I've always found it strange when callers who claim to be fans of AXP get taken aback by the hosts' use of profanity. Also, when a "fan" says that they have seen the show before but somehow forget how much the hosts detest being interrupted or talked over by the caller. As for this caller, I wouldn't be surprised if he called back into the show, as some repeat callers seem to have a penchant for punishment.
To me it's not strange,it's sad Because,this isn't the only one, It's evolution,and the fact that this is the state of our species, Not only was this caller unable Understand how wrong and uninformed he was, He could not immediately adapt and accept that he was wrong and completely abandon his erroronus viewpoint, Which is also true of virtually every caller of this kind Nor can the two very reasonable male atheist call takers and their supporting i.e fellow (although surely females included but by a lesser percentage?) Effectively convince the caller that viewpoint is wrong and should be abandoned . It's a species wide gender biased limitation rendering most attempts at rational dialogue between a atheist and a religious person, An exercise in futility. However I place my hope in evolution, maybe one day we will better.
Given the amount of ego and messy thinking of such repeat callers, they might be operating under sunk cost fallacy, hoping to save face and recover lost ego as much as possible. “What have I got to lose? They already made a fool of me, and I’m sure I’ll be able to make a fool of them with my flawless thinking, some day!” Perhaps a little Dunning-Kruger, as well.
"I've been watching your show for a very very long time! Anyway, my question is this. Dontcha ever just... look at the trees and think 'there's just no way this is an accident!'" 😂
Either God exists or the origins of Life popped into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence. Neither one of these things were proven with empirical evidence but one of those things are true. Every civilization we have ever come across came to the same conclusion of a Creator or no civilization came to the conclusion they were the result of a non intelligent occurrence rather than a creator. That's evidence of God being an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion, which justifies the belief in God. If there's an atheist that believes the origins of Life came into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence rather than the Creator than provide that evidence. Otherwise I don't know what the problem is, is an atheist arguing that something isn't justified believing unless it's proven with empirical evidence. Do you believe there's a life in the deep sea that we've never witnessed before microscopic organisms or otherwise. I believe there is, I don't have empirical evidence to prove it but it's logical to believe.
I don't know why atheists refuse to admit that atheism is a biased position. The atheist will claim the belief in God is ridiculous because it's not proven with physical evidence. Yet the atheist with no physical evidence will crossdress and mutilate their children because of a faith-based belief about the children having the wrong brain in their body. The atheist will make claims like God doesn't exist God's a fairytale and then when you ask the atheist to prove it the atheist will shift the burden of proof and tell me that I have to prove God exist to disprove their claim that God doesn't exist. The atheist again will say God doesn't exist God Is a fairytale and then if I ask the atheist if he believes the origins of Life came into existence without God and if he does to please provide evidence to why he believes it the atheist will never do it. The atheist won't even answer the question. And again The atheist will try to shift the burden of proof.
@@oscarmudd6579 that sounds more like the atheist humanist left. Case in point their privileged LGBT community even taken away our constitutional right to free speech and practice religion in the United states. By compelling Us in speech to acknowledge their gender Faith as both a physical and moral reality. I don't think there's any Christians compelling you or anybody else in speech to acknowledge they have a soul and a spirit of God inside of them and that it's good.
According to Timothy Jay, a psychology professor at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts and a long-time researcher of cursing, the benefits of swearing have only come to light in the past two decades due to advancements in brain and emotional research, as well as improved brain anatomy study methods. Swearing Holds Surprising Benefits: A Sign Of Intelligence? Surprisingly, studies have shown that well-educated people with a wide range of words at their disposal are better at producing curse words than those with less verbal fluency. This suggests a correlation between language ability and intelligence. In addition, swearing can also be associated with social intelligence, as it requires knowing when and where it's appropriate to use such language, similar to choosing the right outfit for a specific occasion. A Potential Indicator Of Honesty The examination has found an optimistic link between profanity and honesty. People who swear are perceived to be more honest in their expression of emotions. Although, it's essential to note that this doesn't imply that frequent use of profanity necessarily means higher ethical behavior. Pain Tolerance And Swearing Swearing has been shown to improve tolerance toward pain. Studies show that people who swear while participating in physically demanding tasks exhibit more power and strength than those who use neutral language. Furthermore, cursing can reduce the perception of pain; for instance, individuals who swear while submerging their hands in icy water experienced less discomfort and were able to keep their hands submerged for longer periods. Cursing initiates an emotional response that triggers a stress reaction, leading to a pain reduction. Swearing Holds Surprising Benefits: A Sign Of Creativity? Remarkably, cursing seems to be more centered in the right side of the brain, often referred to as the "creative brain." Patients who have experienced strokes on the right side of the brain tend to swear less, suggesting a connection between swearing and creativity. Swearing may serve as a form of remote aggression, allowing individuals to express their emotions without resorting to physical harm. By using strong language, people can efficiently convey their emotional state to others. The Universal Nature of Swearing Swearing is a nearly universal phenomenon across different languages and cultures. The power of offensive words lies in their ability to cause discomfort to others, making them effective tools for emotional expression. Even members of the monkey family have been observed using their excrement as a social signal, similar to cursing among humans. Despite these fresh benefits, it's crucial to remember that context matters. While swearing might have its advantages, it should still be used judiciously, considering the environment and the feelings of those around us. After all, swearing, in the end, is just a human way of expressing emotions.
