Atheists are biased | John - TX | Talk Heathen 03.26
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2019
- Talk Heathen 03.26 for June 30, 2019 with Eric Murphy & Dr. Darrel Ray.
Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:30pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/talkhea...
Sign up for the ACA monthly newsletter: aca.activehosted.com/f/1?fbcl...
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
CONTACTS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram:
Eric Murphy: Erictheheathen
Jamie Boone: Jamietheheathen
Twitter:
Eric Murphy: @dirtyheathen
Jamie Boone: @reason_evidence
Facebook.com/talkheathen
Reddit.com/r/talkheathen
NOTES
TalkHeathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
"There are flaws in science". Sure, because science constantly changes when new information is available. Religion insists it's absolute, perfect, and unquestionable. Which would you trust more?
Pretty much it. Science, when confronted with new evidence and information, adapts to that new data.
Religion says "Fake news" and pretends it never existed.
Same thing with the Bible.
There are flaws not only in what we know, but in the process itself. Science is by far the best system we have for discovering new things and correcting our knowledge, but it is carried out by very flawed humans. Our biases can influence what we observe, our interpretations, and how we structure our experiments. Scientific dogmas can be difficult to change (but nowhere near as difficult as changing religious dogma!). Our system of peer reviewed journal publications, while excellent for many reasons, also has a huge bias toward publishing papers with positive results and rejecting papers with negative results. Our system of funding (grants, etc) and "scientific fame" has a bias toward the new, rather than for follow-up studies or confirming/replicating the results of others. And we have a bias toward profit. We need to acknowledge these flaws so we can recognize when they interfere with our understanding, and I think by and large we do.
All this said, it in no way validates anything this guy said about science being a religion. I am much more likely to believe something that has been scientifically verified, even knowing the flaws that exist in the system. But that is because science has proven again and again and again how good it is at building knowledge despite its many flaws. So yeah, I am biased.
@@MrBomasBalloons Caller might drink paint thinner, don't assume he even knows about the scientific model or method.
@@rageofheaven - I might drink paint thinner, too. It's irrelevant. But I get your point - I highly doubt his understanding of the scientific method was deep or nuanced enough to encompassed any of the flaws I mentioned.
This caller didnt listen at all. He wasnt interested in understanding
Exactly. How to be Theist: don't listen, and when proved wrong just change the topic.
To be fair, the hosts weren't really articulating that well either, unfortunately.
To be fair, I don't feel that Eric was making good points at the very end. I think they were both starting to talk past each other, and encroach upon the tu quoque fallacy. I'd like to see John call back next week so they can come to a reasonable understanding.
You're witnessing the power of the *Holy Dopamine Ghost* at work.
I was half expecting Matt to show up and go "John. John. John! John! JOHN! Let me finish or I will put you on hold!"
Here's why it's not the same: I was born Christian, and grew up to become a researcher of physics. In church, I was taught not to question the bible, the dogma, and the church. In the lab, I was taught to question and confirm EVERYTHING.
Dmitry Jean Nobody born a Christian. Probably your parents make you a Christian and luckily you have a brain that guide you out of the cult.
@@shunyeh5530 raised a Christian, but I don't think it really impacts the point.
@@shunyeh5530 pedantry
Shun Yeh
Happy you were capable of thinking your way out! Congrats to you!
@@caroleehubbard8380 I've spent most of my life out of the dogma. My path started at 7 😅
"I'm THAT asshole, and they gave me a show!" I effing LOVE it!
Effing?
Would Jesus be angry if you curse?
Grow up, Ned Flanders,
Do you really fucking love it?
@@johnobrien1528 why does it matter how he says it?
@@mjb405 why not just say, fuck?
Why censor yourself after dropping asshole?
Just say fucking. Effing is a pussy word. A snowflake term. An incel would say it, maybe a queer Texan.
Understand?
@@mjb405 and good on you not calling yourself Drink water. Nice to see that pride.
"Science is different from any other system of thought, you don't need faith in it. You can test that it works" - Brain Cox
Well actually science presupposes causality and the uniformity of nature.
@@1999_reborn No, there is no presupposition in science. You ask a question, make observations, run tests, collect data, then make logical inferences from that data. Now you can say what you think will happen, and that's called a hypothesis . . . however, the data you collect will either support it or not . . . you don't get to decide. There is balance in nature, but it's hardly uniform.
@@1999_reborn Incorrect . . . making an observation is in no way a predisposition, it's merely what you think is happening. HOwever, when you run actual testing, you find out whether your observation was complete or not. What you find out is what's true, not what you think is true.
