The Atheist Experience 731 with Matt Dillahunty and Jen Peeples
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 07. 2024
- The Atheist Experience 731 for October 16, 2011 with Matt Dillahunty and Jen Peeples.
Matt and Jen recap last week's Texas Freethought Convention.
SHOW TIME-STAMPS
00:00- Intro & Announcements - Matt Dillahunty
03:35 - Matt & Jen recap the Texas Freethought Convention
12:05- Jen Peeples on anti gay slurs from a teacher
15:04- Andy: taxation of non-charitable activities of religious organizations
19:36- Emilio (theist): a philosophical argument for God, non-contingent concepts are either necessary or impossible
40:01- Max: do Americans realize how religious they are
44:17- Hank: Harold Camping's end of the world prediction
47:35- Rob (theist): protestants who rebelled against the Catholic Church started the industrial revolution, Catholics aren't true Christians, all religious writings are nonsense except the Bible
49:18- Ben (atheist): would not be convinced of God's existence by evidence
54:37- Majeed: preconceptions about theists, choosing to believe, religion and God are different things
Read more about the Texas Freethought Convention and the Atheist Alliance America Convention on the Atheist Experience blog:
► freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2011/...
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin. The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
► www.atheist-community.org (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► www.atheist-experience.com (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
► www.atheist-experience.com/arc...
DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
► www.atheist-community.org/prod...
MUSIC CREDITS
Theme song: "Listen to Reason," written and performed by Bryan Steeksma.
► / bryansteeksma
► www.myspace.com/bryansteeksma
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is a fan appreciation channel on CZcams.
"The Atheist Experience" is a registered trademark of the ACA.
Creative Commons license: BY, NC, SA
► creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
How is it that an all powerful super genius that can create worlds out of nothing, but can't seem to write an even slightly coherent book? If a book needs an army of apologists, it's only good for ridicule.
I'm watching this video in the lounge of my catholic university :3
Emilio's whole entire argument is essentially special pleading.
You guys and gals are amazing simply for not slamming your heads into the table over and over with some of these callers.
You guys and gals put on a very entertaining and educational show regardless of technical difficulties!
great show as per always, really appreciate your efforts in sharing these videos, congrats matt, take care
I want a Dillihunty "Eff it! We'll do it live! Effin' thing sucks!" meme.
Theists A&B: Why is there anything? Something can't come from nothing, therefore god. (Implied: before there was something, there was "absolute" nothing.)
Skeptic: Then where did god come from?
Theist A: God has always existed.
Skeptic: That negates the argument that "absolute" nothing was the starting point.
Theist B: God created herself.
Skeptic: That negates the argument that something can't come from nothing.
I love this show. @39:50 This has got to be the best short description of christian faith i have heard in ages. LMAO Thanks Matt you made my night.
Aristotle once famously determined through pure reason that women have fewer teeth than men.
One look in his wife's mouth would have demonstrated him to be wrong.
In other words, staring into your navel and _thinking really hard_ doesn't teach you a damn thing. C'mon, the whole rationalism/empiricism debate was reconciled by Democritus thousands of years ago. Emilio knew just enough about philosophy to look like an ass.
Personally, I don't view somebody as an ass for earnestly trying to work through what they believe is a problem.
I posted too soon. You were right, by the end of the conversation he did come off as a jackass.
My real objection is that someone who lives in a first-world country in today's world should know better than to think that philosowibble is the proper method of investigating reality. People like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga seem to think that crafting a sentence that's just right is what proves a god, and they are con artists for doing so. We've known better as a species for a very, very long time.
good show
the atheist experience needs to be voted the best show of all time :) !!!!!!!
wow, it's the Emilio Show! starring Matt Dillahunty and Jen Peeples. :)
15:05 to skip to the first caller
I love this show.
Best intro ever. LMAO
Matt just said Grok. I fucking love that.
For those who don't know the meaning of the word, it means to understand a thing completely. Its origins are from a Robert Heinlein book called Stranger In a Strange Land. READ IT. One of the best sci-fi books of all time and the social commentary is delicious.
Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins under one roof....bliss.
"Something that is non-contingent doesn't have to be non-contingent." HANG UP ON HIM PLEASE.
All tax exemptions should be removed from the lawbooks. No breaks period. They have been run as a money making enterprise for centuries. They have paid employees and tangible assets. I am tired of paying EXTRA TAXES to cover the shortfall these bastards get.
Emilio's way in over his head, poor guy.
I've never been to Austin, but I really want to check it out. Nice town?
49:03 was the greatest thing to happen to me today.
@ThePhysicsOf lol... should have put time stamp, now I have to wait to find out what you mean! Ah, the suspense!
