I love ohh she hung up. I often get people complaining about me swearing. the fact that matt dillahunty did that sarcasm thing just makes me like him more.
"excuuuussseee me, you cant be a little more civil without speaking filthy language. This conversation is over god bless you religion is the only way i will pray for you". This is quite possibly the quintessential mindset of most fundamentalist christians. I love the that they are willing to speak their mind to you about religion but when atheist speak back on their views 99% of theists shut down and stop accepting perfectly reasonable logic and ideas.
@SuperDelusionist La elaha el la la eshedu ana Muhammedan rasul Alah
There is no God but God and Muhammed is his messenger.
That's the best Arabic I can manage. I used to be married to Muslim woman (Iraqi) for 12 years. As an American with a history as a Christian then Muslim then atheist, and a masters degree in biology I think I have some background to find both favor and fault in Arab culture and the religions of Islam and Christianity. I've seen and done it all.
@burkerow thats ok, i lived in Algeria until i spoke out loud that i was NOT a muslim.. then i was forced to leave... and by my own family. ISLAM is a problem, along with the other religious followings. :) enjoy your freedom as a TRUE HUMAN.. being an atheist brings you back to what you were before you were corrupted by fairytales and myth taught by people you trusted. One day, we will get passed all this nonsense!
@CommentaryChick "The whole idea of us being giving "free will" and then using it only to be sent to Hell is just...crap."
You are correct about that. I think the concept of free will is the most damaging thing to any concept of an omniscient god. Fee will is logically inconsistent with that god.
yeah, atheists are constantly called stupid, immoral, sinful, spiritually blind, and deserving of eternal suffering, and then these theists claim moral impeccability and high-ground with their neat little ways.
assume truth, define every contrary claim as false by that assumption, define morality as following said truth... it's such an intellectual death-trap. the perfect, unbreakeble circular logic. the inpenetrable armor of willful ignorance. it's really utmost ingenious. and dangerous.
While I quite enjoy Matt's argument, I rather think it's a little pathetic how desperately he tries to justify swearing at the woman. He lost his cool over having to deal with her and he let an f-bomb slip, and instead of acknowledging it he instead belittles her.
I'm sorry, but adults are entirely capable of having discussions and debates without swearing, and to pretend that her reaction is unreasonable and childish is little more than his attempt to validate his own reaction to her.
The word fuck is expressive, and useful for that. Yes, Matt lost his cool here, but he's still right. and the fact that she finds certain words offensive should not prevent people from using them, just like her finding the show offensive doesn't prevent them from putting it on the air.
@leftovers0 I completely agree, Matt is fully within his right to use the language he wants, or at least within the restrictions set when filming a TV show anyways. At the same time, the women is justified in no longer wishing to continue a conversation where she's going to be sworn at. Clearly she finds the word offensive in the way he used it, and for him to use that like it's some sort of indicator for how stupid and superstitious she was is at best a childish argument.
She wasn't sworn at. He used the word whilst conversing with her. There's a massive difference, and I think it is the difference between being him being rude, and her being defensive.
As if swearing is a bad thing between adults? Losing your cool in this case is just speaking plainly. Her reaction was unreasonable but that's not the point that he was making, he was saying that she was using the swear as a cowardly way of backing out of an argument she was losing.
@MrDajdawg how about you ignore them, does their argument really bother you that much. If it does then stop looking at the damn comments. Problem solved. Other then that you will just get trolled off this comment board
Athiests are as fundamental as fundamentalists. they go to profanity because they cant use intelligence to debate there ideas. So I agree that he didnt need to use profanity. His ego had to come into and thats as wrong as any fundamentalists
that word fear meant to be "in awe of" Spirit which is outside of material things but also within it. Is eternal. You are spirit. God is spirit. that is eternal. So simply Jesus was just teaching us back to ourselves as divine Spirit "animating conscioiusness." Eternal.
Silly atheist using juvenile ad hominems in an attempt to suppliment his abject ignorance. Amusing.
Well, evidence I have. Apart from scientific evidence, there are basic notions of logic that any sane person understands, which atheists dismiss. It takes faith to believe the Bible; it takes a completely deluded mind to believe that the universe was uncaused, or that it came from nothing.
2 Questions for Christians (and I know these are old): Does God live in the heart of the unbeliever? Obvious answer is no, which means God is NOT omnipresent. Can God commit suicide? (not WOULD he, but CAN he) If the answer answer is no, then he is not omnipotent. If the answer is yes, then he is not eternal. Have a nice day and think about it.
@brabanthallen No God cannot commit sucicide and God cannot live in the heart of the unbeliever, You have to ask him to live in your life, yes he is omnipotent and yes he is eternal
@taylan637 Good stuff and very sound logic! Makes sense to me, and its one of the reasons I choose to not believe in any all-powerful supernatural sky daddies.
"...the christian will get ignorant and stop listening." LMAO I think that's probably going to happen regardless of the argument or its placement in the conversation.
The answer will obviously be: God could tell you what to do, but he chooses not to. There are plenty of paradoxes in god's omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence, but I don't see how that is one of them...
@Thenewfallingsacred how literately retarded are you? as i said you dont have to believe in anything jackass!!! as long as you don't believe in god, you are automatically a follower of the devil! no in between. koman fout estipid se pep jodi-ye?
in the bible satan/lucifer sais to god that humans of their own mind will follow him, hell isnt just a place for satan ,the demon are his followers, it doesnt matter if you don't believe in the devil or hell ,unless you dont believe in god then you are a follower of the devil there is no interval here.
@manovrsb - If your beliefs are wrong (or not your beliefs considering I can't tell what you are) then the devil is not responsible and we are not following the devil, but in the case that somehow miraculously what you believe is right then we would be following the devil. Although in this lifetime as long as we cannot prove God then atheists have every right to say that they don't believe in anything.
@SySt3m - No that's not what the show is about. The atheists' that do the show are asking for proof of why people believe what they believe and try to refute the argument until someone comes up with valid evidence for their belief. This is about educating each other not making others look foolish.
So we're suppose to let her preach, and tells us we are flawed to a level that we deserve no less then eternal suffering and torture, but when Matt says Fuck, all of a sudden, he's being too outrageous.... Wow, gotta love Christian indoctrination.
-Calling to tell the hosts that they deserve to burn, to suffer, to cry, to bleed, to beg, to be tortured for ever and ever until the end of time. Perfectly Civil.
-Host Dropping a F Bomb: ZOMG WUUUT OUTRAGEOUS! *hangs up*
God is good all the time. I give thanks to God that He created me a Man who born from human being. Thanks God that human being do not belong from apps or monkey. All glory, honor and praise to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I have No shame to confess that I love Jesus Christ, The only Son of God. Jesus is the way, truth and life. One day every knee shall bow and tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Athiests confess Him Lord today or one day you will surly confess but will be no use.
