I believe "because of the evidence that I've seen and read". Then proceeds to give zero evidence. And of course, the usual illogical nonsense and never answers the questions asked.
@@rsr789 Who said that's what I was implying? I ask because I find that a lot of people seem to be utterly confused that others don't have a robust epistemology. I was a catholic, I know what it is to be indoctrinated from a young age into believing something without evidence, and then being indoctrinated into believing that [insert philosophical or mundane claim here] was evidence of god.
@@rsr789 in case it wasn't clear. I do agree that the caller didn't have any demonstrable evidence. I've yet to come across a theist who can put forth evidence or an argument that would convince me.
@@Fernando-ek8jp I was taken to Sunday school up until about 7 or 8 years old. After that, I never gave it much thought. After obtaining a Physics degree, religion is just another form of UA-cam entertainment - like any other YT comedy channel. Matt and Jimmy are the best at getting the worst out of the theists.
That has absolutely been my experience every time I have debated Catholics specifically. They love to get to this vague amorphous God-like entity with absolutely no characteristics whatsoever (so it's completely unfalsifiable) and then once you admit that yes their unfalsifiable concept is indeed unfalsifiable, they then claim victory for a personal and powerful being with will and intention.
And even if this particular god-like entity did exist, he would basically be like a chemist who accidentally dropped all of his supplies in the lab, then waited around to see what happened. Then, from the catholic perspective, decided he liked us and needed us to love him, so he sent jesus to win us over. Why does god need our acknowledgement and approval?
@@marklivingston7957 I'm guessing you mean, if he was allowed to say more words without answering the question asked, then what he was saying would make sense. You are wrong and your support for him refusing to participate in any semblance of and honest conversation makes you a part of the problem.
@@Scottaskadly Matt's always philosophically correct on every point... but he's also a colossal prick and often manipulative. The entire premise of this borders on ridiculous. _FEW_ theists or even deists are going to have the intellectual capacity to understand the intracacies of philosophical debate. Seriously, how many people on Matt's level are going to be calling in? I have degrees out the ass. I'm published. And there are moments my mind is running to keep up with Matt. One could question why anyone would invite such discourse in the first place.
@@yossarian6799 It is a call in show, if a person has beliefs so strongly held that they are compelled to call in and express them, they should be prepared to be challenged. Mr Dillahunty is clearly established on UA-cam and anyone who calls in should be aware of his intolerance of certain behaviours. Reading, repeating points, non-sequitur statements, and the biggest one of all, NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION ASKED. These behaviours I also find intolerable and fully understand Mr Dillahunty's frustration. Anyone who calls in should adhere to Mr Hitchens simple rule of reading the arguments that are contrary to their own, if they did this their surprise when the counter arguments are made will be much less, and they will be able to engage in the conversation. The behaviour of this caller would be absolutely intolerable if the conversation was face to face, and I am very confident in saying that they would never behave that way if they were in the same room as Mr Dillahunty.
As a former Catholic I memorized the Baltimore Catechism, the Apostles (Nicene) Creed, the Rosary, and purchased the sacred medals that protected me from the Devil from the Holy Store in Gardner ,Massachusetts. One day, fifty years later, I decided to reread this material they forced me to repeat over and over and have to marvel at how disconnected it is from reality.
I don't know what is sadder, how unprepared Jim is for this conversation or how he didn't realize how unprepared he was. He still thinks his argument is right.
I don't know if you were raised christian or catholic, but as someone who was, I can say that it is sad, but expected. When you are indoctrinated by friends, family, society and an institution built upon dogma with the express purpose of indoctrinating others, it is not surprising for people not to have a good grasp of how limited their foundations actually are.
Matt: difficult to answer question Theist: i will talk about lots of tangentially related stuff because that fills some time and it worked when other people convinced me about god
So many of these calls boil down to: "Do you have a good reason to believe in a god?" "Yes." "What is it?" "Well, I was told there was a god and I never questioned it."
The guy's argument boils down to "It's reasonable to think this because I say it is." He sure loves hearing the sound of his own voice and pontificating on grand ideas while refusing to be honest on what his own church preaches.
@@rsr789 I don't think that by "grand", Munky means "a strong idea that is based in sound epistemology and matches reality", but "an idea built upon complexities and other ideas that seem to add up". If I were to create a fictional world for a movie or book, would that not be a grand idea?
I don’t think he’s being dishonest about his churches teachings. I think he is just struggling to rationalize his beliefs while under heavy fire. I’d bet all the money I have that he’s never heard his church describe God as “a thinking agent” and he hasn’t given the concept enough thought to really understand that the Bible supports a thinking agent god. We can’t assume dishonesty where ignorance would serve equally well. Also maybe you don’t need to be so condescending.
@@robertlowther7442 My thoughts exactly. I was a catholic, I had some interest in philosophy. It became easy to come across something and go "Oh! That sounds like something that could apply to God or my beliefs!" and since I was convinced that my beliefs were true, it made all the sense in the world to change those other new ideas to fit with my worldview. Which we all do to a degree, if we're honest. The question is whether one holds a given worldview as a dogma, or if one is open to change it.
Man, if only this guy admitted that he grew up in a religious household/community, had a few "wild years" and then came back needing structure and community and that's why he believes it would make waves of more sense than assuming some non contingent thing (but totally all powerful!) thing created everything. 😂
It's more honest when they say they do for comfort reasons rather than the Christian I know that said her relationship with God is as real as her talking to me there and then. I said to her can she get a response from her god as quick as she can me? She then changed the subject. There's not much more you can say to someone that is so deluded, dishonest and in denial.
