It pretty much does debunk the Abrahamic gods actually. No Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin. Evolution means there's no need to invoke God as an explanation for hardly anything.
Not really, because we agree with microevolution but we don't consider macro-evolution to be science by definition, it is just an hypothesis. You might argue with that but that will be just your opinion. And since science doesn't have a say into this and can't prove neither disprove God's existence; it is also logical to say that IF Aa God truly exists ( and that is also a possibility along with the others...) and the Bible is true, then all things are possible. And if it's true of what the Bible says about Lucifer then you can also expect corruption deception and confusion. And let's say even if macro-evolution was true that still doesn't disprove God's existence because it only explains what happens after things got here it doesn't explain how everything came to be
@@ilackofbeliefofmacro-evolu2827 there is no distinction in science between macro evolution and micro evolution. Micro and macro evolution are creationist terms, not scientific terms. Evolution is a s scientific theory, it graduated from a hypothesis a very long time ago. Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the explanation of that fact. What I have just is factually true. What you posted is just a badly misinformed opinion.
@@Dalendrion Years of experience watching this show. We all know where he's going. Since he did get out a tired old strawman about what atheists say about evolution, there's ample evidence to conclude that the rest of his "arguments" were gong to be equally shit.
@@puckerings No, he wasnt stupid. He made a great point that calling something delusion is not compatible with "i dont know" position. BTW, your statement "We all know where he's going" is obviously not true, because i dont know it and i dont believe that you know it either. I strongly doubt that your evidence to conclude future arguments is reliable enough to justify your conceited judgments.
I don't think that your average atheist would have any problem with religious people if they stopped trying to legislate their religion. Essentially, you are free to practice your religion, just don't practice it on me. It sounds so simple. So why isn't it? If it's against your religion to eat chocolate cake then don't eat chocolate cake, but don't try and stop everyone else from eating it. Or as a TV character once said on my favorite show of all time: "Why so difficult?"
But it's not just about legislation. It's also about flying planes into buildings, killing gays/athiests/people of other faiths, starting conflicts, creating social division, helping to spread AIDS in Africa, attacking science, honor killings, shooting girls who just want to go to school, female genital mutilation, and all the other things theists do to make this world dangerous, ignorant, ugly and hostile.
Honestly, I'm not sure if that's feasible, at least not for the most religious of the bunch. People aren't that great at compartmentalizing, and emotion gets in the way. If someone's faith is the most important thing to them, they're not putting a secular worldview before their religion-informed beliefs.
"I've not much against Atheism. In fact, some of my friends are Atheists. That's why I've been taught to present my arguments in such a strong way." "Good. Fine. And your argument is?" "....................I've got a master's degree, you know."
@@33melonpaws77 Yeah, or that Monty Python sketch where Graham Chapman is trying to come across as very respectable because he's a doctor. Sort of like: "Step aside, madam. I'll get your cat down from that tree. You can trust me. I'm a doctor, you know...".
So you call into a show to talk about X, and when the host asks "Why do you care about X?" you say "I never really thought about that". Talk about hitting the wall before even passing the start line! someone put that in a compilation!
Sorry Matthew, but you lack Adolf's cheeky, winsome boyish charm, and more than likely also lack his winning smile. But seriously. That was just awful mate. For someone who has studied some philosophy especially. Considering this, and that you say you have a masters in divinity; whatever that actually means in reality, you sound for all the world as if you have barely actually ever thought through these ideas and concepts. You appear to misunderstand and possibly unknowingly, unintentionally, misrepresent things. This more than likely is what has been taught to you in your classes and supported/reinforced by the thinking and attitudes tending to be prevalent in the USA. America is pretty anomalous in the educated west in regards the level of religiosity. Sadly they appear to have simply been indoctrinating you. Teaching you WHAT to think, as opposed to HOW to think. There is a whole world of difference. Though I absolutely do hope you phone in again. When someone a little more challenging is hosting, or Tracy is not in such an easy going mood. She let you get away with far too much here, that should have been addressed.
I have been teaching Biology for 18 years, and attending talks by biologists for longer than that. I have NEVER heard an actual biologist make the pointless distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution. The ONLY people I have EVER heard use those terms are creationists. It is a needless distinction.
Nice. Tracy's such a pro at this and doesn't let any part of claims and arguments go by without letting the person understand what they just stated doesn't advance their claims. That's a nice touch.
Matthew, the evidence of the "naturalist" is what is called evidence. What you're talking about is argument, not evidence, and no matter how knowledgeable your arguments may be, in the end they are merely arguments, not evidence. Factual evidence is always going to be the way to determine facts.
Same with people who think men should be able to put on a wig and compete in womens' sports contests.Then they try and silence any voices or rational criticism coming their way. These people are still religious.
5 років тому+3
@@plaguebringer420Says the religious tool who is willing to reject science because he dislikes the idea of being held accountable for getting something wrong. RR was rational in issuing a rtraction as that is what responsible adults do. Now fuck off.
@@plaguebringer420 the fact you describe gender dysphoria as "a man putting on a wig" shows how stunningly ignorant you are about the subject in question.
@DrJames Powers Great speech , but it's wasted on atheist . They will only except evidence that can be recognized by the entire world , as proof of the one true God . They haven't figured out that the point in believing in God is believing without evidence and excepting God may never reveal himself in a way that the whole world would know you were right and God does truly exist. I would like to hear about some of that proof you were talking about ?
For a guy who has looked into the philosophy behind religion, he sure sounded like every other ignorant theist with the same prepared lines. Why would you need to explain gnostic theists or agnostic atheists to someone who has seriously studied philosophy and religion? He is getting his talking points from the same tired theist sources and he dont know crap about philosophy.
@Matthew PettoYour half of the conversation contained 0 substance. It had all the depth of talking to a stranger about the weather. Not surprising from someone who would waste time getting a masters in divinity. You might as well have got a masters in the history of the Marvel Universe, at least with that you would have something interesting to say. "but got her to admit Atheism makes claims about reality." No, you didn't. Even if you had, so what? What value does that accomplishment have? She doesn't speak for all atheists. She only speaks for herself.
@Matthew PettoOh also, at what point did you even address the whole "science proves both evolution and creationism" claim? You know, the reason you called the show.
@@drg8687 As far as I understand, he called with the intent of gaining an understanding. You don't need substance to do that, just questions. Your criticism seems weird to me.
@@DalendrionThe video title says "science proves both creationism and evolution" not "calling to gain an understanding." You strike me as a moron. Your criticism seems stupid to me.
@@j.oaklley8965 Satan wrote the bible to fool you. You've been worshipping him as "Jesus" your whole life. Sucks to get fooled, but then angels and demons are much smarter than mortals. I'll pray for you. lol.
You mean the guests and hosts of TAE are patient. Clearly, the rest of them aren't given what they did to Rationality Rules over a few bull shit emails. Cowards still haven't apologized for defamation and slander.
How to meet "in the middle"? Deal with matters that affect both theists and atheists. One would be political, such as the separation of church and state. Another would be agreement on whether comparative religions should be taught in schools so that as much background as possible on many religions would be out in the open, instead of teaching only one (in Sunday school or home). The only other way to have a productive conversation is to promote rational thinking, critical thinking, and proper skepticism.
I like how he calls in and complains about certain atheists and ends up complaining about the religious viewpoint. He's complaining that atheists are starting to use the stand that religious people are. It is really odd..
@Matthew Petto To a degree yes, I would agree. In the clip you mentioned wanting to bridge the gap between the thiest and the athiest in honest dialogue. I would be willing to help you better understand the position of the typical atheist if you would like.
how do you have a productive conversation?? first and foremost, abandon the idea that you are 100% correct; accept you just might be wrong...even if you're fairly certain you are dead on target.... Don't be wedded to the ideology and your identity should not be tied to that either. if you find your self-image falters if a held concept is removed, then your self-image is unsound to begin with......
it's called setting aside your ego and not be wedded to a given view point. Being willing to admit your view point just might be wrong, is typically considered a mark of maturity...
Matthew Petto you start off by using “contention” in a silly manner. Your word choice is obsequious. You don’t need to use the word contention twice in a row in this context. It’s not clear communication, it’s a shallow attempt to seem learned. Then, you wildly mispronounce plethora. Repeatedly. You’re clearly not a guy who just talks like this. You’re trying to sound “smart.” Which means you’re misusing the words. And that’s from the first 45 seconds. It went on like that but I’m busy right now. I’ll come back later and explain more thoroughly.
Posting more videos without an apology is not a clever idea. An apology comes first. The ACA cannot use a position of power and a platform to bully someone and then just carry on like nothing happened. This is really simple and cut and dry. I know the hosts don't necessarily hold any of these positions (and this is not directed at anyone that does not). Why we are getting to the end of a week for something that would take no more than a few seconds is beyond me. There can't seriously be some kind of internal debate on whether bullying is acceptable at the ACA?