I will never be able to understand the levels of illogical thinking behind this notion of 'sending yourself to hell'. It's not a choice of do you want to go to Heaven or Hell, it's whether you will choose to believe and worship God/Jesus. If I accompanied my little sister to a Justin Bieber concert instead of going out drinking with my friends it'd be like accusing me of choosing to go to the concert itself (which to me is comparable to Hell).
This lady is a prime example of the judgmental, mean spirited, small minded people who turned me off to religion in the first place. The religion is a tool for THEM to pass judgement on other people.
I don't find it offensive but I don't think Matt should have sworn at her. It was unprofessional and doesn't help the public profile of atheism in a prudish society.
@CommanderGene I could not care less how smart religious apologetic XY may sound to your indoctrinated ears. It's his Job to take a 2000 year old holy book and claim that this book was already right about stuff that nobody ever studied. There are people called scientists- and their job is it to look at the evidence, test it and figure out what really happened. And when it comes to things like evolution, the origins of earth, THE TRUTH - I'll trust the scientists, not the preachers. Thank you.
Being the ill informed person that you are, you completely skimmed over the fact that he never argues that the Bible is inerrant, and most of his arguments are of a scientific nature. It's manifestly clear that you haven't read one thing he even wrote, and yet you stride off into a discussion about the author with such confidence. Your arrogance only impresses yourself. I can see that you only took one "thought" to your brain, but not many others.
@CommanderGene As I already said: I could not care less what he says and how "scientific" his claims may sound. I took a wild guess with calling him an apologetic, but it seems that I'm not that wrong as you might wish. If there was or ever were a scientific proof for god's existence, It would be published worldwide. Everyone would speak about it, and everyone wanted to have a piece of this cake (think about the money!). Whenever someone claimed to have this proof, it turned out to be a lie.
@CommanderGene And I hate people that produce fake evidence to convince us of supernatural bullshit. They faked this shit over and over again, and every time some asshole like William Lane Craig shows up sounding mighty smart, there are people that are willing to believe him! And even if it turns out to be bullshit, they shrug it off and believe the next quacksalver! Don't act like you would care about what's real! You just don't want to lose the cozy feeling of being "more".
@CommanderGene 1. I've read plenty of WLC, I've listened to dozens of his lectures and debates and I have a book from him in my own home library. I also think the hyperbole with which you describe him is unfounded.
Yes I think WLC is intelligent and a skilled masterdebater.
He is very skilled for having successfully resurrected the long refuted and illogical Kalam argument, which is in turn a repackaging of Aristotle's prime mover.
It seems like you didn't even try to grapple with the Kalam argument, offering such tepid responses.
The premise certainly deduces that conclusion. If there is a first cause, it cannot be material or time-bound. Since the first instance of creation brought forth all of creation, there must be something other than matter which has caused all of matter to exist. A very basic principle. It's jumping to the ONLY logical conclusion.
@CommanderGene "It seems like you didn't even try to grapple with the Kalam argument, offering such tepid responses."
I beg your pardon? I have studied the Kalam in depth, and there are few philosophers that agree with it. You haven't read any criticism of the Kalam have you.
"If there is a first cause, it cannot be material or time-bound." Support this statement please. Nobody, and I dare say even someone as arrogant as you, knows how the universe got it's start.
"You haven't read any criticism of the Kalam have you."
I have;which is why I've debunked them,while you simply regurgitated the ones that have been thoroughly refuted.
"Support this statement please."
Gladly.A cause that spurs the existance of spacetime must be something outside of spacetime. Matter cannot create itself prior to it existing(common sense).Since that cause is immaterial and timeless, it cannot be naturalistic.Short and to the point.Any negation shows your irrationality.
@CommanderGene 2. Aristotle considered the god that was the first cause to have been a lesser god, and since it was not a "personal" god which intervened in earthly affairs it was an irrelevant god.
There are many logical problems with the Kalam of which WLC is so fond. There's not room to expound but just one problem with it is; IF we concede the premise is correct that the universe has a cause, there's nothing in the premise that says the cause is God, that's jumping to a conclusion.
@CommanderGene 3. Science says we don't yet know what the antecedent event was that caused the expansion of the singularity (Big Bang) was. To postulate a god as the antecedent event would be to commit the logical fallacy ad ingorantium. If we could grant the premise is correct (that the universe had a cause) AND grant that it was god that created it, you would then need to justify the definition of God as the Abrahamic God...that's another conclusion not supported in the syllogism.
Craig's book, because if you had, you'd have known that he devotes an entire chapter in his book analyzing the top cosmogonic theories.
Since spacetime cannot be extended past a singularity, the question of what came before the Big Bang is meaningless. There was nothing before it to begin with! The charge that postulating a god is somehow an argument from ignorance shows you don't even know what the fallacy implies. Cont.
@CommanderGene "Since spacetime cannot be extended past a singularity, the question of what came before the Big Bang is meaningless.
This statement is not agreed on by cosmologist either. There are arguments that something may have existed for eternity before the big bang, meaning the big bang was just an event in a larger series of events. This is one question that theories such as multiverses might answer, none of which are proven but neither is god.
I suggest you do your research. It is that view which contradicts mainstream scholarly works on cosmology, not vice versa. There are competeing hypotheses that seek to repalce the standard model, which are unsubstantiated, speculative, and far-fetched. Moreover, a past boundry is necessary since an actual past infinite series of events is logically impossible. Again, all of these arguments are addressed in the book. You clearly have not read it.
@CommanderGene "Again, all of these arguments are in the book. You clearly have not read it."
Excuse me! Did I ever say I read the book to which you refer? I said I have listened to dozens of his lectures and debates and I have a book in my library where he debates John Dominic Crossan.
FACT, there are competing philosophies to the Kalam which most philosophers subscribe to. Go read them. I have no interest in spending my time debating a jerk on this complex subject in a few sentences.
"have a clue what the real scientist and cosmologist think"
Keep thinking that after offering not a single shred of evidence to either support your case or refute mine.Takes a lot of nerve,I'll give you that.
"but that would likely make you a deist"
It may as well.That is not germane to the conservation.Learn what a red herring is, because from your incoherent and boorish tirade I can tell you don't know.To disprove atheism I don't need to argue in favor of a speciifc religion...(cont).
...all I need to do is prove the greater likelihood of A god existing. I pointed this out to you before; too bad it went over your head.
"putting any effort into understanding what "god" is."
It's hard to make sense of your stupidity at this point.That God is postulated as the cause of existance itself. What's so hard for you to understand.If a creator god makes more sense in explaining the origin of the universe(which it does) then atheism fails. Period, end of discussion. It's...(cont)
...almost amusing seeing you trying to reel away from such an obvious conclusion. If the unievsre has a cause, it cannot be material since that would imply that the univesre created itself--a nonsensical and incoherent notion. If there is a cause it must be immaterial, timeless, and personal--since the act of creation involves a choice. These things are logcially deduced, and they follow from the scientific data which you are ignorant of.