My fav is "lets assume we stop dying which gets us to overpopulation". Brother, if you are going to assume some nonsense, assume god is real to avoid dancing around the topic. Hey, let's assume god is real, means it's real. Hell yeah, checkmate atheists.
The caller already believes that "someone" had to have "set up" the laws of physics, the very silly idea that evolution is somehow a progression with some goal or purpose, and the ridiculous idea that death itself is some sort of decision.
This is what frustrated me too. How can the caller imagine a god who invented death as an *intelligent" solution to overpopulation but not be creative enough to imagine that same god could have instead designed animals that just don't overpopulate? Theists love their post hoc fallacies...
The natural honest laughter background is something missing from from the current set of shows. When the caller stimulates a genuine reaction of laughter it's just so wholesome.
@@JamesTKirkland No, because we can and have tested gravity empirically. The scale becomes complex, but we have a general idea of how it works relative to mass and density, among other factors
@@JamesTKirkland Just because science is unsure about the mechanism (gravitons maybe?), doesn't mean that there is no evidence of what that "mechanism" is actually doing. Just like dark matter and dark energy. There is empirical evidence of all three, but no understanding of what causes them.
It's entertaining to me to see religious folks get bent out of shape over slang. They don't recognize the difference between slang, and `cursing someone,` which many of them do regularly.
Like every caller to this show, he sincerely believes he's a special case and an exception to everything, and that all his thoughts are his own original ideas which no one has ever thought before.
"Stop cursing at me!" Okay, then you need to stop "God blessing" me and saying you'll pray for me and all that other shit. I will stop using the scary magic words that you don't like, if you cease with throwing your silly magic words at me. Deal?
@@jsmall10671 JW's used to knock on my door frequently to politely sell their brand of shackles. Politely asking their visits to end multiple times did not help, cussing them out did. I woulda preferred good manners had yielded that result, but they thought they were just building rapport. Crushing that misconception was necessary and if "no" doesn't do the trick "f, no" will have to do. Are you too fragile to let people step on your feet or just no doormat?
Dude's whole argument was: "There's a god because organisms can't exist where they can't exist." And the frequency with which I encounter this dumb argument is baffling, dude...
I think the problem is that the atheist is arguing that the belief in God is not justified because it's not proven with empirical evidence. But yet the atheist will believe other things without empirical evidence like the idea that their ancestors were sea creatures. So why do atheists always put a separate standard of evidence for when it comes to the belief in God. There's no empirical evidence of God there's no empirical evidence that the origins of Life came into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence but one of those things have to be true m All we have is logical reasoning. And evidence suggests that the belief in God is an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion and the belief the origins of Life came into existence because right now intelligent occurrence has no evidence of it being an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion. And that would be the fact every civilization we have ever come across predating the Bible and despite not having contact with each other came to the conclusion of a Creator or no civilization came to the conclusion they were the result of a non intelligent occurrence rather than a creator. I'm very open-minded do you believe the origins of Life came into existence without a Creator without God if so please provide evidence to why you believe that.
An all intelligent creator would know how to create a reality without death, and woul not be a cruel bastard that likes the smell of sacrificed goats, punishing people in eternal fire, and rule about slavery.
Proving that intelligence comes from intelligence. Sit a rock on a table, then sit Albert Einstein next to it. First one to spout intelligence wins. 21:00
And that is the type of religious person who has absolutely no problem in telling YOU ARE GOING TO SUFFER FOR WHOLE ETERNITY FOR NOT BELIEVING IN MY GOD (you are going to hell) but gets angry when a curse word is directed towards him, pathetic
The problem with forrest is he also has made horrifically fallacious arguements, when speaking about trans people men who become women if they can get pregnant he used the "well male seahorses can get pregnant" knowing we arent seahorses...... And no matter how you feel about the trans subject men cant get pregnant without HEAVY intervention, where as women just can in general, now i await the exceptions to be used as if theyre the rule....
Regarding "are wings an evolutionary advantage". That is like asking "is SIZE an evolutionary advantage". It may make a lion better at taking down a buffalo, but at a cost. I might make the mouse worse at being a mouse.
Yes, just like being irrational and gullible is a disadvantage when calling this show, but it is an advantage when being part of a religious community.
I am glad the caller thinks the biblical god is not intelligent. Because god's plan was there wouldn't be death. That would mean there would be 100+ billion humans on this tiny dot, let alone a multitude of the current amount of animals.
Well, having a scrotum-like face shape, might explain why he's so obsessed with controlling sexuality... then again, he created the damn thing to be that way, so, yeah...
Caller pushes the argument to believe in God without empirical evidence but forget the empirical evidence that does exist for the Big Bang, evolution, and all other existing evidence. 🤯
Ah! Here we have the famous "I'm going to try to own Atheists on their own program and when I get called out for saying stupid shit, I will play the victim" routine." So boring!