They always equate areligiosity to atheism. They think not going to church and smoking weed for a few years made them "atheists." They were certainly never skeptics. I know they also always think they have to beef up their pre-conversion stories so they can make them more dramatic. When you listen to Christians give witness every dude was a bad-ass, drug dealing, gang leader banging a hundred chicks a day. Nobody ever became a born Again Christian who wasn't already a Christian in the first place.
It’s so wild. This guy was raised as a Catholic, stopped believing it at one point, decided to do a deep dive into it after college only to discover that the necessary contingent being that created everything just so happened to be the one the religion he was born into believes in. What are the odds?!
Did you notice how genuinely awful of a person Matt is? Every year he seem to get more angry and aggressive He literally was once a Christian, and yet has no sympathy for Christians
@@clay8546 Matt has been doing this for nearly 20 years and the arguments are all the same. He certainly demonstrates a lack of patience when it comes to dealing with the same idiotic arguments over and over again. I can’t say I blame him. What does that have to do with the caller’s curious discovery that the religion he was raised from birth in was actually the true one after discovering philosophical arguments later in life?
@@clay8546 I agree, they want theists to call into the show, there is no need to be unpleasant to them and it is counter productive. This guy wasn't Darth Dawkins or someone like that. And Matt should remember that not so long ago he was just as delusional.
Honestly, I don't blame Matt for getting annoyed and frustrated with the circles these people talk in, I'd react the same way, especially after so many years. Your asking people who have been conditioned to not use their brains, to use their brains 🤣 they short-circuit.
Counterpoint. Matt is volunteering to do this (something that I appreciate, he has helped me a lot in developing skepticism and building up my epistemology). I'm assuming Matt, given his decades of experience doing this, is well aware of the type of callers he's going to get. The goal of the show isn't really to try and prove that god exists, nor is it to try and change a callers mind (the amount of effort that takes is huge, and requires time and empathy), The goal is for it to be a resource for those who are questioning, for the audience to learn by seeing examples of bad arguments.
@@denverarnold6210 Well. Because a lot of people aren't ready to, in fact, face their own shortcomings. Most of us are not. We're incredibly predisposed to try and defend our self of identity. Mix that with the level of indoctrination that theists go through, and what you're left is with someone who has never actually faced push back for their ideas in a meaningful way.
I do understand how frustrating it is to talk to people who won’t give a straight answer , but man , Matt is the biggest prick known to man . Extreme anger and arrogance . Don’t dare to have a different opinion than him . Cut people off immediately and than gets mad when they talk more than a few seconds .
Theists are doing a fantastic job of relegating their God to nothing more special than a tiny spec of space dust. Who are all of these people praying to? How does a non-thinking, non-acting agent answer prayers? When they have to defend their faith, they all wander off into woo-woo land. It's all so dishonest.
I crashed a meeting of the local ultra right wing Christian party and told them why they were wrong. One dude pipes up and says "you're being very offensive, I'm a Catholic" I immediately replied "oh good god, why?" "Well because the Bible..." "No, why are you a member of an organisation that protects abusers and abuses the abused?" "Oh that's all media lies" Was like my first was magnetically attracted to his face
@@diogeneslamp8004Yeah, people believing in those books had me dumbfounded. Claiming there is proof of a secret society safeguarding the truth about Jesus having a wife and bloodline while there isn't solid evidence that he even existed. It's like Tracy Harris' analogy of talking about the mating habits and social life of Bigfoot before proving Bigfoot exists.
As a Michigander, I'll just put this here: _Any views or opinions represented in the call are personal and belong solely to the caller and do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the caller may or may not be associated with in the 26th state of the Union, Michigan. Any views or opinions expressed by the caller are just plain silly._
They always start with a shaky foundations, which their own book warns against. Unbelievable. They never even read their own book. Unbelievable. People are unbelievable.
He's so disingenuous that he crapped on his own supposed religious beliefs in order to not seem wrong here! Wow! Baseless assertions and assumptions, dishonestly bouncing around trying to make his straw stick, and overall such a scared little coward. Unable to face his own ignorance.
That's exactly what I was thinking! You accredited this being with a personal pronoun and then you want to shirk around that fact just to not lose an argument that you know you would. Ridiculous!
@@mider-spanman5577Yeah, it's clear he believes in a thinking agent god. However, once he realized his actual beliefs were being critically challenged, he diverted to a belief he doesn't hold to safeguard what he actually believes.
Depends on your god. "God is love" is not a thinking agent. "God is the universe" isn't. "God is a delusion" certainly isn't. Maybe the idea of a god itself is just too funny, if it wasn't also so sad. 😉
@@DayLateGamerWill how is this the most logical conclusion? How is it logical to think a creator created without the ability to think? Inquiring wanna know please explain.
as long as that political party believes like i do, and hates the same 'others' that i do, i'm ok with that. maga epublicans hating mexicans and lgbtq while pretending that they are FOR freedoms. progressives\democrats hating republicans while pretending they're not corporate sponsored.
@@singed8853 Are you serious? It’s not literally their personal interest but the political party that is in favour of their social standing, if you are poor or middle class you would be a fool to vote conservative or republican.
@@david-pb4bi I don’t agree with that at all. It’s like saying you would be a fool if you are rich or well off to vote democrat. That’s completely flawed.
I hate the first cause argument because it doesn't solve the one thing it set out to solve. They say everything is created but we can't have an infinite regress so we need an eternal first cause but being eternal is still an infinite regress. So we've got the exact same problems but we've added a gay bashing cosmic dictator just for fun
@@denverarnold6210 the logical argument I've heard is that causal events take an amount of time, no matter how small, for it to regress infinitely, an infinite amount of time must have elapsed for us to have reached this point and since it's not possible to reach an infinite (even though for some types of infinite, it is) there can't have been an infinite amount of events preceding the present, otherwise we'd never be able to reach the present. The analogy is usually a stack of turtles. You see turtles stacked one on top of the other. You can't see the bottom but intuitively (theists favourite form of evidence) you know there has to be some kind of foundation at the bottom; the stack can't be turtles all the way down. However I'd argue for the same reasons, they can't be held up by an infinitely tall wizard either . My personal view is that every single universal origin idea appears to be impossible from our current understanding of the universe and that whatever is true hasn't even been considered yet
@@TgarMask my line of thinking about that is: no much time there is, there is somewhen that is the present. Why couldn't now be that somewhen? And this isn't even taking into account B theory of time, either.