@CommanderGene The third premise of the kalam states that the universe has a cause. Craig believes that if he has shown this premise to be true, he has proven the existence of God. This is not true. If we accept the causal rule, the truth of the Big Bang, the impossibility of an infinite, Craig's definition of causation, and his insistence that this causation applies to the universe, we do not arrive at the conclusion that God is the cause. Rather,we arrive at the conclusion that we don't know.
@CommanderGene "These things are logcially deduced, and they follow from the scientific data which you are ignorant of."
Again, I'm not really interested in trying to debate such a complex subject in such a small space with a person who is an insulting asshole as yourself. I will however make an appeal to authority here. The scientists who have compiled the data of which you say I am ignorant of, disagree with you.
@CommanderGene "If the unievsre has a cause, it cannot be material since that would imply that the univesre created itself--a nonsensical and incoherent notion."
This comment shows just how stupid you are. Of course the beginning of the universe is nonsensical and incoherent. Site a single person on this planet who has made sense of it. No one can understand it. Even more nonsensical and incoherent is the concept of god. You've just introduce even more complexity to the conundrum.
It may as well.That is not germane to the conservation
It's not germane? Craig, who you're so fond of subscribes to the Abrahamic God. At least he has the balls to give attributes to his god.
Again a deist god would be nothing more than Aristotle's prime mover and it describes nothing. I can't make a good argument against that type of god, but it makes me wonder the relevance of it.
IN this case, if there was nothing prior to the big bang--or any other past spacetime boundry for that matter-- the cause must be a god. That is not deduced from any LACK of information, it's the only logical conclusion one can make. If there was nothing, somethig had to bring it into existance. Ex nihilo nihil fit=out of nothing, nothing comes.
Based on the standard model we can. read Paul Davis, Tipler, Barrow, Hawking, et al. Any serious interpretation of the standard model requires such a view. A spacetime trajectory cannot be extended past a singularity, since it represents a boundry.
It's not a false dichotomy. Either the cause is matterial or immaterial. There's no "in between." In some cases we are left with a limited amount of explanatory postulates.
We have to justify God as Abrahamic? Based on what? Are you familiar with the term "red herring?" The premises seek to establish the greater probability of a god existing---not any one particular god. It's so irrelevant it's not even worth addressing. Since in order for the theist to refute the naturalistic atheistic proposition all he has to do is to show the greater likelihood of A god existing, it is completely unecessary to argue about the religious conception of that god.
@CommanderGene "We have to justify God as Abrahamic? Based on what?"
Well excuse me if I made a generalization here. And who's introducing a red herring? The reason I generalized the Abrahamic God is that well over half the world population believes in that god you dip shit. If you wanted to avoid your own red herring and avoid being an arrogant ass, you could simple confess that you don't believe in that god, but that would likely make you a deist.
@CommanderGene "in order for the theist to refute the atheistic proposition all he has to do is to show the greater likelihood of A god existing,"
Since you seem to only be using the word "god" as a convention of language, you are in effect saying nothing. You're simply using "god" as a word to describe the moment of creation without putting any effort into understanding what "god" is. So, how do you define god? Do you give it attributes such as a personality, do we need to worship it?
@CommanderGene 4. So you see, I can punch holes all through WLC's favorite argument in support of his God. So why are you so convinced he's smart? 1. Because you are emotionally connected to the truthfulness of his conclusion...that God exist, and not just any god, but your favorite God. 2.WLC is a skilled salesman using bafflegab that you'll readily buy. 3.You don't critically examine your own beliefs.
Do yourself a favor and look up "criticism of the Kalam argument" and see what I'm saying.
@MrDajdawg "O Lord Blessings unto you in the Highest and take from us our sins and falsehoods to become better Christians. And thank you O Lord for the gift of swear words like Fuck, Cunt, MoFo, ballsack, bastard, cockbreath, wanker, shithead, putawhore, etc etc .....for ever and ever Amen"
@henrywiltcher Fact! Self importance, when in reality we are just one of the millions of species to inhabit this planet, which is just one in trillions and trillions with quite a few of them holding life as well. I often wonder if there are some religious Aliens somewhere out there fighting with others....maybe on another youtube?
@BrainGuy45 I don't believe the f#*king FCC has any say in this matter. It's my understanding that the adminstration of public access channels is left to the f*%kheads at the local authorities and the cable companies, and the f#*king FCC can't f&^k around with the content. Google 'PEG Channels' for more info. Good f#*king question.
05:00 ;; "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use" ~ Galileo Galilei
@SeedsOfHatre, U said,"I love that "Gun to your head" analogy. Christians don't realize that is EXACTLY what their God supposedly does to Mankind."
- Supposedly is right because that is not what God does.
I've heard "the gun to your head" analogy before, but it doesn't make sense. The gunman holding the gun to a victim's head wants money or he'll shoot. God wants to save people, not murder them. If God really "had a gun" to our heads, no one would be atheist.
@SeedsOfHatred, U said,"Do not try to reason your way out of the analogy. It is 100% accurate."
- No, it's a cop out and doesn't make sense. If it were 100% accurate, there would be no atheists.
This is what happens in the atheist's "God has a gun to your head" analogy: A gunman goes up to you and says, "Your money or your life!". You walk away without handing over any money, and the gunman never shoots you. The analogy fails.
@ZebrasFirst the gun analogy is perfect. Hell is a threat. You either do as I say or I shoot you. Truly a benevolent god. I threw you a "lifepreserver" in the form of your option to do as I say. It's funny how the God of the bible is never good nor benevolent, but xians still try to brand him that way.
@tristbjorn, U said,"the gun analogy is perfect. Hell is a threat."
- The gun analogy is only perfect for unthinking athiests who think they are clever. The gun analogy FAILS because it does not make sense. If God truly had a gun to your head, you would NOT be an atheist.
@SeedsOfHatred, U said,"God is the gunman. Your worship is your money/life. Hell is the gunman shooting you. Please tell me you get it now. Please."
- I got it the first time I heard the senseless analogy two years ago. And, I repeat, yet, again: Why aren't YOU a Christian then, if you are indeed being "forced"? Please tell you understand how "the gun to your head" stupidity fails. Please.
Again, if it were accurate, there will be no atheists in the world.
@ZebrasFirst If God had a metaphorical gun to our heads, we wouldn't be atheists?
Well you people are constantly telling us we'll go to Hell when we die. Is that not the process of God yelling "Give me the money or you fucking die!"?
Are you suggesting that everyone who has a gun to their head submits to their attacker? Every single time?
I'm not going to bother explaining this anymore; you're a moron and it would be fruitless.
@SeedsOfHatred, U said,"Are you suggesting that everyone who had a gun to their head submits to their attacker? Every single time?"
- No, but YOU are the one trying to make it sound as though that were the case, YET, the "victim" (atheist) escapes the "gunman" (God?), rendering both threats (handing over money or getting shot) pointless and never occurring. That's why the analogy fails.
You don't need to "bother explaining" anything to me, just make sense. You and the silly anaolgy FAIL.