09:00: Birds of Prey can see further away than humans - therefore better. A Honda Odyssey has 15 cupholders and a Bentley Mulsanne only has a couple small champagne flute holsters. Therefore Honda Odysseys are "better" than Bentley Mulsannes.
@@arndnaj She Who Must Be Obeyed has said that the next car I get for her must be a Bentley Continental GTC ( I got her a 2023 Volvo CX40) I had to agree with her, because a mate of mine has one and it's so fecking fun to drive. That said I'm happy with my old Volvo and my new Toyota 2024 Toyota 70 tiwn cab.
The caller is just coming to conclusions from a form of Apophenia called Agenticity. Let's go look at wooden doors now and conclude that the faces we can see in the wood are trapped people who were cursed. 🤣
Caller constantly sounds like he just woke up from a nap 5 seconds ago. That bodes well... And then he went on demonstrating his lack of knowledge in a myriad of areas that he should have learned about in school. Tragic...
Hawk can see further than me. True. What about it's ability to see things up close in detail and coordinate motorically? That's what one should note when examining better eyesight.
It is a interesting exercise to consider which would likely lead to greater evolutionary change: an immortal species or one that dies due to an aging process. It might be concluded that a species whose members age and die would free up resources for successive generations, where as an immortal species would suffer a competitive environment between existing fully mature members and their offspring.
I've come to believe that most humans lose track of reason when a subject becomes rather subtle. It's as if we're hardwired to deal with physical objects, not philosophical ideas.
Most of these calls are a waste of time. Either you believe or you do not believe. I do find the channel entertaining and thought provoking, but generally a waste of time.
An example of an accepted truth without direct evidence - “Pluto will eventually complete a solar orbit”. We haven’t observed it but it’s accepted as true.
The caller, the entire conversation: "This is not playing out the way I imagined it in my head.. Y4 he ask questions? Y4 he not just accept my imaginary points?"
I would have liked him to define over population. I'd typically see it as when we can't produce enough food for everyone. Or housing. Water. Oxygen. Scarcity is a huge element of over population. But if there's no death that means we don't have to eat, drink water, breathe. We could swim to the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean and the pressure wouldn't kill us. So in what sense could over population ever be a thing if death wasn't a thing?
It's fine to see another intelligent, literate, moral Christian putting a pleasant, rational face on Christianity with golden nuggets of precisely stated wisdom. LOL
In this type of conversation where the question of evidence is dodged, I think it is useful to ask if the person himself thinks that he himself could be brought from a position on non-belief to a position of belief on this matter. What argument would he himself find compelling? If the person admits to believing this thing solely because he has prior belief in this thing, then we are both in agreement.
He got it backwards anyway. Sex and other forms of procreation exist as a means to cheat death. That doesn't necessarily means that forms of self replication wouldn't exist, but it would eventually be limited by the amount of space and resources available. That being said, if you take death out of the equation, not only is there no reason to assume that only self replicating life would exist, but there's also no reason to assume that any life would exist at all. Without death as a filter would complex molecules like DNA and RNA even exist in the first place? Yes, removing death now would be detrimental, but that isn't what he was arguing. He was essentially trying to argue that death was introduced after life was created as a means of control when in actuality the processes that create death have always existed. Life had to adapt to death, not the other way around.
He was trying to construct an argument that would lead to the conclusion that a conscious being created the universe, and he started talking about birds and other stuff, which did nothing at all to lead to that conclusion. And then he got upset when they kept interrupting to correct him.
the word "laws" is commonly confusing in the context of Natural laws vs court laws. for natural laws instead it might be more practical to say "a description and analysis of natural phenomena" , since while that is a mouthful it clearly removes any list of rules governing the actions of the physical world.
Special pleading stacked on incredulity stacked on ignorance stacked on and hominems stacked on goal post shifting.... It's fallacies aaaaaaaaaalllllllll the way down.
You can't have "if everything remained the same but we didn't have death" Not having death is already not "the same" - we have no idea how the world would look like, in this case regarding technological advancement, if the population was that much bigger. Would we be far more or far less advanced? We don't know.
"would you also agree that we did now will ourselves adaptive advantages?" Yeah but that is very close to changing... And actually, there's an argument to be made, that we have in fact been willing ourselves adaptive advantages for a very, very long time through constructs such as social engineering, beauty standards, etc. As Humans, we have indeed influenced our own evolutionary course, although not always consciously or deliberately. For example, the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago marked a significant shift in human lifestyle, leading to changes in diet, settlement patterns and social structures. These changes in turn had *evolutionary consequences* such as the emergence of genes related to lactose tolerance and adaptations to sedentary lifestyles. So, in conclusion, Human innovation and cultural practices (some of them willed) have contributed to our evolutionary journey.
The crazy thing about bird eyesight is they have 360° of vision coming into their brain all the time. This is an advantage of having eyeballs on the side of their head .