@@Kizzy-qb9si The ACA. They recently put a facebook post up accusing someone of posting transphobic things on social media (of which there never was a single post even addressing anything related to trans people or politics). They also accused him of posting transphobic videos, when he'd only made a single video even related to transgender people and that was on transgender atheletes. He had already (a week before) posted saying he believed he got a few details wrong and would be making a video to correct them. He's always been fully and openly supportive of the LGBT community and has made a few videos at least in support of them already. However the ACA chose to slander and lie about him because he didn't post the right kind of apology fast enough. Even though during the time they expected him to do this, he was on their shows in a different country helping them achieve the highest viewer counts they've ever had. That's why I believe they were bullying him. They did not get the result that they wanted quickly enough so they used their platform and position of power to lie about him to the rest of the community. This kind of thing can cause mass hate if people believe it without seeing the other side. They have a responsibility to not spread this kind of hate. I could at least understand it had he doubled down on his opinions, but he'd already openly changed them, so for the ACA this was about him not apologizing exactly how they wanted him to. The guy has a youtube channel called rationality rules, and his name is Stephen Woodford. You should have a listen if you're interested at all in this and want to understand both sides.
I agree. ACA are happy to voice their alternate view on the existence of gods but an alternate view on trans athletes is beyond reproach. Their reaction to this is shameful.
Tell me how did the ACA was disrespectful to this person compared to how Christians are disrespectful the atheist all over the country . The ACA never call him a baby either , call him a devil worshiper or said he have no morals . so you going to ask Christians around his country to apologize for the vulgar things they say about atheist ? If not, Then you my friend are a hypocrite . it doesn't surprise me cuz that's typical of most Christians.
@@ishmaelkelly6686 you're going to have to make sense if you want a valid response. No one is talking about Christians. I'm not talking about Jedi or Harry Potter fanatics either.
@@ishmaelkelly6686 You need to do a little bit of research before posting nonsense. This has nothing to do with Christians. Rationality Rules is Stephen Woodford, a prominent and popular youtube atheist.
Nick Pimenta I saw the response videos breaking down his words and claims. His misinformation has been addressed and I can’t support someone who dishonestly makes themselves out to be some kind of martyr.
Cool - go support him elsewhere. I find most trans people - including myself - like actually being treated as people, not as a stupid alarmist punchline by people like RR. (Also, his use of false dichotomies is reeeeeaaally telling....)
Yes, absolutely they do. I'm rather shocked at the ACA's response to his extremely level headed video and response. He is a beacon to the community and lives up to his name.
@@ross-carlson you mean the video that RR retracted and said was riddled with errors? The same video he is re-creating with real facts? They owe him an apology for that? Uhhhhhhhh…….
Dawkins' scale was 7, where 1 was certainty that gods / God exists, and 7 was where there was certainty that no gods / no God exists. Dawkins described his own views as a 6. In his view, Leprechauns and fairies were equally believable as gods / God.
It's just so simple. Show claims of some god-thing that in any way even remotely corresponds to our universal human observations of reality. Coming back with claims of "Everything is of a god-thing" does't cut it any more than "The Good Fairy" does.
To be fair they probably weren't taught anything about it other than we're a bunch of god haters. To which I would ask them how it's possible to hate something you don't believe in?
@@mattchannel7075 Ahh yes, the good ole god of the gaps. His domains shrinks with every discovery we make! The God of the Gaps is my favorite non-existent entity. :)
@@mattchannel7075 Religion is good at taking the unknown or the unknowable and giving the credit to god. They have been brainwashing people for at least 2000 years. They have the whole misinformation thing down to a Science! Haha! Pun intended.
@Matthew PettoThe only one engaging in ad hominem attacks is you, just now. You are not as smart as you think you are. Not even close. Calls someone a jerkoff and then talks about sophistication. Irony. Lost. On. You.
@Matthew Petto I'm curious: Do you accept the "evidence" that the earth is flat? Do you accept the "evidence" that Aliens are kidnapping people? Do you accept the "evidence" that Mohammed and Jesus both were prophets? Do you accept the "evidence" that the universe is cyclically created and destroyed as described by Hindu cosmology? Etc.
@@TheRealCatof Personally, I agree on that. But believers (like the caller, Matthew Petto, does for christianity) tend to accept "evidence" when it seems to support their claims - but are unable to understand why others don't count that "evidence" as "good evidence" or don't count it as evidence at all. To me, the "quality" of the evidence for Christianity is as unconvincing as the evidence for Islam is ...
"Would you agree that a lot of atheists claim evolution disproves God"....No, I would not agree. I don't know of any atheists who feels evolution has disproven God. I know of a lot of christians who feels that way but not a single atheist.
If I remember correctly, originally anyone that didn't believe the "official" god/gods was called an atheist. Atheism means "without god". Even if you hope deeply that there is a god and an afterlife, if you don't see a reason to believe apart for "but I would really like that" you can still be an atheist.
For those wondering, Dawkins writes in The God Delusion of a scale ranging from 1-7. 1 being 100% certain that there is a God, 2 being pretty much certain, 3 being pretty agnostic but would choose belief in God if they must, 4 being completely agnostic, and the rest being a mirror of the previous. It should be noted that Dawkins declares that nobody in their right mind should possibly place themselves at 1 but that he has the exact same opinion for anyone who places themselves at number 7. Dawkins has previously placed himself at 6.5 but after pressure at a debate conceded that he's probably more at 6.9! I agree.
Dont believe “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)
The whole macro vs micro evolution thing is so stupid. I once had someone tell me they didn’t believe in macro evolution while walking their two domesticated wolves
@@zayan6284 What evidence? 13th Century evidence? A man who asserted that his god exists? I still don't believe you. It's your god, remember? Why don't you present your own evidence? Very skeptical, indeed.
sorry, but I seldom hear any atheist saying "evolution is true so that disproves God" what I see is theists saying "I can disprove evolution so that proves my God" neither argument is valid... but I definitely see the second one more often than the first.
It's sad that Stephen has indicated he's changing his entire.position on trans athletes. Nothing in his original video was irrational or illogical. I feel like he's caving due to the ACA's position claiming he was presenting a transphobic argument. I wouldn't have expected that from him. He needs to stick to his guns. The ACA is coming off like an overly politically correct snowflake. Seems obvious to me that trans women competing in strength sports have an unfair advantage over biological females. Hiw is stating this fact interpreted as being transphobic? It's true and it's valid. Shame on the ACA and shame on Rationality Rules if he reverses his position to placate the ACA.
@@abc456f being openminded means being able to change our position in the face of new evidence, so maybe RR was presented with new stuff that disproved his position. It is then totally rational to change his mind. :)
@@DiMadHatter Well I'm certainly interested in hearing his new evidence. I have to question whether he would even be doing this if the ACA hadn't chimed in with their transphobic accusation.
@@abc456f he said he would do a new video even before he went to the ACA
5 років тому+2
@@abc456f Considering it was the only way to correct the record, yeah it was necessary. Deal with it, as you so-called "skeptics" (tm) claim, no one is above criticism...REMEMBER???
6:37 "There are Irresolvable issues between the theist and atheist" Yes, because if the irresolvable issues were resolved, the theist would be an atheist.
RR has indicated he's changing his entire original position. I'm waiting for his video with his new position. Can't help but feel he's caving in to the ACA's irrational and illogical criticism that he is somehow transphobic for simply stating what's true. Makes me angry at the ACA and sad that Stephen isn't holding to his rational, logical and obviously non-transphobic belief that trans women competing in strength sports against biological females simply isn't fair. RR has nothing to apologize for.
@@abc456f he specifically says he isn't u turning his entire position on his own pinned comment on the video. Unless he said somehing else I'm unaware of.
@@abc456f Even if he did completely turn his position around, he announced that he had made errors and was making a new video before he even went to Austin. It had nothing to do with the ACA's accusations. It's actually this fact that makes the ACA's character assassination even more repugnant, since RR had already made it clear that he was addressing the issue.
Gnostic Theist Agnostic Theist Gnostic Atheist Agnostic Atheist People should have to demonstrate that they know the difference before they even start to argue with someone about the existence of God. It should be a prerequisite for calling in, so much time is wasted explaining to people this fundamental concept. Half the time people are arguing against a position that very few Atheists even hold, the caller just assumes they do, then builds their whole argument around knocking down that strawman. It's so frustratingly boring
On the plus side, there's a chance that other believers who are watching will realize this strawman before they even call in, and start rethinking things on their own. On the assumption that they're more on the rational side instead of the fanatical "Either I win or you lose" side.
@@yabutmaybenot.6433 True. Unless, could the fact that believers who become atheist/non believers be my proof that there are people who believe in god, but do have a rational side? I mean, they did eventually look at their belief with a critical mind and concluded that it was pretty much garbage.
None of those terms (atheist, theist, gnostic, agnostic) deserves a capital letter except at the start of a sentence or a title, just like dentist and sceptic.
I think too many people think about Atheism through a theistic prism. My Atheism has nothing to do with evolution or any other field of science disproving particular myths from particular religions. My mind simply does not allow the belief of things which have no basis in current reality.