I freaking love this show
well - screw it
I fucking love this show
DremordDrale 1 day ago 2
Telling someone they are gonna burn forever in hell is filthy language. Fuck is just a word.
GallusSapien 1 day ago
I love ohh she hung up. I often get people complaining about me swearing. the fact that matt dillahunty did that sarcasm thing just makes me like him more.
daveforfun22 4 days ago
"excuuuussseee me, you cant be a little more civil without speaking filthy language. This conversation is over god bless you religion is the only way i will pray for you". This is quite possibly the quintessential mindset of most fundamentalist christians. I love the that they are willing to speak their mind to you about religion but when atheist speak back on their views 99% of theists shut down and stop accepting perfectly reasonable logic and ideas.
MrSumbody69 4 days ago
You sir, are brilliant.
mattfoster88 1 week ago
"duh savior" hahahah what a stupid woman.
Lautaro1234567 1 week ago
The F Bomb!!!!
It should be Faith!!!
SlashDotDash121 1 week ago
I love Jeff's explanation starting around 4:25 of how his mind opened. Been there, done that too. Well done, and thank you, Atheist Experience!
cynnolan 1 week ago
My favorite hosts, you simply can't win an argument with them.
olwerXL 1 week ago
Are these people FOR REAL?? Are Americans really this dumb, i thought it was just us Arabs who were this dumb.
SuperDelusionist 1 week ago
@SuperDelusionist No, Arabs are not the only ones who are dumb; we Americans are dumb too.
burkerow 1 week ago
@burkerow Yes, evolution is taking a long long time in America... Its taking even longer in the middle east...
SlashDotDash121 1 week ago 5
@burkerow HOW DARE YOU, i am algerian/arab!! lol ... but thats ok, i am kidding, i am NOT a muslim!! :P
SuperDelusionist 1 week ago
@SuperDelusionist La elaha el la la eshedu ana Muhammedan rasul Alah
There is no God but God and Muhammed is his messenger.
That's the best Arabic I can manage. I used to be married to Muslim woman (Iraqi) for 12 years. As an American with a history as a Christian then Muslim then atheist, and a masters degree in biology I think I have some background to find both favor and fault in Arab culture and the religions of Islam and Christianity. I've seen and done it all.
Masalahma :-)
burkerow 1 week ago
@burkerow thats ok, i lived in Algeria until i spoke out loud that i was NOT a muslim.. then i was forced to leave... and by my own family. ISLAM is a problem, along with the other religious followings. :) enjoy your freedom as a TRUE HUMAN.. being an atheist brings you back to what you were before you were corrupted by fairytales and myth taught by people you trusted. One day, we will get passed all this nonsense!
SuperDelusionist 1 week ago
Unbelievable conversation,another lampost calling in,with mindless views.It's so easy to shoot down true believers,LOL.
bongo7654 1 week ago
I love this!
Virens132 1 week ago
The whole idea of us being giving "free will" and then using it only to be sent to Hell is just...crap.
CommentaryChick 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CommentaryChick "The whole idea of us being giving "free will" and then using it only to be sent to Hell is just...crap."
You are correct about that. I think the concept of free will is the most damaging thing to any concept of an omniscient god. Fee will is logically inconsistent with that god.
There is no free will, it's an illusion.
burkerow 1 week ago
Comment removed
CommentaryChick 1 week ago
yeah, atheists are constantly called stupid, immoral, sinful, spiritually blind, and deserving of eternal suffering, and then these theists claim moral impeccability and high-ground with their neat little ways.
assume truth, define every contrary claim as false by that assumption, define morality as following said truth... it's such an intellectual death-trap. the perfect, unbreakeble circular logic. the inpenetrable armor of willful ignorance. it's really utmost ingenious. and dangerous.
lygophile 1 week ago
"you guys send yourselves there!" - its a classic :P
lol calling in to talk about the fictional eternal torture that her cult believe athiests face,
and then getting offended by the word "fuck"
sorry but i think the idea of eternal torture for not being gullible is a little bit more offensive than the word fuck...
DemoraX 1 week ago
for some reason i started liking americans after watching this :D
ATOZBTOURMOMMA 2 weeks ago
While I quite enjoy Matt's argument, I rather think it's a little pathetic how desperately he tries to justify swearing at the woman. He lost his cool over having to deal with her and he let an f-bomb slip, and instead of acknowledging it he instead belittles her.
I'm sorry, but adults are entirely capable of having discussions and debates without swearing, and to pretend that her reaction is unreasonable and childish is little more than his attempt to validate his own reaction to her.
note4note 2 weeks ago
@note4note
The word fuck is expressive, and useful for that. Yes, Matt lost his cool here, but he's still right. and the fact that she finds certain words offensive should not prevent people from using them, just like her finding the show offensive doesn't prevent them from putting it on the air.
People do not have the right not to be offended.
leftovers0 2 weeks ago
@leftovers0 I completely agree, Matt is fully within his right to use the language he wants, or at least within the restrictions set when filming a TV show anyways. At the same time, the women is justified in no longer wishing to continue a conversation where she's going to be sworn at. Clearly she finds the word offensive in the way he used it, and for him to use that like it's some sort of indicator for how stupid and superstitious she was is at best a childish argument.
note4note 2 weeks ago
@note4note
She wasn't sworn at. He used the word whilst conversing with her. There's a massive difference, and I think it is the difference between being him being rude, and her being defensive.
leftovers0 2 weeks ago
@note4note
As if swearing is a bad thing between adults? Losing your cool in this case is just speaking plainly. Her reaction was unreasonable but that's not the point that he was making, he was saying that she was using the swear as a cowardly way of backing out of an argument she was losing.
TheTexanCanadian 1 week ago
He did not die!!! So why the fuck did you called?
halolIlmao0 2 weeks ago
8:44 I never thought it that way...
ChaoticRupture 2 weeks ago
She does sound drunk.
Flipper79able 2 weeks ago
It annoys the shit out of me that there are LONG debates in the comments on youtube videos... these are comments... discuss this shit elsewhere... :(
MrDajdawg 2 weeks ago
@MrDajdawg how about you ignore them, does their argument really bother you that much. If it does then stop looking at the damn comments. Problem solved. Other then that you will just get trolled off this comment board
MrSumbody69 2 weeks ago
Athiests are as fundamental as fundamentalists. they go to profanity because they cant use intelligence to debate there ideas. So I agree that he didnt need to use profanity. His ego had to come into and thats as wrong as any fundamentalists
Spiridove52 2 weeks ago
that word fear meant to be "in awe of" Spirit which is outside of material things but also within it. Is eternal. You are spirit. God is spirit. that is eternal. So simply Jesus was just teaching us back to ourselves as divine Spirit "animating conscioiusness." Eternal.
Spiridove52 2 weeks ago
@elibeth121 - you are bat-shit -borderline mentally retarded- incomprehensibly dull-in-the-skull.
E V I D E N C E - DO YOU HAVE IT?