Xenomorpheus You’re completely missing the point. Give me an example of causality.
@@1999_reborn YOu're missing the point . . . science is about working backwards from what's known, to find out what leads to what, and under which conditions. People used to think that lightening was caused by gods . . . but we later, through testing, found out that lightening is a discharge between areas of different electrical charges, and that discharge is a balancing effect. NO gods involved.
To give him credit, he is smart enough to call when Matt was not doing the show, he would've been demolished at this point. This was a beyond frustrating call...
Yeah, the call would have been barely half that long if it had been Matt instead of Eric. I would have loved to see that, lol.
This is one of those times I wish Matt was on. He wouldn't have let him continuously jump around with some of the most dishonest statements, and called it out for the nonsense it was.
Please don't let the caller repeatedly interrupt and change the subject.
OsculatingPlane Unfortunately Eric isn’t the strongest presenter. He seems more interested in making sure he doesn’t upset the caller.
@@frankanderson5012 It's a deliberate approach if you want a more combative tactics you need the AXP. They try to be "gentler" on Talk Heathen. Back to the question, it's impossible to stop theists changing subject all the time as it's one of their main methods used to defend the indefensible.
@@frankanderson5012 right because taln heathen is more about showing atheism in a positive less argumentative light. its for atheists to talk to atheists more than it is for christians to call in and talk to them. so in that sense they don't try and do such heavy bombardments of questioning.
"Sure I have the most annoying trembly voice in existence, and have never made a valid point in all my years on earth, but I'm sure if I call Talk Heathen it'll be different..." -John 2019
Mr Shigura making fun of his voice is quite petty and inappropriate. Stick to criticizing the callers arguments not the callers themselves.
You've never heard Brad's calls on TAE. He has the most annoying voice.
@@johndoe-gt4rx stfu
@@johndoe-gt4rx The caller had arguments? O_o
@@johndoe-gt4rx It's one of many reasons the caller should have known his attempt would end in a train wreck. Good job on the virtue signaling though...
This dude paused the movie "Half Baked" to study his hand metaphysically. Then decided to call a random phone number.
And here we are........
I can’t disagree with your position.
Next on the playlist.... BioDome! XD
LMAO!
as a 20 year cannabis user i find your statement both offensive and accurate
This guy is so dishonest. If caller is a liar, just hang up.
How is he dishonest?
@@RafaelGarcia-jb3me Constantly suggesting Eric and Darrel hold certain positions when they've never said anything to support them. Seemingly dismissive when they try to correct or clarify their positions to John. I would say that's quite dishonest.
@@RafaelGarcia-jb3me , it's very obvious the caller is engaging in bad faith. He repeatedly acted as if the hosts were claiming things they weren't, saying things they weren't, and believed things they didn't. He also kept conflating belief and knowledge as well as claims and evidence. Extremely dishonest.
The Matt maneuver
They seriously need to start hanging up on people like this. It’s so annoying to watch a dishonest caller with no understanding of basic terms control the show for so long.
8:46 "I watched (the show) yesterday for like 30 minutes and I was like, I'm gonna have to call these guys." John is literally the CZcams viewer who writes an angry comment on a video without watching the whole thing.
Science is a self correcting process, meaning that it's not prefect. AKA it has flaws, part of science is correcting those flaws.
Part of the methodology is looking for flaws.
It’s when they think they have a “gotcha” argument that they end up making the biggest fools of themselves.
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."Faith = impervious to evidence.
Stupidity is no virtue, folks.
Exactly. It’s willful ignorance. The worst kind of ignorance.
This blatant plagiarism makes me want to *STORM* off and listen to a *Tim Minchin* slam poetry performance backed by a smooth jazz musical accompaniment in order to calm my nerves... but before I do that, I just want to add a ( *”Thank you, God”* reference) _THANK YOU THOMP1 FOR USING THE LYRICS OF THAT SONG! I thought I’d thank my god at first but then I came to realize that that would be so very wrong!!_ (skipping the rest of the chorus to go to my favorite verse) _”....cuz if you get that right, (God) just might - take a break from giving babies malaria and pop down to your local area to (throw some likes on this comment-song!)”_ ;D
Faith is believing and hoping for something that you have not seen. This means it's extended beyond what can be proved as well. Just like many scientists have faith that there might be life on other planets without proof. Everything we see and know is by Intellectual Design. Even our very existence as human beings. None of it came by chance. :)
@@kiwikingful _"Faith is believing and hoping for something that you have not seen."_
Cool beans, we'll use your working definition of faith for this convo :3
_"This means it's extended beyond what can be proved as well."_
Well, not necessarily. I mean, sure, it almost seems that _by definition_ faith is referring to things that are not entirely obvious, but that doesn't automatically equate to unprovable.