@Matthew Petto RNA evolved into DNA,which became all we see today. Science can't adequately explain every step of that process at this time,but yeah,chemicals became life. No big deal ;)
The caller reminds me of my views in my late teens. I’d learned enough to argue and be reasonable, but I was still willing to give more weight to my subjective experiences than reality. More importantly, I wasn’t ready to admit that not knowing means “not knowing”, instead of “therefore god”. Then I grew up.
Gambit 13 But since all of the positive evidence is on the God side of the ledger then "not knowing" should equal "therefore God." That is the logical place to go when one side of an argument has evidence and the other, by their own admission, has none.
@@CCCBeaumont I have yet to see any evidence on the side of god. People speak of experiences, but there is no evidence. All they prove is that these people experienced something, it tells us nothing of whether the experience is real or not. In fact, all I've seen is evidence that what people called gods, turned out to be ways of describing misunderstood natural processes or simply myths. Whether its the Greek god, Roman gods, Egyptian gods, Sumerian gods, Mayan gods, or Aztec gods, the list goes on and on, they all become myths. This leads me to reason that all modern religions, including christianity, will suffer the same fate. In fact, the newer the religion, the less likely it seems to be true because it would seem strange that a god would allow "untrue" religions to form before the "truth" came out. But I digress, the fact is that I have yet to be presented with any evidence of god. That is why I continue to doubt.
@@malfaro3l Perhaps we are using the word (evidence) differently. I am referring to the deductive and inductive classical arguments - the type of evidence that is used in every court in my country (USA) to convict people of crimes, i.e. the non-exculpatory, circumstantial evidence. For example, deductive evidence considers known facts or premises that lead to a logical conclusion about who is guilty of a crime. According to the dictionary definition of evidence, "the facts that lead to a conclusion," practically all of the inductive and deductive philosophical arguments for God (hundreds) are evidentiary, as is the minimal facts case for the resurrection, the corroborative attestation and medical verification of contemporary miracles, the historical accounts of the life, miracles, healings and teaching of the Lord Jesus, the hundreds of millions of changed lives and those who testify of personally experiencing His intervention and presence, etc. are the evidence on the God-side of the ledger to which I referred. I have seen (I suppose) hundreds of atheists forsake atheism and accept the Lord Jesus and a great number of them have told me that their's was a "soft atheism," (not in those words) because they had no evidence that counted against God but were just not aware of, and in some cases were unconvinced by, the evidence that He (at a bare minimum) exists. Maybe that clears up what I meant. Blessings to you.
@@CCCBeaumont I believe you are confusing arguments with evidence, which are sharply distinguished in court. An argument is based on reasoning and drawing connections between facts. Circumstantial evidence is called that because it requires a logical connection to show that it supports a conclusion, rather than showing the conclusion on its own. It is a form of presenting facts that requires the listener to draw conclusions based on deductive reasoning, but the argument and evidence remain distinct (presumptions also play a role, as does the burden of proof, but I digress). Put simply, deductive and inductive reasoning are ways of connecting the dots, but not the dots themselves. To follow the analogy, there are no dots supporting the conclusion that god exists. To put a fine point on it, the problem is that all of the “evidence” I’ve ever head (including in your response) in favor of any god is limited to stories of their (the god’s) exploits, this means that the evidence supports (at most) that the people who wrote it, genuinely believed what they were writing. I don’t agree with this conclusion because the ecumenical counsels that established the current Bible demonstrate an express bias against (and for) certain specific doctrines for political reasons. This bias calls into question the veracity of the entire Bible. But even if that were not true, short of “because I really believe” there is no reason to hold one religion above another. Historically, if you look at claims of miracles and changes in lives, the same was said of Zeus, Oden, and Osiris, in their day, and yet they are no more. All we have is people who, as has been the case throughout history (the Myans, Aztecs, Assyrians, Egyptians, Romans, Taoist, etc) attribute things to beings they cannot see. This proves (using deductive reasoning based on facts) that humans anthropomorphize their world, not that gods exist.
@@malfaro3l That's why I said the classical arguments comprise circumstantial evidence. They are premises which either are true (deductive) or most plausibly true (inductive) which lead necessarily to a conclusion. The evidence for something immaterial would, of absolute empirical necessity, be comprised of the material evidence of that God's exploits, especially in the case of the One true God, Who is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless. The evidence that He exists is actually quite strong, but of course the determination of that is up to each jurist. I just wish they were all paying attention to the arguments being put forward during the trial. Blessing to you.
~ Nashville was so pleased with himself for using the word plethora but could not pronounce it properly. Theists are so consistently hilarious, especially the Catholic & Muslim males as callers. btw, Masters In Theology = total indoctrination in throwing around myriad word salads. Just a bunch of lofty-sounding meaningless words. Thank you, Tracie and John!! Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
“What would be a more productive way for theists and atheists to meet in the middle.” Theists could prove their imaginary god exists or admit they can’t.
Jellyfish Josh Why? The ACA can criticize people who deliberately spread misinformation. They are allowed to do that. If that person wants to actually put effort into educating themselves on the subject, then I’m sure the ACA will recognize that. Only his cult followers seem to think there was nothing wrong in his claims, and his handling of this situation made me lose respect for the guy.
@@HappyHippieGaymer they failed to provide reference to what they disagreed with and they also said he was transphobic which he is not. That is why they need to apologize.
Mathew wants people to meet in the middle without mudslinging but he started by presuming that most atheists believe that there is no god because of some classic definition. Theists often prefer that because that means atheists have to share the burden of proof. If a person claiming they don't believe in god hasn't thought through the distinction of whether they have knowledge of the question they simply haven't been asked the right questions yet. You don't get to make presumptions about what their belief would drill down to when asked to clarify it. Given that I don't see where he had anything to offer since his “science” angle got shot down pretty quickly.
To people like Mathew I always ask if they feel the same way about things like the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or a super-intelligent shade of the color blue. If you're going to parade out this concept that without evidence you can't say whether something exists or not why then how you then accept or deny the existence of anything else? God always gets a kind of free pass from these people based on either indoctrination or personal experience. It's never any kind of tangible proof that they then expect from all other things they simply don't believe without it.
I'm pretty sure that Matthew has only ever heard the "evolution proves gawd doesn't exist" in his own mind. He clearly doesn't actually listen to anyone he is engaged with. He appears to be one of those people who make huge assumptions about what people are saying without putting any effort into understanding what they are actually saying.
Evolution is what led to me losing my religious faith. Learning and understanding the theory had me questioning the bible during my church studies as a catholic. Those same questions got me into a lot of trouble with my family and my church as a child. If we are products of an evolutionary process that showed that the biblical Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin. No original sin means there was never a need for Jesus. No need for Jesus = no truth in Christianity. Evolution doesn't disprove god, and I would never claim it does. However, it does demonstrably show the premise of the bible to be false. Evolution is what started me down the road to losing my faith and I couldn't be happier.
All that is needed to discredit the Bible as an authority of any kind is some basic secular knowledge and reading comprehension. The first chapter of Genesis disproves itself. Light and three days and nights without the Sun, water in liquid form without the Sun, Grass and plants without sunlight, Created the Sun and Moon on fourth day, did not understand that the moon spends half of each month in the daytime sky, and doesn't light the nighttime for much of the time. Then there is the flood and ark story. Not only such a ship cannot be built with wood, but has only one little window, Animals by twos and sevens, 40 days and nights of rain and fountains of the deep somehow flood the entire earth and cover it for ten months. Even though all plants would be dead and fish as well a dove somehow finds an olive branch. On and on, you cant make this stuff up, but someone did and billions of people buy into it?
But the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution - or at least theistic evolution - and has since the 1950s. When it comes to creationism, Catholics aren't the problem.
I wasn't talking about the problem. I was stating what started me down the road of questioning my faith. I don't care what the Catholic church does or does not accept. I grew up being taught the same basic concept that Jesus died for our sins, with the sin originating with Adam and Eve. Evolution CLEARLY disproves that notion, along with many other stories in the bible.
I don’t know why public atheists spend so much time arguing with theists about evolution. The theists should be presenting their evidence to biologists. We atheists who are not biologists accept Darwinian evolution because the scientific community accepts it.
Like most logic-challenged people, Matthew likes to waste his time talking about atheism, evolution and any other subject because he realizes he can’t prove any god exists. Then he wants to talk about what some other atheists say.
14:48 I have not watched this show in a while. The "gotcha moments" in the past have been more atheists hosting. The tone of these two seems more friendly than other hosts I have seen on this show.
@Matthew Petto Bullshit. If you had called with an open mind, you would have started with questions about atheists instead of vague, made-up statements. No different to me starting a conversation with a Christian with: "So, you believe a wizard who did food magic, rose from the dead?".
Declaring that evolution negates the christian faith isn't a horrible idea at all. If evolution is correct then it removes the core belief of adam and eve and hence the so-called fall, in doing so it removes the need for the "sacrifice" of jesus and therefore the very existence of jesus was not needed. If jesus isn't neccessary then what is CHRISTianity all about. This is what stops fundamentalist christians accepting evolution. They know that both evolution and christianity cannot exist together.
