The only reason that Apollo is a myth is that the civilization that believed in him in some way died out. What will happen to Yahweh if somehow Christians and Jews die out over time? What will happen to Allah if Muslims die out over time? They'll join Apollo as myths, just as every other god has done when its supporting civilization died out.
oh no, another mongoloid caller. These are the most annoying callers of them all, followed by that one black guy who calls in and makes himself sound like a clown.
stephen hawking talked about fine tunning yes he did , but in 7 pages later he expalined y , y is this such a holy grail to christians the man who proposed it in his book debunked it in the same book.
I like these folks but this last was a poor argument. Things had to be ridiculously precise to have a universe at all, not just the universe we enjoy. Not to mention string theory predicts that only a handful of the billions of possible universes is conducive to life.
@attitudinous "Things had to be ridiculously precise to have a universe at all"
We only have the one Universe. How do we know that the critical constants and laws are at all optional? After the fact, the chances of something turning out the way it did are 100%. After the fact, the chance of the other possibilities are all 0% (they are not possible). The best we can say is the the critical constants don't appear to change. This is at least an argument against a theistic (intervening) God.
@drfoxcourt Well, we don't know, but string theory predicts that there are billions of options with only a relative handful of those options providing conditions for life. I think a universe with life, given those odds, is more than just another random shuffle as it were. The analogy rests on the assumption that life is just another random physical event.
@attitudinous String theory predictions cannot be tested, Not testable, there is no reason to think that string theory is correct. Futhermore, string theory that fits our one example (the Universe) does not allow for options.
It does appear and it is testable that life is a random physical event. The chances may be low for the formation of a stable and self-replicating molecule, but that appears to be the only requisites for life and it has happened. 100%!
@drfoxcourt My point, in bringing up string theory, was not to prove that there are billions of possible options, but to demonstrate that it is far from settled that our universe is the only possibility. And, speaking of far from settled, explanation for the origin of life is anything but settled. Yes, life has happened, but how it happened is very much an open question. You've exhibited a certainty about these things that is unwarranted.
@attitudinous And my point regarding your point on string theory is that there are no apparent options. We have the one example and that's all we have. Before the fact, there may be options, after the fact, there is only the fact.
I take you point regarding the origin of first life. The origin of the Universe and the origin of 1st life, tho linked, are too difficult to conflate without much more research. The Universe seems to be far more adverse to life than supportive of it.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. He wants us to elevate our consciousness to the next level, is real
That's because they didn't know as much as we did, and as we gained knowledge the definition of god retreated to the point where it was immune to current understanding.
@logoRH First, modern "atoms" are not the same as Democritus' conception of atoms. "Strings" from string theory are more akin to Democritus' atoms. Second, you can be an "a-materialist" in the sense that you can logically deny the external world completely (it's called solipsism, or maybe you are in the Matrix). Other people might think you're silly to deny all of the evidence of the 'physical world,' but that's ok, since they don't really exist anyway.
About fine tuning: say there is a fine-tuned constant sensitive to within some very small error with respect to life as we know it. There is an assumption in the fine-tuning argument that implicitly says that this constant is as likely to take on the value it has in our universe as it is to take on any other value on the real line. This assumption is not justified, because it assumes that there aren't constraints we don't know about that would constrain the value of the constant.
@TomRaphaelWolf There is no evidence for other dimensions. If evidence for extra dimensions is found, then they would just part of the material world we live in. Just because we couldn't detect them before doesn't mean they weren't there. Take the electron. Electrons have been around forever, but we only found them (relatively) recently.
Amazing the ease with which this caller blatantly makes positive claims about his god while fully aware that his god is (assuming he exists) supernatural. There is plenty of evidence that human beings are capable of CLAIMING to have interacted with the supernatural. The bible, for example, merely proves that Middle Eastern Bedouins claimed to have contacted the supernatural but fails miserably in proving this contact ever occurred. Religious arrogance breeds gross intellectual dishonesty!
Ok, ok... that's kinda false. Look, for us it really doesn't matter the microscopic state of a system. I mean, the exact cards that comes in your hand when playing bridge. Many hands will have the same, say, the total sum of figures the same. However, there is only one hand that will have the minimum and one that we have the maximum possible sum of the figures. And those macroscopic states are not equivalent.
and yeshu will save your life if you belive in him.. there will come many .. and no peace.. first the decieving.. and then if u stay with yehshu and DO NOT BELIVE IN THE DECIEVERS than u will see what's happening =)
belive me.. they wanna decieve me too men.. i am your proof.. let me be the one who tell you in the name of ישוע that they tried to decieve me haaard and badly.. but now .. i'm still praying to Ḡòḍ and belive in ישוע
@Mikeybetts as far as im concerned religion was disproved a long time before dawkins and dillahunty (we have darwin to credit mainly) its just a lot of people wont admit it and put their fingers in their ears and say lalala.
OH MY GOD. I think I had an argument with this idiot. I kept going on about how the fine-tuned universe is idiotic, then he starts saying how multi-verse theory is false. I said I didn't argue multiverse theory, and he says I did by arguing against ftu. Or maybe Christians just REALLY enjoy using false dichotomies
Caesar, beware of Brutus. Take heed of Cassius. Come not near Casca. Have an eye to Cinna. Trust not Trebonius. Mark well Metellus Cimber. Decius Brutus loves thee not. Thou hast wronged Caius Ligarius. There is but one mind in all these men, and it is bent against Caesar. If thou beest not immortal, look about you. Security gives way to conspiracy. The mighty gods defend thee!
A big bang is an event within cosmic history! Most people don't view the big bang at time zero in this manner. And because it takes energy to create matter and matter to create energy, the most reasonable explanation for our universe's existence is a COLLISION of two parallel 3-branes which created all of the dust, matter and symmetry of the universe. Why 3 dimensions? Because as I stated our universe resides on one of the two 3-branes and matter overruled the antimatter creating galaxies, etc.
@yourjunk420 I think we're actually looking at two fallacies, one being an argument from retrospective improbability and the other being a "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy".
If something beyond the "material" exists then, won't the ability to eventually define it bring it into the realm of the material? Isn't asserting that something non-material exists make it material? Isn't this a self refuting claim?
True. It's just more Fundy logic. The same thing happens when people say "God is outside the universe"
Except universe is "commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists" (wiki), which means 'being outside the universe' is an impossibility, unless it is nonexistent (which, incidentally, fits the definition of god completely, since he is allegedly excluded from time & space)
I wouldn't try explaining that to a theist though, their head would probably implode.
@Vire70 Yeah, I know. Try listening to someone like William Lane Craig for awhile, you really have to sit down and start counting up all the logical fallacies and then wonder how he can do that without just slashing his wrists on stage or hanging himself from the fuckin' microphone cord about halfway through his own bullshit.