OccamsKatana 2 weeks ago
@OccamsKatana
Silly atheist using juvenile ad hominems in an attempt to suppliment his abject ignorance. Amusing.
Well, evidence I have. Apart from scientific evidence, there are basic notions of logic that any sane person understands, which atheists dismiss. It takes faith to believe the Bible; it takes a completely deluded mind to believe that the universe was uncaused, or that it came from nothing.
CommanderGene 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OccamsKatana Yes I do
elibeth121 2 weeks ago
I wish matt said fuck more often.
OccamsKatana 2 weeks ago
I love the HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM lol
bigj70634 2 weeks ago
2 Questions for Christians (and I know these are old): Does God live in the heart of the unbeliever? Obvious answer is no, which means God is NOT omnipresent. Can God commit suicide? (not WOULD he, but CAN he) If the answer answer is no, then he is not omnipotent. If the answer is yes, then he is not eternal. Have a nice day and think about it.
brabanthallen 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brabanthallen No God cannot commit sucicide and God cannot live in the heart of the unbeliever, You have to ask him to live in your life, yes he is omnipotent and yes he is eternal
elibeth121 2 weeks ago
i had a though...God is meant to be all powerful(controls everything)... he gave us free will..
so does god has power over us, true or false?a christian can give 2 responses.
true- if that is the case then he didn't give us free will if we are still under his power.
false-if that is the case then he is not all power since he doesn't control everything.
use this somewhere in an argument but don;t say it right at the start or the christian will get ignorant and stop listening
taylan637 2 weeks ago 7
@taylan637 Good stuff and very sound logic! Makes sense to me, and its one of the reasons I choose to not believe in any all-powerful supernatural sky daddies.
"...the christian will get ignorant and stop listening." LMAO I think that's probably going to happen regardless of the argument or its placement in the conversation.
q1000101 2 weeks ago 2
@taylan637 rationale matters not unfortunately :( indoctrination is what matters :(
MrDajdawg 2 weeks ago
@taylan637
The answer will obviously be: God could tell you what to do, but he chooses not to. There are plenty of paradoxes in god's omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence, but I don't see how that is one of them...
MeewbeThree 2 weeks ago
What a sad existence she lives..
vyshious 3 weeks ago
"Fuck" Don't take the lords name in vain. "Sorry mum, I didn't realise that god was sex"
OfficialOmegaVoX 3 weeks ago
This NEVER gets old....love you guys! See ya at REASON RALLY!
FirstFretCapo 3 weeks ago
Oh damn that logic stuff. It's a killer. :D
mandyyatthedisco 3 weeks ago
@Thenewfallingsacred how literately retarded are you? as i said you dont have to believe in anything jackass!!! as long as you don't believe in god, you are automatically a follower of the devil! no in between. koman fout estipid se pep jodi-ye?
manovrsb 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Join in on Debates at:
religiousdebates.co.uk
fletchernibiru 3 weeks ago
in the bible satan/lucifer sais to god that humans of their own mind will follow him, hell isnt just a place for satan ,the demon are his followers, it doesnt matter if you don't believe in the devil or hell ,unless you dont believe in god then you are a follower of the devil there is no interval here.
manovrsb 3 weeks ago
@manovrsb - If your beliefs are wrong (or not your beliefs considering I can't tell what you are) then the devil is not responsible and we are not following the devil, but in the case that somehow miraculously what you believe is right then we would be following the devil. Although in this lifetime as long as we cannot prove God then atheists have every right to say that they don't believe in anything.
Thenewfallingsacred 3 weeks ago
Does this show exist for the sole purpose of making people look foolish? That's some dark shit.
SySt3m 3 weeks ago
@SySt3m - No that's not what the show is about. The atheists' that do the show are asking for proof of why people believe what they believe and try to refute the argument until someone comes up with valid evidence for their belief. This is about educating each other not making others look foolish.
Thenewfallingsacred 3 weeks ago
Much appreciaton for "The Atheist Experience."
sknathan13 3 weeks ago 11
So we're suppose to let her preach, and tells us we are flawed to a level that we deserve no less then eternal suffering and torture, but when Matt says Fuck, all of a sudden, he's being too outrageous.... Wow, gotta love Christian indoctrination.
Halflifefan54 3 weeks ago
@QSxFuzionzZ you are the most stupid human being i have ever come across
billyfer97 3 weeks ago
@billyfer97 Why? Explain, You're just mad that your God is fake.
QSxFuzionzZ 3 weeks ago
@QSxFuzionzZ To begin with i am an atheist and i don't believe in any god.
You are a moron because you clearly can't get a joke (LOL it was the devil)
If you think real hard, ignoring the fact that @q1000101 wrote he was an atheist you'd might draw the conclusion yourself
billyfer97 3 weeks ago
@q1000101 That thread of conversation escalated quickly lol.
SeanACampbell 4 weeks ago
wow, I truly feel sorry for religious people.
wisebrad15 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
elibeth121 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wisebrad15 Why do you feel sorry for them?
elibeth121 2 weeks ago
Analysis of the logic of this Christian.
-Calling to tell the hosts that they deserve to burn, to suffer, to cry, to bleed, to beg, to be tortured for ever and ever until the end of time. Perfectly Civil.
-Host Dropping a F Bomb: ZOMG WUUUT OUTRAGEOUS! *hangs up*
Kerokittycat 4 weeks ago
Matt is like a machine gun of logic.
kylekeepers 1 month ago 9
Ive seen these guys hang up on people that insult them, exactly contradictory to what he's talking about at the end of this clip.
chanrichard911 1 month ago
3:12 sounds like she's possesed
Metal1998 1 month ago
If saying fuck makes you uncivilized, I must be a fuckin caveman.
ridered300 1 month ago
@ridered300 Nope. Believing in magic, wizards, and boogeymen makes you uncivilized, so you should be good.
werebee 1 week ago
"I'm gonna punch ya for Jesus!"
PortugalRacional 1 month ago
@QSxFuzionzZ what's a moran?
gleehmee 1 month ago
God is good all the time. I give thanks to God that He created me a Man who born from human being. Thanks God that human being do not belong from apps or monkey. All glory, honor and praise to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I have No shame to confess that I love Jesus Christ, The only Son of God. Jesus is the way, truth and life. One day every knee shall bow and tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Athiests confess Him Lord today or one day you will surly confess but will be no use.
realtyofislam 1 month ago
@realtyofislam Have you extrordinary evidence for your extrordinary claim?
moroney1 3 weeks ago
@realtyofislam "God is good all the time.” --> have you read the bible?
BaneOfAzrael 2 weeks ago
@realtyofislam Hey, I have plenty of ipad apps, and they belong to me. How dare you insinuate that they don't!
werebee 1 week ago
she's not tipsy, she's just typically stupid.
funcpl2741054 1 month ago
I will never be able to understand the levels of illogical thinking behind this notion of 'sending yourself to hell'. It's not a choice of do you want to go to Heaven or Hell, it's whether you will choose to believe and worship God/Jesus. If I accompanied my little sister to a Justin Bieber concert instead of going out drinking with my friends it'd be like accusing me of choosing to go to the concert itself (which to me is comparable to Hell).