Snakes still have hip joints to this day, a precursor of one of their evilutionary ancestors that they were brought up from. Thats not evolutionary "advantage" or "disadvantage", least so far as I know with my limited knowledge of serpent biology and how they have evolved from other reptiles. There are such things as benign changes in speciation and adaptation which are influenced by as many factors as what determines "advantage/disadvantage"
Reason for death being intelligent is somewhat tautological anyway, you're assuming there's a reason for death in order to insinuate the intelligence behind the universe. Intelligibility is indicative of the anthropic principle, we can make "sense" of things even if they aren't really so
If someone gets offended or upset about profanity, it instantly makes me take them less seriously. "Fuck", "shit", "bitch" etc are just words. If you can't handle them like an adult, then that's a you problem.
If GOD does not require a creator for its intelligence than by extension hes just proved that you dont need a precursor for intelligence and that it just is in some cases. Therefore the universe can be viewed the same way and there is no "must be a god" to fill in that gap in reasoning. If god doesnt necessarily require explanation than neither does the universe.
Yup, God has no explanatory powers. God being described as "having no source for anything and just is", then the universe can be described just the same.
I've always found it strange when callers who claim to be fans of AXP get taken aback by the hosts' use of profanity. Also, when a "fan" says that they have seen the show before but somehow forget how much the hosts detest being interrupted or talked over by the caller. As for this caller, I wouldn't be surprised if he called back into the show, as some repeat callers seem to have a penchant for punishment.
It’s a transparently dishonest tactic where they lie to garner more sympathy. Just like those who claim to have formerly been an atheist or skeptic.
To me it's not strange,it's sad
Because,this isn't the only one,
It's evolution,and the fact that this is the state of our species,
Not only was this caller unable
Understand how wrong and uninformed he was,
He could not immediately adapt and accept that he was wrong and completely abandon his erroronus viewpoint,
Which is also true of virtually every caller of this kind
Nor can the two very reasonable male atheist call takers and their supporting i.e fellow (although surely females included but by a lesser percentage?)
Effectively convince the caller that viewpoint is wrong and should be abandoned .
It's a species wide gender biased limitation rendering most attempts at rational dialogue between a atheist and a religious person,
An exercise in futility.
However I place my hope in evolution,
maybe one day we will better.
Given the amount of ego and messy thinking of such repeat callers, they might be operating under sunk cost fallacy, hoping to save face and recover lost ego as much as possible. “What have I got to lose? They already made a fool of me, and I’m sure I’ll be able to make a fool of them with my flawless thinking, some day!” Perhaps a little Dunning-Kruger, as well.
"I've been watching your show for a very very long time! Anyway, my question is this. Dontcha ever just... look at the trees and think 'there's just no way this is an accident!'" 😂
@@johns1625 I read it with a stereotypical rə+@rded person voice! 😁😄😆
“My second piece of evidence is…”
I didn’t hear a first.
He didn’t have second either if we’re being real here.
Either God exists or the origins of Life popped into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence.
Neither one of these things were proven with empirical evidence but one of those things are true.
Every civilization we have ever come across came to the same conclusion of a Creator or no civilization came to the conclusion they were the result of a non intelligent occurrence rather than a creator.
That's evidence of God being an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion, which justifies the belief in God.
If there's an atheist that believes the origins of Life came into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence rather than the Creator than provide that evidence.
Otherwise I don't know what the problem is, is an atheist arguing that something isn't justified believing unless it's proven with empirical evidence.
Do you believe there's a life in the deep sea that we've never witnessed before microscopic organisms or otherwise. I believe there is, I don't have empirical evidence to prove it but it's logical to believe.
@@JamesTKirkland ...so wrong.
@@ljramirez wrong how, be precise
and that's why my third piece shows why im right
Caller finds out nothing is even remotely as simple as he thought it was, but still thinks he's right
Thanks for ruining it.... *Sarcasm
I'm not convinced the caller found out anything.
I don't know why atheists refuse to admit that atheism is a biased position.
The atheist will claim the belief in God is ridiculous because it's not proven with physical evidence. Yet the atheist with no physical evidence will crossdress and mutilate their children because of a faith-based belief about the children having the wrong brain in their body.
The atheist will make claims like God doesn't exist God's a fairytale and then when you ask the atheist to prove it the atheist will shift the burden of proof and tell me that I have to prove God exist to disprove their claim that God doesn't exist.
The atheist again will say God doesn't exist God Is a fairytale and then if I ask the atheist if he believes the origins of Life came into existence without God and if he does to please provide evidence to why he believes it the atheist will never do it. The atheist won't even answer the question. And again The atheist will try to shift the burden of proof.
The religious: ONLY WE MATTER.
@@oscarmudd6579 that sounds more like the atheist humanist left. Case in point their privileged LGBT community even taken away our constitutional right to free speech and practice religion in the United states. By compelling Us in speech to acknowledge their gender Faith as both a physical and moral reality.
I don't think there's any Christians compelling you or anybody else in speech to acknowledge they have a soul and a spirit of God inside of them and that it's good.
"Is this a serious program?"
*proceeds to make asinine arguments* ☻️☻️
So you actually helped the caller construct a nonempirical premise on multiple occasions and he still F**ks up! Classic!
Not sure why this guy thought it was a good idea to ask "is this a serious program" when he calls under a pseudonym and lies about his position
I have never understood people who have an issue with language. Words exist to be used.
people who swear more are smarter. source: pretty sure i read it somewhere
According to Timothy Jay, a psychology professor at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts and a long-time researcher of cursing, the benefits of swearing have only come to light in the past two decades due to advancements in brain and emotional research, as well as improved brain anatomy study methods.