Air can't be "seen" (at least, not by the naked eye), and yet it is evidenced every time you breathe, any time you feel a cold breeze on your skin , or the wind blowing through your hair, or you see the effects of these currents in the sky having on the trees around you as their branches sway and the leaves flutter. You COULD mischaracterize us all as "having faith that air exists" if you so chose to, but one peek using a highly refined instrument revealing the existence of air particulates quickly dispels of your precondition of _belief in something _*_not seen_* since when you scrutinize diligently enough you literally can see that the oxygen and nitrogen and other trace gases that comprise the makeup of our atmosphere.
Or how about a more difficult example? I only chose air above since, well, the bible itself has some scripture which refers to the soul or the holy spirit and other such mystical/"supernatural" phenomena as *analogous to* (nota bene: this is an argument from analogy) the "unseen" air we breathe. But let's discuss dark matter for a moment. This mysterious -stuff- er, -substance- um... whatever the hell it is, "matter" which is completely "dark" to us is about as "unseen" or "unknown" as it gets... cuz it comprises well over 90% of the known universe, and yet we have no real way of detecting it. And yet, even then, we definitely know that it, whatever it actually is, is absolutely there! Because we can see the effect of it's "repulsive" gravitation at work as it rapidly spreads intergalactic clusters apart at mind boggling speeds. Even this enormous gap in our current knowledge is "seen" through it's interactions in our reality.
So I don't accept your faulty premise that acknowledging something that isn't observable or obvious, i.e. faith, necessarily implies that the thing which you place faith in is immediately and automatically outside of the realm of demonstrability or being proved.
_"Just like many scientists _*_have faith_*_ that there _*_might be_*_ life on other planets __-without proof-__ ."_
Nor, for the record, does it mean that you get to equivocate every single thought, notion, idea, concept, or claim as a faith based one. And you certainly don't get to play this game of false-equivocation with a scientific hypothesis, which by definition is an informed inference or an educated guess which will then be tested to see whether or not this hypothesis will withstand repeated scrutiny, be able to make predictions based on the results and outcomes of those experiments, and eventually become a well established theoretical model with explains some aspect of reality.
Any scientist (whether an astronomer who happens to be an atheist, a stellar cartographer that happens to be an agnostic, a cosmologist that happens to be a christian, an astrophysicist that happens to be a deist, or any other person with a scientific profession within the scope of studying space, planets and stars, wherever they fall on the god-belief spectrum - cuz despite your cartoonish mischaracterization "scientist" is not synonymous with "atheists who are just opposed to ID/creationism yet who deny that they also have faith too, you silly atheist you!") who hypothesizes that there might have been life on some planet is doing so while providing some reasons or data suggesting why they think so; perhaps due to the discovery of water on that planet which can sustain life or something else along those lines. If scientists suggested that there are Martians and Venusians, cuz "... just cuz. I think so. I have faith! An unshakable, unbreakable, faith that an Intelligement Designer-Jeans wearing creationismator made them in his octopus-image and you can't see them (cuz octopii can blend, duuuuh!) but that's why you gotta have faith that it's true.. like I do!!!" then yeah, might have made a point here. But as it stands, most scientists don't operate in this fashion, and even if one or a few did the scientific method which involves testing and experimentation and peer-reviewed studies et cetera would all eventually weed out such "un-evidenced, un-see-able, faith-based absent corroborating-evidence or even evidence-to-the-contrary" hypothesis such as this in a quick minute.