I’m not sure which way Jim is moving. On one hand, he’s flapping so much he could take off, while on the other, he’s digging a hole as quick as any theist who’s even called in.
Yeah, he spoke out of desperation, once he realized he couldn't justify his actual belief. So he just started trying to defend a belief he doesn't hold so his actual beliefs would no longer be challenged.
At the end of the day, they can only be believers and tell you what they believe. There is no evidence. Even though they claim to know, they dont know what happened before the universe expanded.
Almighty God, in his mercy, allows about nine million children under school age to die every year, from diseases, hunger, violence, etc. That's how great and powerful he is.
@@isaiahsmith6016 Wow really ? How about the inquasition ? or witch trials ? or how about the churches support of Nazis and paedophiles ? How about Mother Teresa ? enough there yet ?
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my _thoughts_ than your _thoughts."_ Looks like he hasn't read his book.
This kinda of reminds me of the Seinfeld episode called "The Jimmy" - "Jimmy's new to the show. Jimmy can prove Catholicism is true because Jimmy believes in it fully because Jimmy thinks it's true. Don't argue with Jimmy!" 🙄😉 Hahaha! 😂
Every person that believes can only say or rely on the fact that they want to believe. Once they have made the choice to believe what they can't see or prove, it's then they try to find/invent or assign evidence to their beliefs. It's also a cultural process that instills or pressures them to believe. It's all irrational but they are trained to never question it and become blind to all other reasons and evidence
Far too narrow an understanding of religious belief. Proof is an interesting idea, but confined to maths and logic. And religious people do give evidence - e.g. A sense of wonder, the beauty of the world and so on. It certainly isn't irrational, in that it can be thought through. Religion is not something lightly picked up, or worn as a fashion for instance, by many.
"Once they have made the choice to believe what they can't see or prove, it's then they try to find/invent or assign evidence to their beliefs. "-- Belief isnt a choice though. You cannot make yourself believe something without some sort of evidence. That evidence doesnt have to be rational, or even real, but your brain needs evidence. This is easily demonstrated by attempting to CHOOSE to believe the inverse of something you believe, as in Not A of some A you believe, and realizing your brain doesnt work that way.
The real answer to “how did all this start” is likely so bizarre and unfathomable that us sitting here trying to reason through it (with our minds that only grasp contingency and our type of consciousness) is futile.
I love how quickly you get used to theists trying to weasel their way out of questions by picking at definitions and trying to bend the question itself, even when the question is something very simple. Like the hosts mentioned, if these questions were asked by a fellow church-goer, they wouldn't even give it a second thought before answering. But because they know that the answer will be given any amount of scrutiny, they start to sweat and know that their honest answer would lead them down a path to admitting that their beliefs aren't justified.
Off the top of my head, the Bible does state God has thoughts doesn't it? I was raised Christian not catholic, but I recall that verse about "God's thoughts for you are like the grains of sand." Not quoting exactly but yeah.
You should have a way to instantly replay what the caller said to themselves. Would cut out a lot of unnecessary arguing and trying to deny what they just said. I'm not tech savvy so idk if it's actually possible, but if it is a thing you should do it.
I heard a great term for people like him: weaponized stupidity. From “I know what I’m saying” to “ooh, this is not going as expected” to “well, I don’t know if other people say the sky is blue….”
You'd think that theists, who have called before, would know by now not to present half-assed arguments... Jim just kept embarrassing himself throughout the call
I'm suspicious he was either a Troll or at the very least delusional, because I highly doubt any Catholics have ever claimed that ridiculous nonsense before.
Forrest Valkai, Shannon Q, Secular Rarity, Johnny Angel, Seth Andrews, Jmike, Jimmy Snow, Aron Ra... just to name a few. Matt's kind of an asshole sometimes, and a bit too trigger happy with the yelling.
Its always the same dishonest tap dancing theists who will NEVER provide anything but avoidance and muh buk says. I am amazed he is so controlled with this consistant bullshit
The problem for Jimmy and many others is they can come across as 'smart' in casual conversation. However when it comes to making his best argument to someone who is thinking and has experience it collapses into a pathetic little heap of nonsense.
I formed my body from the formless eternal energy that surrounds me. I am circulating my blood. I am replacing my dead cells. I am digesting my food. I am forming my thoughts. I am doing these things but I don't know how I do them.
Because it's obviously made up, I can't possibly take Christianity seriously. Indeed, it is quite clear that there's no end to god's limitations. God couldn't even write his own script. And his son, who was claimed to have magical powers, also had to enlist the help of literate people.
He didn't wanna concede that his god was a thinking agent because that would've made his case much harder, when you asked how he could determine an uncontigent x as a thinking agent.
Why can’t a single religious person ever just say, I believe this based on faith, I understand there is no scientific evidence to back up my beliefs. I believe this because I want it to be true and makes me feel good. It’s always just incoherent jabbering about unfalsifiable claims baseless assertions…
ChatGPT can actually be useful. Meanwhile the other is the stroking one's own ego and calling it God. "Someone was dying of cancer. My thinking hard saved them, not the doctors" useless and pure ego. Let's call it prayer!
I understand time constraints and the need to interrupt, "hemming and hawing" or drifting callers when necessary, and all due respect to Matt, but but I've never seen anyone who interrupts more frequently yet reacts with more visceral anger and indignation..
What is meant by "thinking" in the assertion: "God is a thinking agent". I guess some examples might be helpful, too. It's a tad ambiguous. When I say, "I am thinking", what am I doing exactly? I think how you answer this question will determine what Catholic tradition has to say on the matter.
Jimmy’s point about Catholicism and Deism speaks to why Catholics hold onto the trinity so tightly: it seems to be a way to split God into three forms so that one could say that God is 1. an intentional creator (The father), 2. a more deistic and impersonal entity (The Holy Spirit), and a very personal deity in the flesh (The son).
I feel like philosophy is incredibly misunderstood, even by those who study it. Philosophy is a way to try and formalize ways of thinking, it can be good to categorize and analyze ideas. It speaks nothing, however, to whether or not those ideas have any basis in reality.
@@jamesupton4996 in all seriousness thought. Are moral relativism and moral absolutism not philosophies? They're mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell. Yet you can't just say that either of them is "invalid" from a philosophical perspective.
In short, it can't be used to bullshit something into existence like I dunno...a god. Which is my annoyance with the religion on this subject. It is a meme for them to say Atheists don't understand philosophy. I understand it well enough to say it doesn't matter in the context of making something fucking exist.
This kids, is what dishonesty looks like.
💯
I believe "because of the evidence that I've seen and read". Then proceeds to give zero evidence. And of course, the usual illogical nonsense and never answers the questions asked.
I'm curious, have you ever been religious?
@@Fernando-ek8jp What the fuick does that have ANYTHING to do with demonstrable evidence?
@@rsr789 Who said that's what I was implying?
I ask because I find that a lot of people seem to be utterly confused that others don't have a robust epistemology.
I was a catholic, I know what it is to be indoctrinated from a young age into believing something without evidence, and then being indoctrinated into believing that [insert philosophical or mundane claim here] was evidence of god.
@@rsr789 in case it wasn't clear. I do agree that the caller didn't have any demonstrable evidence. I've yet to come across a theist who can put forth evidence or an argument that would convince me.
@@Fernando-ek8jp I was taken to Sunday school up until about 7 or 8 years old. After that, I never gave it much thought. After obtaining a Physics degree, religion is just another form of UA-cam entertainment - like any other YT comedy channel. Matt and Jimmy are the best at getting the worst out of the theists.
That has absolutely been my experience every time I have debated Catholics specifically. They love to get to this vague amorphous God-like entity with absolutely no characteristics whatsoever (so it's completely unfalsifiable) and then once you admit that yes their unfalsifiable concept is indeed unfalsifiable, they then claim victory for a personal and powerful being with will and intention.
They and islam have that in common
And even if this particular god-like entity did exist, he would basically be like a chemist who accidentally dropped all of his supplies in the lab, then waited around to see what happened. Then, from the catholic perspective, decided he liked us and needed us to love him, so he sent jesus to win us over. Why does god need our acknowledgement and approval?
Jim can’t give up a straight answer because Jim can’t possibly be wrong about anything Jim believes in.
And, he can't get a word in past the gate keeper.
@@marklivingston7957
I'm guessing you mean, if he was allowed to say more words without answering the question asked, then what he was saying would make sense. You are wrong and your support for him refusing to participate in any semblance of and honest conversation makes you a part of the problem.
@@marklivingston7957 you're not as wrong as some of these sycophants will lead you to believe...
@@Scottaskadly Matt's always philosophically correct on every point... but he's also a colossal prick and often manipulative. The entire premise of this borders on ridiculous. _FEW_ theists or even deists are going to have the intellectual capacity to understand the intracacies of philosophical debate. Seriously, how many people on Matt's level are going to be calling in? I have degrees out the ass. I'm published. And there are moments my mind is running to keep up with Matt. One could question why anyone would invite such discourse in the first place.
@@yossarian6799
It is a call in show, if a person has beliefs so strongly held that they are compelled to call in and express them, they should be prepared to be challenged. Mr Dillahunty is clearly established on UA-cam and anyone who calls in should be aware of his intolerance of certain behaviours. Reading, repeating points, non-sequitur statements, and the biggest one of all, NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION ASKED. These behaviours I also find intolerable and fully understand Mr Dillahunty's frustration. Anyone who calls in should adhere to Mr Hitchens simple rule of reading the arguments that are contrary to their own, if they did this their surprise when the counter arguments are made will be much less, and they will be able to engage in the conversation.
The behaviour of this caller would be absolutely intolerable if the conversation was face to face, and I am very confident in saying that they would never behave that way if they were in the same room as Mr Dillahunty.
As a former Catholic I memorized the Baltimore Catechism, the Apostles (Nicene) Creed, the Rosary, and purchased the sacred medals that protected me from the Devil from the Holy Store in Gardner ,Massachusetts.
One day, fifty years later, I decided to reread this material they forced me to repeat over and over and have to marvel at how disconnected it is from reality.
I did the same thing aged 11 afyer my whole life at catholic school
that's some industrial strength tap dancing from Jim
I don't know what is sadder, how unprepared Jim is for this conversation or how he didn't realize how unprepared he was. He still thinks his argument is right.
I don't know if you were raised christian or catholic, but as someone who was, I can say that it is sad, but expected. When you are indoctrinated by friends, family, society and an institution built upon dogma with the express purpose of indoctrinating others, it is not surprising for people not to have a good grasp of how limited their foundations actually are.
@@RogueInsect because it's what they have been exposed to all their life, they thought it was true
He was prepared to read a script
Matt: difficult to answer question
Theist: i will talk about lots of tangentially related stuff because that fills some time and it worked when other people convinced me about god
So many of these calls boil down to:
"Do you have a good reason to believe in a god?"
"Yes."
"What is it?"
"Well, I was told there was a god and I never questioned it."
Matt " No Sir" Dillahunty lol Good shit
He needs to record the "No Sir" into a button and just push the button instead of saying it 50 times until Matt's voice goes hoarse.
😂😂
@@rsr789pull a Kitboga on em. 😂
The guy's argument boils down to "It's reasonable to think this because I say it is." He sure loves hearing the sound of his own voice and pontificating on grand ideas while refusing to be honest on what his own church preaches.
Do you think he's being actively dishonest, or just heavily indoctrinated?
But none of his ideas are grand, cuz they aren't based on reality.
@@rsr789 I don't think that by "grand", Munky means "a strong idea that is based in sound epistemology and matches reality", but "an idea built upon complexities and other ideas that seem to add up". If I were to create a fictional world for a movie or book, would that not be a grand idea?
I don’t think he’s being dishonest about his churches teachings. I think he is just struggling to rationalize his beliefs while under heavy fire. I’d bet all the money I have that he’s never heard his church describe God as “a thinking agent” and he hasn’t given the concept enough thought to really understand that the Bible supports a thinking agent god. We can’t assume dishonesty where ignorance would serve equally well.
Also maybe you don’t need to be so condescending.
@@robertlowther7442 My thoughts exactly.
I was a catholic, I had some interest in philosophy. It became easy to come across something and go "Oh! That sounds like something that could apply to God or my beliefs!" and since I was convinced that my beliefs were true, it made all the sense in the world to change those other new ideas to fit with my worldview.
Which we all do to a degree, if we're honest. The question is whether one holds a given worldview as a dogma, or if one is open to change it.
Jim, the pope called...he wants you to quit trying to defend anything about the Catholic Church. 😂
I never want to hear the word "contingent" again.
Why ?
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 No reason.
So you're saying your desire to never hear the word "contingent" again is... necessary?
I'll show myself out.
@@AbsurdlyGeeky If not necessary, at least a virtually inevitable effect; no?🤣
Man, if only this guy admitted that he grew up in a religious household/community, had a few "wild years" and then came back needing structure and community and that's why he believes it would make waves of more sense than assuming some non contingent thing (but totally all powerful!) thing created everything. 😂
That's almost the exact same narrative in every "I was an atheist for a few years" type of Christian story
@jayjonah83 that and the classic I was an atheist because any belief outside my current beleif system is atheism.
“I was too hung over to go to church during college” was what he meant😂
It's more honest when they say they do for comfort reasons rather than the Christian I know that said her relationship with God is as real as her talking to me there and then. I said to her can she get a response from her god as quick as she can me? She then changed the subject. There's not much more you can say to someone that is so deluded, dishonest and in denial.
They always equate areligiosity to atheism. They think not going to church and smoking weed for a few years made them "atheists." They were certainly never skeptics. I know they also always think they have to beef up their pre-conversion stories so they can make them more dramatic. When you listen to Christians give witness every dude was a bad-ass, drug dealing, gang leader banging a hundred chicks a day. Nobody ever became a born Again Christian who wasn't already a Christian in the first place.
It’s stunning how people act like this, evasive and dodging questions instead of just answering what we all know the answer is.
It’s so wild. This guy was raised as a Catholic, stopped believing it at one point, decided to do a deep dive into it after college only to discover that the necessary contingent being that created everything just so happened to be the one the religion he was born into believes in. What are the odds?!
Did you notice how genuinely awful of a person Matt is?
Every year he seem to get more angry and aggressive
He literally was once a Christian, and yet has no sympathy for Christians
@@clay8546 Matt has been doing this for nearly 20 years and the arguments are all the same. He certainly demonstrates a lack of patience when it comes to dealing with the same idiotic arguments over and over again. I can’t say I blame him.
What does that have to do with the caller’s curious discovery that the religion he was raised from birth in was actually the true one after discovering philosophical arguments later in life?
@@clay8546 And yet here you are
@@elmolewis9123 I’m not allowed to watch content from people I think are bad?
@@clay8546 I agree, they want theists to call into the show, there is no need to be unpleasant to them and it is counter productive. This guy wasn't Darth Dawkins or someone like that. And Matt should remember that not so long ago he was just as delusional.
Another doozy! "It makes sense if you just shut off THIS part of your brain"...
Honestly, I don't blame Matt for getting annoyed and frustrated with the circles these people talk in, I'd react the same way, especially after so many years. Your asking people who have been conditioned to not use their brains, to use their brains 🤣 they short-circuit.
Counterpoint. Matt is volunteering to do this (something that I appreciate, he has helped me a lot in developing skepticism and building up my epistemology).
I'm assuming Matt, given his decades of experience doing this, is well aware of the type of callers he's going to get.
The goal of the show isn't really to try and prove that god exists, nor is it to try and change a callers mind (the amount of effort that takes is huge, and requires time and empathy), The goal is for it to be a resource for those who are questioning, for the audience to learn by seeing examples of bad arguments.
@@Fernando-ek8jpnot to mention he usually only gets upset when the caller is dishonest.
@@denverarnold6210 Well. Because a lot of people aren't ready to, in fact, face their own shortcomings. Most of us are not. We're incredibly predisposed to try and defend our self of identity. Mix that with the level of indoctrination that theists go through, and what you're left is with someone who has never actually faced push back for their ideas in a meaningful way.
Goes back to reaganomics!
And the "education czar"!
I do understand how frustrating it is to talk to people who won’t give a straight answer , but man , Matt is the biggest prick known to man . Extreme anger and arrogance . Don’t dare to have a different opinion than him . Cut people off immediately and than gets mad when they talk more than a few seconds .
Theists are doing a fantastic job of relegating their God to nothing more special than a tiny spec of space dust. Who are all of these people praying to? How does a non-thinking, non-acting agent answer prayers? When they have to defend their faith, they all wander off into woo-woo land. It's all so dishonest.
Jim reminds me of an exchange in _A Fish Called Wanda._
"Apes...don't read philosophy!"
"Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."
I crashed a meeting of the local ultra right wing Christian party and told them why they were wrong.
One dude pipes up and says "you're being very offensive, I'm a Catholic"
I immediately replied "oh good god, why?"
"Well because the Bible..."
"No, why are you a member of an organisation that protects abusers and abuses the abused?"
"Oh that's all media lies"
Was like my first was magnetically attracted to his face
It's rude to interrupt a circle jerk, don't ya know.
These callers are so frustrating. They really think they know everything but cannot answer simple questions without going off on tangents.
Religion is like a conspiracy theory. Long on faith/belief and short on evidence.
Dan Brown was right! 😂
@@diogeneslamp8004Yeah, people believing in those books had me dumbfounded. Claiming there is proof of a secret society safeguarding the truth about Jesus having a wife and bloodline while there isn't solid evidence that he even existed. It's like Tracy Harris' analogy of talking about the mating habits and social life of Bigfoot before proving Bigfoot exists.
Sometimes when one non-contingent form loves another non-contingent form very much they get together and create a universe.
As a Michigander, I'll just put this here:
_Any views or opinions represented in the call are personal and belong solely to the caller and do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the caller may or may not be associated with in the 26th state of the Union, Michigan. Any views or opinions expressed by the caller are just plain silly._
Dude must be a Yooper
I wholeheartedly concur! We have enough crazies here as it is.
Lol. True!
@@KrustyKlown Lower MI isn't lacking in religious folks. The whole north-central midwest is full of Catholics and Lutherans.
They always start with a shaky foundations, which their own book warns against. Unbelievable. They never even read their own book. Unbelievable. People are unbelievable.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Their book says a lot of stuff.
More catholic callers please!
He's so disingenuous that he crapped on his own supposed religious beliefs in order to not seem wrong here! Wow! Baseless assertions and assumptions, dishonestly bouncing around trying to make his straw stick, and overall such a scared little coward. Unable to face his own ignorance.
"I dont know if *he* is a thinking agent."
"He"
Wow.
That's exactly what I was thinking! You accredited this being with a personal pronoun and then you want to shirk around that fact just to not lose an argument that you know you would. Ridiculous!
@@mider-spanman5577Yeah, it's clear he believes in a thinking agent god. However, once he realized his actual beliefs were being critically challenged, he diverted to a belief he doesn't hold to safeguard what he actually believes.
@@JustineWiniker I'm pretty sure OP was talking about the caller's and apparently your assumption that god is a male .
God not being a thinking agent is to funny.
Depends on your god.
"God is love" is not a thinking agent.
"God is the universe" isn't.
"God is a delusion" certainly isn't.
Maybe the idea of a god itself is just too funny, if it wasn't also so sad.
😉
Also the most logical conclusion if a God does exist
Either so funny or too funny
@@landsgevaer it is sad that people can say such things without any justification besides some Bronze Age book of stories.
@@DayLateGamerWill how is this the most logical conclusion? How is it logical to think a creator created without the ability to think? Inquiring wanna know please explain.
Word salad without one ounce of any evidence
It is a bigger struggle to justify delusional belief than to relieve yourself of the delusional belief, this is the ultimate failure of a believer.
It makes you wonder why people are so deluded that they even vote for a political party that is so far from their own interests it’s ridiculous?
It's all desire. Mental illness. Unless they're brainwashed.
as long as that political party believes like i do, and hates the same 'others' that i do, i'm ok with that.
maga
epublicans hating mexicans and lgbtq while pretending that they are FOR freedoms.
progressives\democrats hating republicans while pretending they're not corporate sponsored.
How would you know what their interests are?
@@singed8853 Are you serious? It’s not literally their personal interest but the political party that is in favour of their social standing, if you are poor or middle class you would be a fool to vote conservative or republican.
@@david-pb4bi I don’t agree with that at all. It’s like saying you would be a fool if you are rich or well off to vote democrat. That’s completely flawed.
“Something can’t come from nothing!”
“So where did god come from?”
“Shut your face”
This is called weaseling your way out of any commuted position. So they can say GOTCHA!!! 😂
You can literally hear him make stuff up to answer the questions instead of saying he doesn't know
Need an hour long compilation of matt yelling "no sir!" Repeatedly lol
Youre onto something here. Could make a sick techno track ‘no sir, no sir, no sir’ ….and when the beat drops ‘oh my fkn god!’ 🎧🙌
Why would you pray to an agent that you didn't think could think?
This video hold the world record for: Most uses of the word "contingent" in a UA-cam video.
"I used to be an atheist but now I'm a" always ends in "Catholic"
just started watching these vids and its so sad how quickly their attempts flounder
Been watching these videos for 10 years. It's always the same.
Yeah I knew this was a waste of time as soon as they went the first cause route. This is why presups are the worst.
I hate the first cause argument because it doesn't solve the one thing it set out to solve. They say everything is created but we can't have an infinite regress so we need an eternal first cause but being eternal is still an infinite regress. So we've got the exact same problems but we've added a gay bashing cosmic dictator just for fun
@@TgarMasknot to mention I've heard the assertion that there can't be an infinite regress, but no good argument for it.
@@denverarnold6210 the logical argument I've heard is that causal events take an amount of time, no matter how small, for it to regress infinitely, an infinite amount of time must have elapsed for us to have reached this point and since it's not possible to reach an infinite (even though for some types of infinite, it is) there can't have been an infinite amount of events preceding the present, otherwise we'd never be able to reach the present.
The analogy is usually a stack of turtles. You see turtles stacked one on top of the other. You can't see the bottom but intuitively (theists favourite form of evidence) you know there has to be some kind of foundation at the bottom; the stack can't be turtles all the way down. However I'd argue for the same reasons, they can't be held up by an infinitely tall wizard either .
My personal view is that every single universal origin idea appears to be impossible from our current understanding of the universe and that whatever is true hasn't even been considered yet
@@TgarMask my line of thinking about that is: no much time there is, there is somewhen that is the present. Why couldn't now be that somewhen?
And this isn't even taking into account B theory of time, either.
.
Every Catholic watching this just stroked out and died upon hearing that God was not a thinking agent.
I’m not sure which way Jim is moving. On one hand, he’s flapping so much he could take off, while on the other, he’s digging a hole as quick as any theist who’s even called in.
Yeah, he spoke out of desperation, once he realized he couldn't justify his actual belief. So he just started trying to defend a belief he doesn't hold so his actual beliefs would no longer be challenged.
I almost peeing with Jimmy's smirking everytime the caller makes his nonsensical arguments which constanstantly happens throughout the call. 😂😂😂😂
My new game is to predict how long Matt will talk before allowing his co-host to speak!
Easily amused then?
Jim, I'm also from Michigan, however you are providing no valid proof to back up your opinions. Sadly, you are not answering the questions
At the end of the day, they can only be believers and tell you what they believe. There is no evidence. Even though they claim to know, they dont know what happened before the universe expanded.
Almighty God, in his mercy, allows about nine million children under school age to die every year, from diseases, hunger, violence, etc. That's how great and powerful he is.
I can't wait to see 100k Subs for The Line!!
Walked out of the catholic church 40+ years ago, I still thank the nuns, brothers and priests that taught me that its inherently evil at its core
If you don't mind me asking, how'd they lead you to that conclusion?
@isaiahsmith6016 they mimicked their gods' behavioural traits, do as I say not as I do.
UMMMM evil is a religious construct
@@isaiahsmith6016 Wow really ? How about the inquasition ? or witch trials ? or how about the churches support of Nazis and paedophiles ? How about Mother Teresa ? enough there yet ?
@gowdsake7103 yes it is, as is their god
“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my _thoughts_ than your _thoughts."_ Looks like he hasn't read his book.
Isaiah 55:9
@@bengsynthmusicbook of Bob 2:7-infinity
The Man in Black fled across the desert, The Gunslinger followed. King, Dark Tower book 1
Powerful ?? Ok, can God role a joint so large that even He could not smoke it ?
This kinda of reminds me of the Seinfeld episode called "The Jimmy" - "Jimmy's new to the show. Jimmy can prove Catholicism is true because Jimmy believes in it fully because Jimmy thinks it's true. Don't argue with Jimmy!" 🙄😉 Hahaha! 😂
Is God a thinking agent? I don't know. Lol that is definitely not a Catholic view!
He was more interested in "winning" than having an honest conversation.
@@pdav1285they often are - it's a huge feature of the whole scheme
God always becomes this nebulous undefinable thing with no properties lol
Every person that believes can only say or rely on the fact that they want to believe. Once they have made the choice to believe what they can't see or prove, it's then they try to find/invent or assign evidence to their beliefs. It's also a cultural process that instills or pressures them to believe. It's all irrational but they are trained to never question it and become blind to all other reasons and evidence
Far too narrow an understanding of religious belief. Proof is an interesting idea, but confined to maths and logic. And religious people do give evidence - e.g. A sense of wonder, the beauty of the world and so on. It certainly isn't irrational, in that it can be thought through. Religion is not something lightly picked up, or worn as a fashion for instance, by many.
'A sense of wonder, the beauty of the world..' are you saying this constitutes evidence for the God of the bible? @@jamesupton4996
"Once they have made the choice to believe what they can't see or prove, it's then they try to find/invent or assign evidence to their beliefs. "--
Belief isnt a choice though. You cannot make yourself believe something without some sort of evidence. That evidence doesnt have to be rational, or even real, but your brain needs evidence. This is easily demonstrated by attempting to CHOOSE to believe the inverse of something you believe, as in Not A of some A you believe, and realizing your brain doesnt work that way.
DEAR THEISTS...
Rules To Debating Atheists:
1. Don't! U'll lose
2. Be completely honest
3. See Rule Number One
The real answer to “how did all this start” is likely so bizarre and unfathomable that us sitting here trying to reason through it (with our minds that only grasp contingency and our type of consciousness) is futile.
After two days on the cross, Jesus's body would be a stinking agent.
Jim is no Catholic if he can’t say whether his god is a thinking agent.
He probably is, he just had to tap dance around that question to avoid being painted into a corner.
I love how quickly you get used to theists trying to weasel their way out of questions by picking at definitions and trying to bend the question itself, even when the question is something very simple.
Like the hosts mentioned, if these questions were asked by a fellow church-goer, they wouldn't even give it a second thought before answering. But because they know that the answer will be given any amount of scrutiny, they start to sweat and know that their honest answer would lead them down a path to admitting that their beliefs aren't justified.
Off the top of my head, the Bible does state God has thoughts doesn't it? I was raised Christian not catholic, but I recall that verse about "God's thoughts for you are like the grains of sand." Not quoting exactly but yeah.
You should have a way to instantly replay what the caller said to themselves.
Would cut out a lot of unnecessary arguing and trying to deny what they just said.
I'm not tech savvy so idk if it's actually possible, but if it is a thing you should do it.
I heard a great term for people like him: weaponized stupidity. From “I know what I’m saying” to “ooh, this is not going as expected” to “well, I don’t know if other people say the sky is blue….”
You'd think that theists, who have called before, would know by now not to present half-assed arguments... Jim just kept embarrassing himself throughout the call
I'm suspicious he was either a Troll or at the very least delusional, because I highly doubt any Catholics have ever claimed that ridiculous nonsense before.
There is no human being greater than Matt Dillahunty 😎👌
Forrest Valkai, Shannon Q, Secular Rarity, Johnny Angel, Seth Andrews, Jmike, Jimmy Snow, Aron Ra... just to name a few.
Matt's kind of an asshole sometimes, and a bit too trigger happy with the yelling.
“NO!!!!!! Sir!” 😂🤣😂
Religion is like the human appendix. It's purpose is still subject to debate, yet every human being can live just fine without it.
Yeah, been living very nicely for over 30 years without it. 👍👍 And that would be my response to either my appendix or religion.
It‘s always the same. Matt gets angry and then it‘s no dialogue anymore.
Its always the same dishonest tap dancing theists who will NEVER provide anything but avoidance and muh buk says. I am amazed he is so controlled with this consistant bullshit
This guy reminds me of the time Homer Simpson tried to pull himself out of the tar pit. 😂
I’ve been binge watching these the last few days and not one religious person have provided any evidence of god
It doesn’t exist, I’ve watched hundreds of episodes of this and The Atheist Experience
Remember. The crazy in florida was imported by people retiring in Michigan and moving the family down there
The problem for Jimmy and many others is they can come across as 'smart' in casual conversation. However when it comes to making his best argument to someone who is thinking and has experience it collapses into a pathetic little heap of nonsense.
You should call him and prove it
@@qnalinemy mistake; I was referring to Jim/Jimmy the caller not Jimmy Snow, if that is what you thought.
@@rocketrabble6737 oh haha dang. I love when people think I’m stupid and I try to shame them to call in.
Next time ;)
I formed my body from the formless eternal energy that surrounds me.
I am circulating my blood.
I am replacing my dead cells.
I am digesting my food.
I am forming my thoughts.
I am doing these things but I don't know how I do them.
This caller made me think back to when I was five and it was so much easier to just have an imaginary friend.
Because it's obviously made up, I can't possibly take Christianity seriously. Indeed, it is quite clear that there's no end to god's limitations. God couldn't even write his own script. And his son, who was claimed to have magical powers, also had to enlist the help of literate people.
I want a t-shirt with a drawing of Matt with a bunch of "no sir" placed randomly on the shirt.
“There can’t be more than one contingent thing” - the old Highlander fallacy.
How many times can Matt say “no sir”??😂😂😂
"I believe" is not a foundation for anything?
11:52 Fucking took me out😂😂😂
Who else looks forward to hearing Matt say "no sir, no sir, no sir" in a video?
He didn't wanna concede that his god was a thinking agent because that would've made his case much harder, when you asked how he could determine an uncontigent x as a thinking agent.
Why can’t a single religious person ever just say, I believe this based on faith, I understand there is no scientific evidence to back up my beliefs. I believe this because I want it to be true and makes me feel good.
It’s always just incoherent jabbering about unfalsifiable claims baseless assertions…
“Is X true in your opinion?”
“Well it depends on your worldview”
No, it depends on YOUR worldview, which YOU should KNOW
It's sad how the majority of callers tap dance and avoid answering questions.
His god actually does think, but is just stupid as a rock and thus appears to not be able to think.
Jim spit out the most logical fallacies I think I've ever heard in such a short period of time. Jim, is NOT a thinking agent. :)
How can a god not have thoughts and still create things and have conversations. Is he claiming god is like Chat GPT
ChatGPT can actually be useful. Meanwhile the other is the stroking one's own ego and calling it God. "Someone was dying of cancer. My thinking hard saved them, not the doctors" useless and pure ego. Let's call it prayer!
All believers/worshippers in a “god” of any stripe have one thing in common, not a lock of common sense😵💫
Matt would be a great Santa… And he exists!
"There cant be more than one mon contingent thing because it'd collapse into one entity"
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lying for Jesus
Yeah I did not get why that would happen.
@DeludedOne it's like he thinks there's some laws of physics which applies outside the universe
"reasonable" doesn't explain anything that matters to anyone.
He knows more about God than God does
I hope Jim went to confessional after this 🤣
I understand time constraints and the need to interrupt, "hemming and hawing" or drifting callers when necessary, and all due respect to Matt, but but I've never seen anyone who interrupts more frequently yet reacts with more visceral anger and indignation..
What is meant by "thinking" in the assertion: "God is a thinking agent". I guess some examples might be helpful, too. It's a tad ambiguous. When I say, "I am thinking", what am I doing exactly? I think how you answer this question will determine what Catholic tradition has to say on the matter.
Hey, is the Line going to be able to go on Spotify or other services?
Jimmy’s point about Catholicism and Deism speaks to why Catholics hold onto the trinity so tightly: it seems to be a way to split God into three forms so that one could say that God is 1. an intentional creator (The father), 2. a more deistic and impersonal entity (The Holy Spirit), and a very personal deity in the flesh (The son).
I feel like philosophy is incredibly misunderstood, even by those who study it.
Philosophy is a way to try and formalize ways of thinking, it can be good to categorize and analyze ideas. It speaks nothing, however, to whether or not those ideas have any basis in reality.
Plato would disagree with you.
@@jamesupton4996 He wouldn't. He's dead.
@@jamesupton4996 in all seriousness thought. Are moral relativism and moral absolutism not philosophies?
They're mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell. Yet you can't just say that either of them is "invalid" from a philosophical perspective.
@@Fernando-ek8jp But you have to say that one of them is false. (Unless moral language is something else - expression of emotion for example.)
In short, it can't be used to bullshit something into existence like I dunno...a god. Which is my annoyance with the religion on this subject. It is a meme for them to say Atheists don't understand philosophy. I understand it well enough to say it doesn't matter in the context of making something fucking exist.
Take a shot of Tequila everytime you hear the word "Contingent". Goodluck🥃