@Vire70 Not true! The word universe is completely shattered due to the recent science of quantum mechanics! Because universe is synonymous with existence. And QM states particles are popping into existence all the time. Now theoretical physicists are re-writing "god" via M-theory which is a reasonable theory! It's still physics even though it hasn't been proven! Welcome to a wild multi-verse with 10 spatial dimensions plus one of time. Time in this realm can be thought of imaginary i.e. 1/0 = ∞
Nonsense. Understanding of quantum mechanics leaves a lot to be desired. Most of their hypothesis don't even make rational sense half the time, which makes basing theories off of them (especially hypothesis which cannot be observed at this point in time) is not exactly a rock solid case for you.
Universe is defined as everything regardless of quantum mechanics. The moment we find out there is more to the universe, then the term universe will expand to encompass that too.
..and FYI, QM states that particles 'appear' to be popping into existence all the time. I'm pretty certain this is not actually the case, as it would be an observation of matter being created/destroyed, and if that had happened we would have all heard of it by now. Just because we don't know where a particle is coming from does not mean it did not exist previously. Same thing with electrons around an atom. They appear to 'teleport' from one position to another.
@Vire70 "Same thing with electrons around an atom. They appear to 'teleport' from one position to another."<- you are implying parallel universes. The singularity of the big bang could have 'teleported' from one position to another which implies that the singularity could have rubbed off from some weird substance known as a brane. And yes QM does imply parallel universes! I suggest you study it (btw I took a course on it) and listen to what theoretical physicists have to say!
I'm not really implying parallel universes at all. I suppose that is a possible explanation for their behavior, but it not the only one.
The term idea of multiple universes displays a miscomprehension of the terms meaning. Which is as I stated, 'the totality of everything'. If we find what we know now to be only one small part of the real universe, then the term will evolve to encompass 'everything' else that we know. It's very simple.
@Vire70 Unfortunately every subatomic particle has a wave like nature to it. I observed the diffraction pattern of electrons in my physics lab last semester when an electron beam was projected through a slit. So that means everything in the universe including the singularity itself has a wave like property to it. Also the fact that there are QM properties within our universe, the big bang seems to be the source of these wild properties. & As a result there are parallel universes! Get used to it!
I'm willing to concede you know more about physics and mathematics than I do. I'll even agree that parallel universes is a plausible idea.
But, you (and in fairness, most people) are still using the world universe in the wrong manner. If universe is the totality of everything, then it is by definition impossible for their to be more than one. I'm not denying there are other 'universes'.
@Vire70 There is a theoretical term called the bulk. It is the 11 dimensional hyperspace through the singularity of the big bang. Universes can be thought of as soap bubbles floating within the bulk bumping into each other causing infinitely many big bangs. The totality of everything in theoretical terms is called the multiverse or megaverse. Even though it seems like science fiction it explains the fine tuning of our universe. There can be dead universes next to ours just like lifeless planets.
This all depends on how you define god. A deist god, which is simply an entity of SOME sort that created the universe but no longer has any interaction with it or us, is a fairly neutral concept. The more personal, anthropomorphic bullshit you attach to this concept the less likely it becomes until, by the time you reach the christian concept of god, your entire claim is ludicrous beyond consideration.
Atheists and Evolutionists have hearts of stone, and few will convert to creationism regardless of the facts. Evolution has made Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins millionaires. Atheist don't want to believe in God because of judgment. They can carry on their life styles of adulterers, fornicators, homosexuality, egoist, drunkenness, lying, covetousness, theft, fraud. Delusional in their own minds, they believe they can in engage in such vile conduct with impunity. So why believe in GOD.
@atheisthelper it made dawkins and hitchens millionaires, but theism made the leaders of religions billionaires and gave them power beyond belief. fuck off
@seekatruth wow. what you just said can be condensed into "god loves the smell of his own farts". well thats a shitty characteristic for any human to have. we call that many things here on earth when people demonstrate this. we call it "being on the high horse" or "thinking your shit doesnt stink" and all things around those lines im sure youve heard. but im sure its all well and good for god to think that way. well if he worships himself so much he sure as hell doesnt need your worship.
@itsuyo211 Well, jesus is suposed to be the son of god and at the same time being a part of god, yet jesus was said in the bible to be praying to god several times, so basicly god was praying to himself.
Either its insane amounts of hubris or the most insecrure being ever.
You further say that "in our every sin, we display his justice"? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. That is as inane as me saying "in every murder, we see the safeguarding of life." I'm sorry but what you are saying is psychobabble to me. I reject your concept of sin, I reject your concept of Divine mandate, and I reject your immoral concept of vicarious redemption. These concepts are truly immoral, and thankfully there is not one shred of evidence for them. Good day.
Thank you, seekatruth, for addressing an argument that I never made. To repeat, God is said to have made man in his "image," not in his "holy character." I am merely referring back to the original texts upon which your religion is based, not upon your particular interpretation of it. Further, your argument is no different than that made by the ancient Greeks: that human beings were made to look like the Gods, not the other way around.
@seekatruth - AGAIN I must interupt your discussions with other Youtube users to ask you - what if Lord Bramah is the TRUE creator of the universe and because of your familial lineage, upbringing and geographical location of your birth, Yahweh does not and never existed, Jesus was a mental-case as much as any other 'messiah' and the last 2000 years of Christian history all for naught?
Or what if the Jews are right and Yahweh IS the one true god, but Jesus isn't significant?
@seekatruth - Mr. Christ was nothing original in that era. Confucius, Buddah, Krishna and many more have all 'taught' the same teachings that are inherant in ALL tribes and races of humanity.
Mr. Christ was just lucky enough to have had a fan club built after his very unfortunate death.
Still, there's over a billion Hindus out there. Who are you to say that they are wrong about Bramah, Vishnu, Siva, Ganesha, etc.?
@seekatruth - the sad thing is that you are deluded in your faith to the false god Yaweh, that you have failed to see that the REAL Creator of the universe is actually Ganesha.
I mean, Ganesha has the head-of-an-elephant and six arms... and that makes a lot more fuckin' sense than water-to-wine, walking on water, arks and firey bushes, etc.
Cesar says that ancient gods were simply caricatures of human beings, and that the Christian God cannot be compared to a human. That's complete B.S., and I wish Tracie and Matt had called him on this: The Bible itself claims that human beings are made in God's image. Thus, God looks like a human being. QED, God is a caricature of a human as well, just like all the other Gods of the Ancient Mediterranean and Middle East.
One could assert that Bigfoot most likely does not exist because there is no evidence to show that such a creature does exist. However, to reject naturalism or materialism is a essentially a rejection of one's own existence, which is absurd. Even if that was true, wouldn't you rather live your life as if you do exist? It's similar to the argument against solipsism (live your life as if things other than yourself exist, even if they really don't), which is almost an equally absurd argument.
@seekatruth: You've might have spoken, written or posted to others but I doubt that you've dealt with it in any meaningful manner
The "revealed word" of your god hasn't done anything. Keep quoting scripture like it means something if it makes you feel better. For those who live in the real world it's no different than the other myriads of holy texts that proclaim their god or gods are real as well
My heart doesn't think my brain does. If you need to know with your heart, I see your real issue
"Look", said the water as it noted how snugly and perfectly it fit in the puddle. "This puddle was made exactly for me. Everyone of my contours it fits perfectly for me. It is so obvious that the hole I'm in was designed especially for me!"