So... nice try, but no dice. Heck, I can even recall a quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson right now from some TV appearance (maybe an episode of Cosmos? or on an interview? I can't recall exactly) where he posits or suggests that alien life could possibly exist out there, ro at least that it is not at all out of the realm of possibility - cuz after all, it's not like we have some "special ingredient X" in us that separates our planet from those around us. Our Sol looks remarkably similar to other stars out there, and other planets seem quite similar to ours. Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, etc... all of the stuff we needed to be born and live and thrive on this planet is E.V.E.R.Y.W.H.E.R.E. spread throughout this galaxy and all those around us. So yeah, his TV appearance commentating on this possibility isn't even a formal hypothesis in the scientifically rigorous sense, but I still give credence to the case he made because he *A* gave a reasonable explanation of why he would suggest this to be the case *B* gave the relevant data, so that we might draw our own conclusions on the matter (a primitive peer-review system, granted, but the fact remains that we can still come to conclusions that either differ from his own perspective or correspond in kind) and *C* he didn't just say "I hope / believe / want / pray / got a feeling in my spirit / my gut / my balls that this is true, so though aliens remain unseen, just believe with me, just cuz, it's a matter of unprovable faith!" Of course, you're free to mis-characterize it as such if you so choose, but you'd be stretching the truth - just as you did when you overgeneralized and said all -atheists- whoops, I mean "scientists" do this (cuz we all know that scientists only come in atheist and agnostic flavors, right?)
" -Everything we see and know is by Intellectual Design. Even our very existence as human beings. None of it came by chance- "
CoolStory kiwikingful, but this is nothing more than an unsupported assertion on this part at this point. Care to make an actual case (cuz the above wasn't one, it was false equivocation of "scientists" with "atheists" and furthermore of the scientific postulation of hypothesis based on evidence, information and inference as -equivalent to- faith founded beliefs... stop trying to throw dirt against opposing viewpoints and just support your own ideas/models/hypothesis already)?
Or, you know, you can just admit that you have no conclusive evidence to support your claim, you're selectively interpreting evidence to arrive at your preconceived notion of a designer deity and using "faith" to rest assured your god is beyond provable so you cannot be mistaken anyway. No shame in admitting that. Stand proud for what you believe in! :D Just don't try to say "you're using faith too lulz" and then make a claim of god as if it was an actual fact. Nope, sorry, not gonna fly - scientists aren't all operating on faith in order to derive conclusions despite your underhanded attempt to portray that to be the case, and your assertion-as-actual-fact isn't in-fact- a fact until you have demonstrated it to be so. Or, you know, admitted that it's based on faith. I suggest you go with the latter. It'll probably be easier, and it's entirely within your prerogative to have faith in and believe in whatever you see fit. But this sort of kindergarten reverse-psych wordplay is transparently childish, to say the very least :3
Joel Thomas To be honest you're just misinterpreting everything I have said. And also Mr. Intelligent, I am aware of the fact that every scientist isn't an atheist, but, the majority of them are? I guess I'm wrong about that.
Whether you believe in God or not, He still exists. He is and will always be. The supporters of evolution support something that the original creator of evolution refuted it on his deathbed. Mr. Charles Darwin.
"The Scientific Method is hundreds of years old. It's bad." Is Christianity valid then? Because it's OLDER then the Scientific Method.
That 'Scientific Method is hundreds of years old' thing is bullshit.
The scientific method has been practised by lifeforms for millions of years - it's barely distinguishable from learning, of which it's a sub-set.
Aren't lions. hiding by a waterhole, an expression of the scientific method? Crediting scientific method just to humans is a conceit.
Isn't the creation of fire, wheels, smelting of metals etc utilising the scientific method?
Is taking rocks, manipulating them, using processes on them, adding things to them etc to end up with a pure metal not scientific? Our ancestors might not have understood the finer points of chemistry and physics...but neither do we, otherwise we'd stop investigating them because we'd finished - and nobody is saying that we don't/can't use the scientific method.
And does John's final point, about scientists abusing people, have any logic to it at all? Some scientists have abused people. Most do not. WTF is your point if the vast majority don't?
Science, per se, does not abuse people - some religions do eg mass genital mutilation of children. And wars, pogroms, crusades, jihad, inquisitions etc in their name.
I'm an agnostic atheist - it's not a religion since I have no affiliation with any other agnostic atheist. But we do share the belief that getting out of bed early on a Sunday is not required, but optional. That's about it, really.
@@pd4165 You do have a point that pretty much every organism on the earth does learn by observation and experimentation. Although, I wouldn't call the verbalizing and organizing of such methods by humans as hubris of any kind. We just like to define things. But I think this caller leans on the dishonest side, because he's so yearning for a "gotcha moment" instead of learning anything new. I think Matt could handle this kid a lot better.
"I wanna argue everything, I know, I'm that asshole... and they gave me a show" - I love this!!!
You can tell the brilliance of this caller during his first sentence.
I wish just one religious caller would be able to form coherent sentences..I mean it´s quite tellling about what religion does to people right? Or who gets lured into it.