I know not one atheist, and I never met a single one in the 60 years of my existence, who would state that god does not exist because of evolution. This really is a straw man.
I don't think saying there is no god was a main point that Hitchens ever tried to make. He used what a supposed god did (such as terrible universe designing) to prove that if there is a god, that god is far from omnipotent and far from loving. But what Hitchens did fight very strongly are the ideas that religions are good and do good. He showed time and time again that religion is about greed, power, and control and religions have done far more harm than good.
I’m just finishing reading his “Hitch 22 -a memoir” and it was interesting to see how his political and literary interests evolved. He actually doesn’t talk much about atheism in this particular writing. It seems his biggest concerns in life were human rights. If he was alive today I feel like his head would explode, or his heart, from the deterioration of basic human rights in our society. I’ve really enjoyed reading his writing over the years, but I truly loved listening to him talk.
Wow, a reasonable caller both civil and courteous, willing to weigh both sides? There definitely should be more. It is more honest to start with a question rather than it's preconceived answer all the same.
The best way for atheists and theists to meet in the middle is for theists to stop saying God DOES exist and for atheists to stop saying God DOESN'T exist. Theists need to recognize, God does exist, as just a belief based on insufficient evidence and atheists need to recognize, God doesn't exist, also as just a belief based on insufficient evidence.
Did Matthew read the title of The God Delusion and not bother to crack the cover?! Not that it even matters, as even the title is interpreted incorrectly. One can have a delusion about a god existing (or anything else) whether that god (or thing) is real/true or not. SImply by believing for poor reasons. Which was the focus of the book as I recall (it has been a few years since I read it). Someone (with a minor in philosophy) needs to work on their critical thinking.
What did Matt do to this dude? Apart from his theist bent, he was bending over backwards to thank Tracie for her graciousness. Makes me wonder what conversations he had before on AXP.
Why can't we just be good to our fellow man and woman and live our best life without a guy in the sky watching us ? If im a good person and I do no wrong, but dont accept jesus into my heart....bad things will happen to me when I die. If I am a bad person and do terrible things, but accept jesus and confess my sins... I'm going to heaven? How can anyone see this as anything but a means of control over ignorant and uneducated people.... to keep them coming back to church and keep separating them from their money and time. If everyone stopped giving the Christian church money what would happen??
@S Gloobal Welcome back with yet _another_ new account. Unfortunately, archaeology and nature prove more biblical stories false than true. Like Genesis? False. Exodus? False. Etc etc etc. You going to bring up that papyrus that doesn't say what you claim and that bowl that says something different than what you claim?
If there’s an genetic adaptation change in a species, like if a bird develops feathers which more closely match its surroundings, how is that just a ’linear change’ as this guy is claiming all evolution is just linear? Now it would be better protected so it’s numbers will grow it can survive better, that’s not just a linear irrelevant change.
He is attacking Dawkins, but hasn't read him??? And he is ignorant of Dawkins' explanation of being 0.5 away from affirmatively stating that there is no god??? He is purposely keeping himself ignorant on a topic on which he has chosen to speak.
100% agreed, although I don't currently have my copy of his book in front of me at the moment, I believe Dawkins said he was a 6.9/7 in the God Delusion. I could certainly be wrong, and either one of our suggestions doesn't change your point at all, just being "that guy" considering this is the internet after all ;)
Of course it matters. It matters what the evidence says and what makes the most sense and gives us the best picture of reality I can kind of see where Tracy is coming from. I think she's trying to give a different perspective and call for a little bit of levity and not just argue but to try to see the bigger picture Anyway I think they should just let the guy give his evidence for creation and then try to find out why if there really is evidence that no respected research University has actually published any evidence for a Creator or intelligent design. I think that's the Crux of it that every respected research University that actually produces meaningful results in science. Not one of them is arguing for our creator or evidence that the universe is driven by some intelligent force that cares about you humans. Certainly a nice story that there's a Divine being that cares about us and etc etc. But there is no evidence to believe that is the way it really is
And there is a difference between having a debate and having a conversation. Often people are debating in a generic conversation which leads to some people feeling trapped.
I love how all religious people can make blind assertions about any type of thing you can think of pertaining to god but atheists say there is no god and now it's making claims about reality and it's not logically consistent. Gotta love that.
Evolution doesn't disprove god. It debunks creation, Adam and eve, Noah's ark etc.
It pretty much does debunk the Abrahamic gods actually. No Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin. Evolution means there's no need to invoke God as an explanation for hardly anything.
It does disprove the Christian God though.
Not really, because we agree with microevolution but we don't consider macro-evolution to be science by definition, it is just an hypothesis.
You might argue with that but that will be just your opinion.
And since science doesn't have a say into this and can't prove neither disprove God's existence; it is also logical to say that IF Aa God truly exists ( and that is also a possibility along with the others...) and the Bible is true, then all things are possible.
And if it's true of what the Bible says about Lucifer then you can also expect corruption deception and confusion.
And let's say even if macro-evolution was true that still doesn't disprove God's existence because it only explains what happens after things got here it doesn't explain how everything came to be
@@ilackofbeliefofmacro-evolu2827 there is no distinction in science between macro evolution and micro evolution. Micro and macro evolution are creationist terms, not scientific terms.
Evolution is a s scientific theory, it graduated from a hypothesis a very long time ago. Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the explanation of that fact.
What I have just is factually true. What you posted is just a badly misinformed opinion.
@@ilackofbeliefofmacro-evolu2827 No, it's not just an opinion. Some opinions are supported by evidence; others are not.
Science proves creationism when you ignore all the science that disproves creationism.
No it doesn’t, even if you ignore 😅
I love Tracy's "why does it matter?" Totally derailing his stupid argument.
We never got to hear the argument. So how do you call it stupid?
@@Dalendrion Years of experience watching this show. We all know where he's going. Since he did get out a tired old strawman about what atheists say about evolution, there's ample evidence to conclude that the rest of his "arguments" were gong to be equally shit.
@@puckerings No, he wasnt stupid. He made a great point that calling something delusion is not compatible with "i dont know" position.
BTW, your statement "We all know where he's going" is obviously not true, because i dont know it and i dont believe that you know it either. I strongly doubt that your evidence to conclude future arguments is reliable enough to justify your conceited judgments.
@@eklektikTubb what great point ? He had none and it fell apart near instantly
@@jewsco The point that calling something delusion is not compatible with "i dont know" position.
I don't think that your average atheist would have any problem with religious people if they stopped trying to legislate their religion. Essentially, you are free to practice your religion, just don't practice it on me. It sounds so simple. So why isn't it? If it's against your religion to eat chocolate cake then don't eat chocolate cake, but don't try and stop everyone else from eating it. Or as a TV character once said on my favorite show of all time: "Why so difficult?"
@@dougs7367 -- Yes, Christians, but I was trying not to single anyone out or make it too personal.
But it's not just about legislation. It's also about flying planes into buildings, killing gays/athiests/people of other faiths, starting conflicts, creating social division, helping to spread AIDS in Africa, attacking science, honor killings, shooting girls who just want to go to school, female genital mutilation, and all the other things theists do to make this world dangerous, ignorant, ugly and hostile.
Honestly, I'm not sure if that's feasible, at least not for the most religious of the bunch. People aren't that great at compartmentalizing, and emotion gets in the way. If someone's faith is the most important thing to them, they're not putting a secular worldview before their religion-informed beliefs.
@@CyeOutsider You missed out male genital mutilation, it's funny how americans always miss that out because most of them have been circumcised
I think others have said it well enough, but yeah I would still have a problem.
"I've not much against Atheism. In fact, some of my friends are Atheists. That's why I've been taught to present my arguments in such a strong way."
"Good. Fine. And your argument is?"
"....................I've got a master's degree, you know."
I read that last line imagining a funny voice and a mister bean smile.
@@33melonpaws77 Yeah, or that Monty Python sketch where Graham Chapman is trying to come across as very respectable because he's a doctor.
Sort of like: "Step aside, madam. I'll get your cat down from that tree. You can trust me. I'm a doctor, you know...".
No mitäs Lunkreeni ? ...................
@@ralfhaggstrom9862 What about me?
Kunhan kysyin. Just asking, .......................@@SpaceCattttt
So you call into a show to talk about X, and when the host asks "Why do you care about X?"
you say "I never really thought about that".
Talk about hitting the wall before even passing the start line! someone put that in a compilation!
Tracie is the nice Matt. He gets pissed at callers and hangs up. She slowly hammers them with logic until they have nothing left.
Not impressed with a master’s level student who criticizes someone without knowing that person’s real position.
Masters of divinity...
Its not a real Masters degree.
@Matthew Petto What you just said has nothing to do with it not being a real degree.
@Matthew Petto she let you drone on because she is nice, and you have the charisma that matches Hitler.
Sorry Matthew, but you lack Adolf's cheeky, winsome boyish charm, and more than likely also lack his winning smile.
But seriously.