NativeAlternative 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@NativeAlternative No it is a choice
elibeth121 2 weeks ago
This lady is a prime example of the judgmental, mean spirited, small minded people who turned me off to religion in the first place. The religion is a tool for THEM to pass judgement on other people.
bugzilla2001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bugzilla2001 wrong
elibeth121 2 weeks ago
I thought people from Portlandia were supposed to be enlightened? *smh*
You had her at "that is so messed up" i would have said, see we agree!
kingcarcas1349 1 month ago
@q1000101 You clearly said "It was the devil."..... derp
QSxFuzionzZ 1 month ago
@q1000101 I think he was being sarcastic...haha
Rager343 1 month ago
I don't find it offensive but I don't think Matt should have sworn at her. It was unprofessional and doesn't help the public profile of atheism in a prudish society.
MrOnionterror 1 month ago
@MrOnionterror I agree.
primitiveatheist 1 month ago
I'd say "fuck" the moment she said "christian"
wagnar 1 month ago
I used to be a christian, but then I took a thought to the brain.
DasHinchen 1 month ago 37
@DasHinchen
Read William Lane Craig. I bet he has plenty more thought in his toe than most of the people in this video have in their minds, combined.
CommanderGene 2 weeks ago
@CommanderGene I could not care less how smart religious apologetic XY may sound to your indoctrinated ears. It's his Job to take a 2000 year old holy book and claim that this book was already right about stuff that nobody ever studied. There are people called scientists- and their job is it to look at the evidence, test it and figure out what really happened. And when it comes to things like evolution, the origins of earth, THE TRUTH - I'll trust the scientists, not the preachers. Thank you.
DasHinchen 2 weeks ago
@DasHinchen
Being the ill informed person that you are, you completely skimmed over the fact that he never argues that the Bible is inerrant, and most of his arguments are of a scientific nature. It's manifestly clear that you haven't read one thing he even wrote, and yet you stride off into a discussion about the author with such confidence. Your arrogance only impresses yourself. I can see that you only took one "thought" to your brain, but not many others.
CommanderGene 2 weeks ago
@CommanderGene As I already said: I could not care less what he says and how "scientific" his claims may sound. I took a wild guess with calling him an apologetic, but it seems that I'm not that wrong as you might wish. If there was or ever were a scientific proof for god's existence, It would be published worldwide. Everyone would speak about it, and everyone wanted to have a piece of this cake (think about the money!). Whenever someone claimed to have this proof, it turned out to be a lie.
DasHinchen 2 weeks ago
@CommanderGene And I hate people that produce fake evidence to convince us of supernatural bullshit. They faked this shit over and over again, and every time some asshole like William Lane Craig shows up sounding mighty smart, there are people that are willing to believe him! And even if it turns out to be bullshit, they shrug it off and believe the next quacksalver! Don't act like you would care about what's real! You just don't want to lose the cozy feeling of being "more".
DasHinchen 2 weeks ago
@CommanderGene 1. I've read plenty of WLC, I've listened to dozens of his lectures and debates and I have a book from him in my own home library. I also think the hyperbole with which you describe him is unfounded.
Yes I think WLC is intelligent and a skilled masterdebater.
He is very skilled for having successfully resurrected the long refuted and illogical Kalam argument, which is in turn a repackaging of Aristotle's prime mover.
Cont.
burkerow 1 week ago
@burkerow
It seems like you didn't even try to grapple with the Kalam argument, offering such tepid responses.
The premise certainly deduces that conclusion. If there is a first cause, it cannot be material or time-bound. Since the first instance of creation brought forth all of creation, there must be something other than matter which has caused all of matter to exist. A very basic principle. It's jumping to the ONLY logical conclusion.
CommanderGene 5 days ago
@CommanderGene "It seems like you didn't even try to grapple with the Kalam argument, offering such tepid responses."
I beg your pardon? I have studied the Kalam in depth, and there are few philosophers that agree with it. You haven't read any criticism of the Kalam have you.
"If there is a first cause, it cannot be material or time-bound." Support this statement please. Nobody, and I dare say even someone as arrogant as you, knows how the universe got it's start.
burkerow 5 days ago
"You haven't read any criticism of the Kalam have you."
I have;which is why I've debunked them,while you simply regurgitated the ones that have been thoroughly refuted.
"Support this statement please."
Gladly.A cause that spurs the existance of spacetime must be something outside of spacetime. Matter cannot create itself prior to it existing(common sense).Since that cause is immaterial and timeless, it cannot be naturalistic.Short and to the point.Any negation shows your irrationality.
CommanderGene 5 days ago
@CommanderGene 2. Aristotle considered the god that was the first cause to have been a lesser god, and since it was not a "personal" god which intervened in earthly affairs it was an irrelevant god.
There are many logical problems with the Kalam of which WLC is so fond. There's not room to expound but just one problem with it is; IF we concede the premise is correct that the universe has a cause, there's nothing in the premise that says the cause is God, that's jumping to a conclusion.
cont
burkerow 1 week ago
@CommanderGene 3. Science says we don't yet know what the antecedent event was that caused the expansion of the singularity (Big Bang) was. To postulate a god as the antecedent event would be to commit the logical fallacy ad ingorantium. If we could grant the premise is correct (that the universe had a cause) AND grant that it was god that created it, you would then need to justify the definition of God as the Abrahamic God...that's another conclusion not supported in the syllogism.
cont.
burkerow 1 week ago
@burkerow
Craig's book, because if you had, you'd have known that he devotes an entire chapter in his book analyzing the top cosmogonic theories.
Since spacetime cannot be extended past a singularity, the question of what came before the Big Bang is meaningless. There was nothing before it to begin with! The charge that postulating a god is somehow an argument from ignorance shows you don't even know what the fallacy implies. Cont.
CommanderGene 5 days ago
@CommanderGene "Since spacetime cannot be extended past a singularity, the question of what came before the Big Bang is meaningless.
This statement is not agreed on by cosmologist either. There are arguments that something may have existed for eternity before the big bang, meaning the big bang was just an event in a larger series of events. This is one question that theories such as multiverses might answer, none of which are proven but neither is god.
burkerow 5 days ago
"event in a larger series of events"
I suggest you do your research. It is that view which contradicts mainstream scholarly works on cosmology, not vice versa. There are competeing hypotheses that seek to repalce the standard model, which are unsubstantiated, speculative, and far-fetched. Moreover, a past boundry is necessary since an actual past infinite series of events is logically impossible. Again, all of these arguments are addressed in the book. You clearly have not read it.
CommanderGene 5 days ago
@CommanderGene "Again, all of these arguments are in the book. You clearly have not read it."
Excuse me! Did I ever say I read the book to which you refer? I said I have listened to dozens of his lectures and debates and I have a book in my library where he debates John Dominic Crossan.