@cr4yv3n I am in a volunteergroup, and trust me, this is really not so bad. Usually they have to pay for everything. When i had to find suitable buildings for workshops, Prices go very high and they don't give a break in costs, They don't care if you are non profit or commercial, so using some subpar equipment for a lower price isn't that bad.
"just feel the love" XD
The point about preconceived notions is not whether you care for them, but that they precede the very conception of your notions, that is to say, you're not aware of your preconceived notions or biases.
As far I know the end of all pure pure reason based knowledge is "I think therefore I am".
@HowardFair I'm the same. I like to listen to it at work.
He really should have written down what he wanted to say.
Gotta love Hitchens.
@ImperiousViking
No, I said "If something is non-contingent then it's either necessary or impossible". This is because for something that is non-contingent the only valid options for it are necessary or impossible.
~ Eight years later and I am still hearing Caucasian males pushing their patriarchal BRAINWASHING, and I am still also hearing black males pushing the religion of their OPPRESSORS, and it is all STILL just nonsense. Thank you, Matt & Jen, for dealing with this crazy with patience. Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
Swedish accents are so rad. :D
I lol'd hard at Rob in NY. :)
Fuck it we're doing it live!
HAHAHA Dumfries, VA
If this guy says non-contingent one more time I'm gonna freak out
@Pomaori
That would be a good point against something like the cosmological argument, in which a theist would argue that the existence of god is necessary to explain "the first cause", because then you could explain it with the universe. But for an ontological argument it's irrelevant. Even if God wasn't necessary to create the universe and therefore "redundant" it would still exist by virtue of being non-contradictory and it's non-contingency.
@SpiffyHarry
One of the main criticism of the idea that everything is "contingent" is that it leads to an infinite regression of causes and it's not clear whether that's possible or an adequate explanation for why contingent beings exist. Not to mention, if all causes in a set are contingent then the whole set is contingent, so the cause of the set (since it's contingent) is non-contingent, otherwise it would be included in the set and therefore not a cause of the set.
@EdgePitSwing Jag visste att du skulle översätta den här texten.
Emilio: none of your objections are valid because I wave my magic wand of "non-contingent". I need no evidence, I need no reason, I need not deal with obvious contradictions.
Did young Rocky call in???
Matt you got married today!! Congrats
Emilio is confused or a brilliant troll.
and the answer is ...... confused.
Hank is from New Bern, NC.
Ben talks fast.
That 2nd caller is unbearable! Throughout his whole segment I kept thinking "get to the fucking point, say what you want already!"
@ApostateOfTheDamned
On the magic sandwich show I thought they said he was leaving them to be on Atheist Experience. Maybe I'll try to track down that vid and comment on it.
Dumb Fries, VA.
@antibulletdodger101 They were in the studio earlier than normal and didn't think they'd be live on cable until later. He said they were going to take internet calls until they were live without realizing they already were.=)
is that the spaghetti monster between them?
I find it weird that he ended with a "welcome".
33:15 - 33:20 Me too Matt...me too. I have no idea what he's trying to say. Partly because I'm so confused at his point. I don't really know what it is. And I don't think he knows either
The point, since it seems to have gone over your head is that some proofs are a priori. Further, any proof you do give of your statement would itself rest on a philosophy and thus be self-defeating.
@AlTheChemist5 1 million internet points for you!
It's kinda surreal to watch these in reverse chronological order. I wish there was a button to play a playlist in reverse order (so I could go through back episodes from the beginning).
If there is such a button, clearly I'm just dumb.
I am Matt Dillihunty's favourite caller!!!!!
I take them by the hundred. All I do is search "Atheist Experience 700". When That's watched, just put in "701" and continue onward :).
omni-this and omni-that! much like everything else in this universe; god has been evolving as an answer from ingnorant people who will not investigate the mysteries of the universe from "i dont know", "maybe this and mybe that", "spirits and demons", "the gods" to finally: "the one true god"
Yes, there are. Though I think it depends on who has the better ontology; are non-contingent things ultimately necessary for an explanation of contingent things? If they are, as I believe so, then I don't see anything wrong with my argument, for after that, debate just falls into whether the definition of the non-contingent thing in question is actually intelligible at all (i.e. non-contradictory).
@EdwardHowton
But he never said he was granting the point for the sake of argument, he didn't push that home at all, it's like he briefly mentioned it and forgot about it, the caller wasn't even asked to address that point, and it was the most fundamental one Matt made.
If the caller couldn't present an example, THEN they should of said they were granting the premise and moving on for the sake of argument, after establishing that, that's all I'm saying.
Thumbs up if the last caller Ben from Boston, sounds like Peter Joseph!
Did anybody know what the hell Emilio was talking about? I would like to understand it.