@seekatruth: Your god has not been revealed. Your god has done squat. There are no prophecies that have been fulfilled other than the obvious, "There will be wars", kinda crap.
Name one prophecy that has been fulfilled about your god. I laugh at you the same way I'd laugh at you if you said the Easter Bunny is real.
I don't see any good reason to extend your rejection of religion into a rejection of a designer's existence.
"God would be evil or incompetent if He existed, according to human standards, so therefore He does not exist" is not a valid argument in my opinion. The fine tuned laws of the universe and the information inside our DNA is enough to believe that we are designed. Now, believing that this designer wants you to murder is a different story.
"What's your evidence for the natural world?" ???? WTF else can you show me? ANYWHERE! AT ANY TIME! How can anyone be so stupid as to fail to recognize the circular nature of this argument. Want to be a solipsist? Go for it. Where does it get you in ANY practical sense? It's certainly not "least hypothesis" so, where are we going with this? I have yet to find a limit to human stupidity although this asshole comes close.
No, we are here only because it is "perfect" FOR US. Had something been different, there would likely be different forms of life on Earth, in which that Earth would be "perfect" for them.
That being said, Earth is far from perfect, it's just good enough to allow for our particular existence.
The anthropic principle just says that a theory of nature should allow for our existence: that is the extent of its usefulness. It doesn't imply a god and it doesn't imply multiverses. We cannot even say for sure that there is any sense to a question like "what if the physical constants had different values."
Earth is not finely t uned for life. Fine tuning is a term used in modeling and is a way to constrain one or more variables so that the variables dont destroy the model. Fine tuning has NOTHING to do with any aspect of the universe. I wish more people would call creationists on that crap.
Now. The one billionth of a billionth thing it is crap. We exist in a universe where life did exist. The chances of life arising is 1:1.100%. Hawking is not talking probabilities like stoner says.
People like this caller are the reason why religion is necessary. The most intelligent atheists in the world could sit around and talk to this caller for years and just keep going around and around in circles. He would probably never "get it". In order to be an atheist you practically have to be intelligent, being religious has no such requirement, in fact lack of intelligence / comprehension for rational thought almost certainly aids one's belief in a religion / god.
@OMGthEyRevRyWhR I happen to be an intelligent catholic in other words i am an ex-catholic now an atheist. Unlike most religious people i happen to care about if my beliefs are true or not! Also in some sense I have been an atheist for all my life because i love science and i always like to see the opposing side's perspective.
@FallofDarkness55 I know what you mean; I was raised Catholic, but was an Atheist by around 5th grade... I just couldn't blindly "believe" without questioning...and when you question religion then the general outcome is religion can't answer your questions rationally, the key word being rationally. Unless someone is either incapable of rational thought or intentionally denies the truth in order to be "safe" from it. And I agree, I like to see other perspectives, not just one narrow minded view.
@OMGthEyRevRyWhR All you need to be an atheist is to have atheist parents or in my case parents who weren't interested in religion.
By the same token all you need to be a theist is theist parents. Either way no intelligence or lack of intelligence is required, though atheism is the default position.
BTW recent polls suggest that in the UK 66% of 18-24 year olds have no religion, so ultimately religion is doomed here.
@OMGthEyRevRyWhR Actually, this caller is an example of why religion is harmful. If he had never been exposed to religious idiocy, he wouldn't have wasted his intellect attempting to justify his beliefs and instead might possibly have use his time and energy doing something useful, beneficial and decent. He goes in circles BECAUSE of his religious indoctrination taught him to. He seems to have a modicum of intellect and a mountain of indoctrination to justify and he's trying as hard as he can.
In my opinion, Matt Dillahunty is the greatest Atheist debater I've ever seen. He addresses people's points directly and argues even better than Dawkins or Hitchens. He's been there as a preacher, so he knows exactly how to relate to these people. Dawkins and Hitchens on the other hand don't always listen and they repeat the same arguments over and over.
@VitalSigns1 I agree he's great with these callers, and with believers in general.
Has he gone up against more well-versed and intelligent opponents? Are there any videos of it? I've heard him (or others on this show) lament that he doesn't get the really interesting arguments much on a call-in show... but has he done it at some point?
The caller had it right near the beginning .... as an amaterialist he doesn't have to prove that materialism is wrong .. he had the whole point then lost it again
@Redbeardian Not entirely. He would have to prove it wrong if the materialists had made a case for them being right using the scientific and logical methods. It's sort of like innocent till proven guilty. An innocent person doesn't have to prove their innocence by default. However, if the prosecuting party successfully brings a case against them, they cannot still claim they don't need to prove it wrong because there is actually something to falsify now.
@Redbeardian True, but how is that evidence for God??? More importantly, why is he an amaterialist? How can he deny the evidence that is right before his eyes??
@VitalSigns1 Exactly. Even though the burden of proof has been met by materialism, amaterialists are still around. I suppose it's similar to flat earthers, geocentrists, etc. It's neet that even though the caller understands he doesn't have to prove a negative with materialism but still suggests atheism has to prove a negative toward theism.
@HybridD91 what does that matter first of all, second, if your a baby, you dont have either belief, the belief in God or that there is no god, you just have to without judgement on that one.
When atheists claim the only reject the statement God exist, guess what, that means they BELIEVE God doesnt exist. If i say i dont believe in Big Foot, that first of all doesnt say somewhere hidden there is a Big Foot, although we have no real evidence, and i dont hold to the claim he exists, but the point is, if i dont believe in big foot, then I do believe Big Foot to be a myth, or a lie, or to not exist, believing is believing, whether its believing something exists or doesnt exist.
Saying "I don't have any reason to believe in Big Foot" is not the same as saying "I believe there is no Big Foot." The host of this show has made that clear, he rejects 'absolute certainty,' and he has said on different shows, that there might be a Big Foot or Unicorn somewhere in the universe, but he has no reason to believe that.
It's a default state. Once you prove it, the default state adapts it.
The list of things that might be, without reasons to believe, is infinite.
@JacksInn Im absolutely certain i exist and im not in the matrix, its absolute, sounds like that person your speaking of cant grasp the absolute of truth. Now there may be, i dont believe it because i have no reason, its not important to me and doesnt affect my life in any way.
@JacksInn So when i speak to you, i say things like, well there could be a big foot, but im really saying, there is no reason whatsoever to believe there is a bif foot based on the evidence in the world. But if had an experience with "big foot", then id have every reason to believe. Well i have experienced the truth of God and the revelation of Jesus, it is the truth, it is the most absolute reality that there is, so i am absolutely certain based on my experience, at the least.
@mirrormoveuchiha You're being dishonest if you say you have the absolute truth of a god. It's possible you would say the same in regards to Krishna if you were raised in Hindu.
@Anon11674 Yes exactly! Our very specific way of life is not special in the grand scheme of the universe. This is what I think religion is about; feeling you're more important than you really are. If the Earth was further from the sun, it would join the millions of other planets that don't support our particular way of life. But...it didn't lol.