Swearing Holds Surprising Benefits: A Sign Of Intelligence?
Surprisingly, studies have shown that well-educated people with a wide range of words at their disposal are better at producing curse words than those with less verbal fluency. This suggests a correlation between language ability and intelligence. In addition, swearing can also be associated with social intelligence, as it requires knowing when and where it's appropriate to use such language, similar to choosing the right outfit for a specific occasion.
A Potential Indicator Of Honesty
The examination has found an optimistic link between profanity and honesty. People who swear are perceived to be more honest in their expression of emotions. Although, it's essential to note that this doesn't imply that frequent use of profanity necessarily means higher ethical behavior.
Pain Tolerance And Swearing
Swearing has been shown to improve tolerance toward pain. Studies show that people who swear while participating in physically demanding tasks exhibit more power and strength than those who use neutral language. Furthermore, cursing can reduce the perception of pain; for instance, individuals who swear while submerging their hands in icy water experienced less discomfort and were able to keep their hands submerged for longer periods. Cursing initiates an emotional response that triggers a stress reaction, leading to a pain reduction.
Swearing Holds Surprising Benefits: A Sign Of Creativity?
Remarkably, cursing seems to be more centered in the right side of the brain, often referred to as the "creative brain." Patients who have experienced strokes on the right side of the brain tend to swear less, suggesting a connection between swearing and creativity. Swearing may serve as a form of remote aggression, allowing individuals to express their emotions without resorting to physical harm. By using strong language, people can efficiently convey their emotional state to others.
The Universal Nature of Swearing
Swearing is a nearly universal phenomenon across different languages and cultures. The power of offensive words lies in their ability to cause discomfort to others, making them effective tools for emotional expression. Even members of the monkey family have been observed using their excrement as a social signal, similar to cursing among humans.
Despite these fresh benefits, it's crucial to remember that context matters. While swearing might have its advantages, it should still be used judiciously, considering the environment and the feelings of those around us. After all, swearing, in the end, is just a human way of expressing emotions.
@@vansdan.Goddamned i hope you are right, for fucks sake🎉
@@vansdan. Heck yeah
@@xtianhunter i fucking googled it right after and it turns out to be probably fucking true. fuck yea 🖕
My fav is "lets assume we stop dying which gets us to overpopulation". Brother, if you are going to assume some nonsense, assume god is real to avoid dancing around the topic. Hey, let's assume god is real, means it's real. Hell yeah, checkmate atheists.
Halfway through this video, and my brain is hurting.
I love that graph in the end.. It tickles me in all the right places..
chef's kiss
The caller already believes that "someone" had to have "set up" the laws of physics, the very silly idea that evolution is somehow a progression with some goal or purpose, and the ridiculous idea that death itself is some sort of decision.
This is what frustrated me too. How can the caller imagine a god who invented death as an *intelligent" solution to overpopulation but not be creative enough to imagine that same god could have instead designed animals that just don't overpopulate? Theists love their post hoc fallacies...
It's the same arguments they always use but reworded. It's the intelligent designer crap all over again.
The natural honest laughter background is something missing from from the current set of shows. When the caller stimulates a genuine reaction of laughter it's just so wholesome.
If he made the argument that there are non empirical truths and can't even present an example, he's already shot himself in the foot
Exactly
Would gravity be an example of a non-empirical truth.
@@JamesTKirkland No.
@@JamesTKirkland No, because we can and have tested gravity empirically. The scale becomes complex, but we have a general idea of how it works relative to mass and density, among other factors
@@JamesTKirkland Just because science is unsure about the mechanism (gravitons maybe?), doesn't mean that there is no evidence of what that "mechanism" is actually doing. Just like dark matter and dark energy. There is empirical evidence of all three, but no understanding of what causes them.
It's entertaining to me to see religious folks get bent out of shape over slang. They don't recognize the difference between slang, and `cursing someone,` which many of them do regularly.
That ,,Bye'' at the end got me good🤣
That frequency of miracles graph is gold 😂😂😂
I'd like to know why the caller claimed to not be a theist when he clearly was.
Because the lights are on, but nobody's home
@@ToHoldNothing
😂😂😂
I'm 💀💀
Because he doesn't know what the word means. He probably thinks being a theist means going to church every Sunday.
@williamwatson4354 Many theists are natural born liars.
Like every caller to this show, he sincerely believes he's a special case and an exception to everything, and that all his thoughts are his own original ideas which no one has ever thought before.
"Stop cursing at me!"
Okay, then you need to stop "God blessing" me and saying you'll pray for me and all that other shit.
I will stop using the scary magic words that you don't like, if you cease with throwing your silly magic words at me. Deal?
Ooh ee ooh ah ah ting tang walla walla bing bang
Yea they hate cursing but are ok with, genocide, rape, murder, killing non believers, taking women as sex slaves, slavery in general, weird right?
@@mr.commonsense now you got that song stuck in my damn head
Are you seriously that fragile?