That was just awful mate. For someone who has studied some philosophy especially. Considering this, and that you say you have a masters in divinity; whatever that actually means in reality, you sound for all the world as if you have barely actually ever thought through these ideas and concepts. You appear to misunderstand and possibly unknowingly, unintentionally, misrepresent things. This more than likely is what has been taught to you in your classes and supported/reinforced by the thinking and attitudes tending to be prevalent in the USA. America is pretty anomalous in the educated west in regards the level of religiosity.
Sadly they appear to have simply been indoctrinating you. Teaching you WHAT to think, as opposed to HOW to think. There is a whole world of difference.
Though I absolutely do hope you phone in again. When someone a little more challenging is hosting, or Tracy is not in such an easy going mood.
She let you get away with far too much here, that should have been addressed.
I have been teaching Biology for 18 years, and attending talks by biologists for longer than that. I have NEVER heard an actual biologist make the pointless distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution. The ONLY people I have EVER heard use those terms are creationists. It is a needless distinction.
I love that John is like the Dad sitting reading the paper whilst listening to the nonsense.
Nice. Tracy's such a pro at this and doesn't let any part of claims and arguments go by without letting the person understand what they just stated doesn't advance their claims. That's a nice touch.
Caller: _"What would be some methods ... that the Theists and Atheists could meet in the middle ..."_
One method: *Evidence* for Theists' claims.
@Matthew Petto Could you explain what types of evidence there are?
@@Dalendrion It's only been two weeks, give him some time to gather the evidence, after all it's been 2,000 years since Jesus said I'll be baaaack!☺
@@BeachsideHank Hehe. And I wasn't even asking @Matthew Petto for evidence. Just an explanation of what types of evidence there are.
Matthew, the evidence of the "naturalist" is what is called evidence. What you're talking about is argument, not evidence, and no matter how knowledgeable your arguments may be, in the end they are merely arguments, not evidence. Factual evidence is always going to be the way to determine facts.
It's not possible to have logical discussions with people who believe in invisible sky wizards
Same with people who think men should be able to put on a wig and compete in womens' sports contests.Then they try and silence any voices or rational criticism coming their way. These people are still religious.
@@plaguebringer420Says the religious tool who is willing to reject science because he dislikes the idea of being held accountable for getting something wrong. RR was rational in issuing a rtraction as that is what responsible adults do. Now fuck off.
@@plaguebringer420 the fact you describe gender dysphoria as "a man putting on a wig" shows how stunningly ignorant you are about the subject in question.
Tracie is a brilliant communicator.
Tracy was in beast mode that whole episode
@DrJames Powers Great speech , but it's wasted on atheist . They will only except evidence that can be recognized by the entire world , as proof of the one true God . They haven't figured out that the point in believing in God is believing without evidence and excepting God may never reveal himself in a way that the whole world would know you were right and God does truly exist.
I would like to hear about some of that proof you were talking about ?
A masters in divinity and a minor in philosophy . What an absolute waste of time and money .
07 335i one can make a decent living being a pastor these days. Sad but true.
@Homer Jay That's a good name for a candy.
For a guy who has looked into the philosophy behind religion, he sure sounded like every other ignorant theist with the same prepared lines. Why would you need to explain gnostic theists or agnostic atheists to someone who has seriously studied philosophy and religion? He is getting his talking points from the same tired theist sources and he dont know crap about philosophy.
@@shihoblade Then again, seems to be "popular" in usa, to give yourself "fine (not true) titles" ! ..................
How is to waste so much time studying nothing?
Mathew, you spoke for 17 minutes and said absolutely nothing.
Didn't your Father ever teach you not to tease dumb animals? Matthew can't help it if he is brain dead. Not his fault.
@Matthew PettoYour half of the conversation contained 0 substance. It had all the depth of talking to a stranger about the weather. Not surprising from someone who would waste time getting a masters in divinity. You might as well have got a masters in the history of the Marvel Universe, at least with that you would have something interesting to say.
"but got her to admit Atheism makes claims about reality."
No, you didn't. Even if you had, so what? What value does that accomplishment have? She doesn't speak for all atheists. She only speaks for herself.
@Matthew PettoOh also, at what point did you even address the whole "science proves both evolution and creationism" claim? You know, the reason you called the show.
@@drg8687 As far as I understand, he called with the intent of gaining an understanding.
You don't need substance to do that, just questions.
Your criticism seems weird to me.
@@DalendrionThe video title says "science proves both creationism and evolution" not "calling to gain an understanding." You strike me as a moron.
Your criticism seems stupid to me.
Atheist experience, I respect you guys so much, you must be the most patient people on the planet.
Jesus is your God!!!
@@j.oaklley8965 Satan wrote the bible to fool you. You've been worshipping him as "Jesus" your whole life.
Sucks to get fooled, but then angels and demons are much smarter than mortals.
I'll pray for you.
lol.
You mean the guests and hosts of TAE are patient. Clearly, the rest of them aren't given what they did to Rationality Rules over a few bull shit emails. Cowards still haven't apologized for defamation and slander.
@@j.oaklley8965 Er, no.
Can this caller get to his point.
Apparently not, based on the evidence at hand.
@@NastyLittleBagginses Tracey shot that one down before it even started. The caller was honest enough to concede that.
NO ................
NO, playing time with no point ! .........................
No. He was headed off at the pass and decided not to make more of total idiot of himself.
Nice to hear John speak now and again.
a great quote from Richard Dawkins is ' Evolution does not require a god ' and that i think scares the hell out of christians
Bow to me. I am the great pla-THOR-a of evidence!
What's the Loki-tion of all this evidence?
You heathen, I AM BALDER than you ......................
He learned that word the day he called but no one told him how to pronounce it.
I silently corrected him...ok...not quietly!😜
Often that kind of mispronounciation comes from seeing a word in print without hearing it in conversation.
"..and I would agree with you, *BUT* "
(Continues to cling onto something he just agreed was irrelevant)
I’m wondering what kind of minors in philosophy is taught to master’s of divinity students
How to meet "in the middle"?
Deal with matters that affect both theists and atheists. One would be political, such as the separation of church and state. Another would be agreement on whether comparative religions should be taught in schools so that as much background as possible on many religions would be out in the open, instead of teaching only one (in Sunday school or home).
The only other way to have a productive conversation is to promote rational thinking, critical thinking, and proper skepticism.
I like how he calls in and complains about certain atheists and ends up complaining about the religious viewpoint. He's complaining that atheists are starting to use the stand that religious people are. It is really odd..
@Matthew Petto To a degree yes, I would agree. In the clip you mentioned wanting to bridge the gap between the thiest and the athiest in honest dialogue. I would be willing to help you better understand the position of the typical atheist if you would like.
how do you have a productive conversation?? first and foremost, abandon the idea that you are 100% correct; accept you just might be wrong...even if you're fairly certain you are dead on target.... Don't be wedded to the ideology and your identity should not be tied to that either. if you find your self-image falters if a held concept is removed, then your self-image is unsound to begin with......
it's called setting aside your ego and not be wedded to a given view point. Being willing to admit your view point just might be wrong, is typically considered a mark of maturity...
I'm an English fan of this show, I feel so sorry for the regular Americans who have to live next to these theists.
Man, this dude misuses words more often than any caller I have ever heard.
Matt Channel he sounds like a precocious child
Matthew Petto you start off by using “contention” in a silly manner. Your word choice is obsequious. You don’t need to use the word contention twice in a row in this context. It’s not clear communication, it’s a shallow attempt to seem learned. Then, you wildly mispronounce plethora. Repeatedly. You’re clearly not a guy who just talks like this. You’re trying to sound “smart.” Which means you’re misusing the words.
And that’s from the first 45 seconds. It went on like that but I’m busy right now. I’ll come back later and explain more thoroughly.
Posting more videos without an apology is not a clever idea. An apology comes first. The ACA cannot use a position of power and a platform to bully someone and then just carry on like nothing happened. This is really simple and cut and dry. I know the hosts don't necessarily hold any of these positions (and this is not directed at anyone that does not). Why we are getting to the end of a week for something that would take no more than a few seconds is beyond me. There can't seriously be some kind of internal debate on whether bullying is acceptable at the ACA?
Elliott Parkinson bullying from whom?
@@Kizzy-qb9si The ACA. They recently put a facebook post up accusing someone of posting transphobic things on social media (of which there never was a single post even addressing anything related to trans people or politics). They also accused him of posting transphobic videos, when he'd only made a single video even related to transgender people and that was on transgender atheletes.
He had already (a week before) posted saying he believed he got a few details wrong and would be making a video to correct them. He's always been fully and openly supportive of the LGBT community and has made a few videos at least in support of them already.
However the ACA chose to slander and lie about him because he didn't post the right kind of apology fast enough. Even though during the time they expected him to do this, he was on their shows in a different country helping them achieve the highest viewer counts they've ever had.
That's why I believe they were bullying him. They did not get the result that they wanted quickly enough so they used their platform and position of power to lie about him to the rest of the community. This kind of thing can cause mass hate if people believe it without seeing the other side. They have a responsibility to not spread this kind of hate. I could at least understand it had he doubled down on his opinions, but he'd already openly changed them, so for the ACA this was about him not apologizing exactly how they wanted him to.