FACT, there are competing philosophies to the Kalam which most philosophers subscribe to. Go read them. I have no interest in spending my time debating a jerk on this complex subject in a few sentences.
burkerow 5 days ago
@CommanderGene "The charge that postulating a god is somehow an argument from ignorance shows you don't even know what the fallacy implies."
And your comment shows you only have your nose stuck in theist books and don't have a clue what the real scientist and cosmologist think.
burkerow 5 days ago
"have a clue what the real scientist and cosmologist think"
Keep thinking that after offering not a single shred of evidence to either support your case or refute mine.Takes a lot of nerve,I'll give you that.
"but that would likely make you a deist"
It may as well.That is not germane to the conservation.Learn what a red herring is, because from your incoherent and boorish tirade I can tell you don't know.To disprove atheism I don't need to argue in favor of a speciifc religion...(cont).
CommanderGene 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...all I need to do is prove the greater likelihood of A god existing. I pointed this out to you before; too bad it went over your head.
"putting any effort into understanding what "god" is."
It's hard to make sense of your stupidity at this point.That God is postulated as the cause of existance itself. What's so hard for you to understand.If a creator god makes more sense in explaining the origin of the universe(which it does) then atheism fails. Period, end of discussion. It's...(cont)
CommanderGene 5 days ago
...almost amusing seeing you trying to reel away from such an obvious conclusion. If the unievsre has a cause, it cannot be material since that would imply that the univesre created itself--a nonsensical and incoherent notion. If there is a cause it must be immaterial, timeless, and personal--since the act of creation involves a choice. These things are logcially deduced, and they follow from the scientific data which you are ignorant of.
CommanderGene 5 days ago
@CommanderGene The third premise of the kalam states that the universe has a cause. Craig believes that if he has shown this premise to be true, he has proven the existence of God. This is not true. If we accept the causal rule, the truth of the Big Bang, the impossibility of an infinite, Craig's definition of causation, and his insistence that this causation applies to the universe, we do not arrive at the conclusion that God is the cause. Rather,we arrive at the conclusion that we don't know.
burkerow 5 days ago
@CommanderGene "These things are logcially deduced, and they follow from the scientific data which you are ignorant of."
Again, I'm not really interested in trying to debate such a complex subject in such a small space with a person who is an insulting asshole as yourself. I will however make an appeal to authority here. The scientists who have compiled the data of which you say I am ignorant of, disagree with you.
burkerow 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CommanderGene "If the unievsre has a cause, it cannot be material since that would imply that the univesre created itself--a nonsensical and incoherent notion."
This comment shows just how stupid you are. Of course the beginning of the universe is nonsensical and incoherent. Site a single person on this planet who has made sense of it. No one can understand it. Even more nonsensical and incoherent is the concept of god. You've just introduce even more complexity to the conundrum.
burkerow 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CommanderGene "but that would likely make you a deist"
It may as well.That is not germane to the conservation
It's not germane? Craig, who you're so fond of subscribes to the Abrahamic God. At least he has the balls to give attributes to his god.
Again a deist god would be nothing more than Aristotle's prime mover and it describes nothing. I can't make a good argument against that type of god, but it makes me wonder the relevance of it.
burkerow 5 days ago
@burkerow
IN this case, if there was nothing prior to the big bang--or any other past spacetime boundry for that matter-- the cause must be a god. That is not deduced from any LACK of information, it's the only logical conclusion one can make. If there was nothing, somethig had to bring it into existance. Ex nihilo nihil fit=out of nothing, nothing comes.
CommanderGene 5 days ago
@CommanderGene "IN this case, if there was nothing prior to the big bang--or any other past spacetime boundry for that matter"
Again, you're making uninformed assertions, we really can't say for sure there was nothing prior to the big bang.
" the cause must be a god. That is not deduced from any LACK of information, it's the only logical conclusion one can make"
That's a false dichotomy and you know it.
burkerow 5 days ago
"we really can't say for sure"
Based on the standard model we can. read Paul Davis, Tipler, Barrow, Hawking, et al. Any serious interpretation of the standard model requires such a view. A spacetime trajectory cannot be extended past a singularity, since it represents a boundry.
It's not a false dichotomy. Either the cause is matterial or immaterial. There's no "in between." In some cases we are left with a limited amount of explanatory postulates.
CommanderGene 5 days ago
@burkerow
We have to justify God as Abrahamic? Based on what? Are you familiar with the term "red herring?" The premises seek to establish the greater probability of a god existing---not any one particular god. It's so irrelevant it's not even worth addressing. Since in order for the theist to refute the naturalistic atheistic proposition all he has to do is to show the greater likelihood of A god existing, it is completely unecessary to argue about the religious conception of that god.
CommanderGene 5 days ago
@CommanderGene "We have to justify God as Abrahamic? Based on what?"
Well excuse me if I made a generalization here. And who's introducing a red herring? The reason I generalized the Abrahamic God is that well over half the world population believes in that god you dip shit. If you wanted to avoid your own red herring and avoid being an arrogant ass, you could simple confess that you don't believe in that god, but that would likely make you a deist.
burkerow 5 days ago
@CommanderGene "in order for the theist to refute the atheistic proposition all he has to do is to show the greater likelihood of A god existing,"
Since you seem to only be using the word "god" as a convention of language, you are in effect saying nothing. You're simply using "god" as a word to describe the moment of creation without putting any effort into understanding what "god" is. So, how do you define god? Do you give it attributes such as a personality, do we need to worship it?
burkerow 5 days ago
@CommanderGene 4. So you see, I can punch holes all through WLC's favorite argument in support of his God. So why are you so convinced he's smart? 1. Because you are emotionally connected to the truthfulness of his conclusion...that God exist, and not just any god, but your favorite God. 2.WLC is a skilled salesman using bafflegab that you'll readily buy. 3.You don't critically examine your own beliefs.
Do yourself a favor and look up "criticism of the Kalam argument" and see what I'm saying.
burkerow 1 week ago
fucking fuck fuckery topped with fuck served on a flying fuck
DasHinchen 1 month ago
Comment removed
Talesone 1 month ago
watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do
chainedtotheworld 1 month ago
All I have to say is thank you to whoever decided to not censor him, and that lady was so stupid.
neoman121 1 month ago
Didn't God invent the word "Fuck" and " Dickwad" and other such expletives ?
jontibloom 1 month ago
@jontibloom LOL It was the devil.
q1000101 1 month ago
@jontibloom actualy mankind developed its languages lol i see the sarcasm tho lol
coltsrule5150 1 month ago
@jontibloom fuck no, those are bad word that god couldn't invent and shit
MrDajdawg 2 weeks ago
@MrDajdawg "O Lord Blessings unto you in the Highest and take from us our sins and falsehoods to become better Christians. And thank you O Lord for the gift of swear words like Fuck, Cunt, MoFo, ballsack, bastard, cockbreath, wanker, shithead, putawhore, etc etc .....for ever and ever Amen"
jontibloom 2 weeks ago
"I'll just be quiet.." Lol Matt knew that a shit storm was coming .