@EdwardHowton
Yeah, I just feel that their time could of been optimized a little better... Although it's not entirely reasonable to expect the hosts to be organized and prepared for these kinds of things, considering they're a live show xP
you had to give this guys an example
I think Emilio is on dope :)
I think Emilio is a dope :)
Actually the non-contingent argument doesn't commit a special pleading fallacy. This is because the nature of Non-contingency allows for only two valid ontological options, i.e. necessity or contradiction.
What channel on cable does this air????
"Fancy graphics"? oh matt..
Maybe Harold is just predicting his death
Is there an episode 728 or 729?
@EdwardHowton Is the god concept dependent on that god is omnipotent? But I am guessing you are talking about god and his rock.
@CHRISR0BERTS
I never said that if god is probable then it's necessary. Any "God" that is non-contradictory and non-contingent is necessary, it doesn't matter "which" one it is. If God A is mutually exclusive with God B and vice versa then neither god is non-contingent because both God's existences are dependent (contingent) on the existence of the other God.
@JesterAzazel i think they were just having him as a guess when he visited a couple of times, but i'm not sure.
@nospacesallowed
The only ontological argument that uses the idea of "perfection" (which isn't a very clear idea anyway, I mean what exactly constitutes as a flaw? By what standard? etc.) is Decartes', and his argument was not the one I was using. I'm not sure I really follow what you were trying to say here though, of course if your "god" is contingent on something else then it's not a god, but what does that have to do with my argument?
@ThePhysicsOf To give you and others a chance to fully appreciate the true nature of his stupidity and form a rebuttal that is as well informed and intelligent as possible.
The reason there's religious graffiti on money, is because there is a group of single issue voters, and most of the rest don't care.
best public show ONLY IN AUSTIN! WHAT ABOUT THE FUKING WORLD MAN????
Totally agree with the taxation argument, the USA needs to wake up and realise that they are subsidizing religion even if they don't agree with it.
There are also gaps in the argument. And it's almost completely hypothetical. Is it supposed to prove god, or prove the possibility of god?
skiwzgar... from ecceland. lol.
Is Emelio high?
@phookadude
no, the concept were a little bit to difficult to grasp for him (i could also barely follow). So an example can help him understand.
And what is bad about discussing specifics? Athiest Experience made a claim, they should be able, and have to if asked give an example. What was for them logical, as they know the examples, they were not as obvious for him.
@JesterAzazel I may be wrong but I dont think he lives in austin so its an inconvenience for him. Therefore if my memory is correct he will always be a special guest host.
oh shit i missed the end of the world!!!
So I guess they went off the air ^^
@nospacesallowed
I don't think maximal excellence and perfection are the same thing because flaws can be subjectively defined, maximal excellence deals with the completeness of specific qualities (e.g. knowledge). BTW I'm not using Alvin Plantingas argument, except maybe some aspects. Yes, I don't understand what you're trying to say. You've said that your god is evil (or good) and contingent, even if I grant all that how exactly is it important to my argument?
Harold Camping died about 2 years later..... December 15, 2013. Too bad. That batty old nitwit was VERY entertaining.
@skyzthelimi7 well to be fair, Emilio sounded round about 21 years old... so it was clear he didn't had a good concept of the argument to begin with. He just used that argument because he couldn't comprehend it either. Otherwise he would have been way clearer in his statements
@ImperiousViking That argument he was using was a kind of False Dilemma I believe. I'll have to look into it more to be sure though.
It's neither of those.
Well you at least see the time part. Yes thought requires time because certain things must be done in order, in a serial process one after another while weighing options and etc. Thus an eternal god is dependent on eternal time, and that time must exist before he could think of creating it. But the same stands for what he consists of, he is dependent on it, and anything physical or non-physical still requires a place to exist in, the only thing which doesn't require a place to exist is nothing.
0:22, that was totally a Fluttershy cheer... Is Matt a brony?! :P
Wow Dumfries...wow... I really wish people would at least write down what they want to say before they call and just talk in circles.
Emilio needs to put down the blunt
The second premise only requires you to come up with an idea of god that is not a contradiction, and thereby following the first premise if god is not impossible it is necessary. The problem is whether you can come up with an idea of god that's valid, an idea thats compatible with non-contingency. Matt thought he could use reductio ad absurdum to refute the argument by justifying two mutually exclusive Gods with the argument, but he never justified that "his Gods" were indeed non-contradictory.
To Emillio, even if the concept of a god is probable, that still doesn't make it necessary.
Even if it was necessary, you still need to decide which god is the correct one to follow.
You have made at least two quantum leaps in your logic, and none of them are backed up by any kind of evidence - so your argument literally falls apart in the real world.
Emilio's argument sounds a lot lik that of VenomfangX's....gibberish.
Why...why would anyone base a god on an argument alone? That seems to be pretty self defeating. At the end of the day, all you still had was an argument.