat and I think anybody else would've destroyed this caller in seconds
elzorritoo 1 year ago
@nadocrew
I agree, i was embarrassed watching this clip too..
I think what they failed to mention is that atheism is just a rejection of the god claim, it's not an assertion that there is no god
and it would have been nice if they asked him if he had searched the whole universe for the tooth fairy since i assume he doesnt believe in one
ChampX1 1 year ago 2
You'd think this is an easy argument to be prepared for. All you have to do is ask "is there any fairy dust in Alaska?" If you are arguing with a fair minded person you will get to the point where they say no. Most likely because they know fairy dust is not based on reality but fantasy. Then explain this is how atheists feel about god. Such a bad argument.
heatmourning33 1 year ago
So far, no grain of God has been located;
'nuff said, no?
Bazompora 1 year ago
Is anyone else really surprised the atheist side didn't mention "Russell's Teapot" or "Occams Razor" even once? There are perfectly valid arguments against this man, it seems that atheists were not represented very well here.
andrewrichmo 1 year ago
well, the hard reality for both sides is there is no proof that there is no God, and there is no proof that there is a God. Both sides very staunchly hold to their beliefs, but no one can 'declaratively say' either one is 'truth.'
ocerg1111 1 year ago
This creationist is a deluded idiot but the atheists here weren't exactly putting up a very good case either
mythinktube 1 year ago
They've come along so far in 12 years.
goneutt 1 year ago
This is painful...
LanceDirk 1 year ago
The caller is right. He proves that atheism is as ignorant and closed minded as a fundamentalist religion. If you are a modern scientific type, it makes the most sense to be agnostic. Do scientists ever do one percent of an experiment, and then give a declarative statement of evidence? The phrase "god does not exist" is not scientific fact, period.
Polyfusia 1 year ago
The point is the burden of proof lies with the one who claims there is a god. There is 0 evidence of a god. Therefore god likley does not exist.
MegaAtheistman 1 year ago
@Polyfusia
The analogy he uses is great. I can continue on and declare a statement "There is no Bethilium(⁸³⁹Bet) in Alaska". I know for a fact there is no Bethilium in Alaska, cause I made that Element up.
The concept of a God as an explanation for life, morality, natural phenomena, etc.. is outdated and to a very high degree we know that most Gods throughout history are made up. Most monotheistic religions are incompatible, so only one can be right, but they are all equally "credible".
FatLingon 1 year ago
The strange thing about the size of the universe, as we discover more with every new breakthrough in science, is that it is so incredibly vast, that even if you did "just make it up", it may exist somewhere. It likely doesn't, but if you declaratively say it doesn't, you are not basing that on facts, but rather on an internal belief in your own logical and subjective infallibility.
Creationists hate apes. Atheists hate admitting that they're logic isn't an authority in the universe.
Polyfusia 1 year ago
their*
I hate arguments with poor spelling.
Polyfusia 1 year ago
@Polyfusia
"Atheists hate admitting that they're logic isn't an authority in the universe." That may be true but it doesn't take away from the fact that our logic is all we have to go by. An employer won't refuse to give someone a job because even though the 1% he knows about the prospective employee is very good, the 99% COULD be bad. It is illogical to base any decision around that 99% without good reason to suspect a certain point within it.
andrewrichmo 1 year ago
That is my point exactly. We don't have the right to make a decision, or foster a belief on this particular issue. Why do we need an immediate answer about the existence of God? I think the jury is out on this one until we understand our universe better.
We should live our lives based on the assumption that God does not exist, because his existence has yet to be proven in any capacity. At the same time, saying there is no God is ignorant, until we know all things in the Universe.
Polyfusia 1 year ago
@Polyfusia
Ahh I see what you're saying now, I agree with you more than I originally thought. I am an atheist based on my belief that if when the the notion of a god was introduced, the people had the same level of reasoning skills we do now, religion would not have lasted an hour. I do not claim to definitively know but I do claim that the only logical answer, if one is required to take a side, is that god does not exist.
andrewrichmo 1 year ago
Would you call me arrogant or closed minded if I told you that I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Please provide any evidence of god or shut the fuck up.
trueleroix 1 year ago
There is no proof of God. There is no proof that there is no God. Nobody has the evidence for either. So everyone should shut up, essentially. Nobody knows, and neither do you. If you think you do, you're making an assumption, however likely that assumption may be. Logical thinkers don't make assumptions. Arrogant people think that their own knowledge and brain power is so great, that they can make blanket statements about the universe.
A biblical God is unlikely, but not definitively absent.
Polyfusia 1 year ago
I should further point out that I see no reason whatsoever why anybody should believe in God. I've seen no proof, and if you asked me to chance an educated guess, I would say that he doesn't. However, I would not say definitively "there is no god", because I don't know, and can't possibly know.
If there's one thing I share with Atheists, it's the frustration about God playing a role in the world at all. Until his existence has been proven, he holds no water.
Polyfusia 1 year ago
@Polyfusia
And just in case there's confusion on what side I'm taking ad whatnot, I'm a PEARList
gimmethegepgun 1 year ago
Whoops, replied to a different message with that one than the previous one. Ah well, at least they're on top of each other
gimmethegepgun 1 year ago
@Polyfusia
Actually, we do all make a very important baseline assumption: That what our senses tell us is at least a relatively accurate portrayal of what is around us. In order to make it somewhat LESS of an assumption, we look to those people and machines around us and see if they have the same result our senses tell us. If your senses tell you something very different from everyone elses' senses, and the detection machines you have, then it's probably you screwed up
gimmethegepgun 1 year ago
Gold is a physical entity and need not exist at all in Alaska. But is there a case for saying God need not exist in the Universe. The truth is science knows so little about wht they do know. How did a living cell, composed of atoms, neutrons, electrons,etc develop in a working unit that all life sprang from. What is intelligence?How do men manage to think?Yes, they know the anatomy but cannot explain clearly why it functions? A cause not physical could explain this? Why is this not reasonable?
basingstokeborn 1 year ago
Not knowing how something works does not default to the position that a god did it. If this was true then we would have millions of 2 year olds worshiping a magic god box that beams entertainment into everyones homes.
bunnysnot 1 year ago
WOW these guys are stupid NO debate skills.
Thge caller kept saying you have to go everywhere to prove there isn't a god and all I have to do is go anywhere to prove there IS. OK so DO IT!!!
Caller claims "All I need is one nugget of gold to prove there is gold in Alaska" OK so show me this one nugget of gold.... I would have turned his logic around on him... ok SIR what YOU are saying is you have the easier task of only having to find one nugget of gold. SO WHERE IS YOUR NUGGET BUDDY!?!?!?
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
How do you know there isn't a giant spaghetti monster flying out in space? You can't prove that it doesn't exist so it must exist.
Sounds retarded, assume it doesn't exist and go on with life until you find it.
Pvic 1 year ago