Yup. And theists actually have the gall to call nonbelievers arrogant! Can you believe it? At least we don't believe an entire universe, composed of billions of galaxies, was created just for our one species.
Poor 'ol Caesar doesn't reason too well , does he? I suppose if christians, or any other theist , actually had the ability to think these things out properly, he wouldn't be a believer any more.......
Actually amaterialism would not be in any way the same as atheism or abigfootism. The latter two are examples of the rejection of claims regarding the existence of entities. Amaterialism is not a valid counter-example, as it is not an entity-rejection and should have been rejected as invalid.
How false these people are. Its disappointing to see how people cannot accept or understand God. Do you not know that what is impossible with man is possible with God? Shame on you mankind for the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. Do not think you are higher than God or smarter, trust in the Lord and lean not unto thine own understanding for you understand falsely. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
His voice makes me want to slit both of my wrists and jump off of a 200 foot cliff into a 2 inch pool of water filled with 10 flesh eating piranha with aids.
Wow...it's like trying to walk through Jell-O uphill on a mountain of vegetable oil. I think my own IQ dropped a little from listening to this caller.
7:00..."let me get back to science"...."you haven't been near science"....lmao
blahblah420able 2 weeks ago
The only reason that Apollo is a myth is that the civilization that believed in him in some way died out. What will happen to Yahweh if somehow Christians and Jews die out over time? What will happen to Allah if Muslims die out over time? They'll join Apollo as myths, just as every other god has done when its supporting civilization died out.
ChipArgyle 2 weeks ago 5
oh no, another mongoloid caller. These are the most annoying callers of them all, followed by that one black guy who calls in and makes himself sound like a clown.
fyakilla 2 weeks ago
You can do anything! Just figure out how improbable it is!
RadarKat73080 2 weeks ago
hey, Matt was thinner back then!!!... well, so was I, I guess.
gen77c 1 month ago
"I believe in gravity" but since Newton, gravity has been well defined.
"I believe in God" but everyone seems to have a different definition. The definition has changed with every new scientific discovery.
drfoxcourt 1 month ago
stephen hawking talked about fine tunning yes he did , but in 7 pages later he expalined y , y is this such a holy grail to christians the man who proposed it in his book debunked it in the same book.
thejewishagnostic 1 month ago
I like these folks but this last was a poor argument. Things had to be ridiculously precise to have a universe at all, not just the universe we enjoy. Not to mention string theory predicts that only a handful of the billions of possible universes is conducive to life.
attitudinous 2 months ago
@attitudinous "Things had to be ridiculously precise to have a universe at all"
We only have the one Universe. How do we know that the critical constants and laws are at all optional? After the fact, the chances of something turning out the way it did are 100%. After the fact, the chance of the other possibilities are all 0% (they are not possible). The best we can say is the the critical constants don't appear to change. This is at least an argument against a theistic (intervening) God.
drfoxcourt 1 month ago
@drfoxcourt Well, we don't know, but string theory predicts that there are billions of options with only a relative handful of those options providing conditions for life. I think a universe with life, given those odds, is more than just another random shuffle as it were. The analogy rests on the assumption that life is just another random physical event.
attitudinous 1 month ago
@attitudinous String theory predictions cannot be tested, Not testable, there is no reason to think that string theory is correct. Futhermore, string theory that fits our one example (the Universe) does not allow for options.
It does appear and it is testable that life is a random physical event. The chances may be low for the formation of a stable and self-replicating molecule, but that appears to be the only requisites for life and it has happened. 100%!
drfoxcourt 1 month ago
@drfoxcourt My point, in bringing up string theory, was not to prove that there are billions of possible options, but to demonstrate that it is far from settled that our universe is the only possibility. And, speaking of far from settled, explanation for the origin of life is anything but settled. Yes, life has happened, but how it happened is very much an open question. You've exhibited a certainty about these things that is unwarranted.
attitudinous 1 month ago
@attitudinous And my point regarding your point on string theory is that there are no apparent options. We have the one example and that's all we have. Before the fact, there may be options, after the fact, there is only the fact.
I take you point regarding the origin of first life. The origin of the Universe and the origin of 1st life, tho linked, are too difficult to conflate without much more research. The Universe seems to be far more adverse to life than supportive of it.
drfoxcourt 1 month ago
Wow this guy just jumped everywhere and got no where.
skydome29 2 months ago
Whew, why can't christians just either answer a question, or say they don't know?
waterandphotons1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. He wants us to elevate our consciousness to the next level, is real
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Why does this guy sound like he is talking through his nose?
Draginvry2 4 months ago
@Draginvry2 Because his Magic SpaceGod created him quite poorly.
RamoneHoffman 1 month ago
Was that Marvin the Martian?
fsmdidit 4 months ago
@fsmdidit He sounds more like Charlie Brown's teacher. "Wah wah wah-wah-wah....."
gspendlove 3 months ago
Name Caesar, talk like Melvin.
aegisgfx 4 months ago
"Ancient gods are caricatures of human beings."
That's because they didn't know as much as we did, and as we gained knowledge the definition of god retreated to the point where it was immune to current understanding.
JMUDoc 4 months ago
This guy sounds like Squidward from Sponge Bob Square Pants
AnAtheistAccount 5 months ago
lmfao, this dude got fucking destroyed on every thing said, but he just keeps talking not listerning at all, totaly brain washed...
IDMWEIGHTSIDM 5 months ago
when he said "what's your evidence that materialism is correct?" was I the only one who thought of shockofgod and facepalmed?
AntiMatterWave 5 months ago
Sucking donkey's cock does this to your voice.
xiequfei 5 months ago
let me get back to science LOL
7:00
blakdust3 5 months ago
@logoRH First, modern "atoms" are not the same as Democritus' conception of atoms. "Strings" from string theory are more akin to Democritus' atoms. Second, you can be an "a-materialist" in the sense that you can logically deny the external world completely (it's called solipsism, or maybe you are in the Matrix). Other people might think you're silly to deny all of the evidence of the 'physical world,' but that's ok, since they don't really exist anyway.
chuckinator0 6 months ago
About fine tuning: say there is a fine-tuned constant sensitive to within some very small error with respect to life as we know it. There is an assumption in the fine-tuning argument that implicitly says that this constant is as likely to take on the value it has in our universe as it is to take on any other value on the real line. This assumption is not justified, because it assumes that there aren't constraints we don't know about that would constrain the value of the constant.
chuckinator0 6 months ago
6:50
"...You've made another assertion that god created the universe, how do you know this?"
"um...uh... well there's evidence... let me get back to science..."
"You haven't been NEAR science, how can you get back to it?"
...and it keeps going downhill from there. This guy has to be a troll, he can't possibly be this stupid.
sayconfucious 6 months ago
Fellow heathens, does the fact that other dimensions exist disprove materialism?