@@jsmall10671 JW's used to knock on my door frequently to politely sell their brand of shackles. Politely asking their visits to end multiple times did not help, cussing them out did. I woulda preferred good manners had yielded that result, but they thought they were just building rapport. Crushing that misconception was necessary and if "no" doesn't do the trick "f, no" will have to do. Are you too fragile to let people step on your feet or just no doormat?
17:17 Dragnauct's face!😂
This part is comedy gold! 😁😄😆😅😂🤣
Dude's whole argument was: "There's a god because organisms can't exist where they can't exist." And the frequency with which I encounter this dumb argument is baffling, dude...
Mini debate? This guy really seems to want everything to be a way to inflate his ego. I vaguely recall this call too
I think the problem is that the atheist is arguing that the belief in God is not justified because it's not proven with empirical evidence.
But yet the atheist will believe other things without empirical evidence like the idea that their ancestors were sea creatures.
So why do atheists always put a separate standard of evidence for when it comes to the belief in God.
There's no empirical evidence of God there's no empirical evidence that the origins of Life came into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence but one of those things have to be true m
All we have is logical reasoning. And evidence suggests that the belief in God is an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion and the belief the origins of Life came into existence because right now intelligent occurrence has no evidence of it being an instinctive thought and or a logical conclusion.
And that would be the fact every civilization we have ever come across predating the Bible and despite not having contact with each other came to the conclusion of a Creator or no civilization came to the conclusion they were the result of a non intelligent occurrence rather than a creator.
I'm very open-minded do you believe the origins of Life came into existence without a Creator without God if so please provide evidence to why you believe that.
It is often mindboggling to witness the depths of some of these callers' ignorance... especially in light of their confidence that they are "right".
It's not what religion is willing to sell, it's what people are willing to buy.
It is like he is convinced that heterosexual sex is the only kind of sex.
Maybe he is. 😀
Put in her butt.😂
While they're sitting there advocating for poopoo on the peepee. So disgusting.
They always announce they're about to 'prove' something, then go on to signally fail to do anything of the kind.
If death didn’t exist would overpopulation matter? It’s not like we’d starve to death or get crowd crush. We’d just be really uncomfortable 😂
Fair point
"Is this a serious program?"
Well, A. Radical, you're on it. So clearly it's not an OVERLY serious program lol
And congratulations on 412k subscribers AXP 🎉🎉🎉
At no point did we say that you were wrong.
We asked you to demonstrate that you were correct.
This is what happens when you think you’re way smarter than you think you are.
Caller is in full Dunning Kruger mode.
An all intelligent creator would know how to create a reality without death, and woul not be a cruel bastard that likes the smell of sacrificed goats, punishing people in eternal fire, and rule about slavery.
Can't forget about the piles of foreskins. Which are the preferred currency in wife buying...
Sound comment.
Proving that intelligence comes from intelligence. Sit a rock on a table, then sit Albert Einstein next to it. First one to spout intelligence wins. 21:00
And that is the type of religious person who has absolutely no problem in telling YOU ARE GOING TO SUFFER FOR WHOLE ETERNITY FOR NOT BELIEVING IN MY GOD (you are going to hell) but gets angry when a curse word is directed towards him, pathetic
Forrest would have loved this caller
I'm affraid all the fascinating teachings of Forrest would fly way over their head
@@Kulascus What Forrest can tech to a 1st grader, a 1st grader can explain to him
The problem with forrest is he also has made horrifically fallacious arguements, when speaking about trans people men who become women if they can get pregnant he used the "well male seahorses can get pregnant" knowing we arent seahorses...... And no matter how you feel about the trans subject men cant get pregnant without HEAVY intervention, where as women just can in general, now i await the exceptions to be used as if theyre the rule....
@@themanwithnoname1839 he's a biologist, his ideas are valid for saying those things. Point out what specific idea you have a problem with
@@themanwithnoname1839 Men can get pregnant easily. Some man, ofcourse. But they can.
This guy is bare-assed in a hospital gown, directing traffic in a busy intersection and asking if this is a serious show?!!!!?
Regarding "are wings an evolutionary advantage". That is like asking "is SIZE an evolutionary advantage". It may make a lion better at taking down a buffalo, but at a cost. I might make the mouse worse at being a mouse.
Yes, just like being irrational and gullible is a disadvantage when calling this show, but it is an advantage when being part of a religious community.
@@landsgevaer It's not an advantage, it's a necessity...
10:37 "Yeah Butt" this is the second time I'm listening to this video in the background and both times that just gets me lol
Universe farting pixies did it all. Prove me wrong.
The "frequency of miracles" chart that pops up at 18:05 ... LOL!
When believing begins, thinking ends.
I am glad the caller thinks the biblical god is not intelligent.
Because god's plan was there wouldn't be death.
That would mean there would be 100+ billion humans on this tiny dot, let alone a multitude of the current amount of animals.
"If everything was the same but death magically didn't exist. Wouldn't that suck?" ...yup
This guy's logic and reasoning skills are well below a European 10 year old. Frightening 😂😂😂
What I heard is basically "Why the smart man on the internet not accept what I say without proof? 😭"
This whole call is like when you ask someone "why does it rain?", and they respond with "Because water is wet."
So God is Thanos.
Are you telling me that is the chin of God?
Well, having a scrotum-like face shape, might explain why he's so obsessed with controlling sexuality... then again, he created the damn thing to be that way, so, yeah...
@@theonlyendlesscircleno, the crimson chin has the chin of god lmfao
A narcissist? Yes. Obviously.😂
@@themanwithnoname1839Crimsonchin was dimwitted, but definitely would be moral than the Christian God 😂
We need to get Jim/Edith banned from the comments section. He's absolutely despicable.
I'd like to, but I don't think that'll happen.
The problem is that as soon as one sock puppet gets blocked, they just start another
If you don't like his posts don't read them, but Jidith is a good example of how
religion can be damaging to your mind.
@@jonclark8252 "as one sock puppet gets blocked, "
They need to block his IP address, then he would have to be at a new location to post...
@@t800fantasm2 Proxy server gets around IP blocking.
Amazing title for this video. It's so funny, in fact, that it made the emojis cry with laughter.
Caller pushes the argument to believe in God without empirical evidence but forget the empirical evidence that does exist for the Big Bang, evolution, and all other existing evidence. 🤯
Caller, go back to bed and try again tomorrow.
"try again tomorrow"
plz no
Ah! Here we have the famous "I'm going to try to own Atheists on their own program and when I get called out for saying stupid shit, I will play the victim" routine." So boring!
I have to understand why they call 📞.
Especially the ones
who are completely
clueless with reality.😊
09:00: Birds of Prey can see further away than humans - therefore better. A Honda Odyssey has 15 cupholders and a Bentley Mulsanne only has a couple small champagne flute holsters. Therefore Honda Odysseys are "better" than Bentley Mulsannes.
Arh but my old Volvo crossover has umbrella storage in the doors😁
To be fair, I'd rather have the Odyssey than the Bentley.
@@arndnaj She Who Must Be Obeyed has said that the next car I get for her must be a Bentley Continental GTC ( I got her a 2023 Volvo CX40)
I had to agree with her, because a mate of mine has one and it's so fecking fun to drive.
That said I'm happy with my old Volvo and my new Toyota 2024 Toyota 70 tiwn cab.
The caller is just coming to conclusions from a form of Apophenia called Agenticity. Let's go look at wooden doors now and conclude that the faces we can see in the wood are trapped people who were cursed. 🤣
I'm pretty sure that some theists at least already do believe that.
@@dx1450 Such a sad truth. 😥
The wings of a bird can certainly be a disadvantage... they can't open a can of beer.
Premise 1. I exist.
Premise 2. I don't give a shit
Conclusion. My shit don't stink.
I'm sorry, but the logical inference is that you do not produce feces. 🤣
Typical narcissist.
@@JasonTaylor90210yup pretty much
Caller constantly sounds like
he just woke up from a nap 5
seconds ago. That bodes well...
And then he went on demonstrating
his lack of knowledge in a myriad
of areas that he should have
learned about in school. Tragic...
Hawk can see further than me. True. What about it's ability to see things up close in detail and coordinate motorically? That's what one should note when examining better eyesight.
"There are 60 minutes in an hour therefore god exists"- this caller, unironically. This fool loves nonsequiturs
I mean, he's not wrong. the word "atheist" exists, therefore therefore no god exists
@@mr.commonsense nope. There is no evidence for God, therefore someone is an athiest. Nice try but you did a false equivalence
@@Mavuika_Gyaru I suggest you look up "lampoon" for context
@@Mavuika_Gyaru The sarcasm sailed right over your head.
@@Mavuika_Gyaru/rwooooosh
Or however this works 🤷🏽♂️
It is a interesting exercise to consider which would likely lead to greater evolutionary change: an immortal species or one that dies due to an aging process.
It might be concluded that a species whose members age and die would free up resources for successive generations, where as an immortal species would suffer a competitive environment between existing fully mature members and their offspring.
I've come to believe that most humans lose track of reason when a subject becomes rather subtle. It's as if we're hardwired to deal with physical objects, not philosophical ideas.
LMAO @ miracle meme 18:07
Yeah. 🤣
Caller: "is this like a serious program?"
Someone contact Guinness book, we've breached a new irony threshold
This is why I love you.
It was obvious that this guy was a waste of time in the first 1:30.
Most of these calls are a waste of time. Either you believe or you do not believe. I do find the channel entertaining and thought provoking, but generally a waste of time.
An example of an accepted truth without direct evidence - “Pluto will eventually complete a solar orbit”. We haven’t observed it but it’s accepted as true.
That was painful.
Ecosystems would reach an equilibrium..food being the primary driver...and space to populate
You know what’s going to be funny all of the swear words are either going to be lost or their meaning changed.
The caller, the entire conversation: "This is not playing out the way I imagined it in my head.. Y4 he ask questions? Y4 he not just accept my imaginary points?"
I would have liked him to define over population. I'd typically see it as when we can't produce enough food for everyone. Or housing. Water. Oxygen. Scarcity is a huge element of over population. But if there's no death that means we don't have to eat, drink water, breathe. We could swim to the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean and the pressure wouldn't kill us. So in what sense could over population ever be a thing if death wasn't a thing?