The thing is, people THINK they understand a subject if they've heard a few buzzwords that correlate to the position they've held all along.
You clearly haven’t been watching the shower for long if you don’t think any religious caller has ever formed a coherent sentence in the entire history that Talk Heathen has been aired.
@@1999_reborn I almost never watch the shower for more than a minute or two. I´m usually facing the other direction.
@@jesperjee Dude, you are so missing out, you should look at the shower longer.
@@1999_reborn You do know how generalizations work don't you? when someone says something like "No religious caller is able to form coherent sentences" is figurative, otherwise they wouldn't be able to communicate and live, is a way to say that their arguments are incoherent and usually dishonest and/or irrational too.
I feel like this call wasn’t handled well. Atheism isn’t a worldview. In fact atheism itself doesn’t have anything to do with the scientific method. So the callers question didn’t even make sense.
You guys should’ve clarified that first then defined terms and then asked why he believes in god.
Get a show of your own if you are so good
Robert Preston It’s just constructive criticism.
1999 I agree. Talk heathen hosts like Eric and Jamie suck at controlling callers and maintaining focus.
I'm so glad you're making these videos. I was a devout Catholic and believed EVERYTHING they taught. When I turned 21 I left the church because it just didn't make sense. I was taught they were the one true church and all others were wrong/cults. When I actually studied the history of the chuch, I realized they were really the "cult".
My breakaway from the Church was hard. I'm now much older and and fluctuated between being agnostic and atheist. When we realize that MAN wrote the bible and NOT GOD, it's very telling. A god that was so powerful he could make this entire universe, yet fail at writing what he expected of us is irrational thinking. Certain men/organizations want us to "believe". It's all about Power, Control, and Money.
Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. You can be both.
John: Science is a religion.
Uh, no, it's not, and THEISTS use science, not just atheists!
@MrStripeyDog lol no it's not. Athiesis don't worship any deity. Do you even know what atheism means? It is a word derived from the Ancient Greek Atheos meaning "without gods; godless; secular; denying or disdaining the gods, especially officially sanctioned gods." It is the absence or rejection of the belief that deities exist.
@MrStripeyDog Obviously, you are the one that don't even know what atheism is and calling it a religion. Not all atheist believe in an eternal universes or that something coming from nothing. Just like Eric said on the show. Atheism = just doesn't answer "yes" to the question: "Do you believe a God exist?" That's all. NOTHING ELSE. So it doesn't say about them believing in an eternal universe or something comes from nothing, unicorn, santa, spaghetti monster, etc. Therefore it's not a religion. So you were wrong here.
@MrStripeyDog
I don't get why no-one seems to understand what you wrote.
I understand.
'Atheism' is a religion (it's not) like 'theism' is a religion (it's not).
It's a perfect analogy.
Not even an analogy, just a basic explanation!
@MrStripeyDog
I feel sad and disappointed, that as the only person here to apparently correctly read and understand your comment, you didn't read/understand mine.
Yes, that's right. Atheism and theism are not religions.
@@lucasfrazier8882 I've got to correct you there: Atheos doesn't mean "without gods" or anything remotely what Atheist means. Atheos defines as "Not Theos" or "Not a Demigod" as a "Theos" is "a mortal biologically related to the Gods"; "a Demigod."
However it is true that Atheist comes from the word Atheos and Theist comes from Theos, although they don't mean the same things.
Can callers pls pls do a little research into the topics they want to talk about before calling.
@@Wade_Sabers That's what happened to me, lol. 28 years a theist, now several months an atheist.
Oh come on! I’m sure he read the first three lines of a quantum physics website (not a good one though).
They're not looking for answers. They're looking for confirmation for their beliefs.
Be hard to remain a theist if they did that
"Can you simplify the word ideology?"
...yeah. That pretty much sums it up.
LMAO
This guy, John of San Antonio, called the Atheist Experience 23.26 and asserted this same crap. Go check out the show.
They just told the caller that skepticism was a part of philosophy and the caller jumps right back to atheists holding religious beliefs in science. Talk about not being able to maintain a line of thought due to indoctrination. Wow!
Me in first 20 seconds: "Oh god, he is gonna misrepresent metaphysics."
John immediately after: ~Misrepresents metaphysics~
I swear, I was waiting for the caller to say. "They took my stapler. It's a Swingline."