The guy has a youtube channel called rationality rules, and his name is Stephen Woodford. You should have a listen if you're interested at all in this and want to understand both sides.
@@ElliottParkinson *Woodford
@@sophonax661 xD, right you are, thanking you!
@@ElliottParkinson
You're welcome :)
Shout out to Rationality rules. The way he was treated by the ACA is deplorable. An apology would go someway to restoring the reputation of the ACA.
Whatever
I agree. ACA are happy to voice their alternate view on the existence of gods but an alternate view on trans athletes is beyond reproach. Their reaction to this is shameful.
Tell me how did the ACA was disrespectful to this person compared to how Christians are disrespectful the atheist all over the country . The ACA never call him a baby either , call him a devil worshiper or said he have no morals . so you going to ask Christians around his country to apologize for the vulgar things they say about atheist ? If not, Then you my friend are a hypocrite . it doesn't surprise me cuz that's typical of most Christians.
@@ishmaelkelly6686 you're going to have to make sense if you want a valid response. No one is talking about Christians. I'm not talking about Jedi or Harry Potter fanatics either.
@@ishmaelkelly6686 You need to do a little bit of research before posting nonsense. This has nothing to do with Christians. Rationality Rules is Stephen Woodford, a prominent and popular youtube atheist.
Support Steven Rationality Rules
Nick Pimenta I saw the response videos breaking down his words and claims. His misinformation has been addressed and I can’t support someone who dishonestly makes themselves out to be some kind of martyr.
Where was he dishonest?
Cool - go support him elsewhere. I find most trans people - including myself - like actually being treated as people, not as a stupid alarmist punchline by people like RR. (Also, his use of false dichotomies is reeeeeaaally telling....)
Support Rationality Rules!! ACA owes him an apology.
You owe me an apology.
Yes, absolutely they do. I'm rather shocked at the ACA's response to his extremely level headed video and response. He is a beacon to the community and lives up to his name.
@@ross-carlson you mean the video that RR retracted and said was riddled with errors? The same video he is re-creating with real facts? They owe him an apology for that? Uhhhhhhhh…….
Yeah his refusal to address the calm and rational response to his misinformation made me lose all respect for rationality rules.
I messaged them and got a response to email them instead so they can ignore me easier
Dawkins' scale was 7, where 1 was certainty that gods / God exists, and 7 was where there was certainty that no gods / no God exists. Dawkins described his own views as a 6. In his view, Leprechauns and fairies were equally believable as gods / God.
What's going on with Steve Woodford? Do you keep this stupid position regarding him?
What part is "stupid" ?
@@Mariomario-gt4oy
The one were the Atheist community reached a conclusion without evidence
@@ido2267 such as?
@@Mariomario-gt4oy
Declaring that Steve is transphobic
@@ido2267 give me a quote where they said he was transphobic
It's just so simple.
Show claims of some god-thing that in any way even remotely
corresponds to our universal human observations of reality.
Coming back with claims of "Everything is of a god-thing"
does't cut it any more than "The Good Fairy" does.
So this man got a college degree in this subject, and does not understand the definition of atheism. 😐
To be fair they probably weren't taught anything about it other than we're a bunch of god haters. To which I would ask them how it's possible to hate something you don't believe in?
This idiot has no degree...lmao.
Creation and evolution are in total contradiction. So saying science proves both makes no sense.
@@dougs7367 except for the lack of evidence in regards to the magical sky daddy.
@@mattchannel7075 Ahh yes, the good ole god of the gaps. His domains shrinks with every discovery we make!
The God of the Gaps is my favorite non-existent entity. :)
@@mattchannel7075 Religion is good at taking the unknown or the unknowable and giving the credit to god.
They have been brainwashing people for at least 2000 years. They have the whole misinformation thing down to a Science! Haha! Pun intended.
@Matthew PettoAnother amazing contribution to the conversation from the man that already wasted 17 minutes of our time.
@Matthew PettoThe only one engaging in ad hominem attacks is you, just now. You are not as smart as you think you are. Not even close.
Calls someone a jerkoff and then talks about sophistication. Irony. Lost. On. You.
Theists can never understand what evidence is.
They willfully refuse to understand what evidence is!
@Matthew Petto I'm curious: Do you accept the "evidence" that the earth is flat? Do you accept the "evidence" that Aliens are kidnapping people? Do you accept the "evidence" that Mohammed and Jesus both were prophets? Do you accept the "evidence" that the universe is cyclically created and destroyed as described by Hindu cosmology? Etc.
@@doubledoubleyou2838 But there's no evidence for any of those claims.
@@TheRealCatof Personally, I agree on that. But believers (like the caller, Matthew Petto, does for christianity) tend to accept "evidence" when it seems to support their claims - but are unable to understand why others don't count that "evidence" as "good evidence" or don't count it as evidence at all. To me, the "quality" of the evidence for Christianity is as unconvincing as the evidence for Islam is ...
@@doubledoubleyou2838 Oh, I see your point.
He has a degree in Charlatanism.
@@yabutmaybenot.6433 I can't tell if Trump University is a joke or a real thing. That's how weird it's gotten.
I have a degree in harry potter
@@33melonpaws77 It was a real joke.
"pleth-OR-uh". Okay, then.
Oh come now. Accents are a thing.
cli-TO-ris
"Would you agree that a lot of atheists claim evolution disproves God"....No, I would not agree. I don't know of any atheists who feels evolution has disproven God. I know of a lot of christians who feels that way but not a single atheist.
If I remember correctly, originally anyone that didn't believe the "official" god/gods was called an atheist.
Atheism means "without god". Even if you hope deeply that there is a god and an afterlife, if you don't see a reason to believe apart for "but I would really like that" you can still be an atheist.
It was something either the Romans or Greeks called all of those that didn't follow their Pantheons.
For those wondering, Dawkins writes in The God Delusion of a scale ranging from 1-7. 1 being 100% certain that there is a God, 2 being pretty much certain, 3 being pretty agnostic but would choose belief in God if they must, 4 being completely agnostic, and the rest being a mirror of the previous.
It should be noted that Dawkins declares that nobody in their right mind should possibly place themselves at 1 but that he has the exact same opinion for anyone who places themselves at number 7.
Dawkins has previously placed himself at 6.5 but after pressure at a debate conceded that he's probably more at 6.9!
I agree.
Science proves 'human' creations ;)
Dont believe
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)
Is there a Tracie Harris fan club? I want to join! She's the coolest.
The difference between creationism and a scientific theory is the methods used to reach their conclusions.
@Feiner Fug Creationist start with the conclusion and actual scientist formulate their conclusions after collecting data.
What would 'meet in the middle', what would 'clear it up'?
Show evidence of a god-thing.
Easy-peasy.
The whole macro vs micro evolution thing is so stupid. I once had someone tell me they didn’t believe in macro evolution while walking their two domesticated wolves
What about the reality that I don't believe in YOUR god that you proclaim exists?
Go read the Summae Theologicae?
@@zayan6284 No thanks.
@@deek4515 so you dont believe and you don't want to review the evidence? Not very sceptical
@@zayan6284 What evidence? 13th Century evidence? A man who asserted that his god exists? I still don't believe you. It's your god, remember? Why don't you present your own evidence? Very skeptical, indeed.
@@deek4515 I've read the Summa and I know the arguments, clearly you have not.
sorry, but I seldom hear any atheist saying "evolution is true so that disproves God"
what I see is theists saying "I can disprove evolution so that proves my God"
neither argument is valid... but I definitely see the second one more often than the first.
R A T I O N A L I T Y R U L E S ❤️ (although evidently not in Austin, Texas)
It's sad that Stephen has indicated he's changing his entire.position on trans athletes. Nothing in his original video was irrational or illogical. I feel like he's caving due to the ACA's position claiming he was presenting a transphobic argument. I wouldn't have expected that from him. He needs to stick to his guns. The ACA is coming off like an overly politically correct snowflake. Seems obvious to me that trans women competing in strength sports have an unfair advantage over biological females. Hiw is stating this fact interpreted as being transphobic? It's true and it's valid. Shame on the ACA and shame on Rationality Rules if he reverses his position to placate the ACA.
@@abc456f being openminded means being able to change our position in the face of new evidence, so maybe RR was presented with new stuff that disproved his position. It is then totally rational to change his mind. :)
@@DiMadHatter Well I'm certainly interested in hearing his new evidence. I have to question whether he would even be doing this if the ACA hadn't chimed in with their transphobic accusation.
@@abc456f he said he would do a new video even before he went to the ACA
@@abc456f Considering it was the only way to correct the record, yeah it was necessary. Deal with it, as you so-called "skeptics" (tm) claim, no one is above criticism...REMEMBER???
6:37 "There are Irresolvable issues between the theist and atheist" Yes, because if the irresolvable issues were resolved, the theist would be an atheist.
Why hasn't the RR issue been addressed yet? Why is the ACA hiding?