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf There is no evidence for other dimensions. If evidence for extra dimensions is found, then they would just part of the material world we live in. Just because we couldn't detect them before doesn't mean they weren't there. Take the electron. Electrons have been around forever, but we only found them (relatively) recently.
chuckinator0 6 months ago
A very frustrating listen
tfn105 6 months ago
Amazing the ease with which this caller blatantly makes positive claims about his god while fully aware that his god is (assuming he exists) supernatural. There is plenty of evidence that human beings are capable of CLAIMING to have interacted with the supernatural. The bible, for example, merely proves that Middle Eastern Bedouins claimed to have contacted the supernatural but fails miserably in proving this contact ever occurred. Religious arrogance breeds gross intellectual dishonesty!
nosajj12345 6 months ago
thank you Matt, Proof is for math, many get that wrong
diedie5 6 months ago
Ok, ok... that's kinda false. Look, for us it really doesn't matter the microscopic state of a system. I mean, the exact cards that comes in your hand when playing bridge. Many hands will have the same, say, the total sum of figures the same. However, there is only one hand that will have the minimum and one that we have the maximum possible sum of the figures. And those macroscopic states are not equivalent.
rclsa1982 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check it out please.. /watch?v=jmyYAPeyfFY
and yeshu will save your life if you belive in him.. there will come many .. and no peace.. first the decieving.. and then if u stay with yehshu and DO NOT BELIVE IN THE DECIEVERS than u will see what's happening =)
belive me.. they wanna decieve me too men.. i am your proof.. let me be the one who tell you in the name of ישוע that they tried to decieve me haaard and badly.. but now .. i'm still praying to Ḡòḍ and belive in ישוע
ItalyStyler07 6 months ago
Cesar has a really whiny, annoying voice.
FantasmaBAnco 6 months ago
wow Matt is smart, I really believe he is the most dangerous atheist alive...
aegisgfx 7 months ago
@aegisgfx
put him and richard dawkins together and all you can think is
"Christians... consider your entire religion FUCKED!"
Mikeybetts 6 months ago
@Mikeybetts as far as im concerned religion was disproved a long time before dawkins and dillahunty (we have darwin to credit mainly) its just a lot of people wont admit it and put their fingers in their ears and say lalala.
jhibbitt1 6 months ago
OH MY GOD. I think I had an argument with this idiot. I kept going on about how the fine-tuned universe is idiotic, then he starts saying how multi-verse theory is false. I said I didn't argue multiverse theory, and he says I did by arguing against ftu. Or maybe Christians just REALLY enjoy using false dichotomies
deathtris 7 months ago
"I'm not making this up - this is pure scientifing."
TheFounderUtopia 8 months ago
Caesar, beware of Brutus. Take heed of Cassius. Come not near Casca. Have an eye to Cinna. Trust not Trebonius. Mark well Metellus Cimber. Decius Brutus loves thee not. Thou hast wronged Caius Ligarius. There is but one mind in all these men, and it is bent against Caesar. If thou beest not immortal, look about you. Security gives way to conspiracy. The mighty gods defend thee!
If thou read this, O Caesar, thou mayst live.
If not, the Fates with traitors do contrive.
- Artemidorus
sejembalm 8 months ago
I know but... well.... uh.... -breathes in- uh...
Fuck, this guy sounds so depressed.
idreamtofflight 8 months ago
Matt: Is it Caesar?
Caesar: No.
Matt: Hello?
Caesar: Yes.
Matt: Who's this?
Caesar: Caesar.
Wat?
phocjame 8 months ago 3
~_~ not even a minute in this guy is a tard
crackthecorn 8 months ago
My god I hate this guy's voice
TheOmegajuice 8 months ago 33
@TheOmegajuice so do i. it's really nasally and monotone.
belladonna4577 8 months ago
A big bang is an event within cosmic history! Most people don't view the big bang at time zero in this manner. And because it takes energy to create matter and matter to create energy, the most reasonable explanation for our universe's existence is a COLLISION of two parallel 3-branes which created all of the dust, matter and symmetry of the universe. Why 3 dimensions? Because as I stated our universe resides on one of the two 3-branes and matter overruled the antimatter creating galaxies, etc.
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURN IN HELL FOREVER OR BELIEVE IN JESUS
fuckmania07 8 months ago
What is the name of the logical fallacy that Matt's addressing around 10:10?
yourjunk420 8 months ago
@yourjunk420 I think we're actually looking at two fallacies, one being an argument from retrospective improbability and the other being a "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy".
MrMZaccone 8 months ago
"You haven't been near science..." Best line ever.
halonone 8 months ago 2
He sounds like he is whining sleepily through his nose.
greyeyed123 9 months ago 16
this guy has to have the worst voice in the world.
sansdeity420 9 months ago
If something beyond the "material" exists then, won't the ability to eventually define it bring it into the realm of the material? Isn't asserting that something non-material exists make it material? Isn't this a self refuting claim?
MrMZaccone 9 months ago
@MrMZaccone
True. It's just more Fundy logic. The same thing happens when people say "God is outside the universe"
Except universe is "commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists" (wiki), which means 'being outside the universe' is an impossibility, unless it is nonexistent (which, incidentally, fits the definition of god completely, since he is allegedly excluded from time & space)
I wouldn't try explaining that to a theist though, their head would probably implode.
Vire70 8 months ago
@Vire70 Yeah, I know. Try listening to someone like William Lane Craig for awhile, you really have to sit down and start counting up all the logical fallacies and then wonder how he can do that without just slashing his wrists on stage or hanging himself from the fuckin' microphone cord about halfway through his own bullshit.
MrMZaccone 8 months ago
@MrMZaccone
Lol, I know right. I hate listening to WLC. It's such a predictable shit storm.
Vire70 8 months ago
@Vire70 Not true! The word universe is completely shattered due to the recent science of quantum mechanics! Because universe is synonymous with existence. And QM states particles are popping into existence all the time. Now theoretical physicists are re-writing "god" via M-theory which is a reasonable theory! It's still physics even though it hasn't been proven! Welcome to a wild multi-verse with 10 spatial dimensions plus one of time. Time in this realm can be thought of imaginary i.e. 1/0 = ∞
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
@FallofDarkness55
Nonsense. Understanding of quantum mechanics leaves a lot to be desired. Most of their hypothesis don't even make rational sense half the time, which makes basing theories off of them (especially hypothesis which cannot be observed at this point in time) is not exactly a rock solid case for you.
Universe is defined as everything regardless of quantum mechanics. The moment we find out there is more to the universe, then the term universe will expand to encompass that too.
Vire70 8 months ago
@FallofDarkness55
..and FYI, QM states that particles 'appear' to be popping into existence all the time. I'm pretty certain this is not actually the case, as it would be an observation of matter being created/destroyed, and if that had happened we would have all heard of it by now. Just because we don't know where a particle is coming from does not mean it did not exist previously. Same thing with electrons around an atom. They appear to 'teleport' from one position to another.
Vire70 8 months ago
@Vire70 "Same thing with electrons around an atom. They appear to 'teleport' from one position to another."<- you are implying parallel universes. The singularity of the big bang could have 'teleported' from one position to another which implies that the singularity could have rubbed off from some weird substance known as a brane. And yes QM does imply parallel universes! I suggest you study it (btw I took a course on it) and listen to what theoretical physicists have to say!