It always amazes me when someone calls in (on a cell phone, having listened to or watched the program online, two things that required science), they live in houses constructed with science, use medicine science helped us improve, use cars again brought to us by that 'old' method, etc virtually everything they use in their daily lives and use to interact with the world and improve their lives has been brought to them thanks to science and it's proven methods, and they want to say how unreliable it is. I have to think its cognitive dissonance because otherwise it's that they're either flat out lying or idiots.
He’s desperate to say “ya, well you do it too”, but that’s an admission that he knows what he’s doing garbage.
So many times when someone is talking over someone else, it is that they don't listen and/or already have a conclusion.
*Host* : Caller from Texas?
*Me* : (Cringe!) Better make some popcorn! This is going to be Good! 🍺
This segment just reminded me of why I don't watch Talk Heathen. Eric is completely unable to keep anyone on track or ask for clarification when something incredibly vague has been said.
Josh Porter so true, EVERY time I watch this show I just wish there was more Atheist experience episodes....
This caller is ignorant and dishonest. Definitely fits in with most christians.
Missed opportunity... definitely needed Matt with this call...
"I know, I'm that asshole, and they gave me a show" LMFAO
He wanted to simplify the word ideology
I hope John reads these comnents and realize that he may not be as smart as he thinks.
Right, from a thousand people that can barely spell. All the while claiming superior intelligence. SMH
I agree with Shawn. Turns out John isn't the only one who may not be as smart as he thinks so if you're going to criticize someone's intelligence, at least learn how to spell first. 🙄
Good show guys.
"I like to argue about everything, I am that guy" lol thats pretty much me in a nutshell
Minerva i disagree
guy believes in metaphysics, but doesn't know what that is, lol!
This was painful to watch. Come on, Eric. Step up!
*two people lost in the woods*
"Where are we?"
"I don't know."
"You didn't answer my question!"
This guy really said "Is 'I don't know' really an answer? It's just a statement." You know what are also statements. "Yes" and "no."
Wow no wonder hearing these calls makes so many believers question their insane religions
I can't watch this show anymore, I just get angry with these callers.
OMG dude let them answer!!
He’s not entirely wrong.
P1: All humans are biased
P2: All atheists are humans
C: All atheists are biased
I see somebodies mom let them out of the basement long enough to use the phone.
This call was front loaded with at least 2 fallacious assumptions (caller added more fallacies to the pile during the call), that could have been dealt with much better than they actually were. I feel like Eric needlessly followed the caller down meandering, irrelevant, rabbit holes, instead of pinning him down on his initial assertions.
The caller didn't listen and clearly had a few scripted things he was mostly repeating, and the fallacies within them were never really exposed. I feel if this Matt, the call would've been much more directed and the fallacies dealt with right out of the gate. This was pretty much a waste of 10 minutes.
Seriously skrew that guy. I hope he calls when Matt is on because you guys were being too nice. Such a dishonest man!
Caller: "Atheists believe in science, meh." (As he's employing scientifically based/discovered technologies to communicate over distance.)
The full quote, and I think it loses something if not said in full, is "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"
Smart boy, got a mind like a steel trap - full of mice
And mouldy cheese. :)
@@perkeyser2032 mouldy? Are you from Britain?
Can that quote be credited to Foghorn Leghorn?
@@abc456f indeed it can
@@GinEric84 👍
Bruh finish a concept.
If you’re argument is:
“You’re just as brainwashed as I am!”
You might want to think about that…
This was so painful.
Another theist trying to attach theistic faults to atheism so he can say you are like me.
Exactly this. I’ve seen it so many times and it still amazes me the complete lack of awareness that it shows.
What amazes me is he thought somehow if he could, it meant it proves his god...all the time these shows have aired, and they still don't fucking get it.
The question is, "do you believe a god exists?" The answer is no
The question is, do you believe a god exists, the answer is no. The next question is, do you believe GOD exists, the correct answer is, absolutely without question, yes.
Silver Wings “Without question”. Sums up what religion is all about. Don’t question your beliefs or you’ll be punished.
@@JoBo0209 bull crap I question every thing. Im not gonna let someone else tell me to keep my mouth shut.
Silver Wings Never told you to. Just replied to your comment. I also can’t tell if you were answering the question for the original commenter or giving your personal answer
@@JoBo0209 I repeated someone else's question then asked the same question and answered it like he did, but I gave a more correct answer. That's what I did.
To clarify: As an atheist, there is absolutely nothing that I am not prepared to completely reassess in the light of fresh evidence. That's the scientific method which can be applied to everything, including itself.
I think my parents and teachers messed me up with the whole "I don't know is not an answer" thing. It always bothered me because I was thinking "yes I don't know is an answer when you don't know."