Manguneshane 1 month ago
Ego is absolutely right. Religion is all about ego. Preservation of the ego after death. Anything that challenges that concept must be DESTROYED!
henrywiltcher 1 month ago 5
@henrywiltcher Fact! Self importance, when in reality we are just one of the millions of species to inhabit this planet, which is just one in trillions and trillions with quite a few of them holding life as well. I often wonder if there are some religious Aliens somewhere out there fighting with others....maybe on another youtube?
kingcarcas1349 1 month ago
LOL.....
Euchrid1973 1 month ago
that woman thought " oh i am getting my ass kicked by logic. WHATS THAT HE SAID THE F WORD?!!! :D oh sweet i can get off the phone bye bye"
Spaceman2451 1 month ago 3
"I'm surprised she didn't get the vapors."
That was awesome.
Pelcurus 1 month ago 2
This woman is insufferable. I cant listen any longer.
Johnf85 1 month ago
*BUZZER* Matt Dillahunty you have been fined 2 credits for violations of the verbal morality statute. Be well.
BrainGuy45 1 month ago 2
Do the f*%kheads at the f#*king FCC try to f&^k with AE for this? Or is AE on a delay? Someone please answer my f@#king question.
BrainGuy45 1 month ago 2
@BrainGuy45 I don't believe the f#*king FCC has any say in this matter. It's my understanding that the adminstration of public access channels is left to the f*%kheads at the local authorities and the cable companies, and the f#*king FCC can't f&^k around with the content. Google 'PEG Channels' for more info. Good f#*king question.
q1000101 1 month ago 5
@q1000101 lol thank you.
BrainGuy45 1 month ago
@BrainGuy45 it is access tv
darbone 4 weeks ago
Stupid brainwashed cunt. ahhh makes me sick being part of this stupid species.
TheAtheistSocialist 1 month ago
So, according to Denise, she sends herself to Allah's hell, right?
MoveOrder 1 month ago
05:00 ;; "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use" ~ Galileo Galilei
PSNnightmare 1 month ago
I love the thumbnail for this video, it's Matt looking as incredulously as I've ever seen him.
BlackSabbath86 1 month ago
Drunk on Jesus juice. You don't need alcohol to inebriate yourself when you have the GOOD LORD IN YOUR MOUTH!
SilentMott 1 month ago
the sad thing is that I don't think she was dunk
sambo1455 1 month ago
@sambo1455 Nope just another mentally challenged person.
LosAngelesFresh1 1 month ago
"magic powers to words" awesome
TheCycadsAreAudible 1 month ago
What a cunt.
JimmyCrlc 1 month ago
@JimmyCrlc More magic words? Shame on you.
TugsN 1 month ago
The Valley of Gahenna...
enyskept 1 month ago
I love that "Gun to your head" analogy.
Christians don't realize that is EXACTLY what their God supposedly does to Mankind.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@SeedsOfHatre, U said,"I love that "Gun to your head" analogy. Christians don't realize that is EXACTLY what their God supposedly does to Mankind."
- Supposedly is right because that is not what God does.
I've heard "the gun to your head" analogy before, but it doesn't make sense. The gunman holding the gun to a victim's head wants money or he'll shoot. God wants to save people, not murder them. If God really "had a gun" to our heads, no one would be atheist.
ZebrasFirst 1 month ago
@ZebrasFirst You've missed the point of the analogy entirely. Your God considers unquestioning servitude to be "saving people".
God might as well have a gun to our heads, telling us that we can follow him and live, or we can turn away from him and be shot.
"Living" being a metaphor for Heaven, "Shot" being a metaphor for Hell.
Do not try to reason your way out of the analogy. It is 100% accurate.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago 2
@SeedsOfHatred, U said,"Do not try to reason your way out of the analogy. It is 100% accurate."
- No, it's a cop out and doesn't make sense. If it were 100% accurate, there would be no atheists.
This is what happens in the atheist's "God has a gun to your head" analogy: A gunman goes up to you and says, "Your money or your life!". You walk away without handing over any money, and the gunman never shoots you. The analogy fails.
ZebrasFirst 1 month ago
@SeedsOfHatred, Furthermore, a robber/gunman would not give you much of a choice. You either hand over your money or he will kill you.
God is not forcing anyone to follow Him. In fact, He will give you the freedom to reject Him. A gun to your head does not allow you such freedoms.
A better analogy would be that you are drowning in the ocean. A rescue boat arrives to toss you a lifesaver. You reject the lifesaver.
Why must atheists be so negative and wrong about God?
ZebrasFirst 1 month ago
@ZebrasFirst the gun analogy is perfect. Hell is a threat. You either do as I say or I shoot you. Truly a benevolent god. I threw you a "lifepreserver" in the form of your option to do as I say. It's funny how the God of the bible is never good nor benevolent, but xians still try to brand him that way.
tristbjorn 1 month ago
@tristbjorn, U said,"the gun analogy is perfect. Hell is a threat."
- The gun analogy is only perfect for unthinking athiests who think they are clever. The gun analogy FAILS because it does not make sense. If God truly had a gun to your head, you would NOT be an atheist.
ZebrasFirst 1 month ago
@tristbjorn This guy is about as dense as a fucking black hole.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@ZebrasFirst Again, you've entirely missed the point. You're not making the connections, here.
God is the gunman. Your worship is your money/life. Hell is the gunman shooting you.
Please tell me you get it now. Please.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@SeedsOfHatred, U said,"God is the gunman. Your worship is your money/life. Hell is the gunman shooting you. Please tell me you get it now. Please."
- I got it the first time I heard the senseless analogy two years ago. And, I repeat, yet, again: Why aren't YOU a Christian then, if you are indeed being "forced"? Please tell you understand how "the gun to your head" stupidity fails. Please.
Again, if it were accurate, there will be no atheists in the world.
ZebrasFirst 1 month ago
@ZebrasFirst If God had a metaphorical gun to our heads, we wouldn't be atheists?
Well you people are constantly telling us we'll go to Hell when we die. Is that not the process of God yelling "Give me the money or you fucking die!"?
Are you suggesting that everyone who has a gun to their head submits to their attacker? Every single time?
I'm not going to bother explaining this anymore; you're a moron and it would be fruitless.
Adieu.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago 2
@SeedsOfHatred dude, that's fucking brilliant. bravo.
rtarbinar 1 month ago
@SeedsOfHatred, U said,"Are you suggesting that everyone who had a gun to their head submits to their attacker? Every single time?"
- No, but YOU are the one trying to make it sound as though that were the case, YET, the "victim" (atheist) escapes the "gunman" (God?), rendering both threats (handing over money or getting shot) pointless and never occurring. That's why the analogy fails.
You don't need to "bother explaining" anything to me, just make sense. You and the silly anaolgy FAIL.
ZebrasFirst 1 month ago
@ZebrasFirst I fucking give up. I just fucking give up.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago