The Atheist Experience 813 with Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser

Подписаться 416 тыс.

Просмотров 59 тыс.

50% 1

The Atheist Experience 813 of May, 2013 with Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser.
Russell talks about the peer review process and how it helps to benefit scientific knowledge.
SHOW TIME-STAMPS
01:03- Intro & Announcements Matt Dillahunty
03:42- Russell Glasser on peer review process and it benefits
18:07- Corey (theist from episode 769 and 785): asks why it's wrong that Corey knows how the universe began, is confrontational and gets cut off
23:30- Nick (atheist): theistic claims about the origins of the universe
30:17- Kader (atheist): opposes gay marriage and gay people adopting children
41:59- Christopher (atheist): you can't have omniscience and free will, Christians claiming atheists have faith
50:04- Peter (atheist): defining objective morality
We welcome your feedback at freethoughtblog...
You can read more about this show on the Atheist Experience blog:
► freethoughtblog...
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
► www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
► www.atheist-exp...
DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
► www.atheist-com...
MUSIC CREDITS
Theme song: "Listen to Reason," written and performed by Bryan Steeksma.
► / bryansteeksma
► www.myspace.com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is a fan appreciation channel on RU-vid.
"The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
Creative Commons license: BY, NC, SA
► creativecommons...

Опубликовано:

18 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 97

@dr.hotpants3035 4 года назад

Caller #1 18:05 Theist Caller #2 23:30 Atheist Caller #3 30:16 Ignorant Atheist Caller #4 41:59 Theist Caller #5 50:00 Atheist

@2ahdcat 4 года назад

Kader's an ignorant moron, and a bigot.

@rb2321 3 года назад

Thanks for the list, very helpful !

@Wolf.51.50 2 года назад

Russell: "are you infallible?". Corey: "what do you mean by that?". That's the mark of a dishonest interlocutor. Goodye Corey.

@brucebaker810 2 года назад

"Are you overly suspicious?"

@DrMikeE100 Год назад

Recipe: Take a snarky attitude. Add a refusal to answer sincere questions. Throw in a smug but undeserved insistence on knowing things with no burden of proof. You have just created... Corey.

@tedgrant2 6 лет назад

I prayed that comments would be allowed. It's a miracle !

@henrikrolfsen584 Год назад

Wow! Thanks!

@tedgrant2 Год назад

@@henrikrolfsen584 I'm glad to be of service

@Thecastofthelast Год назад

@@tedgrant2 lol

@Multi1628 5 лет назад

~ Thank you, Matt & Russell. When I was younger, Madelyn Murray Mays O'Hair made a really negative impression on me, and caused me to take much longer to investigate and identify as an atheist. Oh well... I wish I had no taken so long: I really want my life, money & foreskin back! Cheers, DAVEDJ ~

@shookreeseeree4 Год назад

That point on mixed raced marriage is spot on..tks Russell n Matt.

@RonaldStepp 6 лет назад

If Corey doesn't care if its true, he can say whatever the fuck he wants. Whether he can do anything with that knowledge in the real world is another thing, because the world doesn't give a fuck what he thinks he knows.

@Brammy007a 4 года назад

poor Cory..... a brain full of mush

@franciscosustek7249 5 месяцев назад

Misspelled sh*t

@christopherianlister5212 Год назад

the first caller cant understand the burden of proof despite Matts simple and patient explanation .

@pretzelogic2689 Год назад

Time machine example is meaningless. You know the action because it has already happened - long ago in fact. You only know it because the free-will has already been exercised -- long before you knew it.

@petermeichan3160 Год назад

the sun never rises,

@christopherianlister5212 Год назад

cory ''thats your reason'', no that's the reason your banned 4 ever corry

@johnlapworth9867 4 года назад

Nothing might well be the difference in hardness between a rock and a hard place or the difference in distance between 0 and +1 and 0 and -1. I don't know if 0 deg. K is achievable or whether a pure vacuum can exist. It's seems OK to not be sure of anything.

@blackhat4206 3 года назад

That’s the most useful description of the concept of “infinity” that I’ve read. The fractions between 0 and 1, I mean.

@177SCmaro 5 лет назад

I'm not exactly an atheist but its astonishing just how much of what some theist/religious people believe either isn't so or is based on deeply fallacious assumptions - amazing how similar they are to statist.

@thickerconstrictor9037 4 года назад

Honestly, even if there is a God, I haven't really heard anyone that doesn't believe for bad reasons. There are very few people that are justified in believing. And if there is a God and he knows how humans use their brains and realizes that more than half the world believes either in the wrong God or no God and the ones that do believe, do so for bad reasons compared to the majority of everything else we believe. So if he sends people to hell he's a dick. If more than half of the planet doesn't believe in HIM and the ones that do have bad reasons, then that is HIS FAULT.

@177SCmaro 4 года назад

@@thickerconstrictor9037 I don't believe one goes to hell for not believing in God or believing in the "wrong" God or gods. That's one reason I'm not religious as I've yet to find a logically consistent religion. IMO even if there is a God, religion is still something man-made, which would explain religion's inconsistencies, especially about God, who goes to Heaven or Hell and why, etc. I don't know if there is or isn't a God, I tend to think it more as one of many hypothesis or possibilities for why the universe is here and the way it is, however I suspect there MIGHT be a God given how idiosyncratic the universe appears to be. That's not a proof, just a suspicion. Maybe now you have heard at least one person who (kinda) believes in God for good reasons.

@177SCmaro 4 года назад

@Kibate There is a difference between rejecting religion and rejecting God. There is also a difference in questioning or uncertainty about God's existence and not believing in a God at all. I'm not sure you understand the differences, given what you just wrote. I'm not an atheist, I'm uncertain. Agnostic, but open to the possibility.

@177SCmaro 4 года назад

@Kibate It's a little more then semantics when you go out of your way to tell someone else what they are. That said, people have told me I'm things far worse then an atheist before. You don't have to apologize or worry about my feelings at all. I know who and what I am. If you want to talk about something else then spit it out man, lol.

@177SCmaro 4 года назад

@Kibate "Why do you believe in a god even though you're uncertain if it even exist?" I believe I already answered this: "I don't know if there is or isn't a God, I tend to think it more as one of many hypothesis or possibilities for why the universe is here and the way it is, however I suspect there MIGHT be a God given how idiosyncratic the universe appears to be. That's not a proof, just a suspicion." "Belief in" implies an affirmation which I'm not making. Let me rephrase your question to show you what I mean. "Why do you affirm a god even though you're uncertain if it even exist?" The answer is I don't "believe in" God per se, I "believe God is possible" or I "believe in" the possibly of a God. Does that make sense to you? As opposed to an atheist who has no belief in God or gods or a theist who does believe in God or gods. I suppose I might be somewhere in the middle. Either possibly is equally possible. That's the problem with something inherently unknowable/unfalsifiable. "...if i were to roll a dice but don't look where it lands. I'm uncertain on what number it landed, so how can i believe in any of the 6 possibilities? " Because, presumably, you've seen and handled dice before and thus you know the nature of a die is such that, when thrown, it's possible for it to land on any one of 6 sides. This isn't a very good analogy though because you and I don't know the nature or existence of God, thus we can only speculate.

@perseoeridano4182 4 года назад

👏🏻👏🏻

@Torwyn11 5 лет назад

OMG. Russell, you used "leverage" as a verb. It conjures the imagery of people solving problems by slinging anvils about. Dell started that crap several years ago to sound trendy and tech. I actually asked one of their reps to just say "use" instead. Oh, and "FOR THE HORDE!"

@177SCmaro 5 лет назад

I think what the French guy was trying to ask or what he was trying to get to was, basically, are the results for children raised by heterosexual couples generally better off then homosexual couples (or single parents, etc)? Are there concequences to the child of not having a mother and father figure? They ever actually answered that. The closest they came was the issue of single parents but just responded with a glib "if we believed that we would be talking children away from single parents." Which wasn't an argument. I think what they were avoiding here in their commendable but short-sighted rush to defend homosexual's freedom is the fact that there is evidence that it is quite benifical for a child to be raised by a heterosexual couple as this gives both male and female children examples of how men and women interact and love each other, how they resolve and negotiate disputes, ect which isn't something a child will see if both partners are the same sex. What I'm suggesting is that the ideal envornment to raise children is a herterosexaul couple and so that should be the priority in adoption, but, if none are available or they arnt stable, ect., next we prioritize homosexual couples.

@DrDeathpwnsu 4 года назад

Given that basically any gay couple who has a child almost certainly had to have planned and prepared and really wanted one, and the same is not always the case with heterosexual couples, I would be surprised if the overall trend in the data didn't point to the ones with gay parents as being more healthy, successful, etc.

@177SCmaro 4 года назад

@@DrDeathpwnsu Maybe. But if we're going to look at the potential positives we have to look at the potential negatives too. There are also factors unique to homosexual couples that can also negative effect or not be conductive to raising children. Part of the problem is homosexuals make up such a tiny fraction of the population it's difficult to get an adequate sample size and research. I will say this, not as a proof of anything but as an observation: humans seemed to have evolved to have heterosexual families, which suggests that children benefit most not just from positive examples of a male and a female (father and mother) but also of them interacting i.e. resolving disputes, how a man treats a woman and how a woman treats a man, etc. While homosexual families might be better than some heterosexual families, they still seem sub-optimal, on average, with regards to raising children (with single parents, especially single moms, being the least optional) .

@177SCmaro 3 года назад

@@ookeekthelibrarian The fact that you seem to think that claim/opinion refutes or even addresses anything I said does not make your case look very good. I mean, I'm talking about the optimal situation for children being two heterosexual parents in a loving relationship and somehow that translated into your brain the overly-simplistic "single parents bad" which isn't what I said. Saying what is optimal doesn't follow that everything that isn't that is bad.

@jonneexplorer 3 года назад

Oh, I see just blatantly asserting baseless nonsense is kind of your thing... And you are rather quick on the fallacy fallacy trigger too. You did not present any evidence for your claim. You did get a challenge, and your response was just Nah Uh heterosexual couples are still better... Go find some evidence for that claim... Till then you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Oh and since you just love pointing out fallacies, your inaccurate argument about evolution, if valid, would just be an appeal to nature fallacy... You are also just not aware of the proposed evolutionary benefit of same sex couplings for raising kids my means of aunts and uncles are you? But again, it just does not matter...The fact that it is hard to find evidence for your case also does not m matter. You can't straight up claim that this is true without evidence for it... Your lack of it is your problem, not ours.

@177SCmaro 3 года назад

@@jonneexplorer Why does the idea that a herdeosexual couple raising children together in a peaceful home being optimal, which, btw, I did provide a basis for why this is optimal for children, seeing men and women interact, resolve disputes, ect, traning them for their own future interactions with the opposite sex, bother you so much? Where you denied this as a child and now you're projecting your fear, insecurity, or even lack of success with the opposite sex onto me? And, as for evidence, I didn't consider it necessary for three main reasons, 1. My argument is self-evident, unless you're going to dispute children growing up with a positive example of domestic male/female interaction is NOT benifical to their own interactions with the opposite sex someday then it's really you who dosn't have a leg to sand on here, who is making a baseless (and emtional) denial. 2. No one else has provided the level of citation and evidence you are claiming I must meet for their own claims. So it looks like you're holding me to a higher standard then anyone else here, even yourself. 3. I'm merely speaking in terms of what is relatively optimal for children, which, given the above, seems to be: heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, single parents. If you're that invested in the topic I suggest you do some research and bring it back here. Because, so far, my reasoning on why heterosexual couples are optimal for raising children, while not comprehensive, is still more then you've brought to the table, which is less than nothing. ps if you're going to try to call someone out for committing a fallacy it helps to not immediately follow that with committing at least one yourself by strawmaning my argument by transforming it from an argument into a glib, 5 word claim.

@AbleAnderson 4 года назад

All things being equal, a dad and mom is better imo. Kids get different things from both.

@tarantulacake3561 4 года назад

"Imo" your opinions doesn't matter considering the contrary data

@AbleAnderson 4 года назад

@@tarantulacake3561 And your opinion of what the data says doesn't matter either. No one gives two shits what you say as well. Nice argument.

@tarantulacake3561 4 года назад

@@AbleAnderson awe at least you tried buddy

@BlueEyesWhiteTeddy 4 года назад

the data shows children from lesbian parents do the best.

@AbleAnderson 4 года назад

@@BlueEyesWhiteTeddy Yes bc on average, Lesbian couples that choose to adopt (and gay couples for that matter) are a self-selecting sample of ppl ready to be good parents. Loser straight couples that shit out kids when they have no business being parents pollute the sample for straight couples. That's why I said all things being equal, which they are not. And for the record, I never said I had any problem with gay parent couples, this was an opinion in an all else being equal scenario, just my opinion. You might disagree and that's fine.

@donaldkender4235 5 лет назад

I see Russel, I skip

@euripidiesupman9755 4 года назад

I've started skipping the episodes with Martin in them. For some reason, he just grates on me.

@Screencappedhats 4 года назад

I'm sure Russell won't lose any sleep over your decision.

@tonywatts2584 4 года назад

Yeah, Russell always gives me wimpy weasel vibes but I don't skip. I like how he engages callers. However, he's just not my type of dude to hang out with personally. The only people who really annoy me now are the ones who left over the RR controversy. I lost a little respect for them to be honest. To see them defend atheism as passionately as they did, encouraged me to not be afraid to be atheist. It really broke my heart to see them walk out when one of our own was under fire over some silly things he said about trans athletes competing with female athletes (which he apologized for and corrected a lot of his statements). It shocked me to see them disassociate with the very organization that made them. I would have NEVER known who any of these people were had it not been for this show which is saying a lot because it's been around for over 20 years and I first heard of it 9 years ago. I expected more solidarity than that. It makes me believe it had to be deeper than someone giving an opinion they didn't agree with. There had to have been dissension in the ranks already (most likely jealousy of Dillahunty) and RR was just a convenient excuse to use. Who knows? I just know I was disappointed and haven't looked at them the same since. Sorry, I'll shut up now.