@Talk Heathen Please feel free to address or answer the following statements and questions. There are only 3 questions
(Question 1)
Is it possible to hide ignorance within intellect
Yes or No and why
(Statement1)
if you say that you do not believe you are a liar cuz you must believe in something by definition you have faith in you're supposed logic Right????? Belief and Faith go hand-in-hand
Individuals or groups of people that have ben indoctrinated, can be perceived to be as intellectuals, by others that do not truly understand how a system of manipulation and indoctrination functions.!!!.
colonialism by definition is a perfect example of a systemic oppression over a people having no regard for their intellect or humanity by claiming the other culture to be inferior or a thret physically or psychologically
Which Leeds me to my next set of questions and statements.
when speaking on propaganda and narratives that are highly manipulative the one presenting the information begins to tread on Dangerous Grounds,
how does one go about making a distinction between those who seek to expose the truth, from those who are attempting to steer the conversation for there own political manipulation by hiding behind various forms of linguistic deception
Such as
self projecting their preconceived notions onto there opponent. getting on the side of their opponent and misrepresenting the gist of their conversation .....based off of lack of understanding or willful ignorance. It's a catch-22 you want me to prove to you something that you can not understand!!!! and even if you do understand !!!! I can't prove that you do. compartmentalization regulations Plausible deniability irrefutable evidence
objective reasoning, the system is based on principles such as these. Which makes it nearly impossible to focus on the system itself
(Question 2)
How does one determine if another is thinking critically!!!!
(Statement 2)
Knowledge isn't necessarily always based in fact by definition knowledge is information and info it itself inhabit the space of pure opinions just as much if not more then the observable universe. Without thoughts you would not be!!!! does thot proceed action or action proceed me??????does this only apply to living organisms Or is it found in all the solar systems
As a man thinketh so he shall be this is the way of reality.
Out of sight out of mind but put it in your mind and it will be seen
fools believe the first thing they hear most don't know because they don't care and the rest fine because they search.. Remember the truth everything and nothing all in one this is what we are, this is why self projection is natural when it comes to observation. Most don't understand this because of lack of experience but of comprehension. What's more important the things one said or the things one ment???
(Rhetorical question 1)
Which do you think provides more understanding........
to indirectly learn about everything or to directly learn from everything??? )
(Question 3)
Do you agree that ???
Based off all recorded human history , education religion and politics have been and continue to be very effective tools of indoctrination compartmentalization and manipulation do to the fact that the current social political and religious system is a Direct result of colonialism???
(Yes) (no) and (why)
(Statement 3)
From what I gathered so far.
In certain supposed intellectual Circles the accepted definition of intellect derives
from one that separates an individuals personal intuition from there personal observations and experience And lumps them in with the extreams of human emotions that contribute to irrationality and insanity. Oftenly referred to as a field base argument or irrational thinking. From my understanding of the word this is text book gaslighting
A true intellectual would argue the point regarding questioning somebody's sanity purely based off the fact.
That I believe in that which I do not understand
You want me to convince you you don't want to understand and so you forget when it comes to observation perception and comprehension go hand-in-hand.
((Rhetorical Question 3)
Would you rather be a intellectual person or wise person
Which would you rather prefer knowing at all times!!!! the gist of all words and conversations or the definition verbatim depending on what the highest authority figure dictates at the time .))
.
TL;DR
I think you forget where we are here.
@@BigRalphSmith why are we here?!?
I bet you know the atheist will be able to give a proper respond to this comment
@@animationteam0.17 true
@@BigRalphSmith Too incoherent, didn't read. And!!! Too!!!! Much!!!! Punctuation?????
This may be helpful... I believe that skepticism is a paradigm, not an ideology. The difference between the 2 is one has dogma whereas the other is just a consistent style of choice.
Our eyes can only see a very small frequency range, outside that frequency there are other worlds that we cannot see.
A color exemplifying the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
How many theists are never going to realise atheism isn't a belief or ideology.
It's only an objection to a claim that something exists without proof.
It is not a belief that it doesn't exist.
The only reason a lot of atheists say "God doesn't exist" is because that is the next logical step.
It's just that history and culture has created the question of a god in the first place.
A lot of us see this as a man-made position, the absurdity of it, the way the human mind works, the way historic cultures controllers and sated the common folk.
I don't know if the analytics show when someone likes the video, but I did at 3:06. Eric, you're great!