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
@FallofDarkness55
I'm not really implying parallel universes at all. I suppose that is a possible explanation for their behavior, but it not the only one.
The term idea of multiple universes displays a miscomprehension of the terms meaning. Which is as I stated, 'the totality of everything'. If we find what we know now to be only one small part of the real universe, then the term will evolve to encompass 'everything' else that we know. It's very simple.
Vire70 8 months ago
@Vire70 Unfortunately every subatomic particle has a wave like nature to it. I observed the diffraction pattern of electrons in my physics lab last semester when an electron beam was projected through a slit. So that means everything in the universe including the singularity itself has a wave like property to it. Also the fact that there are QM properties within our universe, the big bang seems to be the source of these wild properties. & As a result there are parallel universes! Get used to it!
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
@FallofDarkness55
I'm willing to concede you know more about physics and mathematics than I do. I'll even agree that parallel universes is a plausible idea.
But, you (and in fairness, most people) are still using the world universe in the wrong manner. If universe is the totality of everything, then it is by definition impossible for their to be more than one. I'm not denying there are other 'universes'.
Vire70 8 months ago
@Vire70 There is a theoretical term called the bulk. It is the 11 dimensional hyperspace through the singularity of the big bang. Universes can be thought of as soap bubbles floating within the bulk bumping into each other causing infinitely many big bangs. The totality of everything in theoretical terms is called the multiverse or megaverse. Even though it seems like science fiction it explains the fine tuning of our universe. There can be dead universes next to ours just like lifeless planets.
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
This all depends on how you define god. A deist god, which is simply an entity of SOME sort that created the universe but no longer has any interaction with it or us, is a fairly neutral concept. The more personal, anthropomorphic bullshit you attach to this concept the less likely it becomes until, by the time you reach the christian concept of god, your entire claim is ludicrous beyond consideration.
MrMZaccone 9 months ago
Mathematical probability requires that if something is possible, regardless of how improbable it is, given enough repetitions it WILL happen.
Put simply, if something is possible, given enough time, it will happen.
GermanChocolateCake 9 months ago
5:23 ROFL
skywize 9 months ago
Is this man a zombie?
NormanAngle 9 months ago
@NormanAngle He's a particularly complex sock puppet.
GermanChocolateCake 9 months ago
oh look, a man ignoring reality.
1robopm 10 months ago
Instead of philosophical, I think the word he is looking for is ontological naturalism/materialism.
tylerjac69 10 months ago
Well at least he said NOT to look at the trees...
Eniacbc 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists and Evolutionists have hearts of stone, and few will convert to creationism regardless of the facts. Evolution has made Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins millionaires. Atheist don't want to believe in God because of judgment. They can carry on their life styles of adulterers, fornicators, homosexuality, egoist, drunkenness, lying, covetousness, theft, fraud. Delusional in their own minds, they believe they can in engage in such vile conduct with impunity. So why believe in GOD.
atheisthelper 10 months ago
@atheisthelper it made dawkins and hitchens millionaires, but theism made the leaders of religions billionaires and gave them power beyond belief. fuck off
sansdeity420 9 months ago
@seekatruth wow. what you just said can be condensed into "god loves the smell of his own farts". well thats a shitty characteristic for any human to have. we call that many things here on earth when people demonstrate this. we call it "being on the high horse" or "thinking your shit doesnt stink" and all things around those lines im sure youve heard. but im sure its all well and good for god to think that way. well if he worships himself so much he sure as hell doesnt need your worship.
itsuyo211 10 months ago
@itsuyo211 Well, jesus is suposed to be the son of god and at the same time being a part of god, yet jesus was said in the bible to be praying to god several times, so basicly god was praying to himself.
Either its insane amounts of hubris or the most insecrure being ever.
Sweddude 10 months ago
@Sweddude i just keep picturing god farting into a wine glass and smelling it like the progressive liberals of san francisco on south park :)
itsuyo211 10 months ago
What's with these lobotomy patients on the line?
93tomb 10 months ago 2
@seekatruth
You further say that "in our every sin, we display his justice"? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. That is as inane as me saying "in every murder, we see the safeguarding of life." I'm sorry but what you are saying is psychobabble to me. I reject your concept of sin, I reject your concept of Divine mandate, and I reject your immoral concept of vicarious redemption. These concepts are truly immoral, and thankfully there is not one shred of evidence for them. Good day.
felisleo101 11 months ago
@seekatruth
Thank you, seekatruth, for addressing an argument that I never made. To repeat, God is said to have made man in his "image," not in his "holy character." I am merely referring back to the original texts upon which your religion is based, not upon your particular interpretation of it. Further, your argument is no different than that made by the ancient Greeks: that human beings were made to look like the Gods, not the other way around.
felisleo101 11 months ago
@seekatruth - AGAIN I must interupt your discussions with other Youtube users to ask you - what if Lord Bramah is the TRUE creator of the universe and because of your familial lineage, upbringing and geographical location of your birth, Yahweh does not and never existed, Jesus was a mental-case as much as any other 'messiah' and the last 2000 years of Christian history all for naught?
Or what if the Jews are right and Yahweh IS the one true god, but Jesus isn't significant?
freakystyley4000 11 months ago
@seekatruth - Mr. Christ was nothing original in that era. Confucius, Buddah, Krishna and many more have all 'taught' the same teachings that are inherant in ALL tribes and races of humanity.
Mr. Christ was just lucky enough to have had a fan club built after his very unfortunate death.
Still, there's over a billion Hindus out there. Who are you to say that they are wrong about Bramah, Vishnu, Siva, Ganesha, etc.?
Why are THEY wrong and YOU right?
BECAUSE OF YOUR BIRTHPLACE.
freakystyley4000 11 months ago
@seekatruth - the sad thing is that you are deluded in your faith to the false god Yaweh, that you have failed to see that the REAL Creator of the universe is actually Ganesha.
I mean, Ganesha has the head-of-an-elephant and six arms... and that makes a lot more fuckin' sense than water-to-wine, walking on water, arks and firey bushes, etc.
freakystyley4000 11 months ago
A deck of cards in a state of minimum entropy would guarantee that one dealt hand would be sequential and all of the same suit.
pompousprick 11 months ago
Cesar says that ancient gods were simply caricatures of human beings, and that the Christian God cannot be compared to a human. That's complete B.S., and I wish Tracie and Matt had called him on this: The Bible itself claims that human beings are made in God's image. Thus, God looks like a human being. QED, God is a caricature of a human as well, just like all the other Gods of the Ancient Mediterranean and Middle East.
felisleo101 1 year ago
One could assert that Bigfoot most likely does not exist because there is no evidence to show that such a creature does exist. However, to reject naturalism or materialism is a essentially a rejection of one's own existence, which is absurd. Even if that was true, wouldn't you rather live your life as if you do exist? It's similar to the argument against solipsism (live your life as if things other than yourself exist, even if they really don't), which is almost an equally absurd argument.
sillymonkey829 1 year ago
Well done Tracie and Matt...★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 1 year ago
By far the most annoying thing about this guy is his whiny-ass voice.
