Penn Jillette on Atheism. [Adam Carolla Podcast 7.29.11]

Penn speaks to Adam about atheism and what is really is to be agnostic on Adam's live podcast. This was recorded on July 19th 2011 and I own no rights to the audio or picture.

Enjoy Penn and Adam at their best, ranting and bitching about what they are passionate about.

• Category

  Comedy

[MrBlazingFool]

Wow, now that's REAL logic, damn it! Penn Jillette FTW!

[bbr5178b]

He's so wise and informed.

[WorthyofJustice]

The whole thing is, just 2:46 and on made me lol.

[WorthyofJustice]

2:46 and on is the fucking truth.

[Steve Steben]

But lacking evidence we are left with the null hypothesis, assume it doesn't exist until someone give you some sort of proof. just because a thing is "silly" and you think it is "unreasonable" does not mean it is untrue. "Spooky action at a distance" "the double slit experiment" and "Schrödinger's cat" are all very strange very hard to believe at the time, but are understood to be true.

[Steve Steben]

Russell's teapot (look it up) is an argument used to describe exactly this. You did not PROVE anything, what evidence do you have that Santa is not real? "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" You can only prove something else is true, and that that thing is mutually exclusive with another postulate. You cannot directly prove that a thing is not true. To say there is no god more presumptuous, how do you know? I didn't say he may exist, I said you can't prove he doesn't.

[scotty]

It is false to say you can never prove a negative, 2+2 does not = 42. To say something is Unknowable is in my view presumptuous. Odd agnostics R uncomfortable saying 'know' and yet they say you Can't KNow with assurance as if they knew this. Substituting Santa for god: I'm not waiting for proof that there is or isn't Santa I KNOW there is no Santa, am I wrong to state there is no Santa? I don't think it's unreasonable to say he's made up. I think it's unreasonable + silly to say he may exist.

[Steve Steben]

The whole idea is that anyone who claims absolute knowledge (either way) is not agnostic. The original definition says it such knowledge is "unknowable". "There is no god" is a claim which is impossible to prove. You can never prove a negative. Why is it odd I say one unprovable thing, but okay for you? An agnostic says, "no proof of god exists, so I will assume no god exists (unless proven to)" So if you are waiting for proof, you're agnostic. If you have already made up your mind you are not.

[scotty]

Seems odd to believe or state that something CAN NOT be known. Isn't it impossible to predict what may or may not be discovered in the future? Saying there is no god makes sense to me because as things are with zero evidence for god it is fine to say there is no god notwithstanding things change and then with evidence it's another matter. But stating we cannot know something as not merely we don't know at this point but that we will never know is something else. R they saying we'll NEVER know?

[Steve Steben]

No, he defines "agnostic" wrong, it means a person who holds the belief that one cannot know the "true" answer to the question "Is there a god?" the term does not imply a lack of knowledge as much as an active belief that such knowledge is has never existed.

[frontview1]

Yeah, religion is bullshit. So are these two morons. Endless with these Blah, Blah hack's...

[Dumosz]

and you sir, are a fucking idiot ! (coming from an agnostic/atheist)