That would be a great feature! I wonder if that's available as part of the new creator studio beta. I can see if and when people dip early on a video, but that's about it.
@@MamaSymphonia Oh okay, thank you! I agree, I think it'd be interesting data for creators.
Another thing I've wondered; do you know if speeding up a video shows as dipping early?
@@MamaSymphonia Also, your channel is wonderful. You've earned a new sub in me 👍
@@kw6248 I don't think so, but my content is mostly music which I think not many people would speed up, so it's possible I just don't have any data to work with :P
I *am* biased.
Towards _reality._
Simplify! You have to keep it simple!
Religion isn't just a system of beliefs. It also includes worship, devotion, ritual, a deity, etc.
Can't wait to meet you Eric here in Cincinnati for the Ark protest.
"I'm that asshole that wants to argue everything" LMAO. That is so me.
Atheism is an ideology, in the EXACT SAME WAY, that NOT collecting stamps, is a hobby. Or NOT playing sports, is an athletic activity.
Not having an opinion on something, is not the same as worshipping an opinion on that something!
I read no books, therefore I am a literate.
Once you learn a magic trick it can no longer deceive.
"You're ignoring my points." = "You don't agree with me, therefore you're ignoring me." Poor guy. He's either very new to all this, or he's not bright.
I kid you not there was an ad for Jesus before this video began 🤣...
"That's not really an answer, that's a statement." Boy wonder here with super debate powers.
John somehow has the dunning Kruger effect on the show: he saw 30 minutes of it and already thinks hes an expert
When someone speaks in absolutes and they can’t stop.
Filter issue...
Start planning an escape route.
I don't want this to come off the wrong way because I am glad there are channels like this out there. The more, the merrier. However, so often when I watch this show, I can't help but constantly think........"Man I wish Matt Dillahunty was there to respond to this idiot caller." All the credit in the world to Eric, he does a much better job than I ever could. But there's simply no comparison to what Matt brings to the table. Granted he has years and years at the AE show, fine tuning and crafting his responses. Matt is just a perfect mixture of intelligence, wit and a dab of contempt, constantly teetering on a paper thin line between understanding you or going ape shit on your ass.
Criticizes the scientific method for being hundreds of years old, but follows a book written thousands of years ago.🤔🤔🤔
The guy “sees” things metaphysical while tripping. I’m shocked.
Atheist isn't "there is no gods." It is "I am not convinced there are any gods."
Here's the difference: If all scientific knowledge and records disappeared today...then a thousand or two thousand years from now, we'd be right back where we are now. On the other hand, if all religion and religious texts were destroyed today, then after the same elapsed period, whatever religions were then present (if any) would be completely different from those around today.
The actual question is "Do you believe that a god exists?". If you believe that some god exists, you're a theist, if you don't, you're an atheist. Atheism isn't a religion and doesn't have beliefs, it's a lack of belief, no more no less (except for different definitions)
Having no religion is a religion?.. That was... Stupid
caller talks like he totally ain't in a cult at all.. "you guys this, you guys that"
Lol nah bruz, YOU GUYS.
Arrogance + Ignorance go hand in hand.
John, when you ask a question, you need to let them answer
Caller sounds like Melvin from Office Space... He'll burn the place to the ground...
I dunno I mean...he's wrong, but he seems fairly chill as theist callers go, yeah? (But yeah he does sound like Melvin haha!)
also:
*PUT THE BONG DOWN (from someone who responds to "Hi!" with "Yes, are you?" and has a bong in his hand...well it's half loaded; I type with both hands.)*
"...the law of observation" *(YES! YES! HE'S GOING QUANTUM!!)* Please tell me there's going to be a "blahblahblah... that's what they mean when they say "law of observation," *OR* "there's this place that physics talks about, called the quantum realm, and it's supernatural" *OR* some similar ridiculousness
*I FUCKING LOVE IT!!!!*
He started off saying atheists are biased, and ended up with scientists experimented on children. That goal post was moved so far it’s not even in the same state.
John is electric.
I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, “Atheism is just another kind of religion,” because it’s a tacit admission that being religious is a silly thing to be. When you’ve succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it’s time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes.
"You're just indoctrinated..."
Ooooh the irony 😂
This guy can't string a sentence together! You can almost hear the "duh" at the end of each attempted phrase. Wow!
These poor people
A Christian (theist) says a god exists. An atheist says "I don't believe you."
Is there lead in the water in that guy's town?
John is as sharp as a bowling ball.
he conflates the ideas of science with humans.