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago 44
@tctheunbeliever Ha ha ha! He sounds like Froy from Operation Repo! xD
Dephective1 8 months ago
@tctheunbeliever lol, i know, right?
belladonna4577 8 months ago
@seekatruth Wow, that's pathetic. What a messed-up worldview.
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
@seekatruth: You've might have spoken, written or posted to others but I doubt that you've dealt with it in any meaningful manner
The "revealed word" of your god hasn't done anything. Keep quoting scripture like it means something if it makes you feel better. For those who live in the real world it's no different than the other myriads of holy texts that proclaim their god or gods are real as well
My heart doesn't think my brain does. If you need to know with your heart, I see your real issue
sol3a1 1 year ago
"Look", said the water as it noted how snugly and perfectly it fit in the puddle. "This puddle was made exactly for me. Everyone of my contours it fits perfectly for me. It is so obvious that the hole I'm in was designed especially for me!"
sol3a1 1 year ago 2
@seekatruth: Your god has not been revealed. Your god has done squat. There are no prophecies that have been fulfilled other than the obvious, "There will be wars", kinda crap.
Name one prophecy that has been fulfilled about your god. I laugh at you the same way I'd laugh at you if you said the Easter Bunny is real.
sol3a1 1 year ago 2
"These things that exist are tuned to exist." Ahahaha, this made me crack up.
Ledwix 1 year ago
I don't see any good reason to extend your rejection of religion into a rejection of a designer's existence.
"God would be evil or incompetent if He existed, according to human standards, so therefore He does not exist" is not a valid argument in my opinion. The fine tuned laws of the universe and the information inside our DNA is enough to believe that we are designed. Now, believing that this designer wants you to murder is a different story.
lnTheFlesh 1 year ago
He needs to "fine tune" his own mind...that is if it's humanly possible.
netherealm2 1 year ago
"What's your evidence for the natural world?" ???? WTF else can you show me? ANYWHERE! AT ANY TIME! How can anyone be so stupid as to fail to recognize the circular nature of this argument. Want to be a solipsist? Go for it. Where does it get you in ANY practical sense? It's certainly not "least hypothesis" so, where are we going with this? I have yet to find a limit to human stupidity although this asshole comes close.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone The limit to human stupidity is actually in Uganda. Everything else is on some scale where 1 is only a little stupid and ten is Ugandan.
CrapnellGates 1 year ago
The Earth is "perfect" (for US) = God?
No, we are here only because it is "perfect" FOR US. Had something been different, there would likely be different forms of life on Earth, in which that Earth would be "perfect" for them.
That being said, Earth is far from perfect, it's just good enough to allow for our particular existence.
If "God" created the Earth... I give him a C-
SeveredFootLoki 1 year ago 2
Is it me, or at 6:24 did the woman co-host mumble "loser" to the host?
Great video.
Vahtacen 1 year ago
The anthropic principle just says that a theory of nature should allow for our existence: that is the extent of its usefulness. It doesn't imply a god and it doesn't imply multiverses. We cannot even say for sure that there is any sense to a question like "what if the physical constants had different values."
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
the guy sounds retarded
antibulletdodger101 1 year ago
@antibulletdodger101 he is, he's religious
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
Matt: Can you get any more circular then that?
Foolish theist: Yes!
Acorafication 1 year ago 2
Earth is not finely t uned for life. Fine tuning is a term used in modeling and is a way to constrain one or more variables so that the variables dont destroy the model. Fine tuning has NOTHING to do with any aspect of the universe. I wish more people would call creationists on that crap.
Now. The one billionth of a billionth thing it is crap. We exist in a universe where life did exist. The chances of life arising is 1:1.100%. Hawking is not talking probabilities like stoner says.
ThieleM 1 year ago
stupid religious people trying to use science to prove their point! priceless!
epic fail
Atrofia2 1 year ago 3
Wow! This guy just keeps on digging!
clazberri 1 year ago 2
Cesar needs to learn the difference between naturalism and philosophical materialism.
gir908922 1 year ago
@gir908922 Caeser needs to just learn! (but I very much appreciate your comment)
clazberri 1 year ago
Is it just me or is Matt unusually calm while dealing with this person compared to recent videos.
dhcrazy333 1 year ago
People like this caller are the reason why religion is necessary. The most intelligent atheists in the world could sit around and talk to this caller for years and just keep going around and around in circles. He would probably never "get it". In order to be an atheist you practically have to be intelligent, being religious has no such requirement, in fact lack of intelligence / comprehension for rational thought almost certainly aids one's belief in a religion / god.
OMGthEyRevRyWhR 1 year ago 30
@OMGthEyRevRyWhR Well yes. You must have seen the graph of the direct correlation between intelligence and religion. Its a perfect slope.
screat 9 months ago
@OMGthEyRevRyWhR I happen to be an intelligent catholic in other words i am an ex-catholic now an atheist. Unlike most religious people i happen to care about if my beliefs are true or not! Also in some sense I have been an atheist for all my life because i love science and i always like to see the opposing side's perspective.
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 I know what you mean; I was raised Catholic, but was an Atheist by around 5th grade... I just couldn't blindly "believe" without questioning...and when you question religion then the general outcome is religion can't answer your questions rationally, the key word being rationally. Unless someone is either incapable of rational thought or intentionally denies the truth in order to be "safe" from it. And I agree, I like to see other perspectives, not just one narrow minded view.
OMGthEyRevRyWhR 8 months ago
@OMGthEyRevRyWhR
idiots need to be told what the answers are so they never have to face reality, thats where religion comes in.
aegisgfx 7 months ago
@OMGthEyRevRyWhR All you need to be an atheist is to have atheist parents or in my case parents who weren't interested in religion.
By the same token all you need to be a theist is theist parents. Either way no intelligence or lack of intelligence is required, though atheism is the default position.
BTW recent polls suggest that in the UK 66% of 18-24 year olds have no religion, so ultimately religion is doomed here.
lewisner 7 months ago
@OMGthEyRevRyWhR Actually, this caller is an example of why religion is harmful. If he had never been exposed to religious idiocy, he wouldn't have wasted his intellect attempting to justify his beliefs and instead might possibly have use his time and energy doing something useful, beneficial and decent. He goes in circles BECAUSE of his religious indoctrination taught him to. He seems to have a modicum of intellect and a mountain of indoctrination to justify and he's trying as hard as he can.
ciaochowbella 6 months ago
I've had so many discussions like this right after a bowl.
walterqxy 1 year ago
sad part is i grew up with people who think and speak just like this caller. listening to this man speak is like nails on a chalkboard to me.
RaabBlog 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Call in TheThinkingAtheist's show Saturday July 31st - For science & education.
youtube.com/watch?v=QZ_L1p9PulI
Let them know who U are so they can get U live on air! w/aronra
InternetSpanker 1 year ago
Wow that was sad
21kool4u 1 year ago
"A finely tuned hand of cards" is something of a mixed metaphor.