RR has indicated he's changing his entire original position. I'm waiting for his video with his new position. Can't help but feel he's caving in to the ACA's irrational and illogical criticism that he is somehow transphobic for simply stating what's true. Makes me angry at the ACA and sad that Stephen isn't holding to his rational, logical and obviously non-transphobic belief that trans women competing in strength sports against biological females simply isn't fair. RR has nothing to apologize for.
@@abc456f he specifically says he isn't u turning his entire position on his own pinned comment on the video. Unless he said somehing else I'm unaware of.
I also haven't seen RRs updated video correcting the things he himself said he got wrong.
@@abc456f Even if he did completely turn his position around, he announced that he had made errors and was making a new video before he even went to Austin. It had nothing to do with the ACA's accusations. It's actually this fact that makes the ACA's character assassination even more repugnant, since RR had already made it clear that he was addressing the issue.
@@grahamsue-a-quan4333 He's working on it. God forbid he take the time to do more research on it.
Classic Atheist vs. New Atheist = Classic Coke vs. New Coke
What on earth is a Masters in Divinity?
Gnostic Theist
Agnostic Theist
Gnostic Atheist
Agnostic Atheist
People should have to demonstrate that they know the difference before they even start to argue with someone about the existence of God.
It should be a prerequisite for calling in, so much time is wasted explaining to people this fundamental concept.
Half the time people are arguing against a position that very few Atheists even hold, the caller just assumes they do, then builds their whole argument around knocking down that strawman.
It's so frustratingly boring
On the plus side, there's a chance that other believers who are watching will realize this strawman before they even call in, and start rethinking things on their own.
On the assumption that they're more on the rational side instead of the fanatical "Either I win or you lose" side.
@@yabutmaybenot.6433 True. Unless, could the fact that believers who become atheist/non believers be my proof that there are people who believe in god, but do have a rational side? I mean, they did eventually look at their belief with a critical mind and concluded that it was pretty much garbage.
@@yabutmaybenot.6433 Ah, okay then. Still, it must be tiring/irritating when they refuse to budge.
None of those terms (atheist, theist, gnostic, agnostic) deserves a capital letter except at the start of a sentence or a title, just like dentist and sceptic.
I think too many people think about Atheism through a theistic prism.
My Atheism has nothing to do with evolution or any other field of science disproving particular myths from particular religions.
My mind simply does not allow the belief of things which have no basis in current reality.
@Matthew Petto Most people do.
Except in the south of course.
@Matthew Petto RNA evolved into DNA,which became all we see today.
Science can't adequately explain every step of that process at this time,but yeah,chemicals became life.
No big deal ;)
The caller reminds me of my views in my late teens. I’d learned enough to argue and be reasonable, but I was still willing to give more weight to my subjective experiences than reality. More importantly, I wasn’t ready to admit that not knowing means “not knowing”, instead of “therefore god”. Then I grew up.
Gambit 13 But since all of the positive evidence is on the God side of the ledger then "not knowing" should equal "therefore God." That is the logical place to go when one side of an argument has evidence and the other, by their own admission, has none.
@@CCCBeaumont I have yet to see any evidence on the side of god. People speak of experiences, but there is no evidence. All they prove is that these people experienced something, it tells us nothing of whether the experience is real or not. In fact, all I've seen is evidence that what people called gods, turned out to be ways of describing misunderstood natural processes or simply myths. Whether its the Greek god, Roman gods, Egyptian gods, Sumerian gods, Mayan gods, or Aztec gods, the list goes on and on, they all become myths. This leads me to reason that all modern religions, including christianity, will suffer the same fate. In fact, the newer the religion, the less likely it seems to be true because it would seem strange that a god would allow "untrue" religions to form before the "truth" came out. But I digress, the fact is that I have yet to be presented with any evidence of god. That is why I continue to doubt.
@@malfaro3l Perhaps we are using the word (evidence) differently. I am referring to the deductive and inductive classical arguments - the type of evidence that is used in every court in my country (USA) to convict people of crimes, i.e. the non-exculpatory, circumstantial evidence. For example, deductive evidence considers known facts or premises that lead to a logical conclusion about who is guilty of a crime. According to the dictionary definition of evidence, "the facts that lead to a conclusion," practically all of the inductive and deductive philosophical arguments for God (hundreds) are evidentiary, as is the minimal facts case for the resurrection, the corroborative attestation and medical verification of contemporary miracles, the historical accounts of the life, miracles, healings and teaching of the Lord Jesus, the hundreds of millions of changed lives and those who testify of personally experiencing His intervention and presence, etc. are the evidence on the God-side of the ledger to which I referred. I have seen (I suppose) hundreds of atheists forsake atheism and accept the Lord Jesus and a great number of them have told me that their's was a "soft atheism," (not in those words) because they had no evidence that counted against God but were just not aware of, and in some cases were unconvinced by, the evidence that He (at a bare minimum) exists. Maybe that clears up what I meant. Blessings to you.
@@CCCBeaumont I believe you are confusing arguments with evidence, which are sharply distinguished in court. An argument is based on reasoning and drawing connections between facts. Circumstantial evidence is called that because it requires a logical connection to show that it supports a conclusion, rather than showing the conclusion on its own. It is a form of presenting facts that requires the listener to draw conclusions based on deductive reasoning, but the argument and evidence remain distinct (presumptions also play a role, as does the burden of proof, but I digress). Put simply, deductive and inductive reasoning are ways of connecting the dots, but not the dots themselves. To follow the analogy, there are no dots supporting the conclusion that god exists.
To put a fine point on it, the problem is that all of the “evidence” I’ve ever head (including in your response) in favor of any god is limited to stories of their (the god’s) exploits, this means that the evidence supports (at most) that the people who wrote it, genuinely believed what they were writing. I don’t agree with this conclusion because the ecumenical counsels that established the current Bible demonstrate an express bias against (and for) certain specific doctrines for political reasons. This bias calls into question the veracity of the entire Bible. But even if that were not true, short of “because I really believe” there is no reason to hold one religion above another. Historically, if you look at claims of miracles and changes in lives, the same was said of Zeus, Oden, and Osiris, in their day, and yet they are no more. All we have is people who, as has been the case throughout history (the Myans, Aztecs, Assyrians, Egyptians, Romans, Taoist, etc) attribute things to beings they cannot see. This proves (using deductive reasoning based on facts) that humans anthropomorphize their world, not that gods exist.
@@malfaro3l That's why I said the classical arguments comprise circumstantial evidence. They are premises which either are true (deductive) or most plausibly true (inductive) which lead necessarily to a conclusion. The evidence for something immaterial would, of absolute empirical necessity, be comprised of the material evidence of that God's exploits, especially in the case of the One true God, Who is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless. The evidence that He exists is actually quite strong, but of course the determination of that is up to each jurist. I just wish they were all paying attention to the arguments being put forward during the trial. Blessing to you.
What kind of atheist am I? Classical, Neo classical, new, militant, bold, hard.....? I don't believe in gods, why make this difficult?
~ Nashville was so pleased with himself for using the word plethora but could not pronounce it properly. Theists are so consistently hilarious, especially the Catholic & Muslim males as callers. btw, Masters In Theology = total indoctrination in throwing around myriad word salads. Just a bunch of lofty-sounding meaningless words. Thank you, Tracie and John!! Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
it's not irresolvable Matthew, you could resolve it in seconds... by providing evidence.
@Matthew - I'f you're looking for methods, look into street epistemology, could prove useful as a tool to also examine your own beliefs! It's awesome.
I really wish people would pronounce "Aron" the way he asks for it to be pronounced. He's super clear about it.
So im going to unsubscribe since you are never going adress steven case.
ELBARBONN it’s been addressed. His misinformation as been exposed and his false claims addressed by other youtubers.
His cult is really touchy.
@@HappyHippieGaymer not on this channel
@@ElBarbonn I thought this channel was about the Atheist Experience show. Not the news outlet of the ACA.
Aren't you looking at the wrong venue?
@@Dalendrion The problem was due to someone that was on this channel
@@ElBarbonn I see.
“What would be a more productive way for theists and atheists to meet in the middle.”
Theists could prove their imaginary god exists or admit they can’t.
Masters in divinity? Lol k
"I have a Masters in Divinity.."
Super. I have a P.H. D. in Wizardry..
You need to apologize to rationally rules!
Jellyfish Josh
Why?
The ACA can criticize people who deliberately spread misinformation. They are allowed to do that. If that person wants to actually put effort into educating themselves on the subject, then I’m sure the ACA will recognize that. Only his cult followers seem to think there was nothing wrong in his claims, and his handling of this situation made me lose respect for the guy.
@@HappyHippieGaymer they failed to provide reference to what they disagreed with and they also said he was transphobic which he is not. That is why they need to apologize.
@@HappyHippieGaymer also spreading misinformation about a fellow athiest.
@@HappyHippieGaymer I think it would be nice if they talked with him first, or at least made the disassociating statement less unfriendly.
I'm still confused as to how he believes that creationism is in any way scientific?
@S Gloobal Much better, thank you.....