Is that literally the Spaghetti monster on the desk!?😮😂😂😂
It's fine to see another intelligent, literate, moral Christian putting a pleasant, rational face on Christianity with golden nuggets of precisely stated wisdom. LOL
"A. Radical" is a personification of the "puddle-analogy".
Stop letting Terence Howard call into shows.
Level 1 theists: “Why won’t you let me build my fantasy world so that my ridiculous premise makes sense?”
In this type of conversation where the question of evidence is dodged, I think it is useful to ask if the person himself thinks that he himself could be brought from a position on non-belief to a position of belief on this matter. What argument would he himself find compelling?
If the person admits to believing this thing solely because he has prior belief in this thing, then we are both in agreement.
He got it backwards anyway. Sex and other forms of procreation exist as a means to cheat death. That doesn't necessarily means that forms of self replication wouldn't exist, but it would eventually be limited by the amount of space and resources available.
That being said, if you take death out of the equation, not only is there no reason to assume that only self replicating life would exist, but there's also no reason to assume that any life would exist at all. Without death as a filter would complex molecules like DNA and RNA even exist in the first place?
Yes, removing death now would be detrimental, but that isn't what he was arguing. He was essentially trying to argue that death was introduced after life was created as a means of control when in actuality the processes that create death have always existed. Life had to adapt to death, not the other way around.
He was trying to construct an argument that would lead to the conclusion that a conscious being created the universe, and he started talking about birds and other stuff, which did nothing at all to lead to that conclusion. And then he got upset when they kept interrupting to correct him.
the word "laws" is commonly confusing in the context of Natural laws vs court laws.
for natural laws instead it might be more practical to say "a description and analysis of natural phenomena" , since while that is a mouthful it clearly removes any list of rules governing the actions of the physical world.
We’ve evolved dogs. Not by willpower, by selective breeding.
Special pleading stacked on incredulity stacked on ignorance stacked on and hominems stacked on goal post shifting.... It's fallacies aaaaaaaaaalllllllll the way down.
Not once did this caller absorb any of the information provided to him.
You can't have "if everything remained the same but we didn't have death"
Not having death is already not "the same" - we have no idea how the world would look like, in this case regarding technological advancement, if the population was that much bigger. Would we be far more or far less advanced? We don't know.
This guy came in with a "script" written in crayon and got his mind blown
Watching the show today reminds me how innocent we were in 2019.
it became an unserious program as soon as they took this guy’s call
Well thats 22 mins in my sad life that i will never get back .😢
"would you also agree that we did now will ourselves adaptive advantages?"
Yeah but that is very close to changing...
And actually, there's an argument to be made, that we have in fact been willing ourselves adaptive advantages for a very, very long time through constructs such as social engineering, beauty standards, etc.
As Humans, we have indeed influenced our own evolutionary course, although not always consciously or deliberately.
For example, the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago marked a significant shift in human lifestyle, leading to changes in diet, settlement patterns and social structures.
These changes in turn had *evolutionary consequences* such as the emergence of genes related to lactose tolerance and adaptations to sedentary lifestyles.
So, in conclusion, Human innovation and cultural practices (some of them willed) have contributed to our evolutionary journey.
Now a comedy show. Hahahaha! Good luck caller.....11:39
Re-define till it fits!
Caller doesn't understand the difference between subjective and objective even a little bit. Pretty typical for theists in my experience.
I think that's not the only thing he doesn't understand...
"Oh yeah butt"🤣
The crazy thing about bird eyesight is they have 360° of vision coming into their brain all the time. This is an advantage of having eyeballs on the side of their head .
I am convinced that a benevolent god doesn't exist. Sadistic god, possibly, indifferent god, maybe. A benevolent, just, honest, fair god - my ass.
Snakes still have hip joints to this day, a precursor of one of their evilutionary ancestors that they were brought up from. Thats not evolutionary "advantage" or "disadvantage", least so far as I know with my limited knowledge of serpent biology and how they have evolved from other reptiles.
There are such things as benign changes in speciation and adaptation which are influenced by as many factors as what determines "advantage/disadvantage"
Reason for death being intelligent is somewhat tautological anyway, you're assuming there's a reason for death in order to insinuate the intelligence behind the universe. Intelligibility is indicative of the anthropic principle, we can make "sense" of things even if they aren't really so
I'm gonna be honest, I have never seen the word "tautological" before. Learned something new today.
@@TheXLink It is a bit technical, arguably, circular is almost as sufficient
Not even a few minutes in and it's obvious the caller isn't listening at all. Classic waiting for his turn to talk that's smarter than everyone.
If someone gets offended or upset about profanity, it instantly makes me take them less seriously. "Fuck", "shit", "bitch" etc are just words. If you can't handle them like an adult, then that's a you problem.
If GOD does not require a creator for its intelligence than by extension hes just proved that you dont need a precursor for intelligence and that it just is in some cases. Therefore the universe can be viewed the same way and there is no "must be a god" to fill in that gap in reasoning. If god doesnt necessarily require explanation than neither does the universe.
Yup, God has no explanatory powers. God being described as "having no source for anything and just is", then the universe can be described just the same.