Really enjoying the videos :)
psb1964 1 year ago
In my opinion, Matt Dillahunty is the greatest Atheist debater I've ever seen. He addresses people's points directly and argues even better than Dawkins or Hitchens. He's been there as a preacher, so he knows exactly how to relate to these people. Dawkins and Hitchens on the other hand don't always listen and they repeat the same arguments over and over.
VitalSigns1 1 year ago 2
@VitalSigns1 I agree he's great with these callers, and with believers in general.
Has he gone up against more well-versed and intelligent opponents? Are there any videos of it? I've heard him (or others on this show) lament that he doesn't get the really interesting arguments much on a call-in show... but has he done it at some point?
ghuegel 1 year ago
The caller had it right near the beginning .... as an amaterialist he doesn't have to prove that materialism is wrong .. he had the whole point then lost it again
Redbeardian 1 year ago
@Redbeardian Not entirely. He would have to prove it wrong if the materialists had made a case for them being right using the scientific and logical methods. It's sort of like innocent till proven guilty. An innocent person doesn't have to prove their innocence by default. However, if the prosecuting party successfully brings a case against them, they cannot still claim they don't need to prove it wrong because there is actually something to falsify now.
ragerancher 1 year ago
@Redbeardian True, but how is that evidence for God??? More importantly, why is he an amaterialist? How can he deny the evidence that is right before his eyes??
VitalSigns1 1 year ago
@VitalSigns1 Exactly. Even though the burden of proof has been met by materialism, amaterialists are still around. I suppose it's similar to flat earthers, geocentrists, etc. It's neet that even though the caller understands he doesn't have to prove a negative with materialism but still suggests atheism has to prove a negative toward theism.
Redbeardian 1 year ago
this mummbling fool sounds high and doesn't understand anything. Why do only morons ring this show?!
mythinktube 1 year ago
@mythinktube
It's mostley idiots because anyone with half a brain will relize they don't have an argument and will just sound like idiots if they call.
SkyDoginthetube 1 year ago
@mythinktube I hope that these clips on youtube are the extremes, and that there are actually smarter callers as well, but it is only a small hope...
Jostedalsosten 1 year ago
There's no evidence for atheism...hhmmm we're born atheist.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 what does that matter first of all, second, if your a baby, you dont have either belief, the belief in God or that there is no god, you just have to without judgement on that one.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
When atheists claim the only reject the statement God exist, guess what, that means they BELIEVE God doesnt exist. If i say i dont believe in Big Foot, that first of all doesnt say somewhere hidden there is a Big Foot, although we have no real evidence, and i dont hold to the claim he exists, but the point is, if i dont believe in big foot, then I do believe Big Foot to be a myth, or a lie, or to not exist, believing is believing, whether its believing something exists or doesnt exist.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha
Saying "I don't have any reason to believe in Big Foot" is not the same as saying "I believe there is no Big Foot." The host of this show has made that clear, he rejects 'absolute certainty,' and he has said on different shows, that there might be a Big Foot or Unicorn somewhere in the universe, but he has no reason to believe that.
It's a default state. Once you prove it, the default state adapts it.
The list of things that might be, without reasons to believe, is infinite.
JacksInn 1 year ago
@JacksInn Im absolutely certain i exist and im not in the matrix, its absolute, sounds like that person your speaking of cant grasp the absolute of truth. Now there may be, i dont believe it because i have no reason, its not important to me and doesnt affect my life in any way.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@JacksInn So when i speak to you, i say things like, well there could be a big foot, but im really saying, there is no reason whatsoever to believe there is a bif foot based on the evidence in the world. But if had an experience with "big foot", then id have every reason to believe. Well i have experienced the truth of God and the revelation of Jesus, it is the truth, it is the most absolute reality that there is, so i am absolutely certain based on my experience, at the least.
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
@mirrormoveuchiha You're being dishonest if you say you have the absolute truth of a god. It's possible you would say the same in regards to Krishna if you were raised in Hindu.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 How is the truth dishonest?
mirrormoveuchiha 1 year ago
I'm getting tired of that idiotic argument. "If earth was further or closer to the sun, if gravity was weaker or stronger, blah blah blah..."
What they're really saying with this argument is: "If things were different, things would be different!"
Anon11674 1 year ago
@Anon11674 Yes exactly! Our very specific way of life is not special in the grand scheme of the universe. This is what I think religion is about; feeling you're more important than you really are. If the Earth was further from the sun, it would join the millions of other planets that don't support our particular way of life. But...it didn't lol.
RockBanned 1 year ago
@RockBanned
Yup. And theists actually have the gall to call nonbelievers arrogant! Can you believe it? At least we don't believe an entire universe, composed of billions of galaxies, was created just for our one species.
Anon11674 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Poor 'ol Caesar doesn't reason too well , does he? I suppose if christians, or any other theist , actually had the ability to think these things out properly, he wouldn't be a believer any more.......
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Actually amaterialism would not be in any way the same as atheism or abigfootism. The latter two are examples of the rejection of claims regarding the existence of entities. Amaterialism is not a valid counter-example, as it is not an entity-rejection and should have been rejected as invalid.
LordProfBear 1 year ago
How false these people are. Its disappointing to see how people cannot accept or understand God. Do you not know that what is impossible with man is possible with God? Shame on you mankind for the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. Do not think you are higher than God or smarter, trust in the Lord and lean not unto thine own understanding for you understand falsely. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
eiroight 1 year ago
@eiroight Well, sorry for not being a sheep handing over his ability to think freely when he is thought to think too far.
EPR89 1 year ago
the last point matt make is the nail in the dick
keggerous 1 year ago
WTF is this chap on about?He brings up the anthropic principle and has no idea what it means.
madhillick 1 year ago
this guy needs to learn to breath through his nose
fightinglobo06 2 years ago 2
no, he needs to learn to speak through his mouth.
thesparitan 1 year ago 2
all he did was come on and say... uhh you cant prove me wrong
Davnios 2 years ago
His voice makes me want to slit both of my wrists and jump off of a 200 foot cliff into a 2 inch pool of water filled with 10 flesh eating piranha with aids.
Ozzy0sbourne 2 years ago 9
i believe in the flying spaghetti monster to. Praise cheeses.
tallsmile28 2 years ago 2
Dur!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ArchhereticK 2 years ago
Wow...it's like trying to walk through Jell-O uphill on a mountain of vegetable oil. I think my own IQ dropped a little from listening to this caller.
LaerenMisha 2 years ago 3
Is the caller plugging his nose while he speaks?
FSUjonnyD 2 years ago
Is this guy reading from Lee Strobel?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago 3
Science defines gravity...
Gerafix 2 years ago 2
Fuck Wow
k87jury 2 years ago 2
I believe in Christianity. I have seen churches and read religious texts. I have met several people claiming to follow these religious texts.
I also believe in Islam, Hinduism atheism, and pastafarianism.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
Doesnt really matter in what you belive.Most people believed that the world was flat.
Is what you know it exists that makes the difference.
Nightmeare 2 years ago