Mathew wants people to meet in the middle without mudslinging but he started by presuming that most atheists believe that there is no god because of some classic definition. Theists often prefer that because that means atheists have to share the burden of proof. If a person claiming they don't believe in god hasn't thought through the distinction of whether they have knowledge of the question they simply haven't been asked the right questions yet. You don't get to make presumptions about what their belief would drill down to when asked to clarify it. Given that I don't see where he had anything to offer since his “science” angle got shot down pretty quickly.
To people like Mathew I always ask if they feel the same way about things like the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or a super-intelligent shade of the color blue. If you're going to parade out this concept that without evidence you can't say whether something exists or not why then how you then accept or deny the existence of anything else? God always gets a kind of free pass from these people based on either indoctrination or personal experience. It's never any kind of tangible proof that they then expect from all other things they simply don't believe without it.
I'm pretty sure that Matthew has only ever heard the "evolution proves gawd doesn't exist" in his own mind. He clearly doesn't actually listen to anyone he is engaged with. He appears to be one of those people who make huge assumptions about what people are saying without putting any effort into understanding what they are actually saying.
Evolution is simply our best reason based shot at explaining how this all got here. Forget about God. Save it for childrens' books.
Evolution is what led to me losing my religious faith. Learning and understanding the theory had me questioning the bible during my church studies as a catholic. Those same questions got me into a lot of trouble with my family and my church as a child. If we are products of an evolutionary process that showed that the biblical Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin. No original sin means there was never a need for Jesus. No need for Jesus = no truth in Christianity. Evolution doesn't disprove god, and I would never claim it does. However, it does demonstrably show the premise of the bible to be false. Evolution is what started me down the road to losing my faith and I couldn't be happier.
All that is needed to discredit the Bible as an authority of any kind is some basic secular knowledge and reading comprehension. The first chapter of Genesis disproves itself. Light and three days and nights without the Sun, water in liquid form without the Sun, Grass and plants without sunlight, Created the Sun and Moon on fourth day, did not understand that the moon spends half of each month in the daytime sky, and doesn't light the nighttime for much of the time. Then there is the flood and ark story. Not only such a ship cannot be built with wood, but has only one little window, Animals by twos and sevens, 40 days and nights of rain and fountains of the deep somehow flood the entire earth and cover it for ten months. Even though all plants would be dead and fish as well a dove somehow finds an olive branch. On and on, you cant make this stuff up, but someone did and billions of people buy into it?
But the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution - or at least theistic evolution - and has since the 1950s.
When it comes to creationism, Catholics aren't the problem.
I wasn't talking about the problem. I was stating what started me down the road of questioning my faith. I don't care what the Catholic church does or does not accept. I grew up being taught the same basic concept that Jesus died for our sins, with the sin originating with Adam and Eve. Evolution CLEARLY disproves that notion, along with many other stories in the bible.
@@CyeOutsider They "accept it" because it's a 100% proven fact. And evolution disproves Adam and Eve.
I don’t know why public atheists spend so much time arguing with theists about evolution. The theists should be presenting their evidence to biologists. We atheists who are not biologists accept Darwinian evolution because the scientific community accepts it.
Tracie is formidable
Like most logic-challenged people, Matthew likes to waste his time talking about atheism, evolution and any other subject because he realizes he can’t prove any god exists.
Then he wants to talk about what some other atheists say.
14:48 I have not watched this show in a while. The "gotcha moments" in the past have been more atheists hosting. The tone of these two seems more friendly than other hosts I have seen on this show.
@Matthew Petto
Bullshit.
If you had called with an open mind, you would have started with questions about atheists instead of vague, made-up statements.
No different to me starting a conversation with a Christian with: "So, you believe a wizard who did food magic, rose from the dead?".
When will Aron Ra be back on the show???
Declaring that evolution negates the christian faith isn't a horrible idea at all. If evolution is correct then it removes the core belief of adam and eve and hence the so-called fall, in doing so it removes the need for the "sacrifice" of jesus and therefore the very existence of jesus was not needed. If jesus isn't neccessary then what is CHRISTianity all about.
This is what stops fundamentalist christians accepting evolution. They know that both evolution and christianity cannot exist together.
I know not one atheist, and I never met a single one in the 60 years of my existence, who would state that god does not exist because of evolution.
This really is a straw man.
Exactly. Evolution doesn't cause God not to exist. Evolution is just reality, and God is a fairy tale.
Religious apologists have one rule- If you're gonna tell a lie, make it a whopper.
I’m an agnostic atheist but I will confidently assert that certain gods don’t exist like the Biblically literal God or the “omni”-god
I don't think saying there is no god was a main point that Hitchens ever tried to make. He used what a supposed god did (such as terrible universe designing) to prove that if there is a god, that god is far from omnipotent and far from loving. But what Hitchens did fight very strongly are the ideas that religions are good and do good. He showed time and time again that religion is about greed, power, and control and religions have done far more harm than good.
I’m just finishing reading his “Hitch 22 -a memoir” and it was interesting to see how his political and literary interests evolved. He actually doesn’t talk much about atheism in this particular writing.
It seems his biggest concerns in life were human rights. If he was alive today I feel like his head would explode, or his heart, from the deterioration of basic human rights in our society.
I’ve really enjoyed reading his writing over the years, but I truly loved listening to him talk.
Wow, a reasonable caller both civil and courteous, willing to weigh both sides? There definitely should be more. It is more honest to start with a question rather than it's preconceived answer all the same.
@@gowdsake7103 Yes, and thoroughly. Why, did you?
The best way for atheists and theists to meet in the middle is for theists to stop saying God DOES exist and for atheists to stop saying God DOESN'T exist. Theists need to recognize, God does exist, as just a belief based on insufficient evidence and atheists need to recognize, God doesn't exist, also as just a belief based on insufficient evidence.
Did Matthew read the title of The God Delusion and not bother to crack the cover?!
Not that it even matters, as even the title is interpreted incorrectly. One can have a delusion about a god existing (or anything else) whether that god (or thing) is real/true or not. SImply by believing for poor reasons. Which was the focus of the book as I recall (it has been a few years since I read it). Someone (with a minor in philosophy) needs to work on their critical thinking.
What did Matt do to this dude? Apart from his theist bent, he was bending over backwards to thank Tracie for her graciousness. Makes me wonder what conversations he had before on AXP.
The Dawkins scale us a 7 point scale, with 1 knowing god exists to 7 know god does not exist. He said he was a 6 on that scale.
One can have knowledge without believing; it's in the 'finding it convincing' where the magic happens.
Dawkins is a 6.9 out of 7.
Why can't we just be good to our fellow man and woman and live our best life without a guy in the sky watching us ? If im a good person and I do no wrong, but dont accept jesus into my heart....bad things will happen to me when I die. If I am a bad person and do terrible things, but accept jesus and confess my sins... I'm going to heaven? How can anyone see this as anything but a means of control over ignorant and uneducated people.... to keep them coming back to church and keep separating them from their money and time. If everyone stopped giving the Christian church money what would happen??
@S Gloobal ... yes...most likely...there are many things in the bible that are based on facts and actual people .
@S Gloobal
Welcome back with yet _another_ new account.
Unfortunately, archaeology and nature prove more biblical stories false than true. Like Genesis? False. Exodus? False. Etc etc etc.
You going to bring up that papyrus that doesn't say what you claim and that bowl that says something different than what you claim?
If there’s an genetic adaptation change in a species, like if a bird develops feathers which more closely match its surroundings, how is that just a ’linear change’ as this guy is claiming all evolution is just linear? Now it would be better protected so it’s numbers will grow it can survive better, that’s not just a linear irrelevant change.
He is attacking Dawkins, but hasn't read him??? And he is ignorant of Dawkins' explanation of being 0.5 away from affirmatively stating that there is no god??? He is purposely keeping himself ignorant on a topic on which he has chosen to speak.
100% agreed, although I don't currently have my copy of his book in front of me at the moment, I believe Dawkins said he was a 6.9/7 in the God Delusion. I could certainly be wrong, and either one of our suggestions doesn't change your point at all, just being "that guy" considering this is the internet after all ;)
Dude is working on a masters degree and when asked about the definition about atheism he says "if you look it up on google..."
Diploma mill master
Of course it matters. It matters what the evidence says and what makes the most sense and gives us the best picture of reality
I can kind of see where Tracy is coming from. I think she's trying to give a different perspective and call for a little bit of levity and not just argue but to try to see the bigger picture
Anyway I think they should just let the guy give his evidence for creation and then try to find out why if there really is evidence that no respected research University has actually published any evidence for a Creator or intelligent design.
I think that's the Crux of it that every respected research University that actually produces meaningful results in science. Not one of them is arguing for our creator or evidence that the universe is driven by some intelligent force that cares about you humans. Certainly a nice story that there's a Divine being that cares about us and etc etc. But there is no evidence to believe that is the way it really is
And there is a difference between having a debate and having a conversation. Often people are debating in a generic conversation which leads to some people feeling trapped.
Why are believers listening to an atheist show? They should be at bible study surely.
Religion requires fairies and faith
I love how all religious people can make blind assertions about any type of thing you can think of pertaining to god but atheists say there is no god and now it's making claims about reality and it's not logically consistent. Gotta love that.